Three-Year Strategic Plan - City of Lincoln & Lancaster County ...

City of Lincoln 

3 Year Strategic Plan 

FY 2010 – 2012 

For 

HUD Entitlement Programs 

Prepared by the City of Lincoln, Nebraska 

Director: David Landis 

Urban Development Department 

September 1, 2010 

Mayor Chris Beutler

City of Lincoln, Nebraska 

3 year Strategic Plan FY 2010 – 2012 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 1 

General Topics 

Strategic Plan 10 

General Questions 11 

Managing the Process 13 

Citizen Participation 16 

Institutional Structure 21 

Monitoring 22 

Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies 23 

Lead based Paint 24 

Housing Topics 

Housing Needs 25 

Priority Housing Needs 27 

Housing Market Analysis 29 

Specific Housing Objectives 32 

Needs of Public Housing 36 

Public Housing Strategy 37 

Barriers to Affordable Housing 39 

Homeless Topics 

Homeless Needs 41 

Priority Homeless Needs 43 

Homeless Inventory 44 

Homeless Strategic Plan 44 

Emergency Shelter Grants 47 

Community Development Topics 

Community Development 47 

Public Facilities and Improvement Objectives 52 

Public Services Objectives 53 

Economic Development Objectives 55 

Additional Community Development Division Objectives 55 

Antipoverty Strategy 56 

Low Income Housing Tax Credit Coordination 58


3 Year Strategic Plan FY 2010 – 2012 

Table of Contents Continued 

Non-Homeless Special Needs Topics 

Specific Special Needs Objectives 58 

Non‐homeless Special Needs Analysis (including HOPWA) 59 

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) 64 

Specific HOPWA Objectives 65 

Other Narratives 65 

List of Additional Files 

Community Dev Table 

LMI NRSA Map 

Minority Maps (Black, Asian and Native American) 

Differential Association: A Pilot Neighborhood Assessment Tool 

ASU NRSA Map 

Response Distribution Map 

Institutional Structure 

HSG Need Table 

Homeless Table 

Housing Market Analysis 

Non‐Homeless Table

3 Year Strategic Plan FY 2010 ‐ 2012 

This document includes Narrative Responses to specific questions that grantees of 

the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, Housing 

Opportunities for People with AIDS and Emergency Shelter Grants Programs must 

respond to in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations. 

GENERAL 

Executive Summary 

The Three‐Year Strategic Plan is a unified, comprehensive vision for community development in Lincoln, 

Nebraska. It serves as a tool to coordinate economic, physical, environmental, community, and human 

development activities for three years, starting September 1, 2010 and ending August 31, 2013. 

The Strategic Plan is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because 

the City receives funding through HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME 

Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. These HUD programs have three major statutory goals: 

provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, all 

primarily for low‐ and moderate‐income persons. 

The lead agency for Lincoln’s community development activities is the City’s Urban Development 

Department. Other agencies responsible for administering the programs include NeighborWorks®Lincoln, 

the Lincoln Housing Authority, the League of Human Dignity, and the Homeless Coalition. 

For the CDBG and HOME programs, HUD has identified objectives for the three major statutory goals. 

They are: 

HUD Objective 1: Creating Suitable Living Environments – this relates to activities that are designed to 

benefit communities, families, or individuals by addressing issues in their living environment. It relates 

to activities that are intended to address a wide range of issues faced by low‐ and moderate‐income 

persons, from physical problems with their environment, such as poor quality infrastructure, to social 

issues such as crime prevention, literacy, or elderly health services. 

HUD Objective 2: Providing Decent Housing – this covers the wide range of housing activities that are 

generally undertaken with HOME, CDBG, or HOPWA funds. This objective focuses on housing 

activities whose purpose is to meet individual family or community needs. It does not include 

programs where housing is an element of a larger effort to make community‐wide improvements, 

since such programs would be more appropriately reported under Suitable Living Environments. 

HUD Objective 3: Creating Economic Opportunities – this applies to activities related to economic 

development, commercial revitalization, or job creation. 

HUD further identifies three program outcomes to help refine the City’s objectives. Program outcomes 

are designed to capture the nature of the change or expected result of an activity. They are: 

Outcome 1: Availability/Accessibility – applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public 

services, public facilities, housing, or shelter available or accessible to low‐ and moderate‐income 

people, including persons with disabilities. In this category, accessibility does not refer only to physical 

barriers, but also to making the affordable basics of daily living available and accessible to low‐ and 

moderate‐income people where they live. 

Outcome 2: Affordability – applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways in the 

lives of low‐ and moderate‐income people. It can include the creation or maintenance of affordable 

housing, basic infrastructure hook‐ups, or services such as transportation or day care. Affordability is 

1


an appropriate objective wherever an activity is lowering the cost, improving the quality or increasing 

the affordability of a product or service to benefit a low‐income household. 

Outcome 3: Sustainability – applies to activities that are aimed at improving communities or 

neighborhoods, helping to make them livable or viable by providing benefit to persons of low‐ and 

moderate‐income or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas, through multiple activities or 

services that sustain communities or neighborhoods. 

The table below illustrates the 9 possible combinations of objectives and outcomes. 

HUD Objective 1: 

Decent Housing 


Suitable Living 

Environment 


Economic 

Opportunity 

Outcome 1: 

Availability/Accessibility 

Accessibility for the purpose 

of providing Decent 

Housing (DH‐1) 


of creating Suitable Living 

Environments (SL‐1) 


of creating Economic 

Opportunities (EO‐1) 

Outcome 2: 

Affordability 

Affordability for the 

purpose of providing 

Decent Housing (DH‐2) 


purpose of creating Suitable 

Living Environments (SL‐2) 


purpose of creating 

Economic Opportunities 

(EO‐2) 

Outcome 3: 

Sustainability 

Sustainability for the 

purpose of providing 

Decent Housing (DH‐3) 


purpose of creating Suitable 

Living Environments (SL‐3) 


purpose of creating 

Economic Opportunities 

(EO‐3) 

Within their federal criteria, CDBG and HOME programs are designed to be shaped locally to meet the 

recipient community's specific needs. Lincoln's specific needs were identified through a public 

involvement process that included four surveys ‐‐ a Community Needs Survey conducted by Urban 

Development Department, a City‐wide survey conducted by the Mayor's Office, a scientific survey 

conducted by the Lincoln‐Lancaster County Planning Department in conjunction with updating the City's 

Comprehensive Plan, and a client survey conducted by the Center for People in Need. 

Social service needs were further determined by use of the Community Services Initiatives’ (CSI) priority 

needs assessment. A Housing Market Analysis and data provided by HUD were used to further define 

housing needs. 

The local needs identified were grouped into priority areas and then each priority area was evaluated 

based on the following criteria: 

• Would it further or be consistent with a city and/or federal priority area? 

• Would it impact a large number of low‐ and moderate‐income households? 

• Would it meet unique needs of certain geographic areas? 

• Based on past experience, would it successfully meet the identified needs? 

Using that evaluation, Lincoln's 2010 ‐ 2013 priority areas were identified: 

• Affordable housing – identified as the greatest need through the public involvement process. 

• Sustainability – including urban agriculture (community gardens and orchards), promoting green 

space and healthy activities, and rain gardens. 

• Food security – addressing the rising problem of low‐income families not having enough food. 

• Increasing neighborhood livability – through physical improvements to neighborhoods. 

• Fair housing – removing barriers to fair housing, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and completing 

and implementing the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. 

• Transportation – improving availability for low income people. 

• Jobs – training for low‐income people. 

3 Year Strategic Plan FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0 

2


To address these priority areas, local objectives and activities were developed. The table beginning on the 

following page identifies local objectives and the corresponding HUD Objectives and Outcomes. Also see 

the Community Dev Table in the “Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder. 


3


Local Housing Objectives 

HUD Objective/ 

Outcome 

Objective 1: Preserve and provide for safe and decent affordable housing by promoting the preservation and 

revitalization of affordable housing and rehabilitation of substandard or inadequate housing throughout the 

City with emphasis on the NRSA and LMI area. 

Activity 1: Continue the Urban Development Housing Rehabilitation Programs. DH ‐ 2 

Activity 2: Continue to fund the PRIDE Program with grants to low‐income homeowners 

in NRSA neighborhoods for materials to accomplish exterior repairs. 

Activity 3: Continue to use lead‐based paint certified housing staff to inform and educate 

housing clients, non‐profit agencies, and the private sector housing 

community. 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

Activity 4: Continue to work with the Mayor's Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Program. DH ‐ 2 

Activity 5: Continue to fund the Troubled Property Program administered by 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln and support their effort to obtain neighborhood 

rehabilitation funds from other sources. 

Activity 6: Support non‐profit landlords to sustain long‐term affordability for tenants 

under 30% of median income and projects with expiring Low‐Income 

Housing Tax Credits and fund a new LIHTC project using the Housing 

Development Loan Program (added by amendment in FY 10). 

Activity 7: Support the effort of Paint‐a‐thon to paint houses of elderly and disabled 

homeowners. Using non‐Federal funds, complete one project per year. 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

Objective 2: Assist low‐income homeowners in sustaining their home ownership status during emergency 

situations and reduce the overall instance of emergency situations. 

Activity 1: Continue to fund the Rebuilding Together Project through the HEART (Helping 

Elderly Access Rebuilding Together) Program. 

DH ‐ 2 

Activity 2: Continue to fund the Emergency Repair Program. DH ‐ 2 

Activity 3: Continue to fund the removal of physical and architectural barriers in existing 

housing through the League of Human Dignity. 

Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes: 

DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity 

1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability 

DH ‐ 2 


4


Local Housing Objectives ‐‐ continued 


Outcome 

Objective 3: Create and sustain homeownership opportunities and increase the rate of homeownership among 

households headed by persons who are racial and/or ethnic minorities. 

Activity 1: Continue the First Home Program (with incentives for purchasing in the NRSA 

and LMI), administered by NeighborWorks®Lincoln. 

DH – 2 

Activity 2: Explore incentives for returning veterans in the First Home Program. DH ‐ 2 

Activity 3: Continue to fund the First Time Home Buyer Training classes administered by 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln. 

Activity 4: Provide a range of technical resources, including housing program brochures 

and trainings, from Urban Development and other housing agencies in other 

languages in addition to English. 

Activity 5: Leverage funds in conjunction with NeighborWorks®Lincoln using the 

Troubled Property Program for infill housing. 

Activity 6: Continue partnering with and leveraging funds for additional home buyer 

programs of other housing or lending agencies. 

Activity 7: Continue to work with the Mayor's Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative to 

encourage and support home ownership. 

Activity 8: Continue to fund Affordable Housing Initiative and Habitat for Humanity 

through the Housing Development Loan Program to create new affordable 

homeownership opportunities by building affordable homes on infill lots or 

by substantially rehabilitating dilapidated units. 

Activity 9: Continue to assist low‐income homeowners using the Housing Rehabilitation 

Programs to rehabilitate their homes in order to maintain their 

homeownership status. 

Activity 10: Create additional affordable housing opportunities by partnering with the 

Nebraska Department of Economic Development using Nebraska Affordable 

Housing Trust Funds or federal stimulus funds. 

Activity 11: Continue the function of the Minority Marketing Committee to implement 

the Minority Marketing Plan. 

Activity 12: Continue to partner with NeighborWorks®Lincoln to develop affordable and 

mixed income housing as part of the community revitalization portion of the 

Antelope Valley project. 




DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 1 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 1 

DH ‐ 2 


5


Local Housing Objectives ‐‐ continued 

Objective 4: Remove barriers to fair housing and affirmatively further fair housing. 

Activity 1: Encourage providers of affordable housing and special needs housing to work 

with neighborhood associations before and during the process of obtaining 

permits. 

Activity 2: Improve and expand the collection and sharing of fair housing and affordable 

housing information across public and private entities, among housing 

industry entities, and within the public realm to improve understanding of 

fair housing laws, encourage reporting of violations, address existing and 

future housing needs, facilitate implementation of best practices, and 

reduce discrimination. 

Activity 3: Monitor, evaluate, and update fair housing plans, policies, and programs to 

ensure that the City is affirmatively furthering fair housing as required by 

HUD. 

Activity 4: Continue to participate on boards and committees of local organizations 

(public, private, and nonprofit) to share fair housing information. 

Activity 5: Work with Lincoln Commission on Human Rights to monitor compliance of 

Title 11 of the Lincoln Municipal Code with Federal Fair Housing Law. 

Activity 6: Monitor compliance with affirmative fair housing requirements by sub‐ 

recipients and borrowers. 

Activity 7: Continue to implement and update the "Minority Marketing Plan" for Urban 

Development programs. 


Outcome 

DH ‐ 1 

DH ‐ 1 

DH ‐ 1 


6 

DH‐1 

DH ‐ 1 

DH ‐ 1 

DH ‐ 1 

Objective 5: Strengthen or establish public policies, procedures, and institutions that support and maintain the 

quality, affordability, accessibility, sustainability and availability of housing for low‐income households. 

Activity 1: Continue to work within the Development Services Center to improve policies 

and procedures to enhance the quality of older neighborhoods. 

DH ‐ 1 

Activity 2: Continue to work with the Mayor's Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Program. DH ‐ 1 

Activity 3: Continue to work with the Nebraska Department of Economic Development 

on strengthening our policies and procedures in creating affordable housing. 




DH ‐ 1


Local Public Facilities and Improvements Objectives 

Objective 1: Further the City’s priorities of Antelope Valley and Stronger Safer Neighborhoods. 

Activity 1: Complete public improvements in the Malone neighborhood and South 

Capitol area (Near South and Everett neighborhoods) that implement 

projects identified in Focus Area Plans, “closer to home” strategies identified 

in the Antelope Valley and South Capitol Redevelopment Plans, and from 

Free to Grow. Projects include curbs, alleys, gutters, lighting and streetscape 

projects, sidewalk improvements, and tree planting. 

Activity 2: Support and utilize the Free to Grow Program in the Malone neighborhood 

and South Capitol Area. Free to Grow is a neighborhood revitalization 

program with partners from the private, nonprofit, and public sectors 

working together to help develop solutions to problems that contribute to 

crime, an unhealthy environment, and substandard housing. 


Outcome 

Objective 2: Implement sustainability projects consistent with the Mayor’s Energy and Sustainability Policy, 

and federal emphasis on sustainability. 

Activity 1: Complete park improvement projects in LMI neighborhoods. Recreation and 

access to open spaces and open lands is an element of sustainable 

communities ‐‐ promoting green space and healthy activities. 

Activity 2: Design and install rain gardens in LMI parks, and other property owned by the 

public and nonprofit organizations. Rain gardens are depressions planted 

with native or adapted plants that help absorb excess water and filter out 

excess nutrients before rain water enters the groundwater system. This 

activity complements a rain garden grant program for private property 

owners offered by the Watershed Management Division of the City Public 

Works and Utilities Department. 

Objective 3: Improve the livability of core neighborhoods by improving general neighborhood conditions. 

Activity 1: Provide non‐federal funding for LMI neighborhood self‐help grants for clean‐ 

up and improvement projects. 

Activity 2: Continue to fund the Tree Management and the Demolition of Secondary 

Structures Programs. The Tree Management Program provides grants to 

low‐income property owners and investors with low‐income tenants for 

removal of dead and potentially dangerous branches or removal of dead or 

dangerous trees. The Demolition of Secondary Structures Program provides 

grants to low‐income people for removal of substandard and dangerous 

buildings. 





7 

SL ‐ 3 

SL ‐ 3 

SL ‐ 3 

SL ‐ 3 

SL ‐ 3 

SL‐3


Local Public Services Objectives 

Objective 1: Increase food security for low‐income people and families. 

Activity 1: Support Community CROPS in the installation of community gardens and 

orchards in LMI parks and other property owned by public and nonprofit 

organizations. The lack of food and accompanying issue of hunger is a 

priority need in Lincoln. In addition to providing food for low‐income people, 

community gardens and orchards further sustainability by promoting urban 

agriculture, reducing transportation costs for food, and encouraging healthy 

and ecologically sound food production. 

Activity 2: Provide scholarships to low‐income people to rent space in community 

gardens. Deleted by amendment in FY 10. 

Activity 3: Support operations for Community CROPS. 

Objective 2: Provide services and support for returning veterans and their families. 

Activity 1: Install a Community Garden or Orchard designated for returning veterans and 

their families. 

Objective 3: Work to improve transportation options for low‐income people. 

Activity 1: Support CSI transportation goals for low‐income people by continuing to serve 

on the grant selection committee for Federal Transit Administration Job 

Access & Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom funds. These 

programs are intended to expand transportation services to the elderly, low‐ 

income, or disabled residents in the Lincoln area. 

Objective 4: Increase job opportunities for low‐income people. 

Activity 1: Provide funding to support One Stop Employment Solutions. 

Objective 5: Continue to work toward reducing poverty in Lincoln. 

Activity 1: Continue staff participation with CSI and with other agencies, boards, and 

committees working to reduce poverty in Lincoln. 




HUD Objective 

/Outcome 


8 

SL ‐ 1 

SL ‐ 2 

SL ‐ 2 

SL ‐ 1 

SL ‐ 2 

EO ‐ 1 

SL ‐ 2


Local Economic Development Objectives 


Outcome 

Activity 1: Continue the administration of outstanding economic development loans. EO ‐ 1 

Additional Local Community Development Objectives 

Objective 1: Actively work to further Fair Housing. 


Outcome 

Activity 1: Complete an updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing SL ‐ 1 

Activity 2: Educate City staff and elected officials about fair housing laws and the 

benefits of equal access to affordable housing through the annual Civil 

Rights Conference hosted by the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights. 

Activity 3: Continue staff participation on the Civil Rights Conference planning 

committee 

Objective 2: Continue support for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), an electronic data 

collection system that stores longitudinal person‐level information about people who access the homeless 

services system. 


9 

SL ‐ 1 

SL ‐ 1 

Activity 1: Continue to fund HMIS. SL ‐ 2 

Local Specific Special Needs Objectives 

Objective 1: Create and sustain affordable housing opportunities for Special Needs Populations. 

Activity 1: Assist in maintaining the stock of rental and owner housing for Special Needs 

Populations. 

Activity 2: Assist in increasing the supply of rental and owner housing for Special Needs 

Populations. 


Outcome 

DH ‐ 2 

DH ‐ 1 

Activity 3: Enhance the provision of supportive housing services. DH ‐ 1 

Activity 4: Remove regulatory barriers to housing for Special Needs Populations DH ‐ 1 



1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability


As the new Strategic Plan was being prepared, evaluation of the previous plan, the Five‐Year Strategic 

Plan for 2005 ‐ 2009, showed the majority of activities achieving planned results. A further look shows: 

The strongest successes were in activities that helped provide or maintain housing for low‐ and 

moderate‐income households. 

Activities that helped first‐time homebuyers responded to the difficult economy by slowing, but then 

stabilized. 

Activities aimed at stabilizing or improving neighborhood living environments achieved planned, 

expected results. 

A few activities were revised mid‐plan period, to improve effectiveness, and 

A few activities were discontinued during the five‐year period ‐‐ some due to ineffectiveness, some 

due to staffing cuts ‐‐ with funds redirected to other activities. 

Strategic Plan 

Due every three, four, or five years (length of period is at the grantee’s discretion) no less than 45 days 

prior to the start of the grantee’s program year start date. HUD does not accept plans between August 15 

and November 15. 

Mission: 

The City of Lincoln, Nebraska 3‐Year Strategic Plan for 2010‐2012 establishes a unified vision for 

community development by integrating economic, physical, environmental, community, and human 

development in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion. 

The goals set forth in this Strategic Plan are in keeping with the overall mission of the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Planning and Development Programs: Community 

Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME). The statutes for these 

programs set three primary goals for the benefit of low‐, very low‐ and extremely low‐income persons: 

Provide Decent Housing, which includes: 

o Assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing; 

o Assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless; 

o Retaining the affordable housing stock; 

o Increasing the availability of affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low‐income 

and moderate‐income families, particularly to members of disadvantaged minorities without 

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or 

disability; 

o Increasing the supply of supportive housing which includes structural features and services to 

enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/AIDS) to live in dignity and 

independence; and 

o Providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities. 

Provide a Suitable Living Environment, which includes: 

o Improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; 

o Eliminating blighting influences and the deterioration of property and facilities; 

o Increasing access to quality public and private facilities and services; 


10


o Reducing the isolation of income groups within areas through spatial deconcentration of housing 

opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods; 

o Restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value; and 

o Conserving energy resources and use of renewable energy sources. 

Expanded Economic Opportunities, which includes: 

o Job creation and retention; 

o Establishment, stabilization and expansion of small businesses (including micro‐businesses); 

o The provision of public services concerned with employment; 

o The provision of jobs to low‐income persons living in areas affected by those programs and 

activities, or jobs resulting from carrying out activities under programs covered by the plan; 

o Availability of mortgage financing for low‐income persons at reasonable rates using non‐ 

discriminatory lending practices; 

o Access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long‐term economic and 

social viability of the community; and 

o Empowerment and self‐sufficiency for low‐income persons to reduce generational poverty in 

federally assisted housing and public housing. 

General Questions 

1. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income families and/or 

racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed. 

2. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the 

EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a)(1)) and the basis for assigning the priority (including the relative 

priority, where required) given to each category of priority needs (91.215(a)(2)). Where appropriate, 

the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target 

areas. 

3. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs (91.215(a)(3)). 

3 Year Strategic Plan General Questions response: 

1. The Lincoln city limit boundaries define the jurisdiction; however, assistance will be directed primarily 

in the low‐ and moderate‐income area (LMI) and the Neighborhood Revitalization Service Area 

(NRSA). Please see the ‘LMI_NRSA’ and three ‘Minority’ maps in the “Strategic Plan Additional Files” 

folder. No area comprises greater than 10% of any majority minority race at the analysis level 

provided by the City/County Health department. 

2. Allocating investments geographically was based on the LMI and NRSA and two City priorities: 1) the 

Stronger, Safer, Neighborhoods Initiative in the Near South and Everett Neighborhoods, and 2) the 

Antelope Valley Project, focusing on the Malone Neighborhood. In addition, client‐based programs 

are based on individual income eligibility. Assigning priorities was based on: 

o Public input through a Community Needs Survey, conducted by Urban Development and other 

community surveys, 

o City priorities: Mayor's Energy and Sustainability Policy (in progress), Antelope Valley, and the 

Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, 

o Federal priorities: sustainability, homelessness, returning veterans and their families, and Fair 

Housing, 

o Community Services Initiative (CSI) priorities. 


11


Lincoln has identified an NRSA that was approved by HUD as part of the FY 2005‐2009 Strategic 

Planning process. There are no changes to the NRSA in this Strategic Plan. Again, a map titled ‘LMI 

NRSA’ illustrates the NRSA boundary and is included in the “Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder. 

The NRSA is geographically smaller than the LMI area and generally covers the oldest residential 

neighborhoods in the City with some exceptions. The purpose of the NRSA is to provide increased 

flexibility for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in meeting the following 

types of goals (1) Economic Development ‐ Low Priority, (2) Housing ‐ High Priority and (3) Public 

Services ‐ High Priority. Additionally, the Urban Development Department has used the delineation of 

the NRSA to concentrate homeownership and neighborhood revitalization activities. The 

methodology originally used to define the NRSA can be found in the 2005‐2009 Consolidated Plan. A 

copy of that plan is available in the Urban Development office at 555 S 10 th St, Suite 204. 

Urban Development staff re‐evaluated the existing NRSA to assess if real progress is being made. For 

example, maybe goals and objectives are being met for the most part, but the impact is not being 

achieved. A re‐evaluation may determine, (1) that different goals and objectives need to be set; (2) 

the NRSA area needs to be more concentrated, (3) more funds are needed or (4) funds need to be re‐ 

targeted. 

An in‐house study that mimics HUD’s CHAS program data projections 1 , found that the current 

boundaries are visually/spatially reasonable in terms of the theories and methodology used. In short, 

areas of concentrated disadvantage were determined and then modified using an operationalization 

differential association theory, developed for this process. While the theory initially concentrated on 

the impacts of individuals … it is also by proxy a reasonable predictor of neighborhood distress. 

Indicators analyzed include population characteristics (poverty, disability, unemployment, minority, 

education), housing data ( single family homes, housing cost burdens, vacant housing, housing built 

before 1939, mortgages), neighborhood crime types, neighborhood social resources (Great 

Neighborhood graduates, neighborhood coordinator, neighborhood association presidents, 

Neighborhood Watch members, election poll worker, community facilities) which can be assessed 

against voting behavior, building and safety issues, health department issues and Lincoln Public 

Schools achievement scores to determine correlations. The result of this analysis concluded that the 

NRSA which was initially defined via 2000 US Census data and augmented with current data and 

theoretical processes is not only defensible but very communicable to the general public. That report 

‘Differential Association: A Pilot Neighborhood Assessment Tool’ is located in the “Strategic Plan 

Additional Files” folder should a fuller explanation be required. 

It should also be noted that the Nebraska Department of Labor has designated a portion of the City of 

Lincoln as an “area of substantial unemployment” and it is further justification for the NRSA 

boundary. An area of substantial unemployment (ASU) is defined as a contiguous area with a current 

population of at least 10,000 and an average unemployment rate of at least 6.5 percent for the 

month reference period (July 2009 – June 2010 and July, 2010 to June 2012). Lincoln’s 2010 ASU 

contains a majority of the NRSA. Please see the map ‘ASU_NRSA’ in the “Strategic Plan Additional 

Files” folder. 

1 Base data (i.e. 2000 census data) was used and then augmented with additional data. 


12


Goals: Goals for activities for the 3 Year Strategic Plan period overall and within the NRSA include: 

Activity 3 Year Goal ‐ Total 3 Year NRSA Goal % in NRSA 

Rehab; Single‐Unit Residential (7 

programs) 

537 366 68% 

Lead‐Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate 24 12 50% 

Homeownership assistance (First Home) 

Program) 

153 69 45% 

Parks and/or Recreation Facilities Improvements to 3 parks 1 park 33% 

Tree Planting 3 projects All are in the NRSA 100% 

Flood Drainage Improvements (rain 

gardens) 

30 projects 10 projects 33% 

Street Improvements (gravel alleys) 30 alleys All are in the NRSA 100% 

Sidewalks (streetscapes and sidewalk 2 streetscapes, 3 sidewalk All are in the NRSA 100% 

improvements 

projects 

Tree Management & demo of secondary 

structures 

18 trees, 3 structures All are in the NRSA 100% 

Public Facilities (General) (construct 

community gardens/orchards) 

15 5 33% 

Public Services (General) (scholarships 

for community gardens) 

300 people 100 people 33% 

3. Answer to Question #3 

o The current financial and mortgage crisis: 

More families are in need of services and there is an increased need for affordable housing, both 

owner and renter, while lenders are making it more difficult for new home buyers, and waiting 

lists for rental assistance are longer. Social service needs are also greater, resulting in higher 

needs for food and more families struggling to make ends meet, having to choose between food 

and other needs. Social service agencies are more stressed to meet needs while the financial 

crisis has reduced donations. 

o Jobs: 

The need for good paying jobs, problems due to loss of jobs (and resulting family budgetary 

issues including loss of housing) people working at low paying jobs and not making ends meet. 

Managing the Process (91.200 (b)) 

1. Lead Agency. Identify the lead agency or entity for overseeing the development of the plan and the 

major public and private agencies responsible for administering programs covered by the 

consolidated plan. 

2. Identify the significant aspects of the process by which the plan was developed, and the agencies, 

groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process. 

3. Describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities, 

including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons 

with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons. 

*Note: HOPWA grantees must consult broadly to develop a metropolitan‐wide strategy and other jurisdictions must assist in 

the preparation of the HOPWA submission. 


13


3 Year Strategic Plan Managing the Process response: 

1. The City of Lincoln’s Urban Development Department is the lead agency for overseeing the 

development of the Plan and the administration of programs included in the Plan. The Department 

has six divisions: Administration which includes Downtown Redevelopment, Community 

Development, Housing Rehabilitation and Real Estate, Workforce Investment Administration, One 

Stop Employment Solutions (Workforce Investment Act Program) and Parking Services. The 

Workforce Investment Administration Division and One Stop Employment Solutions Division are 

responsible for the oversight of job training funds from the U.S. Department of Labor. The Parking 

Services Division’s mission is to protect the City's investment in the parking system by maintaining 

and improving on safe, reliable, and efficient parking facilities and equipment. The Divisions involved 

in the administration of this Plan are responsible for the following: 

o Administration: 

General program oversight, fiscal management and program monitoring. 

o Downtown Redevelopment: 

Downtown redevelopment primarily using Tax Increment Financing (TIF). 

o Community Development: 

Research, planning, and report preparation; project management; neighborhood assistance; focus 

area planning and plan implementation; Fair Housing; homelessness; public participation; non‐ 

downtown redevelopment activities using TIF funds; and administration of the City’s Economic 

Development loan programs. 

o Housing Rehabilitation and Real Estate: 

Program development, administration, and staffing of the City’s housing rehabilitation programs; 

management of housing funds to non‐profit organizations; relocation, property acquisition for all 

City departments, and the sale of the City‐owned surplus property for various City departments. 

Major agencies responsible for administering the programs outlined in the Consolidated Plan include: 

o NeighborWorks®Lincoln through the Homebuyer Training Program, Troubled Property Program, 

and the First Home Program which assists with down payment assistance. 

o The Lincoln Housing Authority which administers the Security Deposit Program. 

o The League of Human Dignity which operates the Barrier Removal Program. 

o The Homeless Coalition, Lincoln’s Continuum of Care, is an organization of homeless service 

providers, homeless individuals, and other community stakeholders. Organizational 

responsibilities include, 1) development of Lincoln’s annual Supportive Housing Program Grant, 2) 

an agency peer review process, 3) administration of the “point‐in‐Time” count, and 4) 

strengthening collaboration and efficiency in services proved to the homeless. 

2. The process for developing the Strategic Plan was based first on identifying needs. To identify housing 

needs, input was received from non‐profit housing organizations and the results of four surveys (see 

below under A. Public Involvement). CHAS data was also used along with the Housing Market 

Analysis. For non‐housing needs, two methods were used: 

A. Public involvement: 

Four surveys were used to obtain public input. The primary source was a Community Needs 

Survey administered by Urban Development that surveyed staff and board members from 

housing providers (all facets including, realtors, bankers, and agencies providing homeownership, 

rehab, and rental assistance), social service agencies, and Neighborhood Association Presidents. 

The survey was also on Urban Development’s website and available for the general public to 

complete. Public input was also received from a City‐wide survey conducted by the Mayor’s 

Office and a scientific survey conducted by the City’s Planning Department for the update of the 


14


City’s Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, results from surveys of clients conducted by the Center for 

People in Need. 

B. Social Service Priorities: 

Determining social service needs and priorities relied heavily on the Community Services 

Initiative (CSI), a community‐wide planning effort designed to identify emerging issues and 

critical needs in the local health and human services delivery system. This year CSI has identified 

hunger as a priority need in Lincoln. 

Needs were then considered within the context of local and federal priorities: 

A. Local Priorities: 

Local priorities include the Mayor's Energy and Sustainability policy (in progress), Antelope 

Valley, and the Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative. The City’s outcome‐based budgeting 

process was also considered: through an extensive public involvement process, the Mayor has 

developed three tiers of budgetary priorities for City involvement. For the Urban Development 

Department, housing and neighborhood revitalization activities are ranked in Tier 1, the highest 

priority and economic development as Tier 3, the lowest priority. 

B. Federal priorities considered include sustainability, homelessness, returning veterans and their 

families, and Fair Housing. 

Needs were then prioritized based on the following criteria: 

o It furthers or is consistent with a city and/or federal priority area. 

o It is identified as a need in the community involvement process. 

o Its impacts on a large number of low‐ and moderate‐income households. 

o It meets unique needs of certain geographic areas. 

o It reflects past successes of projects and activities in meeting needs. 

Lastly, objectives and strategies were developed to address the identified needs. 

3. Consultation with public and private agencies that provide health services, social and fair housing 

services is an on‐going process throughout the year. Urban Development participates in Community 

Services Initiative (CSI), a community‐wide planning effort designed to identify emerging issues and 

critical needs in the local health and human services delivery system. It includes four coalitions: 

Basic and Emergency Needs, Behavioral Health, Children and Youth, and Stop Abuse. For the 

Strategic Plan, contact was also made with the Human Services Federation for survey input. The 

Federation is comprised of representatives from 125 non‐profit agency members dedicated to 

providing quality health and human services in Lincoln and Lancaster County. 

Additional consultation during Plan development included Community CROPS (Combining Resources, 

Opportunities and People for Sustainability), the City’s Stormwater Management Division of Public 

Works and Utilities, and the Parks and Recreation Department. 

Regarding homeless issues, Lincoln's CoC collaborates with a wide variety of local, state, and federal 

entities to identify homeless needs. Four primary data collection activities or efforts provide the CoC 

with information necessary to conduct annual planning efforts: the annual Point‐In‐Time count (PIT), 

information compiled for the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), Lincoln's 2009 CoC 

Exhibit 1, which includes Lincoln's Housing and Inventory Chart (HIC), and the Homelessness 

Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Plan (HPRP) for Lincoln, Nebraska. Data from these four sources 

provide a snapshot of homelessness in Lincoln, including an estimate of the size and nature of 

Lincoln's homeless population, an inventory of available beds and services, and ultimately provide the 


15


basis for planning efforts to meet identified gaps in services and anticipate future needs. For detailed 

information on the agencies, groups, and organizations who participate in Lincoln's CoC, please refer 

to sections 1A ‐ 1D in Lincoln's 2009 Continuum of Care (CoC) Exhibit 1 available at 

www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless. 

On general housing issues, the Urban Development staff consulted with the non‐profit housing 

organizations that are subrecipients for the City of Lincoln. NeighborWorks ® Lincoln administers the 

Urban Development funded First Time Home Buyer Training and they receive HOME funds for down 

payment assistance under the First Home Program and the CHDO set‐aside Troubled Property 

Program. NeighborWorks®Lincoln receives ongoing feedback from their clients and Urban 

Development staff consults with the agency’s staff at the end of each fiscal year. Other subrecipient 

agencies include: Affordable Housing Initiative, Habitat for Humanity, League of Human Dignity, and 

Rebuilding Together. Other agencies consulted on an ongoing basis include: Lincoln Housing 

Authority, Community Action Partners, REALTORS ® , Nebraska Investment Finance Authority, and the 

Nebraska Department of Economic Development. 

On lead‐based paint issues, the City of Lincoln consults with Nebraska Asbestos and Lead Based Paint 

Abatement Program and Lincoln‐Lancaster Health Department. 

For public housing issues, consultation was made with the Lincoln Housing Authority (LHA). LHA is a 

governmental entity established in 1946 with the mission of providing housing to the residents of 

Lincoln, Nebraska. LHA receives ongoing feedback from their clients and urban development consults 

with LHA at the end of each fiscal year. For detailed information on the authority, programs, and 

organizations who participate in the LHA, please refer to most recent 2009 Annual Report available 

by contacting LHA at www.l‐housing.com. 

The City of Lincoln is not part of a metropolitan area nor a Council of Governments (COG). 

Citizen Participation (91.200 (b)) 

1. Provide a summary of the citizen participation process. 

2. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan. 

3. Provide a summary of efforts made to broaden public participation in the development of the 

consolidated plan, including outreach to minorities and non‐English speaking persons, as well as 

persons with disabilities. 

4. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why these comments were 

not accepted. 

*Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP Tool. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Citizen Participation response: 

1. The City of Lincoln has a Citizen Participation Plan that details the public involvement process. The 

Plan is available at www.lincoln.gov, keyword: urban. Public participation is an on‐going process, not 

confined to preparation of the Strategic Plan. The public is encouraged to participate by becoming 

involved with their neighborhood association, in other community organizations and in business 

associations. Residents are also encouraged to attend public hearings and open houses held for 

special projects and plans. 

However, the Citizen Participation Plan specifies that during development of the Strategic Plan, ad 

hoc committees and/or surveys may be used to obtain additional input. For this Strategic Plan, 

surveys were heavily relied upon. Four surveys were used to obtain public input: (1) a Community 


16


Needs Survey administered by Urban Development that surveyed staff and board members from 

housing providers (all facets including, realtors, bankers, and agencies providing homeownership, 

rehab, and rental assistance), social service agencies, and Neighborhood Association Presidents. (2) A 

City‐wide survey conducted by the Mayor’s Office. (3) A scientific survey conducted by the City’s 

Planning Department for the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (4) Surveys of clients 

conducted by the Center for People in Need. 

Community Needs Survey: 

This non‐scientific survey was conducted by the Urban Development Department between March 

and May, 2010. Its purpose was to identify needs and obstacles regarding housing, social services, 

and economic issues. The survey was distributed to three groups: 341 people representing the 125 

member agencies in the Human Services Federation (HSF), 26 staff and board members of 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln, and neighborhood presidents or the contact person for 53 neighborhood 

associations. The survey was also on Urban Development’s website and available for the general 

public to complete. E‐mails were sent to 356 individuals representing 120 government contacts, 127 

community contacts, 56 Lincoln Public Schools principals, and 53 neighborhood association leaders 

informing them that the survey was available on the website and inviting them to complete the 

survey. Note that neighborhood leaders were contacted twice. In addition, those receiving the e‐ 

mail from the following groups were asked to forward the e‐mail and survey to their membership: 

Greater Lincoln Workforce Investment Board and Youth Council = approximately 50 people, Lincoln 

Realtors = 750, Public Library staff = approximately 50. This represents an additional 850 individuals 

who received the survey. 

Respondents were asked for the location of their agency and home address, both of which were 

mapped and are included in “Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder – ‘Response Distribution’ map. 

The map illustrates that respondents provide a good geographic representation of the LMI area in 

particular and the city as a whole. The return rate for the HSF group was 38.56%, 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln was 30.76% and neighborhood associations 22.64%. Responses were 

received from the following neighborhood representatives or agencies: 

Neighborhood Associations Respondents 

Clinton Hawley South Salt Creek 

College View Autumn Wood Witherbee 

Everett Near South Woods Park 

Far South Salt Valley View Meadowlane 


17


Listing of Agency/Organization Respondents 

ABC General Assistance NeighborWorks®Lincoln 

Affordable Housing Initiatives Heartland Big Brothers Big Sisters Peoples Health Center 

Albers Co Home Real Estate Realtor 

Calvary Methodist Church Houses of Hope Rebuilding Together Lincoln 

CASA for Lancaster County Human Services Reinke Property Management 

Cedars Youth Services Indian Center ServeNebraska 

Center for People in Need Interfaith Housing Coalition St. Monica's 

CenterPointe Lincoln Housing Authority The Salvation Army 

City of Lincoln Lincoln Medical … Partnership Center for Children/Family/Law 

Civic Input Lincoln Public Schools US Bank Home Mortgage 

Community Mental Health Center Matt Talbot Kitchen and Outreach Voices of Hope 

Complete Children's Health Mercy Housing Volunteer Partners 

Family Health Services NAF MHDC Woods Charitable Fund 

Family Service WIC NAI/FMA Realty 

Fresh Start Nebraska Dept of Econ Dev. 

General Thoughts and Outcomes: 

Survey results indicated that by far the greatest need in Lincoln is affordable housing, for both 

homeowners and renters. All groups indicated affordable housing as the greatest need. The need for 

good paying jobs was also cited repeatedly by all groups as a high priority. Other issues identified 

most often included: 

o Learning to spend and save wisely 

o Medical costs and access 

o Mental health, behavioral health and substance abuse assistance 

o Transportation issues 

o Special needs housing – the need for more and for more services 

o Housing discrimination as a barrier to fair housing 

o Immigrant needs and discrimination 

o Need for tenant education 

o Cleaning up the core of the city 

o Homelessness and the need for emergency and transitional housing 

City‐Wide Satisfaction Survey: 

This was a scientific survey coordinated by the Mayor’s Office. This survey was conducted from 

December 1 through December 6, 2009, by Opinion Research Corporation out of Princeton, New 

Jersey. All statistical analysis was completed by the University of Nebraska –Lincoln Public Policy 

Center. In total, 607 Lincoln residents completed the survey, yielding a +/‐ 4.4% margin of error. At 

the request of Urban Development, University of Nebraska Public Policy Center compiled results 

comparing responses from people living in zip codes primarily representing the LMI neighborhoods to 

the rest of the city. Results were generally the same with a few exceptions: 

o The number of unsightly or blighted properties in the city: 46.2% of LMI respondents were 

dissatisfied or very dissatisfied compared to 35.6% for the rest of the city. 

o Availability of affordable quality housing: 22.5% of LMI respondents were dissatisfied or very 

dissatisfied compared to 14.4% for the rest of the city. 


18


o General safety and security in your neighborhood: 18.3 % of LMI respondents were 

dissatisfied to very dissatisfied compared to 8.2% of the remaining city. Conversely, 84.1% 

of the remaining city was satisfied to very satisfied compared to 66.3% for LMI residents. 

2010 Public Opinion Survey of Planning and Development Issues in Lincoln and Lancaster County*: 

This survey was completed by the Sigma Group, LLC for the Lincoln‐Lancaster County Planning 

Department as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. A total of 700 residents were surveyed 

between February 18 and March 29, 2010. The margin of error is +/‐ 3.7%. Some of the major survey 

findings regarding perceptions of growth and development include: 

o Respondents were more likely to agree that there are plenty of housing choices by type and 

size (90%) than by price range (79%). People living the northeast area were less likely than 

others to agree that housing choices were adequate across price ranges (72%). 

o Five out of six respondents agreed that more production of local food sources should be 

encouraged (84%). Agreement on this issue was greater among those under 45 (89%) 

compared to those 65 and older (72%). 

o Limiting energy consumption is an important issue to 82% of residents. 

Overall, residents put the greatest importance on six planning priorities: 

o Investing in clean alternative energy sources. 

o Developing and maintaining a system of parks and recreation facilities. 

o Developing water conservation policies that reduce water usage. 

o Widening existing roads to provide better traffic flow in the north‐south direction. 

o Preserving the quality of rural life and highly productive agricultural land in the county. 

o Maintaining and preserving existing wetlands, streams, trees, flood plains, wildlife habitat, 

and other natural resources. 

*Source: Sigma Group, LLC draft report, April 2010, pp. i., vi. 

Center For People in Need (CFPIN): 

CFPIN has completed four annual poverty surveys and published results in The Face of Poverty Today 

in Lincoln, Nebraska. Results of the most recent survey have not yet been made public. However, 

CFPIN shared the draft report and survey results with Urban Development staff for use in preparing 

the Strategic Plan. According to the report, “The information in this report comes from a survey 

conducted by the Center for People in Need in December 2009. Data were collected during a toy 

distribution event for parents and caregivers in need. The survey was given to over 2,300 

respondents; it was available in four languages – English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic. 

Participation was voluntary and data were kept confidential. Only one person per family completed a 

questionnaire….the goal of this annual survey…is to gather information about the personal 

experiences of people in need…the Center aims to give a voice and put a face to the actual 

experience of poverty – what individuals struggle with, what they need, and how they use community 

resources to get by. The Face of Poverty report provides information for others to better understand 

and respond to the needs of the poor.” Some key findings from last year’s survey and report 

(December, 2008) are included below, reprinted with permission: 

o Challenges Faced in Finding Employment: Concerns/Challenges were somewhat similar for 

US‐ and foreign‐born respondents…one exception is that the top concern for the foreign‐ 

born respondents was that lack of proficiency in English was a hindrance to getting a good 

job. Like last year, the top challenge for US born respondents was finding a job that paid 

enough to support oneself and one’s family, followed by a need for more education…the top 

challenge for foreign‐born respondents was language, followed by finding a job that paid 

enough (p. 13). 


19


o Food Challenges: Majority of respondents reported having problems buying enough food 

for their families – sometimes, often, or always (80%). The most common response to lack 

of money for food was choosing between paying bills and paying for food, followed by 

skipping meals by someone (not children) in the family. Several respondents commented 

that the adults, but not the children, skipped meals. Patterns did not differ between US‐ and 

foreign‐born respondents (p. 15). 

o Other Community Resources Accessed for Aid with Food: Majority of participants utilized 

some form of assistance to help them afford/obtain enough food for their households. 

However, a large percentage still experience challenges even after receiving government 

and/or community assistance. Among those who are working AND using food stamps 

AND/OR accessing one or more of the resources above, 79% still report having problems 

obtaining enough food for their families (p. 18). 

o Problems Paying for Utilities…Rent or Mortgage: More than half of the respondents 

reported having experienced some type of challenge in paying for utilities. 32% of 

respondents reported a utility had been disconnected within the past year because they 

could not pay the bill. 72% of respondents report either “always”, “often”, or “sometimes” 

having problems in paying for rent or mortgage. This is higher than last year’s figure of 62% 

(p.26). 

The full report can be requested from the Center For People in Need 

www.CenterforPeopleInNeed.org 

Other public involvement included: 

o A 30 day public comment period began on May 28, 2010. A “notice of availability” was 

published in the legal notices section of the Lincoln Journal Star and at www.lincoln.ne.gov, 

keyword: urban. Residents were advised that the document is available: 1) on the Urban 

Development Department Web page: www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: urban; and 2) at the 

Urban Development Department office: 555 S. 10 th , room 205, Lincoln, NE 68508. 

o Presentation of the draft plan at the Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable on June 14, 2010. 

The Roundtable meets with the Mayor monthly to discuss issues and topics of interest and 

concern to neighborhoods. Eighteen neighborhood representatives attended representing 

ten neighborhood associations. 

o The Urban Development Department also held a public open house to present needs, goals, 

objectives and proposed actions in the Strategic Plan. The meeting was held on June 16, 

2010 at the Urban Development Department office. Notice of the meeting containing date, 

time, place, and purpose was published on May 28, 2010 in the Lincoln Journal Star, and 

announced at the Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable. No one attended the open house. 

o The Plan also went before the Lincoln City Council on June 28, 2010 for public hearing and 

approval. No citizens spoke and the Plan was unanimously approved by the City Council. 

2. Answer to question #2 

No comments were received. 


o Low‐ and moderate‐income residents where housing and community development funds 

may be spent: through surveys, on‐going attendance by Urban Development staff at 

neighborhood and business association meetings. 

o Minorities and non‐English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities: through 

surveys, particularly use of The Center for People in Need, and through contact with 

agencies serving non‐English speaking people and those with disabilities. 


20


o Local and regional institutions and other organizations (including businesses, developers, 

community and faith‐based organizations): through one‐on‐one meetings, surveys, and 

attending meetings of organizations and business associations. 

o Residents of public and assisted housing developments and recipients of tenant‐based 

assistance: through surveys and agencies. 

o Residents of targeted revitalization areas: through surveys and attending neighborhood 

association meetings. 

Institutional Structure (91.215 (i)) 

1. Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan, 

including private industry, non‐profit organizations, and public institutions. 

2. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system. 

3. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system for public housing, including a description of the 

organizational relationship between the jurisdiction and the public housing agency, including the 

appointing authority for the commissioners or board of housing agency, relationship regarding hiring, 

contracting and procurement; provision of services funded by the jurisdiction; review by the 

jurisdiction of proposed capital improvements as well as proposed development, demolition or 

disposition of public housing developments. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Institutional Structure response: 

1. The Urban Development Department has an established Institutional Structure in place. Please see 

the “Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder for the Institutional Structure description. Included in the 

description is an explanation of efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, 

developers and social service agencies, particularly with regard to the development of the city’s 

economic development strategy. 


o Strengths in the delivery system: 

General willingness of public and private agencies to share information and work together to 

accomplish goals to help the citizens of our community. 

Numerous task forces that bring coalitions of agencies together to coordinate services and 

case management for clients. 

o Potential gaps in the service delivery system: 

Financial support to meet individual, community, and agencies needs at all levels and from 

both public and private resources. 

3. Answer to Question #3 

o Strengths in the delivery system: 

Financially stable: has access to non‐HUD funding streams 

Model tax credit projects 

Experienced leadership and proficient staff 

o Potential gaps in the service delivery system: 

Need exceeds the supply 

Financial support is variable 

The demand for section 8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083 (over a two‐ 


21


year estimated waiting period). LHA receives roughly 500 new applications each month. 

LHA is a partner with the Urban Development Department in trying to meet the needs for low‐ 

income housing. Urban Development makes funding available to assist homeless families with 

security deposits. The LHA is a governmental entity established under state law, by the City of 

Lincoln, with a mission of providing affordable housing to the residents of Lincoln, Nebraska. The 

Housing Authority fulfills that mission through: 

o the ownership and/or management of 1,450+ units of rental housing 

o the administration of the Federal Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program in Lancaster County 

o the operation of two homeownership programs 

o tenant supportive services 

o community partnerships with other providers of housing and social services 

Although the Lincoln Housing Authority is a governmental entity, it does not have the power to 

tax, and does not receive local tax dollars. It is governed by a five member Board of 

Commissioners appointed by Lincoln’s Mayor and approved by the City Council. The Board of 

Commissioners appoints an Executive Director to oversee the day‐to‐day operation of the 

Housing Authority, and to ensure that the Board’s policies are implemented. 

Currently, the LHA has 80.5 employees and operates with an annual budget of 24 million. 

Approximately 15 million of that budget is Federal funds distributed annually from the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Lincoln Housing Authority has been 

providing affordable housing to the citizens of Lincoln for over 64 years. 

Urban Development is not involved in the LHA’s capital improvements nor the LHA’s 

development, demolition or disposition of its public housing developments. 

For detailed information on the Lincoln Housing Authority’s “2010‐2011 Annual Plan” please visit 

their Web site at http://www.l‐housing.com. 

Monitoring (91.230) 

1. Describe the standards and procedures the jurisdiction will use to monitor its housing and community 

development projects and ensure long‐term compliance with program requirements and 

comprehensive planning requirements. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Monitoring response: 

1. General grant administration activities include preparation and management of annual operating and 

programmatic budgets, including allocation of personnel and overhead costs; analysis of past and 

current year performance and expenditures in all program areas (i.e., housing rehabilitation and 

homeownership, economic development, community services, public improvements, etc.); oversight 

of revenues, “timeliness” of expenditures; and coordination and utilization of HUD’s IDIS system for 

reporting and fund drawdowns. 

Program/project monitoring ensures that the City and its subrecipients (or borrowers) meet 

performance objectives within schedule and budget. Most importantly, it provides documentation of 

the City’s compliance with program (CDBG, HOME) objectives, rules, and regulations. A critical part 

of the City’s monitoring system is an assessment of each subrecipient or borrower to identify high risk 

agencies that require more extensive oversight and monitoring. Agencies identified as high risk 


22


include those who are new to the program, are experiencing turnover in key staff positions, have 

been plagued by past compliance or performance problems, are undertaking multiple funding 

activities for the first time, and/or are not submitting timely reports. These agencies are provided 

with regular on‐site visits and desk‐top reviews and at least one on‐site visit per year. 

A standardized procedure for review and monitoring has been established, and monitoring manuals 

have been prepared utilizing monitoring tools developed for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and ADDI programs 

(although ESG and ADDI funds are no longer received by the City of Lincoln). Areas addressed 

include, (1) Project or Program Status; (2) Program Benefit; (3) Fair Housing/Equal Opportunity; (4) 

Consistency of Records; and (5) Financial Accountability. Desk‐top reviews involve examining 

progress reports, compliance reports, and financial information. On‐site monitoring visits are 

performed to determine adequate control over program and financial performance and to verify 

proper records maintenance. On‐site visits also involve examining beneficiary documentation, audit 

reports, accounting records, invoices, payroll documentation, and timesheets. 

The Program Monitor also works with subrecipients, borrowers, the City Building and Safety 

Department and recipients to ensure compliance with all Federal rules and regulations. Occupancy 

reports submitted for assisted housing projects are examined to determine compliance with 

affordability and tenant eligibility. Interviews with contractor employees are conducted and certified 

payrolls are examined to ensure compliance with Fair Labor Standards, Davis‐Bacon wage 

requirements and HOME standards. 

Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies (91.215 (a)) 

1. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs. 

2. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies response: 


o The Needs/Housing Table (see the Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder). 

o Non‐homeless Table ‐ (see the Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder). 

o The Antelope Valley Redevelopment Plan, particularly the section on Neighborhood 

Enhancement and Housing Strategies. 

o Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, including previously completed Focus Area Plans for the 

Malone, Near South and Everett Neighborhoods. 

o Input from community surveys. 

o The City of Lincoln, Mayor’s priority policy on Energy and Sustainability (under development). 

o Federal emphasis areas of Fair Housing, Sustainability, and returning veterans and their families. 

o Priority needs areas identified by the Community Services Initiative. 

o Consultations with service providers, other City departments, and other funding agencies. 

o City of Lincoln outcome‐based budgeting process. 

The following criteria were also applied: 



o Its impacts on a large number of low‐ and moderate‐income households. 




23










o Jobs: 



Lack of financial support to meet individual, community, and agencies needs at all levels and 

from both public and private resources. 

Lead‐based Paint (91.215 (g)) 

1. Estimate the number of housing units that contain lead‐based paint hazards, as defined in section 

1004 of the Residential Lead‐Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and are occupied by 

extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families. 

2. Outline actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead‐based paint hazards and 

describe how lead based paint hazards will be integrated into housing policies and programs, and 

how the plan for the reduction of lead‐based hazards is related to the extent of lead poisoning and 

hazards. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Lead‐based Paint response: 


o According to the National Safety Council, about two‐thirds of homes built before 1940, half of 

the homes built between 1940 and 1960 and a lesser number of homes built between 1960 and 

1978 contain lead from lead‐based paint. In the City of Lincoln’s low‐ to moderate‐income area, 

there are 20,512 housing units; 12,930 are owner‐occupied and 7582 are rental. 

o It is estimated that lead can be found in two‐thirds or 3,996 of the 5,909 owner‐occupied houses 

built before 1940. Of the 4,224 built between 1940 and 1960, one‐half or 2,112, probably contain 

lead. The data are unclear as to percentage but a reasonable figure of one‐third or 932 of the 

2,797 houses built between 1960 and 1979 contained lead. In the LMI area, 7,040 owner‐ 

occupied houses are estimated to contain lead. 

o Two‐thirds or 2,934 of the 4,405 rental units built before 1940 are likely to contain lead. Of the 

additional 2,170 units built between 1940 and 1960, about one‐half or 1,085 contain lead. 

Another 1,007 rental units were built between 1960 and 1979, of which an estimated one‐third 

or 336 contain lead. In the LMI area, 4,355 rental units are estimated to contain lead. 


o Since September of 2000, the City of Lincoln has integrated lead‐based paint hazard reduction 

activities into their HUD‐assisted housing policies and programs. 

o The Urban Development Department is involved with between 300 to 400 housing units a year 

providing rehabilitation and home ownership assistance. Urban Development operates various 

in‐house rehabilitation programs and works with several non‐profit organizations to provide a 


24


full range of housing options. 

o All of the in‐house rehabilitation projects receive a lead paint inspection based on the 

requirements set forth in 24 CFR Part 35 by one of the three Rehabilitation Specialists who are 

Certified Lead Risk Assessors. They also lend their technical expertise to assist smaller non‐ 

profits that have lead procedure questions. 

o The First Home Program is administered by NeighborWorks®Lincoln, a recipient of HOME funds 

from the Urban Development Department. The funds are used to provide down payment and 

rehabilitation assistance. The Rehabilitation Specialist that conducts the housing inspections for 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln is also a Certified Lead Risk Assessor. 

o The majority of Urban Development’s program funds benefit households in Lincoln’s low‐ to 

moderate‐income area which has the oldest housing stock. This same area is the subject of 

studies by the Lincoln‐Lancaster County Health Department for elevated blood lead levels in 

children. This program prioritized neighborhoods as high risk based on age of housing and the 

presence of children under age six below the poverty level. 

o The Lincoln Housing Authority implemented 24 CFR Part 35 (Subparts A,B, R & M) into their 

Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program and continues to work with the Health Department to 

identify children with elevated blood lead levels. 

HOUSING 

Housing Needs (91.205) 

*Please also refer to the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook 

1. Describe the estimated housing needs projected for the next five year period for the following 

categories of persons: extremely low‐income, low‐income, moderate‐income, and middle‐income 

families: 

o renters and owners, 

o elderly persons, persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their 

families, 

o single persons, 

o large families, 

o public housing residents, victims of domestic violence, 

o families on the public housing and section 8 tenant‐based waiting list, 

and discuss specific housing problems, including: cost‐burden, severe cost‐ burden, substandard 

housing, and overcrowding (especially large families). 

2. To the extent that any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need for any income 

category in comparison to the needs of that category as a whole, the jurisdiction must complete an 

assessment of that specific need. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when the 

percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is 

at least ten percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Housing Needs response: 


Please also refer to the HSG Needs table and the Non‐Homeless Special Needs table in the “Strategic 

Plan additional files”. Projected needs for the next three years are not quantified for all groups but 

are anticipated to increase. Highlights of the planning process include the following: 


25


o Rental Housing According to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2009, 

an estimated 39,920 total rental units are needed by existing renter households, with 39,405 of 

those units needed by existing low‐income households of which 490 are substandard. There 

was a surplus of approximately 3,385 rental units in Lincoln in 2009. There was an overall 

surplus of two‐ and three‐bedroom units by 1,710 units and 475 units respectively. Even with 

the surplus of 3,385 rental units affordable to low‐income households, the fact remains that 

17,405 low‐income, renter households were cost overburdened in 2009. Of this group, 7,984 

were 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) and 8,543 were 50% AMI. Data on overcrowding is 

only available from the 2000census and is, therefore, quite dated and not included here. 

Overcrowding will be addressed in the next Strategic Plan in three years when the 2010 census 

data is available. 

o Owner Housing Needs 

In 2009, there were 68,407 owner‐occupied housing units with 290 being substandard. 1104 are 

0 or 1 bedroom units with 4 currently vacant, 15,089 are 2 bedrooms with 310 vacant and 51,495 

are 3+ bedrooms with 405 vacant. Of this group, 18,059 were cost burdened using 30% AMI and 

5,267 at 50% AMI. Data on overcrowding is only available from the 2000 census and is, 

therefore, quite dated and not included here. Overcrowding will be addressed in the next 

Strategic Plan in three years when the 2010 census data is available. 

o Community wide data on the non‐homeless developmentally disabled and physically disabled 

population is unavailable. However, it is estimated that additional housing for approximately 

651 individuals who are identified as severely mentally ill, and for 1,042 physically disabled 

individuals is needed. 

o Projected housing needs for people with HIV/Aids is not available. Urban Development is 

unable to determine an accurate housing need for people with HIV/AIDS because the number of 

people with HIV/AIDS, for Lancaster County, varies depending on the source of the data. 

Estimates range any where from 150 to 300 persons with HIV/AIDS but data on their housing 

needs is not available. 

o Public housing units are fully occupied and the waiting list for Lincoln Housing Authority units is 

two and a half years. LHA is finding it extremely difficult to serve the needs of Lincoln’s 

extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families. Limited federal funding has 

resulted in no new Section 8 vouchers available to serve Lincoln’s lower‐income population. 

This particular population is growing as Lincoln’s general population base continues to grow. 

The average cost per unit of subsidy for each Section 8 voucher has continued to rise from $353 

per unit in April 2004 to $365 per unit in March 2010. The increased cost is due primarily to 

serving more, larger families than elderly/small families and a decline in the income of 

households assisted. When combined with the federal funding limitations, the number of 

families LHA will be able to assist will remain almost the same number. The demand for section 

8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083. LHA receives roughly 500 new 

applications each month. Likewise the ability to expand public housing is similar. The count of 

public and section 8 units are expected to remain the same. 

o Victims of domestic violence: A Gallup survey conducted in Lancaster County by Friendship 

Home (Lincoln's leading Domestic Violence Shelter) indicates that 1 in 4 women will be victims 

of domestic violence. The vast majority of domestic violence victims who access shelter and 

services in Lincoln are low‐income. Although no data exists to present a definitive picture of the 

size and scope of Lincoln's domestic violence housing needs, information from the Gallup 

Survey commissioned by Friendship Home, and additional data from CoC resources, indicates 


26


that although housing is generally available in the community, the need for wrap around 

domestic violence support services is high. 


o Minority Owner Housing Needs 

CHAS data was used to identify when the percentage of black, non‐Hispanic, or Hispanic 

households in an income category are not within 10 percent of the figures found in the “all 

households” column for that income category. These are the only categories that CHAS data 

currently provides. According to that data Black, non‐Hispanic, and Hispanic renter and owner 

households are more likely to be in the lowest income category than households in general. 

However, none are more than 10% as a category as a whole. 

Priority Housing Needs (91.215 (b)) 

1. Identify the priority housing needs and activities in accordance with the categories specified in the 

Housing Needs Table (formerly Table 2A). These categories correspond with special tabulations of 

U.S. census data provided by HUD for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. 

2. Provide an analysis of how the characteristics of the housing market and the severity of housing 

problems and needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative 

priority of each priority housing need category. 

Note: Family and income types may be grouped in the case of closely related categories of residents 

where the analysis would apply to more than one family or income type. 



3 Year Strategic Plan Priority Housing Needs response: 


High Priority Needs: 

The highest priority needs are among low‐income special needs populations, including physically 

disabled persons, seriously mentally ill persons, and refugees and immigrants, not only due to 

housing need, but also supportive housing services. Extremely‐low income renters of all 

household types and very‐low income (except single households) are also high priority 

households. Elderly owners who are extremely low‐income are a high priority as well. 

As long as the Lincoln Housing Authority has funds to support extremely and very low‐income 

renters, the majority of the federal funds under the oversight of the Urban Development 

Department, Housing Division will be targeted toward other high priority needs including home 

owners and potential home owners who are very low‐ and low‐income. 

Medium Priority Needs: 

Single households with incomes at 30 to 50 percent of the median, renter households between 

50 to 80 percent of the median and not looking to own, and owners with incomes under 30 

percent of the median and looking to become renters are medium priority households. 

However, these households may not be good candidates for either the Lincoln Housing Authority 

or Urban Development programs. Needs are not classified as medium priority if they are being 

served by other programs or agencies. 


27


Additionally, marketing of programs will target single‐parent households, immigrants, refugees, 

and other ethnic and/or racial minorities. 

Low Priority Needs: 

Households with low priority needs are those making more than 80 percent of the median 

income for the City. These households tend to be served through other programs or through 

conventional means. 


The characteristics of the current housing market continue to put pressure on buyers purchasing 

their first home and on lower income existing home owners to sustain home ownership. Lenders’ 

loan underwriting has become more stringent thus affecting the ability of households below 80% 

AMI from purchasing a home. Existing home owners have seen a slowing in their equity 

accumulation and a home improvement loan has been harder to obtain. Elderly home owners 

living on social security have a reduced capacity of obtaining a loan. Home owners under 50% 

AMI are especially impacted when an emergency situation arises. Affordable housing is available 

in Lincoln’s low‐ to moderate‐income area but the necessary rehabilitation needed to make 

housing sustainable is a problem. The majority of the federal funds under the oversight of the 

Urban Development Department, Housing Division will be targeted toward the high priority need 

households comprised of very low‐ and low‐income home owners and potential home owners. 


The neighborhoods in Lincoln’s low‐ to moderate‐income area have a very low home ownership 

rate. The priority was to create new home owners in the 50‐80% AMI category and to sustain 

the home ownership of households 80% AMI and below. 


Because many of the high priority households tend to need supportive services to find and/or 

remain in affordable housing, these are the most challenging households to serve as well. One of 

the greatest challenges will be finding additional funds to allow the City and its partners to 

provide these supportive services. 

The Lincoln Housing Authority will continue to serve those extremely low‐income and very low‐ 

income households, with priorities for special needs populations, families, and the elderly, as 

federal funds for rental housing assistance remain available. Cuts in assistance will be a difficult 

barrier to overcome. Another obstacle to meeting these high priority rental housing needs will 

be maintaining the infrastructure that supports these households. The City will also rely on 

internal (i.e. Urban Development and the Lincoln Housing Authority) and external (i.e., Urban 

Development and the League of Human Dignity for the Barrier Removal Program) partnerships to 

meet these challenges where appropriate. 

Some of the greatest obstacles include social and cultural barriers in reaching markets that tend 

not to seek assistance, including Black and Vietnamese householders. Other obstacles include 

household income, basic financial skills and knowledge about homeownership, tightening bank 

underwriting, NIMBY attitudes, lack of quality affordable housing for homeownership, and 

regulations (both local and federal) that limit the supply of affordable housing or the ability to 

subsidize housing. 


28


Housing Market Analysis (91.210) 

*Please also refer to the Housing Market Analysis Table in the Needs.xls workbook 

1. Based on information available to the jurisdiction, describe the significant characteristics of the 

housing market in terms of supply, demand, condition, and the cost of housing; the housing stock 

available to serve persons with disabilities; and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. 

Data on the housing market should include, to the extent information is available, an estimate of the 

number of vacant or abandoned buildings and whether units in these buildings are suitable for 

rehabilitation. 

2. Describe the number and targeting (income level and type of household served) of units currently 

assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an assessment of whether any such units 

are expected to be lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason, (i.e. expiration of Section 

8 contracts). 

3. Indicate how the characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of funds made available 

for rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing 

units. Please note, the goal of affordable housing is not met by beds in nursing homes. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Housing Market Analysis responses: 

A Housing Market Analysis was completed for the 2010‐2012 Consolidated Plan and is found in the 

“Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder. Highlights include: 


o The community has a potential for 51,000 new dwelling units within the 2030 future service limit 

for Lincoln. Of these units, about 16,700 (single family and multi‐family combined) are approved 

or in the approval process. The remainder of the potential units is currently without 

infrastructure. The development of the City’s six‐year Capital Improvement Program, which is 

annually updated, along with the Comprehensive Plan, should take these market realities into 

account. 

o The number of building permits for new single family homes declined again last year compared 

to previous years. In 2009, 378 detached single family building permits were issued, the lowest 

number since 1983, compared to 410 in 2008, 569 in 2007, and 794 in 2006. Each of the past four 

years is significantly lower than the ten‐year average of 933. The slowdown in the national 

economy has been especially harsh on the construction sector, and Lincoln has experienced a 

related slowdown. With these lower building trends, the supply of final platted detached single 

family lots has now increased to a 5.1 year supply based on the 3 year building average. Using 

the overall number of 8,212 single family detached lots available and in the pipeline (final 

platted, preliminary platted, and submitted), the lot supply increases to 18.1 years. 

o According to the Lincoln Realtors Association (LRA), at the end of December 2009, there were 

1,672 single‐family residential homes on the market; nearly 20% below the number on the 

market one year ago. Also, there were 6,895 new listings processed through the Multiple List 

Service (MLS) system during 2009; 8.9% below the number processed one year ago (includes re‐ 

listed properties). There were a total of 4,041 single‐family homes sold through the MLS system 

during 2009; 11.4% higher than the total number sold in 2008 (3,626); and 12.8% lower than the 

total number of record sales in 2004 (4,632). Lastly, the overall median price of single‐family 

home sold through the MLS system during 2009 was $129,900.; 2.3% lower than 2008 

($133,000); and 3.8% below the record high in 2005 and 2006 ($135,000). Rent cost burdens vary 

based on location, unit size and type. The holistic general rent cost burden, via the LHA gross rent 

figures (not affordable rents), are as follows: 0‐1 bedroom ($429.26), 2 bedroom ($606.27) and 

3+ bedrooms ($890.60). LRA no longer conducts a yearly rental survey. 


29


o The number of vacant/abandoned buildings within the city limits is always in a state of flux. In 

2008 there were 3,160 – as of April 30 th , 2010 there are 3,721. The estimate of those units that 

are available or suitable for rehabilitation is unavailable. Additionally, without purchasing a 

private third party vendor list, the ability to know how many of those vacancies are related to 

recent macro and micro mortgage issues and policies is not possible at this time. 

o Lastly, those with disabilities and HIV/AIDS compete for the same limited number of rental units 

and ownership properties as all other low‐income residents. An additional difficulty is that a 

number of these units may not be suitable for their disability and/or have necessary service 

available. However, there are several organizations that assist with access modifications if they 

meet income guidelines. 


o See also section ‘Needs of Public Housing (91.210 (b))’ (See below) 

o The Lincoln Housing Authority’s applicants are very low‐income or below 50 percent of the area 

median income. Preference is given to the homeless or those who will be homeless pending 

release from transitional housing or treatment facility. Others are assisted based on the date of 

application. Single individuals who are not disabled or elderly are the lowest priority. The 

demand for section 8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083. LHA receives 

roughly 500 new applications each month. Likewise the ability to expand public housing is 

similar. The count of public and section 8 units are expected to remain the same. 

o There are 1,079 units currently funded through federal programs that, in some cases, also 

include state and local funds. These units provide housing for low‐ and moderate‐income 

elderly, families, and disabled/special needs households. None of the units are expected to be 

lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason. There are 655 of these units for low‐ 

and moderate‐income elderly households which includes the following projects: 

Project Name Number of 

Units 

Huntington Park 42 

L‐E‐W Housing for the Elderly 105 

Malone Manor 50 

Plaza V (Moulton) Apartments 35 

Tabitha Village 128 

Union Manor 56 

The Walter 100 

Indian Center (Eliz Stabler/Ray Phillips) 48 

Burke Plaza 91 

Total 655 


30


Projects for low‐ and moderate‐income families include 336 units as follows: 


Units 

Fairfield West 50 

Garden Apartments 23 

Glenbrook Townhomes 90 

Mercy Northglen Apartments 60 

Mercy Western Manor 81 

New 32 apartments 32 

Total 336 

Housing for low‐ and moderate‐income disabled/special needs households include the following 

88 units: 


Units 

Arc Capitol Housing 50 

League of Human Dignity ‐ scattered 18 

Overland Trail Apartments 10 

Mosaic Housing Corp XII (Martin Luther 

Homes) 

10 

Total 88 

o Locally, NIFA administers the Low‐income Housing Tax Credit Program that assists households at 

60% of median income. Two projects are currently receiving funding: Appleton Apartments with 

84 units and Creekside Village with 60 units. In addition, Creekside Village will designate 20 units 

for Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI). 


o The housing market analysis showed the need to support five key funding areas with federal 

funds: owner occupied housing units (maintenance and construction), homebuyer subsidies, 

renter‐ occupied housing units (maintenance and construction), rental subsidies, and special 

needs housing (maintenance, construction, and supportive services). 

o The Lincoln Housing Authority will continue to fund rental subsidies as well as maintain existing 

public housing for extremely‐ and very‐ low‐income households. Funding for LHA is steady, and 

hopes to remain steady for the next three years. 

o The Urban Development Department will continue to use funding for four key areas. The market 

analysis showed the need to maintain existing, and create opportunities for more, affordable 

owner‐occupancy. In general, the low single‐family vacancy rates, return to historically normal 

median prices for new construction, and concentration of affordable housing in the NRSA and 

LMI areas is evidence of the need for new construction of affordable housing while construction 

costs remain suppressed. These factors also demonstrate the need for the use of programs like 

HDLP (Housing Development Loan Program) in meeting the demand for new affordable housing 

outside of the NRSA and LMI areas. The declining number of affordable homes for sale without 

need of substantial rehabilitation is also evidence of the continuing need for programs like the 

Troubled Property Program and Urban Development Department Rehabilitation programs. 

o The Housing Market Analysis also showed that renters were increasingly being priced out of the 

homebuyer market, as housing prices were rising faster than incomes. However, with the 


31


national shift in the economy, effort should be placed into assuring that those receiving help are 

informed and responsible recipients. This highlights the need for programs like the First Home 

Program to help renters become home owners. This program combined with rehabilitation 

programs helps to make affordable homeownership attainable by some low‐income households. 

o The Urban Development Department will also continue to use the Barrier Removal Program to 

eliminate architectural barriers to affordable housing as the need for barrier‐free and modified 

units exists. 

o Not shown in the housing market analysis, but identified as housing barriers are other factors 

(i.e., increase in predatory lending, NIMBYism) that impact households and the housing market. 

Housing market factors and these barriers increase the need for strengthening partnerships and 

institutions, targeting marketing and information dissemination, increasing staff support and 

technical assistance, and evaluating and measuring outcomes. 

Specific Housing Objectives (91.215 (b)) 

1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve over a specified time 

period. 

2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably 

expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the 

strategic plan. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Specific Housing Objectives response: 


Objective 1: Preserve and Provide for Safe and Decent Affordable Housing by promoting the 

preservation and revitalization of affordable housing and rehabilitation of substandard or inadequate 

housing throughout the City with emphasis on the NRSA and the LMI area. 

o Activity 1: 

Continue the Urban Development Housing Rehabilitation Programs. 

Project 

Housing Improvement 

Loan Program (HILP) and 

Deferred Payment Loan 

(DPL) Program 

Matrix Code, National Objective 

14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential 

570.202 

Goals Per Year 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total 

38 38 38 114 

Projects 

o Activity 2: 

Continue to fund the PRIDE Program with grants to low‐income homeowners in NRSA 

neighborhoods for materials to accomplish exterior repairs. 

Project 


Pride Program 14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential 

570.202 



105 105 105 315 

o Activity 3: 

Continue to use lead‐based paint certified housing staff to inform and educate housing 

clients, non‐profit agencies, and the private sector housing industry. 


32


Project 

Lead‐Based Paint Testing 

and Mitigation 

Project 

Troubled Property 

Program 


14I Lead‐Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate 

570.202 



8 8 8 24 

o Activity 4: 

Continue to work with the Mayor’s Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative. 

o Activity 5: 

Continue to fund the Troubled Property Program administered by NeighborWorks ® Lincoln 

and support their effort to obtain neighborhood rehabilitation funds from other sources. 




12 Construction of Housing 570.201(m) 3 3 3 9 Projects 

o Activity 6: 

Support non‐profit landlords to sustain long‐term affordability for tenants under 30% of 

median income, projects with expiring Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits and fund a new 

LIHTC project using the Housing Development Loan Program. (Added by plan amendment in 

FY 2010). 

Project 

Housing Development 

Loan Program 




12 Construction of Housing 570.201(m) 0 1 0 1 Project 

o Activity 7: 

Support the effort of Paint‐a‐thon to paint houses of elderly and disabled home owners. 

Using non‐Federal funds, complete one project in this fiscal year. 

Objective 2: Assist low‐income homeowners in sustaining their home ownership status during 

emergency situations and reduce the overall instance of emergency situations. 

o Activity 1: 

Continue to fund the Rebuilding Together Project through the HEART (Helping Elderly Access 

Rebuilding Together) Program. 

Project 


HEART Program 14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential 

570.202 

Project 

Emergency Repair 

Program 

o Activity 2: 

Continue to fund the Emergency Repair Program. 


14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential 

570.202 



5 5 5 15 

Projects 



30 30 30 90 

Projects 


33


o Activity 3: 

Continue to fund the removal of physical and architectural barriers in existing housing 

through the League of Human Dignity. 

Project 


Barrier Removal 14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential 

570.202; 14B Rehab; Multi‐Unit 

Residential 570.202 



7 7 7 21 

Projects 

Objective 3: Create and Sustain Homeownership Opportunities and increase the rate of 

homeownership among households headed by persons who are racial and/or ethnic minorities. 

o Activity 1: 

Continue the First Home Program (with incentives for purchasing in the NRSA and LMI) 

administered by NeighborWorks ® Lincoln. 

Project 


First Home 13 Direct Home Ownership Assistance 

570.201(n) 

o Activity 2: 

Explore incentives for returning veterans in the First Home Program. 



51 51 51 153 

Projects 

o Activity 3: 

Continue to fund the First Time Home Buyer Training classes administered by 

NeighborWorks ® Lincoln. 

Project 




Home buyer Training 05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) 150 150 150 450 

People 

o Activity 4: 

Provide a range of technical resources, including housing program brochures and trainings, 

from Urban Development and other housing agencies in other languages in addition to 

English. 

o Activity 5: 

Leverage funds in conjunction with NeighborWorks ® Lincoln using the Troubled Property 

Program for infill housing. 

o Activity 6: 

Continue partnering with and leveraging funds for additional homebuyer programs of other 

housing or lending agencies. 

o Activity 7: 

Continue to work with the Mayor’s Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative to encourage 

and support home ownership. 


34


Project 

Affordable Housing 

Initiative 

o Activity 8: 

Continue to fund Affordable Housing Initiative and Habitat for Humanity through the 

Housing Development Loan Program to create new affordable homeownership 

opportunities by building affordable homes on infill lots or by substantially rehabilitating 

dilapidated units. 


14G Acquisition for Rehabilitation 

570.202 

Project 


Habitat for Humanity 01 Acquisition of Real Property 

570.201(a) 



1 1 1 3 Projects 



3 3 3 9 Projects 

o Activity 9: 

Continue to assist low‐income homeowners using the Housing Rehabilitation Programs to 

rehabilitate their homes in order to maintain their home ownership status. 

o Activity 10: 

Create additional affordable housing opportunities by partnering with the Nebraska 

Department of Economic Development using Nebraska Affordable Housing Trust Funds or 

federal stimulus funds. 


Continue the function of the Minority Marketing Committee to implement the Minority 

Marketing Plan. 


Continue to partner with NeighborWorks ® Lincoln to develop affordable and mixed income 

housing project as part of the community revitalization portion of the Antelope Valley 

project. 

Objective 4: Remove Barriers to Fair Housing and Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: 

o Activity 1: 

Encourage providers of affordable housing and special needs housing to work with 

neighborhood associations before and during the process of obtaining permits. 

o Activity 2: 

Improve and expand the collection and sharing of fair housing and affordable housing 

information across public and private entities, among housing industry entities, and within 

the public realm to improve understanding of fair housing laws, encourage reporting of 

violations, address existing and future housing needs, facilitate implementation of best 

practices, and reduce discrimination. 

o Activity 3: 

Monitor, evaluate, and update fair housing plans, policies, and programs to ensure that the 

City is affirmatively furthering fair housing as required by HUD. 

o Activity 4: 

Continue to participate on boards and committees of local organizations (public, private, and 

nonprofit) to share fair housing information. 

o Activity 5: 

Work with the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights to monitor compliance of Title 11 of the 

Lincoln Municipal Code with Federal Fair Housing Law. 


35


o Activity 6: 

Monitor compliance with affirmatively fair housing market requirements by subrecipients 

and borrowers. 

o Activity 7: 

Continue to implement and update the "Minority Marketing Plan" for Urban Development 

Department programs. 

Objective 5: Strengthen or establish public policies, procedures, and institutions that support and 

maintain the quality, affordability, accessibility, sustainability and availability of housing for low‐ 

income households. 

o Activity 1: 

Continue to work within the Development Services Center to improve policies and 

procedures to enhance the quality of older neighborhoods. 

o Activity 2: 

Continue to work with the Mayor’s Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative. 

o Activity 3: 

Continue to work with the Nebraska Department of Economic Development on 

strengthening our policies and procedures in creating affordable housing. 

2. The State of Nebraska Department of Economic Development will continue to have the Nebraska 

Affordable Housing Trust Fund available to the City of Lincoln. This fund will be used by the City and 

its non‐profit housing partners for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. It is 

anticipated NDED will have available $300,000 each year for the next three years. 

o The private sector lenders will continue to be the first mortgage source for the affordable 

homeownership programs with the Federal HOME funds as down payment assistance. 

o The private sector will supply approximately $6,600,000 in first mortgage funds per year over the 

next three years. 

o The federal entitlement funds in the form of CDBG, HOME and American Recovery and 

Reinvestment (ARRA) will be used in conjunction with the above mentioned resources to 

leverage and/or finance projects in the plan. 

Needs of Public Housing (91.210 (b)) 

In cooperation with the public housing agency or agencies located within its boundaries, describe the 

needs of public housing, including: 

1. The number of public housing units in the jurisdiction, 

2. The physical condition of such units, 

3. The restoration and revitalization needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction, and 

other factors, including 

4. The number of families on public housing and tenant‐based waiting lists and 

5. Results from the Section 504 needs assessment of public housing projects located within its 

boundaries (i.e. assessment of needs of tenants and applicants on waiting list for accessible units 

as required by 24 CFR 8.25). 

The public housing agency and jurisdiction can use the optional Priority Public Housing Needs Table 

(formerly Table 4) of the Consolidated Plan to identify priority public housing needs to assist in this 

process. 


36


3 Year Strategic Plan Needs of Public Housing response: 

1. Number of public housing units (05/18/2010): 320 

Number of section 8 units (05/18/2010): 2865 Section 8, 35 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing 

(VASH) and 20 Mainstream Housing Opportunities (for disabled individuals or families) 

2. Physical Condition of units: Good to Excellent 

3. Restoration and Revitalization needs: Improvements as needed. Preventative modifications were 

completed with recent stimulus funds (ARRA). 

4. Number of families on Public Housing waiting lists (05/18/2010): 900 

The Public housing waiting list is currently open and taking applications. 

Number of families on the Section 8 waiting list (05/18/2010): 4,083 

The section 8 waiting list is currently open. 

A wait list does exist and is modified monthly. 

5. LHA has 16 public housing units and 28 other managed units that are 504 compliant. 

Public Housing Strategy (91.210) 

1. Describe the public housing agency's strategy to serve the needs of extremely low‐income, low‐ 

income, and moderate‐income families residing in the jurisdiction served by the public housing 

agency (including families on the public housing and section 8 tenant‐based waiting list), the public 

housing agency’s strategy for addressing the revitalization and restoration needs of public housing 

projects within the jurisdiction and improving the management and operation of such public housing, 

and the public housing agency’s strategy for improving the living environment of extremely low‐ 

income, low‐income, and moderate families residing in public housing. 

2. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the needs of public 

housing and activities it will undertake to encourage public housing residents to become more 

involved in management and participate in homeownership. (NAHA Sec. 105 (b)(11) and (91.215 (k)) 

3. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly, 

the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance in 

improving its operations to remove such designation. (NAHA Sec. 105 (g)) 

3 Year Strategic Plan Public Housing Strategy response: 


LHA is finding it extremely difficult to serve the needs of Lincoln’s extremely low‐income, low‐income, 

and moderate‐income families. Limited federal funding has resulted in no new Section 8 vouchers 

available to serve Lincoln’s lower‐income population. This particular population is growing as 

Lincoln’s general population base continues to grow. The average cost per unit of subsidy for each 

Section 8 voucher has continued to rise from $353 per unit in April 2004 to $365 per unit in March 

2010. The increased cost is due primarily to serving more, larger families than elderly/small families 

and a decline in the income of households assisted. When combined with the federal funding 

limitations, the number of families LHA will be able to assist will remain almost the same number. The 

demand for section 8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083. LHA receives roughly 

500 new applications each month. Likewise the ability to expand public housing is similar. The count 

of public and section 8 units are expected to remain the same. 

The Lincoln Housing Authority continues to efficiently operate/provide a supply that is determined 

within their annual Moving to Work (MTK) program. (Note: Lincoln’s Housing Authority continues to 

be involved in HUD’s Moving to Work (MTW) program). Furthermore, the Lincoln Housing Authority 


37


continues to make needed improvements on a priority basis. Its current public housing stock is in 

good to excellent condition with a very low vacancy rate. 

Specific Objectives and Activities are: 

Objective I: Increase the number of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing 

participants working or making progress towards educational goals, work experience, and self 

sufficiency. 

o Activities: 

Provide incentives for able‐bodied participants to work or seek self‐sufficiency 

through job training or education. Also provide disincentives to able‐bodied 

participants who choose not to work, seek job training, or further education 

Form community and state partnerships to provide needed programs and 

services that encourage participation in recognized self‐sufficiency programs. 

Objective 2: Reduce administrative costs and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal 

housing assistance expenditures while ensuring the continued integrity of the program. 

o Activities: 

Simplify the operation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and 

the Public Housing program with the purpose of reducing calculation errors, 

staff review time, and program administrative costs. 

Work with landlords, housing participants, and human service organizations to 

identify areas of needed change in the operation of the Section 8 Housing 

Choice Voucher program and the Public Housing program. 

Objective 3: Expand the spatial dispersal of assisted rental units and increase housing choices for 

voucher holders. 

o Activities: 

Provide incentives to seek housing opportunities outside areas of low‐income 

concentration. 

Create affordable housing opportunities in growth areas of the community. 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 

ONGOING MOVING TO WORK (MTW) INITIATIVES: The Lincoln Housing Authority will continue 

to implement the following HUD‐approved initiatives: 

o Rent Reform Initiatives 

o Reduce annual and interim reexaminations 

o Implement minimum rent policies and 27% TTP requirements 

o Calculate annual income using Minimum Earned Income (MEI) 

o Cap rent burden at 50% (voucher only) 

o Implement average utility allowances bedroom size (voucher only) 

o Implement biennial reexaminations for elderly & disabled households 

Other Initiatives: 

o Restrict portability (voucher only) as a result of work requirements 

o Implement voucher inspection waiver for properties meeting HQS at initial 

inspection 


38



The Lincoln Housing Authority has participated in the HUD Moving To Work Demonstration program 

since 1999. Lincoln’s Moving To Work program has concentrated its efforts in the following long‐term 

operational vision for the MTW program. 

o Retain program flexibility to meet the many changes encountered in program funding, local 

housing market conditions, and the needs of the families and individuals participating in 

Lincoln’s Moving To Work program. 

o Continue to seek ways to simplify and streamline the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 

program and Public Housing programs while protecting the integrity of the program and 

accepting accountability for administrative requirements. The Section 8 Housing Choice 

Voucher program is needlessly complicated for participants, landlords, and implementing 

staff. The complexity of the system results in several areas where errors occur with 

substantial frequency. Tenants are confused about deductions allowed and disallowed and 

how their portion of rent is determined. Landlords are frustrated by the amount of 

paperwork and complex rules and regulations that the landlord must follow to be paid. The 

complexity is limiting needed landlord participation. Lack of housing choices results when 

landlords refuse to participate. 

o Continue to promote opportunities for tenant self‐sufficiency either through education or 

meaningful work experience. The need for lower‐income participants to complete their 

education and expand their work experiences will provide a solid base for continued success 

in their personal and family development. 

o Continue the various community partnerships required to enhance participant opportunities 

in expanding family support services such as social services, education, transportation, and 

health care programs. 

3. Not applicable to Lincoln. 

Barriers to Affordable Housing (91.210 (e) and 91.215 (f)) 

1. Explain whether the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve affordable 

housing are affected by public policies, particularly those of the local jurisdiction. Such policies 

include tax policy affecting land and other property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building 

codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment. 

2. Describe the strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers 

to affordable housing, except that, if a State requires a unit of general local government to submit a 

regulatory barrier assessment that is substantially equivalent to the information required under this 

part, as determined by HUD, the unit of general local government may submit that assessment to 

HUD and it shall be considered to have complied with this requirement. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing response: 


o Zoning, subdivision regulations, and building codes can hamper the development of new 

affordable housing, rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, and creation of housing for 

special populations. New affordable housing development could be hindered by requiring large 

minimum lot sizes in newly developing areas of Lincoln. However, Planned Unit Developments 

and other more flexible regulations permitted by the City may allow affordable housing 


39


developers to include affordable housing in their plans. 

o The rehabilitation of existing structures for affordable housing can also be hindered by existing 

building codes. The City does not have a rehabilitation sub‐code, which would allow for more 

flexibility in the rehabilitation of existing structures. Those who wish to rehabilitate the upper 

floors of commercial buildings, deconvert converted single‐family homes, and reuse industrial or 

other building types may find the cost of meeting codes for new structures cost prohibitive. 

o Property taxes may discourage the rehabilitation of existing housing and maintenance of 

housing. Property assessments that occur as a result of rehabilitation increases annual owner 

costs. 

o Local incentives to develop and preserve affordable housing are mostly limited to financial 

incentives provided through federal sources (directly or indirectly through the state and local 

government, private, and non‐profit entities). The City does not provide local tax breaks for 

affordable housing (i.e., tax abatement). The money the City does contribute toward affordable 

housing is federal (i.e. CDBG and HOME) and insufficient in addressing existing needs. 

o The City also does not require developers to construct or preserve affordable housing (i.e. set‐ 

asides) as part of their plans. For example, tearing down low‐income housing to build higher 

income housing in older areas can displace households and reduce their affordable housing 

options. The lack of both a carrot and stick approach to developing and preserving affordable 

housing could contribute to the existing supply problem. 

o Service providers, both public and private, find that federal regulations and programs are difficult 

to work with at times. Strict federal program requirements addressing specific local needs can 

be difficult. Lead‐based paint abatement requirements are an unfunded mandate that adds to 

the cost of rehabilitation projects; and, therefore, makes some projects unfeasible. 

Environmental regulations can also add to the cost of developing affordable housing. 

o Loan officers, REALTORS ® , and others that assist clients in the home buying process have 

expressed concern with being able to keep current with local and federal program changes. In 

their view these changes are not communicated with regularity and, at times, are not clear. 

Additionally, those in the private sector that do not frequently work with federal or local 

programs feel that they have difficulty keeping informed. 

o Because of the current financial and mortgage crisis, more families are in need of affordable 

housing. Both homeowners and renters are encountering lenders who are making it more 

difficult for new home buyers, and waiting lists for rental assistance are longer. 


o The City offers an impact fee exemption to low income, owner‐occupied home buyers. This 

popular and successful program has been in existence for six years. The funding source is the 

City’s General Fund. The purpose of the incentive is to provide home buyers with additional 

funds for down payment or payment of fees associated with originating their mortgage. 

o In the Strategic Plan FY 2005‐2009, one strategy identified to remove the barriers to affordable 

housing specified that the City would work with developers on ways to reduce the length of the 

development process. In March 2010, the City opened the Development Services Center (DSC). 

The DSC is a centralized location with the capacity to meet efficiently all the development 

services needs for builders, developers and property owners. This centrally located function 

includes staff from five departments including Urban Development. 

o The Urban Development Department and NeighborWorks®Lincoln have established programs to 

help finance the rehabilitation of owner‐occupied units in the NRSA and LMI areas that help to 

remove or ameliorate the negative effects that some public policies may have on affordable 

housing. 


40


HOMELESS 

Homeless Needs (91.205 (b) and 91.215 (c)) 

*Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook 

Homeless Needs— The jurisdiction must provide a concise summary of the nature and extent of 

homelessness in the jurisdiction, (including rural homelessness and chronic homelessness where 

applicable), addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless persons and homeless 

families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations, in accordance with 

Table 1A. The summary must include the characteristics and needs of low‐income individuals and 

children, (especially extremely low‐income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either 

residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered. In addition, to the extent information is available, the plan 

must include a description of the nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group. A 

quantitative analysis is not required. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at‐risk population(s), it 

should also include a description of the operational definition of the at‐risk group and the methodology 

used to generate the estimates. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Homeless Needs response: 

Summary of the nature and extent of homelessness in Lincoln 

Lincoln’s Continuum of Care (CoC) relies on several data collection efforts that form the basis for all 

planning, evaluation, and program development for homeless services. Key planning or data collection 

efforts include the annual Point‐in‐Time (PIT) count, the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), and 

Lincoln’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Program (HPRP) Plan. 

o All homeless service goals, objectives, strategies, and analysis of need are ultimately developed 

and reported as part of Lincoln’s yearly CoC application, specifically referred to as Lincoln’s 2009 

CoC application. 

o Lincoln’s (PIT) homeless count was conducted between January 22 nd and January 31 st of 2009. 

The results indicate there were 973 homeless persons; 521 were in families with children, 452 

were individual adults, and 62 were chronically homeless. 

o Although the State Department of Health and Human Services considers Lincoln’s PIT process as 

a model for PIT counts in Nebraska, the PIT does have limitations. PIT counts likely under report 

some aspects of homelessness that are difficult to quantify. 

o Lincoln’s CoC participated in HUD’s 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to 

Congress. Data from this report is based primarily on Homeless Management Information 

Systems (HMIS) data about homeless persons who used emergency shelter or transitional 

housing programs during the 12 month period between October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009. 

Theoretically, this year long data tracking process addresses some of the weaknesses of the 

“one‐time” PIT counts. 

o All AHAR data is based on unduplicated counts, such that each person is counted only once 

regardless of how many different programs the person used. 

o To provide further depth to the evaluation of the nature of homelessness in Lincoln, AHAR data is 

included to aid in the identification of needs, priorities, and goals. 

o Lincoln’s 2009 AHAR estimated that between 10/1/2008 – 9/30/2009, there were a total of 3,237 

individuals who experienced homelessness in Lincoln. 

o Based on the PIT and the AHAR, there are roughly 973 homeless individuals any given night in 

Lincoln, with approximately 3,237 individuals experiencing homeless over the course of a year. 

These numbers are significantly higher than reported in previous years, and likely a reflection of 

the current economic downturn. 


41


Description of the nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group 

The AHAR, which to reiterate, reflects unduplicated data over the course of a year, reveals the following 

demographic characteristics of sheltered homeless persons: 

Gender 

Demographic Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Persons 

Reporting Year: 10/1/2008 – 9/30/2009 

Persons in / 

Families in 

Emergency 

Shelters 

Individuals in 

Emergency 

Shelters 

Individuals 

Transitional 

Housing 

Female 84% 21% 63% 

Male 16% 79% 37% 

Ethnicity 

Non Hispanic / Non Latino 90% 88% 92% 

Hispanic / Latino 10% 12% 12% 

Race 

White 29% 53% 70% 

African American 40% 21% 8% 

Asian 0% 1% 0% 

American Indian Or Alaska native 4% 4% 3% 

Native Hawaiian Or other Pacific Islander 1% 0% 0% 

Several Races 19% 12% 13% 

Unknown 5% 5% 3% 

Age 

Under 1 6% 1% 2% 

1 to 5 26% 4% 1% 

6 to 12 25% 3% 0% 

13 to 17 8% 1% 12% 

18‐30 19% 26% 33% 

31 to 50 15% 47% 44% 

51 and up 1% 18% 8% 

Need for facilities and services 

Lincoln’s CoC used data from the PIT, the AHAR, waiting list information, and other data to identify the 

following gaps in service or unmet needs, as identified in the 2009 CoC Housing Inventory Chart (HIC). 

(See the Lincoln 2009 HIC Chart in Lincoln’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, available at 

www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless). On‐going planning efforts and data review are a regular 

feature of monthly CoC subcommittee meetings, including the CoC Executive Committee, the Supportive 

Housing Committee, and the Data and Planning Committee. Consideration of the data presented here 

ultimately drives the process for identifying needs and priorities. 


42


Unmet Need 

Total Additional Beds Needed to Meet Demand 

Beds for 

Households w/ 

Children 

Units for 

Households w/ 

Children 

Beds for 

Individuals 

Total Beds 

Needed 

Emergency Shelter 35 14 134 169 

Transitional Housing 34 14 215 249 

Permanent Supportive Housing 62 25 375 437 

The HPRP Plan for Lincoln, Nebraska identifies additional needs regarding homeless prevention efforts, 

specifically regarding rent and utility assistance. Please refer to “Section II. Data Collection and Analysis,” 

for additional information (available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless). 

Priority Homeless Needs 

1. Using the results of the Continuum of Care planning process, identify the jurisdiction's homeless and 

homeless prevention priorities specified in Table 1A, the Homeless and Special Needs Populations 

Chart. The description of the jurisdiction's choice of priority needs and allocation priorities must be 

based on reliable data meeting HUD standards and should reflect the required consultation with 

homeless assistance providers, homeless persons, and other concerned citizens regarding the needs 

of homeless families with children and individuals. The jurisdiction must provide an analysis of how 

the needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of 

each priority homeless need category. A separate brief narrative should be directed to addressing 

gaps in services and housing for the sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless. 

2. A community should give a high priority to chronically homeless persons, where the jurisdiction 

identifies sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless persons in its Homeless Needs Table ‐ 

Homeless Populations and Subpopulations. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Priority Homeless Needs response: 

Goal 1: Homeless Prevention. 

Implement Lincoln’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Program (HPRP) Plan. 

Goal 2: Emergency Shelter Housing & Supportive Services. Sustain the availability of emergency housing 

and maintain support services for homeless individuals and families. 

Goal 3: Transitional Housing & Supportive Services. 

Sustain the availability of transitional housing and maintain support services for homeless individuals and 

families. 

Goal 4: Permanent Supportive Housing 

Sustain the availability of permanent supportive housing and support efforts by Lincoln’s CoC to attain 

new funding for permanent supportive housing and services for the chronically homeless. 

Goal 5: Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). 

Sustain the availability, growth, and management of Lincoln’s HMIS to aid in the development of quality 

data collection and encouraging collaboration and data sharing across the CoC. 


43


Goal 6: Addressing chronic homelessness 

Continue to implement the State of Nebraska 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness 

Homeless Inventory (91.210 (c)) 

The jurisdiction shall provide a concise summary of the existing facilities and services (including a brief 

inventory) that assist homeless persons and families with children and subpopulations identified in Table 

1A. These include outreach and assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, 

permanent supportive housing, access to permanent housing, and activities to prevent low‐income 

individuals and families with children (especially extremely low‐income) from becoming homeless. The 

jurisdiction can use the optional Continuum of Care Housing Activity Chart and Service Activity Chart to 

meet this requirement. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Homeless Inventory response: 

o Please see Lincoln’s 2009 HIC in Lincoln’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, available at 

www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless . 

Homeless Strategic Plan (91.215 (c)) 

1. Homelessness— Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for developing a system to address homelessness 

and the priority needs of homeless persons and families (including the subpopulations identified in 

the needs section). The jurisdiction's strategy must consider the housing and supportive services 

needed in each stage of the process which includes preventing homelessness, outreach/assessment, 

emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, and helping homeless persons (especially any 

persons that are chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent housing and independent 

living. The jurisdiction must also describe its strategy for helping extremely low‐ and low‐income 

individuals and families who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. 

2. Chronic homelessness—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy for eliminating chronic homelessness by 

2012. This should include the strategy for helping homeless persons make the transition to 

permanent housing and independent living. This strategy should, to the maximum extent feasible, be 

coordinated with the strategy presented Exhibit 1 of the Continuum of Care (CoC) application and any 

other strategy or plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. Also describe, in a narrative, relationships 

and efforts to coordinate the Conplan, CoC, and any other strategy or plan to address chronic 

homelessness. 

3. Homelessness Prevention—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy to help prevent homelessness for 

individuals and families with children who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. 

4. Institutional Structure—Briefly describe the institutional structure, including private industry, non‐ 

profit organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction will carry out its 

homelessness strategy. 

5. Discharge Coordination Policy—Every jurisdiction receiving McKinney‐Vento Homeless Assistance Act 

Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, or Section 8 SRO Program 

funds must develop and implement a Discharge Coordination Policy, to the maximum extent 

practicable. Such a policy should include “policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from 

publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other 

youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from 


44


immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons.” The jurisdiction should describe its planned 

activities to implement a cohesive, community‐wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how the 

community will move toward such a policy. 

3‐5 Year Homeless Strategic Plan response: 

1. Homelessness— To allow for a coordinated and comprehensive planning process for developing a 

system to address homelessness in Lincoln, the CoC gathers information from a number of 

collaborative sources and partners with a variety of community coalitions and groups. It is important 

to note that homeless persons contribute insight and opinions to the Homeless CoC, as meetings 

routinely feature input and information from homeless individuals. In general, the data and goals 

presented here represent a link between the Consolidated Plan and Lincoln’s annual CoC Application, 

in an effort to reduce duplication. 

Strategies for meeting homeless needs are structured by considering housing and supportive services 

needed along a “continuum” of homelessness – from outreach efforts to those living on the streets at 

one end of the spectrum, through emergency shelter, then transitional housing, and ultimately to 

permanent housing and independent living at the other end. 

Lincoln’s overall strategy or vision to combat homelessness is to develop and sustain a coordinated, 

comprehensive, community‐based system that can respond to various needs of homeless and near 

homeless individuals and families and to move them to safe, decent, affordable, permanent housing 

and self‐sufficiency. Lincoln’s vision strives for the full development of quality services in each 

component of the Continuum of Care. Components for combating homeless are listed below. 

o Quality data collection 

o Outreach to homeless populations 

o Flexible and collaborative homeless prevention programs 

o Adequate emergency shelter facilities 

o Effective transitional housing services 

o Competent supportive services and case management 

o Sustainable permanent housing with supportive services 

A strong homeless prevention component is key to Lincoln’s vision of combating homelessness, since 

it is far easier and more cost efficient to assist people before they become homeless. Towards this 

end, implementation of Lincoln’s HPRP Plan represents the first time that Lincoln has had the 

resources to develop a collaborative community‐wide program aimed specifically at prevention. 

2. Chronic homelessness ‐ Lincoln’s CoC does not have a local 10 Year Plan to End Chronic 

Homelessness, but has formally adopted and implemented the state plan, i.e., Nebraska’s Action Plan 

for Increasing Access to Mainstream Resources for People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. The 

central goals to combating chronic homelessness include: 1) Maintaining a community wide 

infrastructure to lead in planning and to increase access to mainstream resources for persons 

experiencing chronic homelessness; 2) Create additional appropriate Supportive Housing Choices; 3) 

Increase access to mainstream services and resources; 4) Increase strategies addressing prevention 

and discharge planning; 5) Ensure culturally competent services; and 6) Data collection and 

evaluation. 

In addition, further details on Lincoln’s chronic homeless population and individual strategies and 

action steps are reported in Lincoln’s 2009 CoC Application. 


45


3. Homelessness Prevention ‐ The development of Lincoln’s only coordinated effort to develop 

comprehensive and community wide programming for Homeless Prevention is a result of American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding via the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing 

Program (HPRP). 

The HPRP program is administered by Region V Systems, and provides a systematic and city‐wide 

approach that involves all of Lincoln’s rental and utility assistance providers. The primary HPRP 

strategies include outreach, financial assistance, housing relocation and stabilization services, case 

management, data collection and evaluation, and coordination with other ARRA programs. For more 

detail on Lincoln’s homeless prevention strategies and goals for individuals and families with children 

who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless, please refer to the HPRP Plan for Lincoln, Nebraska 

available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless. 

Urban Development also provides funding to the Lincoln Housing Authority for the Security Deposit 

Assistance Program. This HOME funded program provides financial assistance to homeless or near‐ 

homeless families for rental security deposits. 

Project 

Security Deposit 

Assistance Program 

Matrix Code 


FY 10 Year 2 Year 3 Total 

05T Security Deposits 45 45 45 135 

Households 

4. Institutional Structure ‐ The City of Lincoln’s Urban Development Department serves as the liaison 

between the City and Lincoln’s CoC. The CoC is comprised of more than two dozen homeless service 

providers, as well as representatives from local businesses, the Lincoln City Council, the Lincoln Police 

Department, the State Health and Human Services Department, and the faith‐based community. 

The CoC is led by an executive committee comprised of a chair, co‐chair, immediate past chair, 

recorder, and a representative of the Urban Development Department staff. The executive 

committee is nominated and elected by CoC members on an annual basis. As part of the executive 

committee, Urban Development staff work with the CoC to set the monthly agenda and assist in 

facilitating meetings. Participation by Urban Development assures integration of the Homeless CoC 

into the City’s Consolidated Plan. 

The CoC and several key CoC subcommittees meet monthly to assess the adequacy of current 

services in the continuum, coordinate community‐wide efforts to serve special needs populations, 

identify service gaps, prioritize needs, and create strategies to leverage resources in the community. 

The CoC recognizes the importance of being pro‐active in educating and informing Lincoln about its 

homeless population situation and being future‐oriented in planning efforts. In addition, the 

Homeless CoC provides technical assistance to provider agencies to develop project proposals for the 

consolidated application process and ranks these proposals based upon community gaps and needs. 

In addition, the local CoC collaborates with the State CoC, and the Nebraska Management 

Information System to coordinate efforts regionally and state wide. 

Please Refer to Lincoln’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, Sections 1A – 1D for more details on the 

structure of Lincoln’s CoC, available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless). 

5. Discharge Coordination Policy ‐ Discharge coordination policy and planning is a key component of 

Nebraska’s Action Plan for Increasing Access to Mainstream Services for People Experiencing Chronic 

Homelessness. The plan is built on four primary strategies, including efforts to foster coordination 

between corrections and the State Department of Health & Human Services, particularly for those 

individuals discharging from corrections with behavioral health issues or HIV/AIDS; researching the 


46


issue of individuals who cycle through Lancaster County jail terms; identifying and examining data on 

youth who age out or discharged from state custody, i.e., foster care; and lastly, identifying the scope 

of the difficulties and issues of individuals discharging from hospitals, including the limits and legal 

responsibilities of hospitals and psychiatric facilities, with an eye towards the development of 

comprehensive housing planning and additional support service coordination. 

Please Refer to Lincoln’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, Section 3B. “CoC Discharge Planning” for 

more details available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless. 

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) 

(States only) Describe the process for awarding grants to State recipients, and a description of how the 

allocation will be made available to units of local government. 

3 Year Strategic Plan ESG response: 

The City of Lincoln does not receive Emergency Shelter Grants. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

Community Development (91.215 (e)) 

*Please also refer to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook 

1. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non‐housing community development needs eligible for assistance 

by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community Development Needs Table (formerly Table 

2B), i.e., public facilities, public improvements, public services and economic development. 



4. Identify specific long‐term and short‐term community development objectives (including economic 

development activities that create jobs), developed in accordance with the statutory goals described 

in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and 

a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low‐ and 

moderate‐income persons. 

NOTE: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number and contain proposed 

accomplishments, the time period (i.e., one, two, three, or more years), and annual program year numeric goals the 

jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Community Development response: 

Please see the Community Dev Table in the “Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder. 

1. The City of Lincoln non‐housing priority needs are listed below. 


47


Public Facilities and Improvements 

Community Development Need Priority 

Parks and/or Recreation Facilities High 

Tree Planting High 

Flood Drainage Improvements High 

Street Improvements High 

Sidewalks High 

Other High 

Public Services 


Transportation Services High 

Employment/Training services High 

Neighborhood Clean‐ups High 

Other Services High 

Economic Development 


CI Land Acquisition/Disposition Low 

CI Infrastructure Development Low 

CI Building Acquisition, Construction, rehabilitation Low 

Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements Low 

ED Assistance to For‐Profit Low 

ED Technical Assistance Low 

Micro‐enterprise Assistance Low 

2. Needs were prioritized based on the following criteria: 



o Its impact on a large number of low‐ and moderate‐income households. 



City and federal priority areas and needs identified through the public involvement process are discussed 

below. 

City Priorities: 

A. Energy and Sustainability: 

The Mayor’s Energy and Sustainability Policy, currently being developed, addresses key priority 

areas for the City of Lincoln, including: 

o Energy production – solar, wind 

o Food production – urban agriculture, greenhouses, farmers markets, community 

gardens/orchards 

o Water conservation – tree preservation and planting, rain barrels, rain gardens 

o Reduction of green house gases – reduce reliance on the automobile through mixed‐use 

development; carbon‐neutral developments: avoid deforestation or require more tree 

planting 


48


o Climate change – green roofs to offset CO2 emissions and help cool off the city 

o Health – walkable, bikeable communities; stress relief – recreation and access to open 

spaces and open lands 

o Safety – pedestrian safety 

o Other issues: waste recycling, air quality, housing choices, transportation, habitat 

protection and wildlife mitigation 

As this policy is further developed, it is anticipated it will be incorporated into existing city 

regulations, guide how growth and development occurs in the city, and improves existing 

neighborhoods. 

B. Antelope Valley Redevelopment Plan 

The Antelope Valley Project is a partnership between the City of Lincoln, University of Nebraska‐ 

Lincoln (UNL), and the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (LPSNRD). Its purpose is to 

address flooding, transportation and community revitalization in the core of the city. The 

project has been on‐going since 1998 with the stormwater and transportation construction 

projects nearly complete. The showcase of Antelope Valley is Union Plaza, a three‐block park in 

the Malone Neighborhood, being referred to as “Lincoln’s Central Park.” A Redevelopment Plan 

for community development was completed and adopted by the Lincoln City Council in 

November 2004 that identifies projects for revitalizing the core Antelope Valley neighborhoods. 

Strategies referred to as “closer to home” are identified in the plan that includes alley paving or 

rocking; sidewalk improvements; tree trimming, planting and removal; street improvements; 

park improvements/expansion; clean up of trash and weeds; street and alley light improvements; 

fences and screening programs; street calming and abatement of cut‐through traffic; dilapidated 

housing; affordable housing; high density issues; porch building program; neighborhood based 

retail; trails; convenient public transportation; and vacant buildings and lots. 

C. Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative 

On March 13, 2008 Mayor Beutler launched the Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, a 

partnership between government, non‐profits, schools, neighborhoods, churches, and the 

business and development community. The program is designed to improve neighborhoods and 

revitalize problem areas. The focus is currently on an area referred to as South Capitol, and 

includes parts of the Near South and Everett Neighborhoods. A redevelopment plan is in the 

process of being developed for South Capitol and implementation of previously completed Focus 

Area Plans for both neighborhoods will continue. The Focus Area plans identify strategies for 

improving the are area, including many of the same “closer to home” strategies described in the 

Antelope Valley section, above. 

D. City Budget Process 

Through an extensive public involvement process titled Taking Charge, the Mayor has developed 

three tiers of budgetary priorities for City involvement. For the Urban Development Department, 

redevelopment, downtown and neighborhood focus areas; first time homebuyer loans and 

affordable housing rehab programs are ranked in Tier 1, the highest priority. Business 

improvement districts, Workforce investment act (WIA) programs and public parking as Tier 2, 

and the Regional Innovation Grant (RIG), economic development, and non‐profit public facility 

loans as Tier 3, the lowest priority. 


49


Federal Priorities: 

A. Sustainability 

HUD is also placing new emphasis on sustainability, notably through creation of the Office of 

Sustainable Housing and Communities whose mission is “to create strong, sustainable 

communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation, and helping to build a 

clean energy economy” (HUD web site, Sustainable Housing and Communities). In addition, 

HUD along with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) have joined together in creating the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable 

Communities. The Partnership has identified six “livability principles” to coordinate policy (from 

DOT 80‐09 Press release) : 

o Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable and economical 

transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s 

dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 

promote public health. 

o Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location‐ and energy‐efficient housing 

choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and 

lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. 

o Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through 

reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services 

and other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business access to markets. 

o Support existing communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities – 

through such strategies as transit‐oriented, mixed‐use development and land recycling – 

to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency of public works 

investments, and safeguard rural landscapes. 

o Coordinate policies and leverage investment. Align federal policies and funding to 

remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and 

effectiveness of al levels of government to plan for future growth, including making 

smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy. 

o Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all 

communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods – rural, urban or 

suburban. 

B. Fair Housing 

Although not new, HUD appears to be placing renewed efforts into Fair Housing. HUD, “…is 

committed to eliminating racial and ethnic segregation, illegal physical and other barriers to 

persons with disabilities and other discriminatory practices in housing. Additionally, the 

Department will use all of its programmatic and enforcement tools to achieve this goal. The 

fundamental goal of HUD’s fair housing policy is to make housing choice a reality through Fair 

Housing Planning (FHP)” (Fair Housing Planning Guide, p. 1‐1). 

C. Veterans Assistance 

Assisting veterans and their families was urged by HUD as an important matter to consider in the 

planning process. A letter dated April 9, 2010 to Mayor Beutler from Mercedes Marquez, 

Assistant Secretary, states, “Our fellow Americans have served our nation on the battlefields of 

Iraq and Afghanistan and countless other places around the globe. Many veterans are returning 

to our communities with wounds and injuries that may make it difficult for them to find housing 

or support themselves and/or their families. I ask that you consider their sacrifice and ensure 


50


that these men and women receive every appropriate consideration in the use of these funds at 

the local level.” 

Needs Identified Through the Public Participation Process: 

A. Community Survey Results 

The Urban Development Department Community Needs survey identified that by far the greatest 

need in Lincoln is affordable housing, for both homeowners and renters. All groups responding 

(housing sector, social services, neighborhoods) indicated affordable housing as the greatest 

need. The need for good paying jobs was also cited repeatedly by all groups as a high priority. 

Other issues identified most often included: 

o Learning to spend and save wisely 

o Medical costs and access 

o Mental health, behavioral health and substance abuse assistance 

o Transportation issues 

o Special needs housing – the need for more and for more services 

o Housing discrimination as a barrier to fair housing 

o Immigrant needs and discrimination 

o Need for tenant education 

o Cleaning up the core of the City of Lincoln, Nebraska 

o Homelessness and the need for emergency and transitional housing 

Priorities from other surveys included energy, parks and recreation facilities, water conservation 

polices, preserving natural resources, and local food production. In general, residents in older 

areas of the city are more dissatisfied with blighting conditions in their neighborhoods, housing 

affordability and general safety. 

Survey data from the Center for People in Need identified areas in which families are struggling 

including housing, food, and employment. 

B. Community Services Initiative (CSI) 

Hunger is CSI’s current priority and is completing A Food and Hunger Report. The Report is 

intended to provide information and recommendations for planning efforts related to increasing 

food security for low‐income people. The draft report states, “Food security for families should 

be Lincoln’s goal – hunger, missing meals, and inability to provide nutritious meals for a family is 

the symptom that indicates the community has not achieved the food security goal” (p. 1). 

Based on priority needs and local and federal priorities, for non‐housing, emphasis is given to the 

following areas: 

o Sustainability – including urban agriculture (community gardens and orchards), 

promoting green space and healthy activities, and rain gardens. 

o Food security – due to the rising problem of low‐income families not having enough 

food. 

o Increasing neighborhood livability – through physical improvements to neighborhoods 

o Fair housing – removing barriers to fair housing , affirmatively furthering fair housing, 

and completing and implementing the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. 

o Transportation – improving availability for low income people. 

o Jobs – training for low‐income people 


51


2. Obstacles to meeting underserved needs are: 








o Jobs: 



o Lack of financial support to meet individual, community, and agencies needs at all levels and 

from both public and private resources. 

3. Long‐ and short‐term objectives: 

The long‐term non‐housing community development goal is to provide opportunities and services for 

low‐ and moderate‐income people, increase job opportunities, enhance the quality of life, and 

provide a suitable living environment including quality neighborhoods. 

Short‐term objectives to help meet the long‐term goal were developed based on priority needs and 

projects developed to meet those needs. Objectives and activities are listed below. Also see the 

Community Dev Table in the “Strategic Plan Additional Files” folder. 

Public Facilities and Improvements Objectives 

Objective 1: Further the City’s priorities of Antelope Valley and Stronger Safer Neighborhoods. 

This objective addresses the priority area of Increasing Neighborhood Livability. 

o Activity 1: 

Complete public improvements in the Malone neighborhood and South Capitol area 

(Near South and Everett neighborhoods) that implement projects identified in Focus 

Area Plans, “closer to home” strategies identified in the Antelope Valley and South 

Capitol Redevelopment Plans, and from Free to Grow. Projects include curbs, alleys, 

gutters, lighting and streetscape projects, sidewalk improvements, and tree planting. 

Project 




Gravel Alleys 03K Street Improvements 570.201(c) 10 10 10 30 Alleys 

Streetscape Projects 03L Sidewalks 570.210(c) 2 Continue Continue 2 Projects 

Year 1 Year 1 

Sidewalk Improvements 03L Sidewalks 570.201(c) 1 1 1 3 Projects 

Tree Planting 03N Tree Planting 570.201(c) 2 2 2 6 Projects 

o Activity 2: 

Support and utilize the Free to Grow Program in the Malone Neighborhood and South 

Capitol Area. Free to Grow is a neighborhood revitalization program with partners from 

the private, non‐profit and public sectors working together to help develop solutions to 

problems that contribute to crime, an unhealthy environment, and substandard 

housing. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than Community 

Development Division staff time. 


52


Objective 2: Implement sustainability projects consistent with the Mayor’s Energy and 

Sustainability Policy, and federal emphasis on sustainability. This objective addresses the priority 

area of Sustainability. 

Project 

Park Improvements in 

LMI Neighborhoods 

o Activity 1: 

Complete park improvement projects in LMI neighborhoods. Recreation and access to 

open spaces and open lands is an element of sustainable communities by promoting 

green space and healthy activities. 


03F Parks, Recreational Facilities 

570.210(c) 



1 1 1 3 Parks 

o Activity 2: 

Design and install rain gardens in LMI parks, other property owned by the public, and by 

non‐profit organizations. A growing awareness of the pollutants in rainwater has led to 

the use of rain gardens – depressions planted with native or adapted plants that help 

absorb excess water and filter out excess nutrients before entering the groundwater 

system. This activity complements the City of Lincoln, Watershed Management Division 

of Public Works and Utilities Department’s rain garden grant program for private 

property owners. 

Project 


Construct Rain Gardens 03I Flood Drain Improvements 

570.210(c) 



10 10 10 30 

Projects 

Objective 3: Improve the livability of core neighborhoods by improving general neighborhood 

conditions. This objective addresses the priority area of Increasing Neighborhood Livability. 

o Activity 1: 

Provide non‐federal funding for LMI neighborhood self‐help grants for clean‐up and 

improvement projects. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than 

Community Development Division staff time. 

o Activity 2: 

Continue to fund the Tree Management and the Demolition of Secondary Structures 

Programs. The Tree Management Program provides grants to low‐income property 

owners for removal of dead and potentially dangerous branches or removal of dead or 

dangerous trees. The Demolition of Secondary Structures Program provides grants to 

low‐income people for the removal of substandard and dangerous buildings. 

Project 




Tree Management 06 Interim Assistance 570.210(f) 6 6 6 18 Trees 

Demolition of Secondary 04 Clearance and Demolition 570.201(d) 1 1 1 3 

Structures 

Structures 

Public Services Objectives 

Objective 1: Increase food security for low‐income people and families. This objective addresses 

the priority areas of Sustainability and Food Security. 


53


Project 

Construct Community 

Gardens and Orchards 

o Activity 1: 

Support Community CROPS in the installation and operation of community gardens and 

orchards in LMI parks, other property owned by the public, and by non‐profit 

organizations. The lack of food and accompanying issue of hunger is a priority need in 

Lincoln. In addition to providing food for low‐income people, community gardens and 

orchards further sustainability by promoting urban agriculture, reducing transportation 

costs for food, and encourages healthy and ecologically sound food production. 


03 Public Facilities and Improvements 

(General) 570.201(c) 



60 60 60 180 

People 

o Activity 2: 

Provide scholarships to low‐income people to rent garden space in community gardens. 

Project 




Provide Scholarships 05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) 100 100 100 300 

People 

This activity deleted by plan amendment in FY 10. Community CROPS did not have 

enough staff to complete the immigration status verification required by law for all 

applicants. Funds moved to Activity 3, below. 

Project 

Operations Support for 

Community CROPS 

o Activity 3: 

Support operations for Community CROPS. 




05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,500 

People 

Objective 2: Provide services and support for returning veterans and their families. This 

objective addresses the priority areas of Sustainability and Food Security and a HUD area of 

emphasis. 

o Activity 1: 

Install a Community Garden or Orchard designated exclusively for veterans and their 

families. 

Objective 3: Work to improve transportation options for low‐income people. This objective 

addresses the priority area of Transportation – improving availability for low‐income people. 

o Activity 1: 

Support CSI transportation goals for low income people by continuing to serve on the 

grant selection committee for Federal Transit Administration Job Access & Reverse 

Commute (JARC) and New Freedom funds. These programs are intended to expand 

transportation services for the elderly, low income or disabled residents in the Lincoln 

area. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than Community 

Development Division staff time. 


54


Objective 4: Increase job opportunities for low‐income people. This objective addresses the 

priority area of Jobs – training for low‐income people. 

Project 

Funding for One Stop 

Employment Solutions 

o Activity 1: 

Provide funding to support One Stop Employment Solutions. 

It is worth noting is that the Nebraska Department of Labor has designated a portion of 

the City of Lincoln as an “area of substantial unemployment.” An area of substantial 

unemployment (ASU) is defined as a contiguous area with a current population of at 

least 10,000 and an average unemployment rate of at least 6.5 percent for the month 

reference period (July 2009 – June 2010 and July, 2010 to June 2012). 

This ASU designation is a factor in the distribution of Workforce Investment Action 

(WIA) funds and means an increase in funding for adults, dislocated workers and youth 

programs for the program year beginning July 1, 2010. 




05H Employment Training 570.201(e) 14 14 14 42 People 

Objective 5: Continue to work toward reducing poverty in Lincoln. 

o Continue staff participation with CSI and with other agencies, boards and committees 

working to reduce poverty in Lincoln. Although not specifically identified as a priority 

area in the plan development process, reducing poverty is an on‐going priority for HUD 

and Urban Development. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than 

Community Development Division staff time. 

Economic Development Objectives 

In the 2008 City outcome‐based budget process, economic development was rated a low‐priority since it 

was identified as a Tier 3 (lowest priority) activity. This does not mean it is a low priority for the city as a 

whole, just for Urban Development Department involvement, and it was eliminated in 2009. Participants 

in the process generally believed that economic development activities are best pursued by other 

agencies, City departments and the private sector. In this planning period, staff will continue to 

administer outstanding economic development loans. 

o Activity 1: 

Continue the administration of outstanding economic development loans. 

Additional Community Development Division Objectives 

Objective 1: Actively work to further Fair Housing. This objective addresses the priority area of 

Fair Housing – completing and implementing the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. 

o Activity 1: 

Complete an updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing. 


55


o Activity 2: 

Educate City staff and elected officials about fair housing laws and the benefits of equal 

access to affordable housing through the annual Fair Housing Conference hosted by the 

Lincoln Commission on Human Rights. 

o Activity 3: 

Continue staff participation on the Civil Rights Conference planning committee. 

Objective 2: Continue support for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). HMIS 

is an electronic data collection system that stores longitudinal person‐level information about 

people who access the homeless services system. Although not specifically identified as a 

priority area in the plan development process, addressing homelessness issues is an on‐going 

priority for HUD and Urban Development. 

o Activity 1: 

Continue to fund HMIS. 

Project 




HMIS Funding 05 Public Services (General) 570.210(e) 10,000 10,000 10,000 Data for 

30,000 

People 

Antipoverty Strategy (91.215 (h)) 

1. Describe the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number of poverty level 

families (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually). In consultation 

with other appropriate public and private agencies, (i.e. TANF agency) state how the jurisdiction's 

goals, programs, and policies for producing and preserving affordable housing set forth in the housing 

component of the consolidated plan will be coordinated with other programs and services for which 

the jurisdiction is responsible. 

2. Identify the extent to which this strategy will reduce (or assist in reducing) the number of poverty 

level families, taking into consideration factors over which the jurisdiction has control. 

3 Year Strategic Plan Antipoverty Strategy response: 

1. Community Action Partnership (CAP) of Lancaster and Saunders Counties (formerly known as Lincoln 

Action Program ‐ LAP) is a non‐profit agency that has often been a leader in reducing poverty by 

working with families in moving them towards self‐sufficiency. Using a self‐sufficiency assessment 

tool called FAT, Family Assessment Tool, family strengths are assessed and, using case management, 

families are helped in getting what they need to achieve self‐sufficiency. They receive assistance in 

areas such as housing, employment, education, and nutrition. 

The approach is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs coupled with an assessment of a family’s 

strengths in the areas of employment, health linkages, education, housing, nutrition, emergency 

assistance, income, and self‐sufficiency. 

In working with these families, CAP has established a mechanism to meet basic and emergency needs 

in the short‐term and engage families in the longer‐term process to help them achieve self‐ 

sufficiency. 

Other agencies provide case management targeted at special populations such as people with 

developmental disabilities or illness, or people with substance abuse problems. Examples of such 


56


agencies are, St. Monica’s, Fresh Start, Catholic Social Services, Cedar’s Youth Services, CenterPointe, 

and Vocational Rehabilitation. 

Another anti‐poverty strategy is the Community Services Initiative (CSI) involving the City of Lincoln 

and the Human Services Federation. The overall purpose of CSI is to give the community direction in 

human services; to show how CSI work impacts the City of Lincoln and Lancaster County; and to 

ensure ongoing funding needs. Specifically, five broad goals have been identified: 

o To identify the emerging issues and critical needs in the Health and Human Services delivery 

system based on accurate data. 

o To develop plans to address those issues. 

o To recognize where Lincoln is compared to its economic sister cities. 

o To anticipate where the City might be three years from today in the Health and Human 

Services system. 

o To share knowledge and intentions with funders, consumers, and the general public. 

CSI is administered by the Human Services Federation, a consortium of health and human services 

agencies in Lincoln and Lancaster County. In order to meet these goals, the Federation is working 

with the CSI Implementation Coalitions specializing in the following four areas: 1) Stop Abuse (Family 

Violence), 2) Behavioral Health, 3) Early Child and Youth Development, and 4) Basic and Emergency 

Needs. Urban Development staff continues to be involved with the Basic and Emergency Needs 

Coalition. 

Affordable housing is a primary goal for reducing poverty. In keeping with the goals, programs, and 

policies outlined in the Housing Section of the Strategic Plan, Urban Development works and 

coordinates with the agencies listed below in producing and preserving affordable housing stock: 

o NeighborWorks ® Lincoln through the Homebuyer Training Program, Troubled Property 

Program, and the First Home Program which assists with down payment assistance. 

o Affordable Housing Initiative and Habitat for Humanity 

o The Lincoln Housing Authority which administers the Security Deposit Program. 

o The League of Human Dignity which operates the Barrier Removal Program. 

o Lincoln’s CoC is an organization of homeless service providers, homeless individuals, and 

other community stakeholders. Organizational responsibilities include the development of 

Lincoln’s annual CoC Grant, an agency peer review process, administering the “Point‐in‐ 

Time” count, and strengthening collaboration and efficiency in services provided to the 

homeless. 

Good paying jobs are also a priority goal for reducing poverty. The Workforce Investment Act of 

1998, Public Law 105‐220, states as its purpose "…to provide workforce investment activities, through 

statewide and local workforce investment systems, that increase the employment, retention, and 

earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, and, as a result, 

improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependence, and enhance the productivity and 

competitiveness of the Nation." The Lincoln Workforce Investment Board (LWIB) oversees the 

implementation and operation of the Lincoln Area Workforce System and One Stop Career Center 

that offers expanded services to job seekers and area businesses. 

2. The extent to which programs offered through CAP, NeighborWorks ® Lincoln, the Lincoln Housing 

Authority, the League of Human Dignity, Affordable Housing Initiative, Habitat for Humanity and the 

activities of the Homeless Coalition, CSI and One Stop Center reduces or assists in reducing the 

number of poverty‐level families is difficult to quantify. Documentation does exist on the success of 

the CAP’s efforts as evident in reports from independent evaluators, but as the population of Lincoln 

continues to grow, so does the number of people who need assistance. 


57


Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Coordination (91.315 (k)) 

1. (States only) Describe the strategy to coordinate the Low‐income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) with the 

development of housing that is affordable to low‐ and moderate‐income families. 

3 Year Strategic Plan LIHTC Coordination response: 

1. Not Applicable. 

NON‐HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS 

Specific Special Needs Objectives (91.215) 

1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve over a specified time 

period. 




3‐5 Year Non‐homeless Special Needs Analysis response: 

1. The priorities and specific objectives that Urban Development hopes to achieve over the next three 

years include the following: 

Objective 1: Create and sustain affordable housing opportunities for Special Needs Populations. 

Support the ability of special needs populations (i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities, 

persons with alcohol or drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS) to live in permanent affordable 

housing situations. 

o Activity 1: 

Assist in maintaining the stock of rental and owner housing for special needs 

populations. 

o Activity 2: 

Assist in increasing the supply of rental and owner housing for special needs 

populations. 

o Activity 3: 

Enhance the provision of supportive housing services. 

o Activity 4: 

Remove regulatory barriers to housing for special needs populations. 

2. The City will also partner with various special needs providers to maintain and expand the housing 

units available to this population for existing facilities. The Nebraska Investment Finance Authority 

(NIFA) and the State Department of Economic Development (DED) are additional available resources 

for these projects. 


58


Non‐homeless Special Needs (91.205 (d) and 91.210 (d)) Analysis (including HOPWA) 

*Please also refer to the Non‐homeless Special Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook. 

1. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of persons in various subpopulations that are not 

homeless but may require housing or supportive services, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons 

with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons 

with alcohol or other drug addiction, victims of domestic violence, and any other categories the 

jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs. The jurisdiction can use the 

Non‐Homeless Special Needs Table (formerly Table 1B) of their Consolidated Plan to help identify 

these needs. 

*Note: HOPWA recipients must identify the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families that will 

be served in the metropolitan area. 

2. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but may 

or may not require supportive housing, i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, 

physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other 

drug addiction by using the Non‐homeless Special Needs Table. 



5. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are 

not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from 

mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. 

6. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to assist one or more of 

these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such assistance in the plan. 

3‐5 Year Non‐homeless Special Needs Analysis response: 

1. Community wide data on Non‐Homeless special needs populations is not readily available. The 

following information includes estimates based on 2000 Census data and Lincoln’s Affordable 

Housing Needs Assessment. Also see the Non‐homeless Special Needs Table in the “Additional Files” 

folder. Some key elements include: 

Elderly & Frail Elderly Housing. It is estimated that 3,730 Elderly & Frail elderly persons need 

housing. This includes an estimate of 439 frail elderly. Of these 3,730 individuals, it is estimated that 

approximately 2,800 would qualify as low‐income. 

Persons with Disabilities. Community wide data on the non‐homeless developmentally disabled and 

physically disabled population is unavailable. However, it is estimated that additional housing for 

approximately 651 individuals who are identified as severely mentally ill, and for 1,042 physically 

disabled individuals is needed. 

Persons with Alcohol or other drug Addiction. Community wide data on the non‐homeless 

substance abuse population is unavailable. 

Persons with HIV/AIDS & their Families. Community wide data on housing needs for individuals with 

HIV/AIDS and their families is unavailable. 

Supportive Services Needed. Wrap around supportive services for populations including the elderly, 

frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and 

their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, and victims of domestic violence is 

estimated at approximately 8,066. This is likely a conservative estimate. For example, a Gallup 

survey commissioned by the Friendship Home, Lincoln’s leading domestic violence shelter, indicated 


59


that one in four women in Lincoln/Lancaster County were victims of domestic violence at some point 

in their lives. Generally speaking, housing units are available. The support services necessary to 

maintain housing for many of these subpopulations continues to be a challenging gap to address. 

Data indicates that approximately 40 percent of persons 65 and older have some type of disability 

(i.e., physical, mental, sensory, self‐care) and five percent of persons 65 and older with a disability are 

institutionalized, based on these assumptions, an estimated 1,550 total rental units (1,180 low‐ 

income units) should have some type of supportive services for elderly persons with disabilities (i.e., 

transportation, individualized care). (This figure does not include services for elderly persons with 

disabilities who were not in one‐ or two‐person family households in 2000, such as those living with 

extended families or in group care facilities.) However, the number of total rental units needing 

these services could be higher or lower due to lack of information about householders with 

disabilities and the proportion of elderly renters who are disabled compared to homeowners. Some 

people have speculated that a higher proportion of elderly disabled householders may be renters 

than homeowners. 

2. The highest priority housing and supportive services needs are for low‐income special needs 

populations, including physically disabled persons, seriously mentally ill persons, and persons with 

other disabilities (including frail elderly). Extremely low‐ (below 30 percent of median) and very low‐ 

income (30 to 50 percent of median), elderly renters and extremely low‐income owners are also high 

priority households. Those households that fall under medium priority include other low‐income 

elderly renters (between 50 and 80 percent of median) and elderly owners who are very low‐ and 

low‐income. 

Urban Development is unable to determine an accurate housing need for people with HIV/AIDS 

because the number of people with HIV/AIDS, for Lancaster County, varies depending on the source 

of the data. Estimates range any where from 150 to 300 persons with HIV/AIDS but data on their 

housing needs is not available. 

Below is additional information regarding some of the high priority need areas. 

Needs in Housing for Persons with a Disability. 

On average, Assistive Technology Partnership and the League of Human Dignity receive 

approximately 75 requests a year (about half of which they can assist) for home modifications, 

including interior and exterior, rental and owner‐occupied, for persons of all ages in the City of 

Lincoln. Households can apply for additional modifications to the same house year after year. 

There is no one source of data on the number of owner‐occupied units that have been modified or 

built for persons with disabilities. Additionally, because the modifications are often dependent upon 

the level of disability and type of disability, there will likely always be a gap in this type of housing. 

However, it is encouraging that more architects and builders are aware of universal design and 

building houses that are more adaptable. 

Needs in Housing for Other Persons with a Severe Mental Illness. According to the Hanna: Keelan 

“Statewide Consumer Housing Needs Study for Extremely Low Income Persons with a Serious Mental 

Illness” (SMI), July, 2004, there was a need for creating 593 additional units for persons 19 years of 

age and older with a SMI by the year 2008 in the City of Lincoln. No New projections are available. 

The need was estimated at 31 percent of the 2005 population. There are currently 27 social service 

providers serving over 4,100 individuals in the area of the State that includes the City of Lincoln and 

several rural counties. Affordable and independent apartment units and transitional housing are the 

types of units most needed in the area. 

Needs in Elderly Housing. Over half of all low‐income, elderly, renter households, or a total of 1,663 

were cost overburdened in 2000. This group is more likely than small‐family or large‐family 


60


households to be cost overburdened. However, they are less likely to experience overcrowding or 

other housing problems. 

Because most elderly households do not choose to become first‐time homeowners late in life the gap 

in elderly owner housing may be very low. In fact the gap may be negative. Over half of the 

extremely low‐income, cost overburdened owner households, or a total of 439, were elderly 

households in 2000. An additional 489 very low‐income elderly households and 368 other low‐ 

income, elderly households were also cost overburdened. These households may need to be added 

to the gap in elderly rental housing. If these households could be relocated to affordable rental 

housing, this could ease housing problems and add 1,296 units (if they are safe and sound) to the 

affordable housing market for families. There are an additional 4,010 units owned by elderly 

households with incomes less than 80 percent of median income. 

3. The basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs was determined through 

analysis of survey results, provider input, community objectives and institutional knowledge. 

4. Because all of the special needs households tend to need supportive services to find and/or remain in 

affordable housing, these are the most challenging households to serve. One of the greatest 

challenges is finding additional funds to allow the City and its partners to provide these supportive 

services. 

The Lincoln Housing Authority will continue to serve those extremely low‐income and very low‐ 

income households, with priorities for special needs populations, families, and the elderly as federal 

funds for rental housing assistance remain available. Cuts in assistance will be a difficult barrier to 

overcome, and will mean additional wait times for special needs populations and no housing for 

others. 

Another barrier to meeting these high priority rental housing needs will be maintaining the 

infrastructure that supports these households. The City will also rely on internal (i.e. Urban 

Development and the Lincoln Housing Authority) and external (i.e., Urban Development and the 

League of Human Dignity for the Barrier Removal Program) partnerships to meet these challenges 

where appropriate. 

Additionally, persons with special needs, because they are more likely to be low‐income than the 

general population, often face income barriers to housing. Also, the supportive services and/or 

additional health care expenses can further reduce income available for housing. Therefore, special 

needs groups, including persons who are elderly, persons with physical or mental disabilities, etc., are 

more likely to be affected by public and private policies that limit the availability of affordable 

housing. These groups are more likely to live in substandard housing and experience cost overburden 

because of the shortage of housing for extremely low‐income households, and the condition of 

housing affordable to those households. As another barrier, special needs households are further 

limited by the location of services needed by these households. 

Institutional barriers, whether public or private, can also limit access to housing by special needs 

populations. In particular, the lack of sufficient financial support/subsidies for housing for persons 

with special needs is an obstacle. NIMBY attitudes, especially toward multi‐family and special needs 

housing, manufactured housing, public housing, and other types of affordable housing, that influence 

public policy can create barriers. 

Barriers in filing fair housing complaints, including lack of awareness of fair housing policies and 

procedures and fears associated with the process of filing a complaint, also limits one’s ability to find 

relief from barriers. 


61


Private policy, whether discriminatory or legal, including action by landlords, financial institutions, 

REALTORS ® , developers, insurers, etc., can exacerbate existing supply problems and create additional 

barriers. Lack of awareness of the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, Fair Housing Amendments 

Act, and subsequent related regulations, by the industry can create barriers. Other barriers include, 

landlords and property managers not accepting Section 8 vouchers, lenders not making multi‐family 

loans, lenders unaware of housing programs, and practices which limit loans or insurance in low‐ 

income areas, etc. 


Facilities and Services 

Agency Description 

AARP Issues related to senior citizens such as training, employment, medical, advocacy, 

etc. 

Active Community 

Treatments, Inc. 

Helps adults and children with disabilities to gain skills, knowledge, and experience 

to increasingly use and benefit from the resources and settings available to all 

citizens of the Lincoln community. 

ARC of Lincoln Advocacy, self‐advocacy, recreation, and individual and family support services for 

people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. 

Bel‐Air Homes Assisted living facility for people with serious mental illness. 

Bryan/LGH Daily reassurance calls for those who live alone. Information, evaluation, and 

treatment services for people with chemical dependency, dual diagnosis and their 

families and 24‐hour information and crisis assistance. Evaluation and treatment of 

behavioral and emotional problems, information and referral. 

CenterPointe Residential dual disorders treatment program, day rehabilitation and outpatient 

services for adults. Residential and outpatient treatment for youth. 

Champion Homes Assisted living facility for adults with mental disabilities. 

Child Guidance Out patient mental health clinic for children, adolescents, and their families, 

including individual, family, group, and home‐based therapy. Day treatment. 

Community Alternatives Provides opportunities to persons with developmental disabilities to learn skills to 

Nebraska 

enable them to participate and contribute actively in the community. 

Community Mental Health Outpatient, community support, partial care, consultation, education, vocational, 

Center 

24‐hour emergency services. 

Cornhusker Place Medically supervised emergency detoxification, short‐ and long‐term substance 

abuse programs. 

Developmental Services of 

Nebraska, Inc. 

Services for people with developmental disabilities and mental health needs. 

Includes intensive residential group homes, independent living, emergency shelter 

care, and outpatient mental health. 

Goodwill Industries Employment and training opportunities for individuals who face barriers to 

employment. 

Harvest Project Substance abuse and mental heath services for the elderly. 

Home Services for 

In‐home services for aged persons with disabilities. 

Independent Living 

Houses of Hope To provide affordable comprehensive counseling services in a supportive residential 

environment to individuals in recovery from substance abuse. 

League of Human Dignity Independent living services for those with disabilities, including, information and 

referral, Medicaid waiver coordination, peer counseling, advocacy, skill and 

awareness training; accessibility consultation; home and business medication; 

housing relocation and referral; modification, sales and repairs of vans, scooters, 

power wheelchairs and other specialized equipment. 

Aging Partners Offers meals, advocacy, emergency response, assisted living, in‐home services, 

minor home repairs, lawn care, large appliance repair, companionship for 

homebound and frail elderly, and assistance with financial benefit programs. Daily 

reassurance calls/friendly visit calls. 


62



Lincoln Medical Education Medical services to low‐income and elderly including home visits. 

Partnership 

Lincoln Housing Authority Federal subsidized housing for low‐income families and elderly persons, and non‐ 

subsidized affordable housing units. 

Lincoln Lancaster County Community health services, health clinics, home visitation, immunizations, early 

Health Department 

intervention services, childhood lead poisoning prevention, school health programs, 

Mobile Health Clinic, child’s environmental health programs, child care, WIC, dental 

services, youth risk behavior studies, Summer Food program, injury prevention, 

tobacco prevention, Healthy Homes minority outreach, and information and referral 

services. 

Lutheran Family Services Adult outpatient, intensive outpatient, and aftercare services for alcohol/drug 

abuse. Counseling. 

Lincoln Regional Center Comprehensive mental health services. 

Madonna Day care for people with disabilities or older persons, health monitoring, assistance 

with personal care, recreation, meals, supervision, and transportation. 

Medicaid Waiver In‐home services for those eligible, 65+. 

Mercy Services Corporation Provides affordable housing for individual families of low‐ to moderate‐income and 

a neighborhood learning center. 

MOSIAC Provides support and advocates for people with disabilities. 

Nebraska Advocacy Services, Advocacy services for people with mental and physical disabilities. 

Inc. 

Nebraska Health & Human Financial aid and social services to families and individuals. Includes Food Stamps, 

Services 

Medicaid, ADC, etc. 

Nebraska Urban Indian Health Primary health care for people with Medicaid or other health insurance regardless 

Center 

of race, religion, income status or age. 

O.U.R. Homes Residential facility for people with serious mental illness. 

People’s Health Center Provides affordable, comprehensive primary health care especially for those with 

limited resources. Services include medical, dental, pharmacy, WIC, HIV/STD 

testing, translation, mental health on a referral basis, and a physician house call 

program for chronically ill homebound elderly. 

Prescott Place Assisted living facility for people with serious mental illness. 

Region V Residential services in small group homes, own home and apartments, as well as, 

LEAP and SOAR daytime support and training for individuals with developmental 

and other disabilities. Small group home, own home, Extended Family Home, 

apartment and employment daytime – support and training for individuals with 

developmental and other disabilities. 

Serenity Place Assisted living facility for people with serious mental illness. 

ServiceLinc Services for the successful employment of people with disabilities. 

St. Elizabeth’s Hospital Hospital, health care outreach and wellness, burn center, oncology, pediatric center, 

radiology. 

St. Monica’s Full continuum of substance abuse and mental health treatment, primary 

treatment, residential program for women/women with children under 10, and 

adolescent and outpatient relapse prevention/aftercare. 

Tabitha Non‐acute health care services, including Medicare certified and private, round‐the‐ 

clock home health care; hospice; rehabilitation, including inpatient and outpatient 

physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech/language pathology; case 

management; subacute and long‐term care; Meals on Wheels; adult day services; 

Alzheimer’s/dementia care, intergenerational services, pastoral care; and 

retirement housing. 

Therapy Plus Comprehensive rehabilitation facility for children and adults with injuries or 

debilitating illness. Inpatient and outpatient therapy programs; adult day services; 

work injury rehabilitation and prevention programs; driver retraining; and 

ventilator‐assisted, Alzheimer’s and extended care units. Assisted living facility for 

young adults with severe disabilities. 

V. A. Services Substance abuse treatment for veterans. Domestic violence program. 


63



Valley Hope Regular and intensive outpatient treatment, continuing care sessions, DWI classes, 

education/awareness, alcohol/drug evaluations, and referral for chemically 

dependent. 

Villa Marie Boarding and day school for mild/moderate mentally handicapped children. 

Vital Services, Inc. Group homes and day services for people with disabilities. 

Women in Community Female residential program, women’s Job Corps, halfway house program for 

Services 

adolescents continuing their recovery. 

Workforce Development Job referral, career counseling, special services for veterans, older workers, youth, 

and people with disabilities. 

6. The Urban Development Department does not do tenant‐based rental assistance therefore no HOME 

funds are used. However, the Lincoln Housing Authority has a number of units that uses tenant‐ 

based rental assistance. 

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) 

*Please also refer to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook. 

1. The Plan includes a description of the activities to be undertaken with its HOPWA Program funds to 

address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible population. Activities will assist persons who 

are not homeless but require supportive housing, such as efforts to prevent low‐income individuals 

and families from becoming homeless and may address the housing needs of persons who are 

homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and 

independent living. The plan would identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs and 

summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to 

address identified needs. 

2. The Plan must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number of households to be 

assisted during the year in: (1) short‐term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid 

homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as community 

residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. The 

plan can also describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for persons 

who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be used in connection with an 

assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks of homelessness and 

improved access to care. 

3. For housing facility projects being developed, a target date for the completion of each development 

activity must be included and information on the continued use of these units for the eligible 

population based on their stewardship requirements (e.g. within the ten‐year use periods for projects 

involving acquisition, new construction or substantial rehabilitation). 

4. The Plan includes an explanation of how the funds will be allocated including a description of the 

geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the rationale for these geographic 

allocations and priorities. Include the name of each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary 

area(s) of planned activities, amounts committed to that sponsor, and whether the sponsor is a faith‐ 

based and/or grassroots organization. 

5. The Plan describes the role of the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA), 

involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan‐wide strategy for addressing the needs of 

persons with HIV/AIDS and their families living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions 

within the EMSA; (b) the standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities 

in order to ensure compliance by project sponsors of the requirements of the program. 

6. The Plan includes the certifications relevant to the HOPWA Program. 


64


3 Year Strategic Plan HOPWA response: 

The City of Lincoln does not receive HOPWA Funds. 

Specific HOPWA Objectives 




3‐5 Year Specific HOPWA Objectives response: 

The City of Lincoln does not receive HOPWA Funds. 

OTHER NARRATIVE 

Include any Strategic Plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other section. 

The Greater Lincoln Regional Innovation Grant (RIG) is a 12‐county collaborative initiative to generate 

opportunities for further regional economic prosperity. Education, economic and workforce 

development entities in southeast Nebraska have collaborated to develop a strategic regional plan with a 

focus on addressing present and future economic dislocation events; to support regional economic 

growth and competitiveness, and to enhance workers’ employment and advancement. 

The project covers the Greater Lincoln local workforce investment area of Lancaster and Saunders 

counties along with the surrounding counties of Fillmore, Gage, Johnson, Nemaha, Otoe, Pawnee, 

Richardson, Saline, Seward, and York. The key partners are the Greater Lincoln Workforce Investment 

Board, the City of Lincoln Urban Development Department, Lincoln Partnership for Economic 

Development & the Lincoln Area Development Partners, Southeast Community College, University of 

Nebraska, Peru State College, and Aquila. 

Activities include conducting outreach to potential stakeholders, preparing a map of the regional assets, 

producing a detailed assessment of the region to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and 

threats (SWOT), and developing a regional communication network. Participants are now developing and 

prioritizing short and long‐term strategies in line with the newly defined regional economy and aimed at 

shortening or eliminating the time from worker dislocation to re‐employment. 

The RIG reports can be found on‐line at www.lincolnarearig.com 


65

Strategic Plan Additional Files: 

Community Dev Table

Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections. 

5-Year Quantities 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

01 Acquisition of Real Property 570.201(a) Habitat for Humanity (HDLP) ** 

0 0 0 3 3 3 9 0 0% H $300 Y HOME DH-2 

02 Disposition 570.201(b) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03 Public Facilities and Improvements (General) 570.201© Community Gardens & Orchards 0 0 0 60 60 60 180 0 0% H $30 Y CDBG SL-1 

Public Facilities and Improvements 

03A Senior Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03B Handicapped Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03C Homeless Facilities (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03D Youth Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03E Neighborhood Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03F Parks, Recreational Facilities 570.201© Park improvements in LMI neighborhoods 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0% H $75 Y CDBG SL-3 

03G Parking Facilities 570.201© 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03H Solid Waste Disposal Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03I Flood Drain Improvements 570.201© Rain Gardens 0 0 0 10 10 10 30 0 0% H $75 Y CDBG SL-3 

03J Water/Sewer Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03K Street Improvements 570.201© Alley graveling 0 0 0 10 10 10 30 0 0% H $15 Y CDBG SL-3 

03L Sidewalks 570.201© 2 streetscapes, 3 sidewalk improvement projects 0 0 0 3 1 1 5 0 0% H $1,617 Y CDBG SL-3 

03M Child Care Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03N Tree Planting 570.201(c) Tree planting in two neighborhoods 0 0 0 2 2 2 6 0 0% H $30 Y CDBG SL-3 

03O Fire Stations/Equipment 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03P Health Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03Q Abused and Neglected Children Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03R Asbestos Removal 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03S Facilities for AIDS Patients (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

04 Clearance and Demolition 570.201(d) Demolition of Secondary Structures Program 

0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0% H $3 Y CDBG SL-3 

04A Clean-up of Contaminated Sites 570.201(d) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e)HMIS; Com.CROPS operations;homeb train*** 0 0 0 11,750 11,750 11,750 35250 0 0% H $497 Y CDBG SL-2 

Public Services 

Housing and Community Development Activities (City of 

Lincoln Activites/Projects in Bold) 

Needs 

05A Senior Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05B Handicapped Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05C Legal Services 570.201(E) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05D Youth Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05E Transportation Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05F Substance Abuse Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05G Battered and Abused Spouses 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05H Employment Training 570.201(e) 0 0 0 14 14 14 42 0 0% H $90 Y CDBG EO-1 

05I Crime Awareness 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05J Fair Housing Activities (if CDBG, then subject to 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05K Tenant/Landlord Counseling 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05L Child Care Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05M Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05N Abused and Neglected Children 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05O Mental Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05P Screening for Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazards Poison 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05Q Subsistence Payments 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05R Homeownership Assistance (not direct) 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

05S Rental Housing Subsidies (if HOME, not part of 5% 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Current 

Gap 

05T Security Deposits (if HOME, not part of 5% Admin c Lincoln Housing Authority 0 0 0 45 45 45 135 0 0% H $75 Y HOME DH-2 

Goal 

Actual 

Goal 

Actual 

Goal 

Actual 

Cumulative 

Goal 

Actual 

% of Goal 

Priority Need: 

H, M, L 

Dollars to 

Address in 

1,000s 

Plan to Fund? 

Y/N 

Fund Source 

HUD Obj/ 

Outcome*




Needs 

Current 

Gap 

Year 1 

Goal 

Actual 



06 Interim Assistance 570.201(f) Tree Management Program 

0 0 0 6 6 6 18 0 0% H $27 Y CDBG SL-3 

07 Urban Renewal Completion 570.201(h) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

08 Relocation 570.201(i) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

09 Loss of Rental Income 570.201(j) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

10 Removal of Architectural Barriers 570.201(k) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

11 Privately Owned Utilities 570.201(l) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

12 Construction of Housing 570.201(m) Troubled Property Program, HDLP 

0 0 0 3 17 3 23 0 0% H $548 Y HOME DH-2 

13 Direct Homeownership Assistance 570.201(n) First Home Program 

0 0 0 51 51 51 153 0 0% H $1,899 Y HOME DH-2 

14A Rehab; Single-Unit Residential 570.202 Includes 7 housing programs **** 0 0 0 183 183 183 549 0 0% H $2,894 Y CDBG,HOME DH-2 

14B Rehab; Multi-Unit Residential 570.202 Barrier Removal 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0% H $21 CDBG DH-1 

Goal 

Actual 

Goal 

Actual 

Cumulative 

14C Public Housing Modernization 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

14D Rehab; Other Publicly-Owned Residential Buildings 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

14E Rehab; Publicly or Privately-Owned Commercial/Indu 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

14F Energy Efficiency Improvements 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

14G Acquisition - for Rehabilitation 570.202 Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI) (HDLP)** 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0% H $300 Y HOME DH-2 

14H Rehabilitation Administration 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $1,165 Y CDBG DH-2 

14I Lead-Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate 570.202 Testing and mitigation 0 0 0 8 8 8 24 0 0% H $300 Y CDBG,HOME DH-2 

15 Code Enforcement 570.202(c) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

16A Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

16B Non-Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d) 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

17A CI Land Acquisition/Disposition 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

17B CI Infrastructure Development 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

17C CI Building Acquisition, Construction, Rehabilitat 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

17D Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

18A ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Profits 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

18B ED Technical Assistance 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

18C Micro-Enterprise Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19A HOME Admin/Planning Costs of PJ (not part of 5% Ad 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19B HOME CHDO Operating Costs (not part of 5% Admin ca 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19C CDBG Non-profit Organization Capacity Building 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19D CDBG Assistance to Institutes of Higher Education 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19E CDBG Operation and Repair of Foreclosed Property 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19F Planned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19G Unplanned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

19H State CDBG Technical Assistance to Grantees 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

20 Planning 570.205 CD staff 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $873 Y CDBG SL-3 

21A General Program Administration 570.206 Administration staff 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $579 Y CDBG SL-3 

21B Indirect Costs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

21D Fair Housing Activities (subject to 20% Admin cap) 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

21E Submissions or Applications for Federal Programs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

21F HOME Rental Subsidy Payments (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

21G HOME Security Deposits (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

21H HOME Admin/Planning Costs of PJ (subject to 5% cap 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $244.00 Y HOME DH-2 

21I HOME CHDO Operating Expenses (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $120 Y HOME DH-2 

Goal 

Actual 



H, M, L 

Dollars to 

Address in 

1,000s 


Y/N 

Fund Source 

HUD Obj/ 

Outcome*




Needs 

Current 

Gap 


Goal 

Actual 



22 Unprogrammed Funds 

0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31J Facility based housing – development 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31K Facility based housing - operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31G Short term rent mortgage utility payments 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31F Tenant based rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31E Supportive service 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31I Housing information services 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31H Resource identification 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31B Administration - grantee 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

31D Administration - project sponsor 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Acquisition of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Production of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Rehabilitation of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Acquisition of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Rehabilitation of existing owner units Includes 7 programs***** 0 0 0 183 183 183 549 0 0% H $2,465 Y CDBG DH-2 

HOPWA 

HOME CDBG 

Goal 

Actual 

Goal 

Actual 

Cumulative 

Homeownership assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Acquisition of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Production of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Rehabilitation of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Acquisition of existing owner units Troubled Property Program 0 0 0 3 3 3 9 0 0% H $548 Y HOME DH-2 

Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Rehabilitation of existing owner units DPL, Lead Based Paint, and AHI rehabs 0 0 0 10 10 10 30 0 0% H $1,050 Y HOME DH-2 

Homeownership assistance First Home Program 0 0 0 51 51 51 153 0 0% H $1,899 Y HOME DH-2 

Totals 0 0 0 12399 0 12411 0 12397 0 37207 0 #DIV/0! 

*HUD Objectives and Outcomes: 

Objective 1: Decent Housing 

Objective 2: Suitable Living Environment 

Objective 3: Economic Opportunity 


N/A = Not Applicable 

**HDLP includes two programs, Habitat for Humanity, Matrix Code 01 and Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI), Matrix Code 14G 

***05 includes HMIS, 10,000 people/yr, $45,000 for 3 years; Community CROPS includes operations, 1500 people/yr, $45,000 for 3 years; Homebuyer Training includes 150 people/yr, $407,226 for 3 years. 

****The 7 programs are: Barrier Removal, Emergency Repair (ER), Deferred Payment Loan CDBG (DPL), HOME DPL, Home Improvement Loan Program (HILP), PRIDE, and HEART 

***** Includes HILP, DPL, ER, Lead Based Paint, Barrier Removal, PRIDE and HEART 

Goal 

Actual 



H, M, L 

Dollars to 

Address in 

1,000s 


Y/N 

Fund Source 

HUD Obj/ 

Outcome*


LMI NRSA Map

NW 56TH ST 

STATE SPUR 79 

W HOLDREGE ST 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W DENTON RD 

SW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

PURPLE HEART HWY 

W O ST 

W A ST 

NW 40TH ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W A ST 

W VINE ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

W O ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W O ST 

W A ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

SW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 

SW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

W A ST 

S CODDINGTON AV 

W DENTON RD 

W ROKEBY RD 

2010 - NRSA & LMI 


W CORNHUSKER HWY 

W O ST 

ROSA PARKS WAY 

W SALTILLO RD 

S FOLSOM ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

HOMESTEAD EXPY 

S FOLSOM ST 

W DENTON RD 

W ROKEBY RD 

SUPERIOR ST 

A ST 

O ST 

SOUTH ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 

YANKEE HILL RD 



INTERSTATE 80 

ADAMS ST 

A ST 

N 27TH ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

N 27TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

VINE ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

N 33RD ST 

SALTILLO RD 

SUPERIOR ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

NEBRASKA HWY 2 

INTERSTATE 80 

O ST 

A ST 

S 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

O ST 

A ST 


ROKEBY RD 

SALTILLO RD 

City Limit - 2009 Major Streets Streets Streams NRSA LMI 

City of Lincoln - Urban Development 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

S 56TH ST 

S 56TH ST 

S 56TH ST 

S 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

O ST 

ROKEBY RD 

S 56TH ST 

A ST 

VINE ST 

O ST 

SALTILLO RD 

N 70TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

A ST 

S 70TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

O ST 

N 84TH ST 

HAVELOCK AV 

A ST 

O ST 

ROKEBY RD 

SALTILLO RD 

A ST 

N 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 6 

HOLDREGE ST 

O ST 


N 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

HAVELOCK AV 

A ST 

ADAMS ST 

O ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

ROKEBY RD 

SALTILLO RD 

Created/Compiled by: 

The City of Lincoln: UDD 

Created/Compiled on: 04/01/2010 

S 84TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 6 

A ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

A ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST N 112TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

O ST 

S 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

OLD CHENEY RD 

SALTILLO RD 

S 112TH ST 

[


Minority Maps 

(Black, Asian, and Native American)

103 

SW 70th 

SW 56th 

% of Blacks 

0.0 - 1.0 

1.1 - 2.5 

2.6 - 5.0 

5.1 - 8.4 

32.02 

SW 40th 

102 

32.01 

SW 27th 

36.04 

Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 

Distribution of Black Population 

by Census Tract 

33 

34 

Lancaster County Nebraska 

SW 12th 

31.02 

35 

1st 

14th 

27th 

40th 

29 

30.02 30.03 

31.01 

3 2.02 2.01 

21 

5 

22 

6 

19 

20 

28 

36.01 

36.05 

36.06 

30.01 

7 

18 

17 

23 

4 

24 

8 

16 

37.04 

37.08 

9 

25 

37.1 

14 

15 

27.01 

27.02 

37.09 

56th 

10 

13.01 

13.02 

70th 

1 

37.11 

11 

12 

37.06 

37.07 

38.02 

38.01 

84th 

37.12 

98th 

McKelvie Rd. 

Alvo Rd. 

Fletcher Ave. 

Havelock Ave. 

Adams St. 

Holdrege St. 

'O' St. 

'A' St. 

Van Dorn St. 

Pioneers Blvd 

Old Cheney Rd. 

Pine Lake Rd. 

Yankee Hill Rd. 

· 

101 

104 

Created 8/20/04

103 

SW 70th 

SW 56th 

% of Asians 

0.0 - 1.0 

1.1 - 2.5 

2.6 - 5.0 

Above 5% 

32.02 

SW 40th 

102 

32.01 

SW 27th 

36.04 


Distribution of Asian Population 


33 

34 


SW 12th 

31.02 

35 

1st 

14th 

27th 

40th 

29 

30.02 30.03 

31.01 

3 2.02 2.01 

21 

5 

22 

6 

19 

20 

28 

36.01 

36.05 

36.06 

30.01 

7 

18 

17 

23 

4 

24 

8 

16 

37.04 

37.08 

9 

25 

37.1 

14 

15 

27.01 

27.02 

37.09 

56th 

10 

13.01 

13.02 

70th 

1 

37.11 

11 

12 

37.06 

37.07 

38.02 

38.01 

84th 

37.12 

98th 

McKelvie Rd. 

Alvo Rd. 

Fletcher Ave. 

Havelock Ave. 

Adams St. 

Holdrege St. 

'O' St. 

'A' St. 

Van Dorn St. 

Pioneers Blvd 


Pine Lake Rd. 


· 

101 

104 

Created 8/20/04

103 

Distribution of Native American Population 


SW 70th 

SW 56th 

32.02 

SW 40th 

102 

32.01 

% of Native American 

0.0 - 1.0 

1.1 - 2.5 

2.6 - 5.0 

Above 5% 

SW 27th 

36.04 


33 

34 


SW 12th 

31.02 

35 

1st 

14th 

27th 

40th 

29 

30.02 30.03 

31.01 

3 2.02 2.01 

21 

5 

22 

6 

19 

20 

28 

36.01 

36.05 

36.06 

30.01 

7 

18 

17 

23 

4 

24 

8 

16 

37.04 

37.08 

9 

25 

37.1 

14 

15 

27.01 

27.02 

37.09 

56th 

10 

13.01 

13.02 

70th 

1 

37.11 

11 

12 

37.06 

37.07 

38.02 

38.01 

84th 

37.12 

98th 

McKelvie Rd. 

Alvo Rd. 

Fletcher Ave. 

Havelock Ave. 

Adams St. 

Holdrege St. 

'O' St. 

'A' St. 

Van Dorn St. 

Pioneers Blvd 


Pine Lake Rd. 


· 

101 

104 

Created 8/20/04


Differential Association: 

A Pilot Neighborhood 

Assessment Tool

Introduction 

No one can doubt that most American cities these days are deeply troubled places. At the root of 

the problems are the massive economic shifts that have marked the last two decades. Hundreds of 

thousands of industrial jobs have either disappeared or moved away from the central city and its 

neighborhoods. And while many downtown areas have experienced a "renaissance," the jobs 

created there are different from those that once sustained neighborhoods … Either these new jobs 

are highly professionalized, and require elaborate education and credentials for entry, or they are 

routine, low paying service jobs without much of a future. In effect, these shifts in the economy, 

and particularly the disappearance of decent employment possibilities from low-income 

neighborhoods, have removed the bottom rung from the fabled American "ladder of opportunity.” 

For many people in older city neighborhoods, new approaches to rebuilding their lives and 

communities, new openings toward opportunity, are a vital necessity 

(Kretzman and McKnight 1993, pg. 1). 

The former UNL Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC), of which the University of 

Nebraska – Lincoln’s departments of Sociology, Community and Regional Planning and Agricultural 

Leadership, Education and Communication were leading members, [worked] to establish community 

programs aimed at addressing specific neighborhood needs by working together to revitalize 

neighborhoods, encourage community development, provide needed educational programs and reverse the 

deteriorating quality of life of the neighborhoods that surround the University of Nebraska Lincoln (UNL 

CPOC Grant, 1998). One of the COPC projects was to address areas of growing “social isolation,” through 

an asset based development approach (as proposed by Kretzman & McKnight, 1993). 

In this same vein, many articles have previously explored various neighborhood development and 

safety concepts as they relate to a range of variables while only reporting their significance in statistical 

terms. This can be particularly confusing to neighborhood-based stakeholders in community 

redevelopment, because few lay residents can understand the meaning of statistical language (r squared or 

other statistical values). Past research has identified links between neighborhood social composition, 

disorder, crime and violence. However, newer research suggests that crime is not solely attributed to 

individuals’ aggregate demographic characteristic, “rather crime is a function of social and organizational 

characteristics” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1997 pg.2). 

Within the context of the COPC project, the Everett Neighborhood was targeted. The 

neighborhood selected through the use of antidotal stories, criminal patterns, and 2000 US Census reports. 

However, the need to rate/predict where resources and effort should be placed, sustained or moved ought to 

be not only defined and easily communicable but also broadly defendable. With this in mind I found Robert 

Sutherlands Differential Association Theory, which predates most of the work cited thus far, interesting 

because of the seemly ‘common sense’ tenet that the more negative definitions an individual experiences 

the more likely they are to commit deviant behavior. While some components are broad and undefined, it’s 

a concept that many can relate to. Therefore this paper will examine Dr. Edwin H Sutherlands Differential 

Association Theory as how it relates to neighborhood development. 

To be clear, the purpose of this paper is to review Dr. Sutherlands Differential Association Theory 

and select criticisms, with the intent of communicating/operationalizing his theory using data sources 

common to the City of Lincoln Nebraska, within the context of neighborhood redevelopment. Next, a brief 

overview / visual analysis of the results will follow and finally, I will conclude with a brief discussion and 

closing comments. 

Literature Review and Select Criticism 

Differential Association Theory was Sutherland's major sociological contribution to criminology; 

similar in importance to strain theory and social control theory. These theories all explain deviance in terms 

of the individual's social relationships (FSU & Whitt, 2009). "[Sutherland] rejected biological determinism 

and the extreme individualism of psychiatry, as well as economic explanations of crime. His search for an 

alternative understanding of crime led to the development of Differential Association Theory. In contrast to 

both classical and biological theories, Differential Association Theory poses no obvious threats to the 

humane treatment of those identified as criminals."(Gaylord, 1988:1) 

1

The postulates of differential association asserts that a person becomes delinquent/deviant because 

of an "excess" of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law 

which is stated in postulate #6 below. In other word, “… criminal behavior emerges when one is exposed to 

more social message favoring [negative] conduct than pro-social [conduct] (Sutherland, 1947). “Sutherland 

also argued that the concept of differential association and differential social organization could be applied 

to the individual level and to aggregation [or group] level respectively. 

The first explicit statement of the theory of differential association appeared in the 1939 edition of 

Principles of Criminology and in the fourth edition of it, he presented his final theory. His theory has nine 

basic postulates (FSU, & Sutherland, 1974: 75-76). 

1. Criminal behavior is learned. 

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. 

(Includes both Verbal & Non-Verbal Communication) 

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. 

(Excludes movies, newspapers ETC, Maybe because those can be controlled) 

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, 

which are sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, 

and attitudes. 

5. The specific direction of the motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as 

favorable or unfavorable. (Problems among cultural differences are important) 

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law 

over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. 

This is the heart of differential association. When people become deviant, they do so not only because of 

contacts with criminal patterns (direct and indirect) but also because of isolation from positive patterns. 

7. Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. 

a. Frequency is how often you interact with the other person 

b. Duration is how long you have known the other person 

c. Priority has to do with when in your life you have the relationship 

d. Intensity consists of (a) your emotional relationship with the other person and (b) that 

person’s prestige in your eyes 

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns 

involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. 

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those 

general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and 

values. 

Criticisms 

While general in its nature, and due to the same, it has endured criticism and continued praise 

alike. Reasons for criticism vary. Some argued that criticism often resulted from misinterpretation of 

Sutherland's theory. For example, just because you live in an area with high prepotencies of negative 

influences, doesn’t automatically make a person bad or deviant. However, others (FSU & Akers, 1996 & 

Whitt, 2009) would argue that this misinterprets Sutherland’s fourth postulates that states criminal behavior 

is learned through association … not simply through proximity contact. 

Still, there are two major weaknesses to the theory that are generally agreed upon. The first 

problem is that the concept/term of ‘definitions’ is not defined, nor is there initial guidance on how to 

operationalize the ratio or ‘excess of definitions’. The second real problem is that it left the learning process 

unspecified. Did learning have to follow a similar process, or could certain elements ‘test-out’ of certain 

levels to advance? Furthermore, (1) how could we predict where and when that learning would occur and 

(2) How should positive programming be paid for and where should it occur? 

2

According to other critiques differential association and social learning theory 1 rests on the 

assumption that socialization is completely successful and that cultural variability is unlimited among 

others (Akers: 1996:229). 

Differential association has been subject to a number of other criticisms (Sutherland, 1974: 82). 

1. Is defective because it omits consideration of free will 

2. Is based on a psychology assuming rational deliberation 

3. Ignores the role of the victim 

4. Does not explain the origin of crime 

5. Does not define terms such as "systematic" and "excess" 

6. Does not take "biological factors" into account 

7. Is of little or no value to "practical men" 

8. Is not comprehensive enough because it is not interdisciplinary 

9. Is not allied closely enough with more general sociological theory and research 

10. Is too comprehensive because it applies to noncriminals 

11. Assumes that all persons have equal access to criminal and anticriminal behavior patterns 

In sum, I believe other critics have correctly identified ‘measurement problems’ as the greatest hurdle 

to operationalizing Sutherland’s theory when Pfohl wrote, "The likelihood of deviant behavior could be 

determined by calculating the difference between favorable and unfavorable associations. Yet, as 

Sutherland recognized, the development of such a formula would be extremely difficult. Although the 

importance of associations is obviously influenced by such factors, the factors themselves are difficult to 

reliably measure in any standardized fashion." (Pfohl, 1994:303) He echoed (Matsueda, 1988: 296) when 

he wrote, “Perhaps the most fundamental research problem involves identifying the content of definitions 

favorable to crime”. 

My personal criticisms of the theory are fairly simple. They echo other known criticism but offer more 

insight, given my background (i.e Urban Planner, and Geographic Information System Analyst - GIS). 

1. The theory is difficult because It has no defined beginning or end. 

2. The theory, I believe, assumes that all crimes impact “definition” and “operationalization” 

regardless of the spatial location. For example, does check forgery in a business district directly 

impact a bully in grade school? 

3. It assumes all behavior (criminal) is relevant regardless of the classified outcome. For examples 

does a larceny from auto enable/teach a person to become a rapist? 

Modeling Differential Association 

It’s assumed that its hard to model Differential Association Theory. On the other hand, I question 

the use of ‘hard’ – because (1) NOT knowing what positives and negatives should be considered, (2) 

unknown definitions, (3) the vagueness (when communicating the inputs and outputs) for lay individuals is 

of concern and (4) not having a starting point from which to base an analysis LEADS to the FREEDOM to 

place context within each section of the theory. Therefore below is a simple model that I will use, via GIS, 

to operationalize this theory for further examination. See figure 1 below 

1 Not directly covered in this project 

3

Figure 1: Projects Proposed Operationalized Model and Process 

Model Description 

This project identified and recognized alike that into order to operationalize Sutherlands 

Differential Association Theory a starting and end point was needed to standardize a process of capturing a 

snapshot of an area within the context of available data sources. To begin, note that the entire model is self 

contained within its own process. This was done intentionally to provide broad interpretation/application to 

terms (defined and undefined) within the theory. Next, moving left to right, US Census Data was processed 

(both in numeric’s and format) in a Geographic Information System (GIS) 2 to produce a raster image which 

depicts the level of concentrated disadvantage. Using each raster cell’s individual value in conjunction with 

positive and negative externalities, which were modified through modalities and additional GIS processing 

thereby cell values depicting the likely hood of neighborhood distress and/or disorder are created. 

The four rose boxes on the right; voting efficacy, building and safety issues, health department 

issues and student achievement scores are variables that may be able to explain the validity of the model. 

However, and again, this project only completes an initial visual analysis. 

Concentrated Disadvantage 

Studies of crime and disorder have traditionally emphasized structural dimensions of an economic 

nature primarily concentrated on poverty and its concomitant lack of social resources (Sampson & 

Raudenbush, 1999 pg. 609). Areas of concentrated disadvantage are poor neighborhoods that concentrate 

not only low incomes, but also high unemployment, financial dependence and institutional disinvestment 

(Hager & Peterson, 1995). These areas of concentrated disadvantage find it difficult to support viable 

commercial enterprises, promote housing investment, locate employment opportunities, and have access to 

services and communal assets (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). However, structural constraints affecting 

areas of concentrated disadvantage are not just of an economic nature or of a limited material circumstance. 

An ecological human aspect is also of importance. This includes social networks, residential instability, 

public transportation nodes, population density and non-residential land use. Social networks examine the 

number of connections (e.g. friends, family) and how a person interacts with them. Residential instability is 

important because it may signal a lack of attachment to the general neighborhood and may point to low 

involvement. 

Because concentrated disadvantage is both physical and social in nature it lends it self to be a good 

starting point for a Differential Association Theory. Additionally, a concentrated disadvantaged scale can 

be interrupted in both positive and negative contexts (i.e. if an area has a value of five on a scale of one to 

ten, its worth is both positive and negative). Again, this duality lends its self nicely to the operationalizing 

of differential association. 

2 GIS, Geographic Information System. More on GIS is covered in later sections 

4

Positive Externalities 

Numerous externalities could be applied to demonstrate the ‘good’ that promotes different 

learning processes within groups. However, because this project focuses on the neighborhood context, I 

focused my efforts on defining/using common data source that many communities would have access to. 

Those data sources should reference at some level concepts such as social control/capital 3 and collective 

efficacy. Because, Sutherland’s theory doesn’t define ‘positive’ there is latitude to its application. 

However, this project believes that his theory works best within small aggregation groups and at the 

individual and parcel level. 

Social Control via Social Capital 

Social control is the desire to live “free of … disorder” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 pg. 611) 

which spurs the type of action/capacity a “social unit needs to regulate itself according to mutually desired 

goals” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 pg. 610). Social control via capital (a resource) is exerted in two 

forms. The first, formal control, takes the form of an externally induced action by formal community 

organizations such as the police department (police crackdowns), urban development (housing, code 

enforcement) and the health department (trash, weeds), schools (student achievement) and voting 

(individual efficacy) The second is localized informal control by informal community action such as 

individual efficacy (the willingness of residents to intervene, civic participation) and neighborhood efficacy 

(shared cohesion, shared expectations) which requires neighbors working to build the collective efficacy of 

an area through effort, in an endeavor to limit negative behaviors, (e.g. street corner harassment, loitering, 

fighting) and enhance their willingness to initiate or achieve social control through the creation of relational 

connections between family, neighborhood members and public groups. 

Collective Efficacy 

A long line of urban research suggests that participation in social exchange, friend/kinship ties, 

and affective identification with the local area increases mutual trust and shared expectations for collective 

action in support of the neighborhood (Sampson, 1988). Thus, collective efficacy is comprised of 

individual efficacy (e.g. willingness of residents to intervene in daily life, civic participation) and 

neighborhood efficacy (e.g. neighborhood social cohesion, shared expectations). Collective efficacy is the 

defining aggregate characteristic of informal control which is defined as the creation of “cohesion among 

residents with shared expectations for the social control of public spaces” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 

pg. 603). 

Negative Externalities 

Past efforts have reported that the type of crime relevant to perceptions of neighborhood safety is 

predatory and neighborhood crime (e.g. robbery, assault, murder, rape, gangs, location of sex offenders … 

etc). This kind of crime is interesting, because “[it] builds on the insight that it involves the intersection in 

time and space of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians [active 

citizens]” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 pg.610). With respect to the issue at hand, differential 

association, it would make sense to assume if an area, or persons in an area knew (1) criminal activity was 

occurring , (2) people were getting away with it, (4) distress/disorder is evident and (5) it appears that 

neighbors aren’t involve that YES an indirect learning and teaching process is occurring 4 . It may not be as 

efficient as direct communication, but the physical state of a neighborhood along with criminal argot roles 

(i.e. story telling), still follows Sutherlands fourth and fifth postulates. Again, because Sutherland did not 

define ‘negative’ this project references others work and selects neighborhood crime as its measure, 

because crime information is point based, objective, documented and easy to manipulate. 

Neighborhood Value 

Reaching back, and seizing criticisms of Sutherlands theory this project recognizes that 

operationalization of differential association is tough. However, it also recognizes that when theory is 

placed into purpose, communication of concepts is achievable. Therefore this projects end product is a 

raster image with cells that have independent values derived from Sutherlands theory based on best effort 

3 Social resources 

4 These five ‘knowns’ echo Sampson and Raudenbush’s Broken Windows Theory 

5

definitions, data sources and processes. Finally, while the name implicitly implies worth, the intended use 

of ‘value’ in this context is for comparison between areas in an economic fashion. 

Communicating the Model 

With the model identified and described, how does one best communicate this knowledge so that 

stakeholders and the public may become engaged in positive dialog? The answer is to first find data to 

represent and illustrate the components of the model: neighborhood crime levels, levels of manifested 

deprivation, incidents of disorder and incidents of social efficacy. Second, by depicting the components of 

the model in a geographic information system, i.e., mapping the: crime, disorder, concentrated 

disadvantage and social control of for city of Lincoln, Nebraska. The selected information 5 must serve a 

dual purpose. The data must be more than a table of numbers; it must be information that can be manifested 

through geography to a physical location (point), area (shape) or path (line) in a geographic information 

system (GIS), and it must be readily available. With data of this nature a simplified form of 

operationalization, analysis and communication of Sutherland’s theory is achieved. 

GIS and Neighborhood Values 

“The purpose of GIS, regardless of specific application, is ultimately to tell a story or relay a 

message about a place in time. Logical applications as well as unforeseen benefits of GIS are becoming 

popular topics of discussion ....” (Colwell, 2004 pg. 5) Numerous agencies have adopted GIS for improving 

methods of crime forecasting, trend analysis, information sharing, quality of life assessment, and decision 

making (Casady, 2003; Heywood et al., 1992). 

Graphically displayed data can persuade an audience to believe in a state of affairs that may or 

may not exist (Canter 1998). Due to the especially persuasive nature of GIS, the capability to rapidly 

generate maps and reports comes with the responsibility of understanding what is being generated and what 

purpose will be served by the resulting information (Piper, 2002). This section will address how GIS can be 

used in Differential Association Theory analysis. Included in this discussion will be some of the 

advancements GIS has contributed to in the spatial analysis of crime and social capital, resources and 

control. 

“One of the ways in which … analysts use GIS is to generate, analyze, and distribute … statistics 

[and maps] about neighborhood [order]” (Colwell, 2004 pg. 5). “The aim is to keep law [/code] 

enforcement personnel, public administrators, and citizens abreast of the state of the environment in which 

they work and reside” (Casady, 2003; City of Beaverton Oregon, 2003). From helping to maintain it, to 

initiating security, education or employment programs, to willingly committing neighborhood resources to 

ensure the health of it, active, engaged residents can become the neighborhood’s biggest assets and 

defenders. 

With the exception of Colwell (2004), and the participating cities involved with the 

National Neighborhood Indicator Partnership, previous research and projects done concerning 

neighborhood analysis is lacking in the ability to visually communicate a clear message. As stated before, 

many authors have only reported their findings in statistical terms, which can be hard for many lay 

politicians, residents and activists to fully comprehend. This study will shadow Colwell (2004), who had 

examined the macro quality of life for the city of Lincoln through the use of GIS in an attempt to spatially 

display Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory which may encourage local engagement and promote 

activism in local residents and politicians. 

GIS software offers a vast number of tools that promote the understanding of the spatial 

relationships that exist among data (Luc, Cohen, Cook, Gorr & Tita; 2000). Advancing applications in GIS 

have greatly encouraged the development of spatial algorithms for use in data analysis, many of which are 

applicable in neighborhood safety analysis. It is recognized that crime occurrence is not random. In fact, 

distribution of criminal activity, [disorder locations]/socially undesirable behavior is often found in 

spatially concentrated pools (Luc et al., 2000; Brantingham, 1986). As a result, the processes most 

applicable to this study include work done on point pattern, cluster and hotspot analysis. Point pattern 

analysis is largely concerned with identifying the randomness of point distribution across space. Data is 

often assessed by determining the presence of clusters or dispersion of points, in comparison to a random 

5 This information could be indicators or other benchmark data 

6

distribution of those points across the same surface (Luc et al., 2000; McLafferty et al. 2000). “Cluster 

analysis evolved into what is now commonly referred to as hotspot analysis. Hotspot analysis provides a 

means of interpreting large amounts of point data across a surface. Hotspots are commonly assessed in one 

of two ways. The first is to aggregate the information into boundaries such as neighborhoods, blocks or 

census tracts, often resulting in the production of tables, bar charts and choropleth maps.” (Colwell, 2004 

pg. 6) The second method of representation, which is the method that will be used in this project, 

diminishes the boundary issues associated with point aggregation. In this method, a grid-based surface is 

created to display the hotspots of crime over an uninterrupted surface. This type of hotspot analysis 

estimates the location and density of events with finer precision than aggregating point data [into a raster 

grid format] (McLafferty et al., 2000). “If used with caution, GIS may help uncover clues about why 

certain … trends and hotspots occur” (Colwell, 2004 pg. 7). 

Upon review, indicators (for concentrated disadvantage, negative and positive externalities) that 

were used in other studies and communities were narrowed into a list that could be applied within the city 

of Lincoln, Nebraska. Information used for the final indicator and benchmark selection is based on two 

criteria. First, that the data be readily available, and second that the information can be used in a GIS. A 

table listing each indicator, rank, priority and /or measurement or method can be found in appendix B. 

Concentrated Disadvantage 

Distress [leading to concentrated disadvantage] doesn’t just happen overnight; instead, it’s a 

process of community deterioration resulting from the impact that current levels of socio-economic 

indicators have on the social and physical form of a community. In general, a distressed area may exist 

where residents and associations that have the desire to reverse the downward trend are unable to because 

they lack the financial resources, expertise, coordination of efforts, time, and/or leadership skills necessary 

to significantly document needs and devise programs to address those needs which would ultimately 

improve their neighborhood safety and quality of life. (UNL COPC Grant, 1998) Therefore distress (Katz, 

2004) is a grouping of indicators (UNL COPC Grant, 1998; Berube, 2005), whose negative effects, can 

define an area as unfavorable. 

A common question is, ‘what are the indicators that I should use in my community?’ The simple 

answer is that there is no one best list. Instead, communities need to come together and decide what 

information will detail their community. They can then collect, manage, process and propagate compiled 

information to citizens, activists and politicians to aid in the development of a comprehensive community 

initiative. Therefore, after a review of relevant literature (Haque, 1998; Berube & Katz, 2005; Sawicki & Flynn, 

1996) the project selected eleven socio-economic indicators (see table one). 

Table 1: 

Lincoln’s Distress Indicators, when geo-processed results in Concentrated Disadvantage Values 

Indicator Definition Data Source / 

Geo - level 

 

1 Population Population Block 

2 Poverty Individuals below poverty Block Group 

3 Single family Number of own children (18 and under) in single-parent Block 

homes 

families 

4 Disability Number of individuals (age 21 to 64) with a disability Block Group 

5 Housing cost Number of rental households paying at least 30% of their Block Group 

burdens income for rent 

6 Unemployment Number of adult (25-65) civilian labor force that is 

unemployed 

Block Group 

7 Minority Population that is a minority Block 

8 Education Number of persons (25+) with less than a 12 grade education Block Group 

9 Vacant Housing Number of vacant housing units Block 

10 Housing built 

before 1939 

Number of housing units built before 1939 Block Group 

11 Mortgages Number of housing units with a mortgage Block Group 

7

To determine where troubled areas exist in Lincoln this project created an index of concentrated 

disadvantage with census data from the smallest possible geography 6 . It then joined data with the 

corresponding geography polygons in a GIS. This index will measure distress on a 1-10 scale (one being no 

distress and one being the most distressed). To form a ranking this study normalized each indicator with its 

census geography’s area (acres). The normalized values were divided by the largest value per factor to 

create an impact scale from 0-1. Next, each indicator was converted to a raster. Through the use of a raster 

calculator, common in most GIS, impact values of each indicator were summed together and reclassified 

into values from 1 to 10. Finally, this raster was divided into ten equal interval classes thereby displaying 

the location of Lincoln’s distressed areas in an easily understood and communicable format. 

Image 1: Areas of Concentrated Disadvantage 

STATE SPUR 55-M 

NW 105TH ST 

W VINE ST 

SW 84TH ST 

NW 84TH ST 

W ADAMS ST 

W HOLDREGE ST 

W PIONEERS BLVD 

STATE SPUR 55-A 

SW 84TH ST 

NW 70TH ST 

W O ST 

SW 70TH ST 

SW 70TH ST 

NW 56TH ST 

W A ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W DENTON RD 

W VAN DORN ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W SALTILLO RD 


W VINE ST 

SW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 

W SOUTH ST 


INTERSTATE 80 

W O ST 


W CALVERT ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

Negative/Positive Externalities and Modality Modification 

S FOLSOM ST 

N 10TH ST 

INTERSTATE 180 

S 10TH ST 


L ST 

SOUTH ST 

S 10TH ST 

ROKEBY RD 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 33RD ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

CALVERT ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

The externalities used within this study conform to the purpose from which this project began. 

That being, how does Differential Association Theory relate to neighborhood development and deviant 

behavior? Due to the lack of definitions, this project chooses to use those incidents that the Lincoln Police 

Department chief of police selected as crimes that impact neighborhood development as negative indicators 

(See table two below). Positive factors that have been used in a past conference presentations (Nam & 

Elder, 2008) 7 will serve as the positive indicators. (See table three below.) 

6 The census has different aggregation levels. Check www.census.gov to learn more that them 

7 Conference presentation August 2008, Chicago Il 

N 48TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

VAN DORN ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

CORNHUSKER HWY 

N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

S 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

8 

N 70TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

S 84TH ST 


N 84TH ST 

HAVELOCK AV 

N 84TH ST 

SOUTH ST 

SALTILLO RD 

A ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 


ROKEBY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

O ST 

VAN DORN ST 

ADAMS ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

ROKEBY RD 

City Limits 

Major Streets 

Streets 

Streams 

Solution CD (11) 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

Table 2: Negative Externalities: Neighborhood Crime Types 

Impact Call Type Count 

9 

Impact 

Distance 

Buffer 

Distance 

10 ASLT GUN Assault - Gun 65 4 1,200 

10 ASLT KNIFE Assault - Knife 179 5 1,500 

8 ASLT ODW Assault - Other dang Weapon 597 3 900 

7 * NO WEAP Assault - Weapon 3,357 5 1,500 

7 BURG RD FE Residential Dwelling - Forced Entry 170 5 1,500 

7 BURG RN FE * Forced Entry 153 5 1,500 

7 BURG RU FE Residential Unit - Forced Entry 499 5 1,500 

7 SELL NARCO Narcotics - Sell 86 7 2,100 

6 ASLT PO/KNIF Assault - Pulled - Knife 4 6 1,800 

6 ASLT PO/ODW Assault - Pulled Other dang weapon 8 6 1,800 

6 LFA $1-49 Larceny from Auto 347 1 300 

6 LFA $200 + Larceny from Auto 606 1 300 


5 BURG RD NFE Residential Dwelling - NonForced Ent 92 3 900 

5 BURG RN NFE * Non Forced Entry 128 5 1,500 

5 BURG RU NFE Residential Unit - Non Forced Entry 306 3 900 

4 DISTURBANCE Disturbance 2,163 2 600 

4 LAA $1-49 Larceny Auto Access 339 2 600 

4 LAA $200 + Larceny Auto Access 544 2 600 


4 LFA ATTEMPT Larceny from Auto - Attempted 260 1 300 

3 BURG RD ATT Residential Dwelling - Attempt 35 5 1,500 

3 BURG RN ATT Residential Unit of some sort 31 5 1,500 

3 BURG RU ATT Residential Unit - Attempt 100 5 1,500 

3 NARCO-OTH Narcotics - Other 59 3 900 

2 LAA ATTEMPT Larceny Auto Access - Attempted 54 2 600 

2 POSS NARCO Narcotics - Possession 1,667 1 300 

1 ASLT PO/N WP Assault - Pulled Non Dang Weapon 36 6 1,800 

Table 3: Positive Externalities: Neighborhood Social Resources 

Intensity Type Count Impact Distance Buffer Distance 

10 Great Neighborhood Graduates 86 2 600 

7 Neighborhood Coordinator 1,005 5 1,500 

7 Neighborhood Association Presidents 47 10 3,000 

6 Neighborhood Watch Members 13,778 2 600 

4 Election Poll Worker 1,074 1 300 

3 Community Facilities 22 8 2,400 

Furthermore this study, through the use of GIS processing, recognizes that not all crime and social 

capital (a resource) are equal. Because Sutherland was vague the project sought creditable advice from 

select personal in the city of Lincoln’s Urban Development department, Neighbor Works (Part of 

NeighborWorks America) and various community activists about how those crimes should be interrupted 

and operationalized. In general, an initial list with reasonable ranking was developed and modified with 

each contacts input. Also, of importance crimes that were committed at certain locations were omitted (.i.e.

hospital, jails, major commercial centers etc) 8 as crimes they would rarely impact perceived neighborhood 

safety. Each rater/contact had the right to comment on each variable by proposing a priority (1-10 – low to 

high) rank in comparison to the others & effect on neighborhood development. Furthermore, they were 

each asked to specify an impact distance that each crime or social resource would have 9 . This project asked 

each reviewer if ‘x’ happened - how far away from it would you need to be to not feel impacted by it. 

Disturbances (i.e. family feuds, parties or public quarrels etc) depending on the intensity could create a 

huge impact or reversely almost none. Neighborhood watch members, depending on the concentration 

(house address) will impact an area differently. In the end the priority ranks and impact areas are subjective 

but a decent starting location. 

The Process for both Externalities 

1. The GIS system created an area for each point from the duration/distance value. This is [Value A] 

2. All the point values within this area are aggregated according to its impact. 

This results in [Value B] 10 

3. Next a raster version of the frequency (counts of crime per census block) is added to [Value B] … 

thereby creating [Value C] 11 

4. [Value C] is multiple by the value from a resampled density map 12 creating [Value D] 

5. [Value E] 13 is multiplied by the Concentrated Disadvantage 14 value, and reclassified creating 

[Value F] 

Final results were raster images, with values assigned, via GIS processing, to 500*500 foot cells. 

Neighborhood Values 

Negative externalities were subtracted from positive externalities. This output was not reclassified. Each 

cell value, within the concept of Differential Association Theory, represents the likely hood of persons to 

directly or indirectly learn about deviant behavior and social norms. The results vary from negative nine to 

positive nine (i.e. poor to great). Additionally, these values can be used as a rough indicator value for 

neighborhood classification and resource targeting. 

Results and Analysis/Discussion 

A quick visual analysis shows that those areas with the greatest negative values are within the core 

of Lincoln which surrounds its downtown business district and the University of Nebraska’s City Campus 

(See image two). On the other end of the scale are areas of high positive values. These areas of high values 

are not widespread instead they are clustered primarily around large scale retirement developments. Those 

areas that are positive (greater than zero) dominate a majority of the city’s space … however this ‘pretty’ 

image is slightly unclear. It is unclear because an observer would not be able to determine the statistical or 

practical significance of the information/map. Questions such as what’s the mean, what’s standard 

deviation or where should we place limited resources have no clear answers. 

8 

39,649 Crime data points were pulled for the year 2007, of those 12,737 were selected as neighborhood crime types. 

16,012 Social resource points were used in this project 

9 

Also, keep in mind that no text analysis of police reports was used prioritize ranks. 

10 

This data will be converted to a raster with cell sizes roughly equal to the size of city blocks and resample into 10 

equal segments 

11 

Again this data set is resampled into 10 equal segments 

12 

Kernel density, 1500 foot search radius – Impact values did not weight the output 

13 

Again this data set is resampled into 10 equal segments 

14 

Depending on the externality the concentrated disadvantage value was reciprocated. 

10

Image 2: Operationalized Differential Association Theory 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W O ST 

W A ST 

W VAN DORN ST 


W VINE ST 

W DENTON RD 

SW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 


W ROKEBY RD 

W O ST 

INTERSTATE 80 


W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 

SUN VALLEY BLVD 

A ST 

W SOUTH ST 



S 10TH ST 

S 10TH ST 

ROKEBY RD 

L ST 

SOUTH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 33RD ST 

O ST 

N 48TH ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

Therefore, the raster data needs to be symbolized according to a standard deviation analysis. For 

some contextual background remember that each analysis cell is 500*500 feet. A breakdown of cell counts 

by value is found in appendix B, table 4. Image three shows the breakdown of the cell vales using one 

standard deviation. For clarity image four displays the data breaks (7), mean (3), standard deviation (2) and 

other information. 

N 56TH ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

CALVERT ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

S 56TH ST 

11 

INTERSTATE 80 

PIONEERS BLVD 

N 70TH ST 


N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

VAN DORN ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 


HAVELOCK AV 

N 84TH ST 

SOUTH ST 

S 84TH ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 


ROKEBY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

ADAMS ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

VALUE 


Major Streets 

Streets 

Streams 

-9 

-8 

-7 

-6 

-5 

-4 

-3 

-2 

-1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9

Image 3: Statistical Operationalized Differential Association Theory: Standard Deviation 

NW 84TH ST 

NW 84TH ST 

SW 84TH ST 

SW 84TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 34 

W ADAMS ST 

W HOLDREGE ST 

SW 70TH ST 


W OLD CHENEY RD 

SW 70TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W O ST 

W A ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W DENTON RD 

W ROKEBY RD 


INTERSTATE 80 W O ST 

W VINE ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

Image 4: Basic Statistical Breakdown 

SW 27TH ST 



W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 


W SOUTH ST 


A ST 



S 10TH ST 

S 10TH ST 

ROKEBY RD 

L ST 

SOUTH ST 

N 27TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 33RD ST N 33RD ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

CALVERT ST 

12 

N 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

PIONEERS BLVD 

S 48TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

S 56TH ST 

N 70TH ST 


N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

VAN DORN ST 

N 56TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 


HAVELOCK AV 

N 84TH ST 

SOUTH ST 

S 84TH ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 


ROKEBY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

O ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

-9 to -2 

-1 to 0 

1 to 2 

3 to 4 

5 to 6 

7 to 7 

8 to 9

Image three is interesting because it heavily mirrors the initial concentrated disadvantage datasets. 

Perhaps this isn’t an error, but instead a reaffirmation of what is commonly assumed about personal priority 

according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of need. In general, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is predetermined in 

order of importance. It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the lowest level is associated 

with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly 

those related to identity and purpose. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the 

lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the 

lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will 

temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not 

permanently regress to the lower level (Shane Hudson , 2009). The areas below the standard deviation, and 

signified as such, contain many working poor, and those whose priorities are not neighborhood first. 

Instead, work, income and family dominate their resources. Its easy to see how those areas are symbolized 

the way that they are. 

The real test comes down to application and how ‘true/significant’ these values are to other 

variables such as voting efficacy, building and safety issues, health department issues and student 

achievement score … all of which were depicted in the projects proposed operationalized theory and 

process figure (figure 1). Unfortunately that is outside of this project, but would be very interesting if those 

data sets were assembled. Still, the validity of this project and the general context of differential 

association’s impact on neighborhood development is clear; Through the use of a broad theory, community 

specific indicators can be identified, gather, processed and communicated in a visual form that aids 

comprehension, rational policy development and defensible, efficient, equatible resource/program 

distribution. 

In conclusion this project examined how Differential Association Theory could be operationalized 

and applied within the context of neighborhood development and redevelopment. It succeeds in its purpose. 

However, policy and quality data driven processes are only as strong as the political leadership to place and 

commit dedicated resources to (1) identified areas or (2) areas where problems can be encapsulated. 

Communities are dynamic structures that require intentional support and focused intent from not only the 

community’s political processes, but from its citizens as well. I hope that the former will be able to use this 

project as a guide for leading the ladder through budget and policy/program creation and implementation. 

References: 

Berube, A., Katz, B. (2005). Katrina. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from Brookings Institute Web site: 

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2005/10poverty_berube.aspx 

Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1986). Perceived and Actual Crime. Metropolitan Crime 

Patterns. 139-159. 

Casady, T. (2003). Lincoln Police Department. GIS in Law Enforcement: Implementation issues 

and case studies, 

Canter, P. (1998). Geographic Information Systems and Crime Analysis. Crime Mapping & Crime 

Prevention. 157-190. 

Sawicki, D., & Flynn, P. (1996). Neighborhood Indicators: A Review of the literature and an Assessment 

of Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Journal of the the American Planning Association. 62, 165-183. 

Definition of Crime. (1988). In The Electronic Encyclopedia (1st ed., Unknown: Vol. Unknown). 

Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc. 

FSU, Initials. (n.d.). Edward H. Sutherland. Retrieved from 

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/sutherland.html 

Haque, A (1998).Use of Geographical Information Systems in Mapping Distressed Areas of Cities. Journal 

of Urban Technology. 5, 47-59. 

13

Katz, B. (2004). There Goes the Neighborhood. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from Brookings Institute Web 

site: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0714metropolitanpolicy_katz.aspx 

Kretzman, J., McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward 

finding and mobilizing a communities assets. Chicago IL: ACTA Publications. 

Luc, A., Cohen, J., Cook, D., Gorr, D., & Tita, G. (2000). Measurement and Analysis of Crime 

and Justice. Criminal Justice. 4, 213-262. 

McLafferty, S., Williamson, D., McGuire. (2000). Identifying Crime 

Hot Spots Using Kernel Smoothing. Analyzing Crime Patterns: Frontiers of 

Practice, 77-85. 

Piper, K. (2002). Cartographic Fictions: Maps, Race, and Identity. New Brunswik: Rutgers 

University Press. 

Ronald L. Akers. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology. 

Ross L. Matsueda. (1988). The current state of Differential Association Theory. Crime and 

Delinquency(July 1988). Sage Publication 

Shane Hudson , SH. (2009, Febuary 19). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved from 

http://www.successcircuit.com/knowledge/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs/ 

Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of 

collective efficacy. Science. 277, 918. 

Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New 

Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology. 105, 603-651. 

Stephen Pfohl. (1994). Images of deviance and social control. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

Sutherland. (1974). Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company 

UNL COPC Grant, 1998 

14

Appendix A: Figures 

Figure 1: 

Projects Proposed Operationalized Model and Process 

15

Appendix B: Tables 

Table 1: 

Lincoln’s Distress Indicators, when geo-processed results in Concentrated Disadvantage Values 

Indicator Definition Data Source 

 

1 Population Population Block 

2 Poverty Individuals below poverty Block Group 

3 Single family Number of own children (18 and under) in single-parent Block 

homes 

families 

4 Disability Number of individuals (age 21 to 64) with a disability Block Group 

5 Housing cost Number of rental households paying at least 30% of their Block Group 

burdens income for rent 

6 Unemployment Number of adult (25-65) civilian labor force that is 

unemployed 

Block Group 

7 Minority Population that is a minority Block 

8 Education Number of persons (25+) with less than a 12 grade education Block Group 

9 Vacant Housing Number of vacant housing units Block 

10 Housing built 

before 1939 

Number of housing units built before 1939 Block Group 

11 Mortgages Number of housing units with a mortgage Block Group 

Table 2: 

Negative Externalities: Neighborhood Crime Types 

Impact Call Type Count 

16 

Impact 

Distance 

Buffer 

Distance 

10 ASLT GUN Assault - Gun 65 4 1,200 

10 ASLT KNIFE Assault - Knife 179 5 1,500 

8 ASLT ODW Assault - Other dang Weapon 597 3 900 

7 * NO WEAP Assault - Weapon 3,357 5 1,500 

7 BURG RD FE Residential Dwelling - Forced Entry 170 5 1,500 

7 BURG RN FE * Forced Entry 153 5 1,500 

7 BURG RU FE Residential Unit - Forced Entry 499 5 1,500 

7 SELL NARCO Narcotics - Sell 86 7 2,100 

6 ASLT PO/KNIF Assault - Pulled - Knife 4 6 1,800 

6 ASLT PO/ODW Assault - Pulled Other dang weapon 8 6 1,800 


6 LFA $200 + Larceny from Auto 606 1 300 


5 BURG RD NFE Residential Dwelling - NonForced Ent 92 3 900 

5 BURG RN NFE * Non Forced Entry 128 5 1,500 

5 BURG RU NFE Residential Unit - Non Forced Entry 306 3 900 

4 DISTURBANCE Disturbance 2,163 2 600 


4 LAA $200 + Larceny Auto Access 544 2 600 


4 LFA ATTEMPT Larceny from Auto - Attempted 260 1 300 

3 BURG RD ATT Residential Dwelling - Attempt 35 5 1,500 

3 BURG RN ATT Residential Unit of some sort 31 5 1,500

3 BURG RU ATT Residential Unit - Attempt 100 5 1,500 

3 NARCO-OTH Narcotics - Other 59 3 900 

2 LAA ATTEMPT Larceny Auto Access - Attempted 54 2 600 

2 POSS NARCO Narcotics - Possession 1,667 1 300 

1 ASLT PO/N WP Assault - Pulled Non Dang Weapon 36 6 1,800 

Table 3: 

Positive Externalities: Neighborhood Social Resources 

Intensity Type Count Impact Distance Buffer Distance 

10 Great Neighborhood Graduates 86 2 600 

7 Neighborhood Coordinator 1,005 5 1,500 

7 Neighborhood Association Presidents 47 10 3,000 

6 Neighborhood Watch Members 13,778 2 600 

4 Election Poll Worker 1,074 1 300 

3 Community Facilities 22 8 2,400 

Table 4: 

Raster Cell Break down 

Value Count SqFt Acres 

-9 6 1,500,000 34.44 

-8 2 500,000 11.48 

-7 12 3,000,000 68.87 

-6 19 4,750,000 109.04 

-5 14 3,500,000 80.35 

-4 26 6,500,000 149.22 

-3 44 11,000,000 252.53 

-2 64 16,000,000 367.31 

-1 159 39,750,000 912.53 

0 244 61,000,000 1,400.37 

1 386 96,500,000 2,215.34 

2 824 206,000,000 4,729.11 

3 1686 421,500,000 9,676.31 

4 2680 670,000,000 15,381.08 

5 144 36,000,000 826.45 

6 37 9,250,000 212.35 

7 9 2,250,000 51.65 

8 7 1,750,000 40.17 

9 3 750,000 17.22 

17

Appendix C: Images 

Image 1: Areas of Concentrated Disadvantage 

STATE SPUR 55-M 

NW 105TH ST 

W VINE ST 

SW 84TH ST 

NW 84TH ST 

W ADAMS ST 

W HOLDREGE ST 


STATE SPUR 55-A 

SW 84TH ST 

NW 70TH ST 

W O ST 

SW 70TH ST 

SW 70TH ST 

NW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W A ST 

SW 56TH ST 

W DENTON RD 

W VAN DORN ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W SALTILLO RD 


W VINE ST 

SW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 

W SOUTH ST 


INTERSTATE 80 

W O ST 


W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 

N 10TH ST 


S 10TH ST 


L ST 

SOUTH ST 

S 10TH ST 

ROKEBY RD 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 33RD ST 

N 48TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

VAN DORN ST 

CALVERT ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

S 56TH ST 

INTERSTATE 80 


N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

N 56TH ST 

18 

N 70TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

S 84TH ST 


N 84TH ST 

HAVELOCK AV 

N 84TH ST 

SOUTH ST 

SALTILLO RD 

A ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 


ROKEBY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

O ST 

VAN DORN ST 

ADAMS ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

ROKEBY RD 


Major Streets 

Streets 

Streams 

Solution CD (11) 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

Image 2: 

Operationalized Differential Association Theory 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W O ST 

W A ST 

W VAN DORN ST 


W VINE ST 

W DENTON RD 

SW 27TH ST 

NW 27TH ST 


W ROKEBY RD 

W O ST 

INTERSTATE 80 


W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 


A ST 

W SOUTH ST 



S 10TH ST 

S 10TH ST 

ROKEBY RD 

L ST 

SOUTH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 33RD ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

O ST 

N 48TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

CALVERT ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

S 56TH ST 

19 

INTERSTATE 80 

PIONEERS BLVD 

N 70TH ST 


N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

VAN DORN ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 


HAVELOCK AV 

N 84TH ST 

SOUTH ST 

S 84TH ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 


ROKEBY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

ADAMS ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

VALUE 


Major Streets 

Streets 

Streams 

-9 

-8 

-7 

-6 

-5 

-4 

-3 

-2 

-1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9

Image 3: 

Statistical Operationalized Differential Association Theory: Standard Deviation 

NW 84TH ST 

NW 84TH ST 

SW 84TH ST 

SW 84TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 34 

W ADAMS ST 

W HOLDREGE ST 

SW 70TH ST 



SW 70TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W O ST 

W A ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W DENTON RD 

W ROKEBY RD 


INTERSTATE 80 W O ST 

W VINE ST 

SW 27TH ST 


INTERSTATE 80 


W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 


W SOUTH ST 


A ST 



S 10TH ST 

S 10TH ST 

ROKEBY RD 

L ST 

SOUTH ST 

N 27TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

S 33RD ST N 33RD ST 

20 

N 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

CALVERT ST 

N 56TH ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

PIONEERS BLVD 

S 48TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

S 56TH ST 

N 70TH ST 


N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

VAN DORN ST 

N 56TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 


HAVELOCK AV 

N 84TH ST 

SOUTH ST 

S 84TH ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 


ROKEBY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

O ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

ROKEBY RD 

-9 to -2 

-1 to 0 

1 to 2 

3 to 4 

5 to 6 

7 to 7 

8 to 9

Image 4: 

Basic Statistical Breakdown 

21


ASU NRSA Map

NW 56TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 34 

W SUPERIOR ST 

W ADAMS ST 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W HOLDREGE ST 

INTERSTATE 80 



W YANKEE HILL RD 

SW 58TH ST 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W WAVERLY RD 

W MCKELVIE RD 

NW 54TH ST 

PINE KNOT DR 

W A ST 

NW 40TH ST 

NW 41ST ST 

NW 38TH ST 

NW 36TH ST 

NW 40TH ST 

W F ST 

SW 47TH ST 

W O ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W BUCKS DR 

SW 40TH ST 

W BLUFF RD 

NW 31ST ST 

W VINE ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

SW 36TH ST 

SW 33RD ST 

W DENTON RD 

NW 27TH ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W SALTILLO RD 

NW 27TH ST 

SW 27TH ST 

W WAVERLY RD 


NW 27TH ST 

SW 27TH ST 

W O ST 

W SOUTH ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W CLAIRE AV 

W BURGESS LA 

W BENNET RD 

SW 27TH ST 



W DENTON RD 

SW 12TH ST 

NW 12TH ST 

W ALVO RD 

NORTH PARK RD 

W ADAMS ST 

AVIATION RD 

W LAKESHORE DR 

W S ST 


W CORNHU SKER HWY 

W O ST 

INTERSTATE 80 


W A ST 

HOMESTE AD EXPY 

W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 

W SOUTH ST 

S FOLSOM ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W SALTILLO RD 

SW 14TH ST 

W BLUFF RD 

W BURT DR 

PIER 2 

W P ST 

W O ST 

N 1ST ST 


W B ST 

SW 2ND ST 

S 1ST ST 

BLUFF RD 


ADAMS ST ADAMS ST 


A ST 

O ST 

N 9TH ST 

N 11TH ST 

S 9TH ST 


N 10TH ST 

S 10TH ST 

VAN D ORN ST 

S 6TH ST 

N 7TH ST 

PION EERS B L VD 


N 14TH ST 

MORTON ST 

J ST 

C ST 

S 9TH ST 

HILLTOP RD 

S 14TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

MANATT ST 

HILL ST 

Q ST 

P ST 

L ST 

G ST 

S 16TH ST 

KNOX ST 

K ST 

Y ST 

SOUTH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

CAPITOL PKWY 

CALVERT ST 

S 25TH ST 

U ST 

S 22ND ST 

TIPPERARY TRL 

RIDGE RD 

VAVRINA LA 

S 27TH ST 

S 27TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

NORMAL BL VD 

SHERIDA N BLV D 

S 33RD ST 

SALTILLO RD 

N 33RD ST 

N 33RD ST 

N 33RD ST 

S 33RD ST 

S 33RD ST 

ROKEBY RD 

WAVERLY RD 

N 40TH ST 

VAN DORN ST 

CALVERT ST 

HOLDREGE ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

S 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

CO RNHUSKER HWY 

HOLDREGE ST 

T ST 

D ST 

LOVELAND DR 

S 29TH ST 

S 32ND ST 

S 38TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

S 40TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

Y ST 

X ST 

RANDOLPH ST 

B ST 

M ST 

S 44TH ST 

S 48TH ST 

S 48TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

ARBOR RD 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

JUDSON ST 

N 56TH ST 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

S 56TH ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

CORN HUSKER HWY 

SOUTH ST 

NORMAL BLVD 

S 54TH ST 

R ST 

PRESCOTT AV 

LA SALLE ST 

WILDBRIAR LA 

JACS LA S 46TH ST 

SW 13TH ST 

ASTER RD 

W JENNIFER DR 

NANCE AV 

ASU and NRSA Comparison 

ASU_2009 City Limits 

3 

nrsa2006 

Selected Major Streets 

SW 24TH ST 

SW 18TH ST 

Miles 

Streets - Major 

Streets 

LMI2000_Polygon 

N 1ST ST 

S 1ST ST 

S 1ST ST 

MCKELVIE RD 

S 5TH ST 

ALVO RD 

N 15TH ST 

FLETCHER AV 

S 7TH ST 

X ST 


ELBA AV 

W ST 

M ST 

B ST 

S 15TH ST 

S 15TH ST 

S 17TH ST 

S 19TH ST 

LAKE ST 

GARRET LA 

N 19TH ST 

N 23RD ST 

ACCESS ROAD 

DODGE ST 

M ST 

R ST 

MERRILL ST 

KEYSTONE DR 

L ST 

F ST 

CABLE AV 

HIGH ST 

N 32ND ST 

S 34TH ST 

BLUFF RD 

FLETCHER AV 

FAIR ST 

J ST 

CROMWELL DR 

N 51ST ST 

N ST 

L ST 

HIGH ST 

HILLSIDE ST 

N 61ST ST 

ELDON DR 

BRIDLE LA 

SALTILLO RD 

S 70TH ST 


REBEL DR 

N 70TH ST 

MCCORMICK DR 

SEWARD AV 

FULTON AV 

FRANCIS ST 

X ST 

P ST 

M ST 

ELKCREST DR 

HAVELOCK AV 

N 66TH ST 

SUMNER ST 

HIGH ST 

S 59TH ST 

S 67TH ST 

N 68TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

GARLAND ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

VINE ST 

S OUTH ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 

PINE LAKE RD 

S 66TH ST 

KESS DR 

ROKEBY RD 

DEERHAVEN DR 

SOUTHDALE RD 

S 68TH ST 

MCKELVIE RD 

N COTNER BLVD 

LOGAN AV 

L ST 

N 74TH ST 

W RIO RD 

VAN DORN ST 

S 76TH ST 

BENNET RD 

HAVELOCK AV 

ROKEBY RD 

N 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

A ST 

S 84TH ST 


S 75TH ST 

N 79TH ST 

S 82ND ST 

N 84TH ST 

FLETCHER AV 

LEIGHTON AV 

E AVON LA 

GLYNOAKS DR 

S 80TH ST 

N 85TH ST 

PINEDALE AV 

S 78TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

S 86TH ST 

WAVERLY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

N 98TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

AVON LA 

ANTHONY LA 

S 98TH ST 

O ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

S 91ST ST 

S 93RD ST 

S 96TH ST 

N 98TH ST 

N 100TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

PINE LAKE RD 


S 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 

BREAGAN RD 

S 98TH ST 



S 105TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 6 

S 110TH ST 

ALVO RD 

N 112TH ST 

S 114TH ST 

DIXIE TRL 


ROKEBY RD 

S 120TH ST 

S 120TH ST 

[


Response Distribution Map

NW 56TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 34 

W SUPERIOR ST 

W ADAMS ST 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W HOLDREGE ST 

INTERSTATE 80 



W YANKEE HILL RD 

SW 58TH ST 

NW 56TH ST 

SW 56TH ST 

NW 48TH ST 

W WAVERLY RD 

W MCKELVIE RD 

NW 54TH ST 

PINE KNOT DR 

W A ST 

NW 40TH ST 

NW 41ST ST 

NW 38TH ST 

NW 36TH ST 

NW 40TH ST 

W F ST 

SW 47TH ST 

W O ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W BUCKS DR 

SW 40TH ST 

W BLUFF RD 

NW 31ST ST 

W VINE ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

SW 36TH ST 

SW 33RD ST 

W DENTON RD 

NW 27TH ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W SALTILLO RD 

NW 27TH ST 

W WAVERLY RD 


NW 27TH ST 

SW 27TH ST 

SW 27TH ST 

!( 

W O ST 

W SOUTH ST 

W VAN DORN ST 

W CLAIRE AV 

W BURGESS LA 

W BENNET RD 

SW 27TH ST 

NORTH PARK RD 

W ADAMS ST 

SW 24TH ST 



W DENTON RD 

SW 12TH ST 

NW 12TH ST 

W ALVO RD 

AVIATION RD 

W LAKESHORE DR 

W S ST 

!( 


W CORNHU SKER HWY 

W O ST 

INTERSTATE 80 


W A ST 

HOMESTE AD EXPY 

W CALVERT ST 

S FOLSOM ST 

S FOLSOM ST 

W ROKEBY RD 

W SALTILLO RD 

SW 14TH ST 

W BLUFF RD 

W BURT DR 

PIER 2 

W P ST 

W O ST 

N 1ST ST 


W B ST 

W SOUTH ST 

SW 2ND ST 

S 1ST ST 

BLUFF RD 



N 9TH ST 

N 11TH ST 

S 9TH ST 

!( 


N 10TH ST 

S 10TH ST 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

ADAMS ST ADAMS ST 

A ST 

O ST 

VAN D ORN ST 

S 6TH ST 

N 7TH ST 

PION EERS B L VD 


N 14TH ST 

MORTON ST 

J ST 

C ST 

S 9TH ST 

HILLTOP RD 

S 14TH ST 

SUPERIOR ST 

MANATT ST 

HILL ST 

!( !( 

L ST 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Q ST 

P ST 

G ST 

S 16TH ST 

KNOX ST 

K ST 

Y ST 

!( 

SOUTH ST 

N 27TH ST 

!( 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

N 27TH ST 

CAPITOL PKWY 

S 27TH ST 

!(!( 

T ST!( 

M ST 

N ST !( 

L ST !( 

!( !( !( !( 

!( 

!( !( RANDOLPH ST 

!( !( 

!( 

CALVERT ST 

S 25TH ST 

U ST 

S 22ND ST 

TIPPERARY TRL 

RIDGE RD 

VAVRINA LA 

S 27TH ST 

!( 

SUPERIOR ST 

NORMAL BL VD 

SHERIDA N BLV D 

S 33RD ST 

SALTILLO RD 

N 33RD ST 

N 33RD ST 

N 33RD ST 

S 33RD ST 

S 33RD ST 

VAN DORN ST 

CALVERT ST 

!( 

ROKEBY RD 

WAVERLY RD 

N 40TH ST 

!( 

!( 

!( 

LA SALLE ST 

!( 

HOLDREGE ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

S 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

CO RNHUSKER HWY 

HOLDREGE ST 

D ST 

LOVELAND DR 

S 29TH ST 

S 32ND ST 

S 38TH ST 

PINE LAKE RD 

S 40TH ST 

N 48TH ST 

Y ST 

X ST 

B ST 

S 44TH ST 

WILDBRIAR LA 

JACS LA S 46TH ST 

SW 18TH ST 

SW 13TH ST 

ASTER RD 

W JENNIFER DR 

N 1ST ST 

NANCE AV 

S 1ST ST 

S 1ST ST 

MCKELVIE RD 

S 5TH ST 

ALVO RD 

N 15TH ST 

FLETCHER AV 

S 7TH ST 

ELBA AV 

W ST 

M ST 

S 15TH ST 

S 17TH ST 

S 19TH ST 

LAKE ST 

GARRET LA 

N 19TH ST 

N 23RD ST 

ACCESS ROAD 

DODGE ST 

R ST 

MERRILL ST 

F ST 

CABLE AV 

HIGH ST 

KEYSTONE DR 

N 32ND ST 

S 34TH ST 

BLUFF RD 

FLETCHER AV 

FAIR ST 

S 48TH ST 

S 48TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

ARBOR RD 

N 56TH ST 

N 56TH ST 

JUDSON ST 

N 51ST ST 

HIGH ST 

HILLSIDE ST 

!( 

N 56TH ST 

!( 

!( 

!( !( 

S 56TH ST 

!( 

VINE ST 

S 56TH ST 

INTERSTATE 80 

CORN HUSKER HWY 

SOUTH ST 

!( 

NORMAL BLVD 

S 54TH ST 

R ST 

PRESCOTT AV 

Survey - Self Identified Respondent Distribution 

!( Respondent Cross Street City Limits 

3 

nrsa2006 

Selected Major Streets 

Miles 

Streets - Major 

Streets 

X ST 

LMI2000_Polygon 


B ST 

S 15TH ST 

M ST 

J ST 

CROMWELL DR 

L ST 

N 61ST ST 

ELDON DR 

BRIDLE LA 

!( 

SALTILLO RD 

S 70TH ST 

!( 

!( !( 

!( 


REBEL DR 

N 70TH ST 

MCCORMICK DR 

SEWARD AV 

FULTON AV 

FRANCIS ST 

X ST 

P ST 

M ST 

ELKCREST DR 

HAVELOCK AV 

N 66TH ST 

SUMNER ST 

HIGH ST 

S 59TH ST 

S 67TH ST 

N 68TH ST 

N 70TH ST 

GARLAND ST 

N 70TH ST 

S 70TH ST 

!( 

VINE ST 

!( 

S OUTH ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 

PINE LAKE RD 

S 66TH ST 

KESS DR 

ROKEBY RD 

DEERHAVEN DR 

SOUTHDALE RD 

S 68TH ST 

MCKELVIE RD 

N COTNER BLVD 

LOGAN AV 

L ST 

N 74TH ST 

W RIO RD 

VAN DORN ST 

S 76TH ST 

BENNET RD 

HAVELOCK AV 

!( !( !( 

!( 

ROKEBY RD 

N 84TH ST 

S 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

A ST 

S 84TH ST 


S 75TH ST 

N 79TH ST 

S 82ND ST 

N 84TH ST 

FLETCHER AV 

LEIGHTON AV 

E AVON LA 

GLYNOAKS DR 

S 80TH ST 

N 85TH ST 

PINEDALE AV 

S 78TH ST 

N 84TH ST 

A ST 

VAN DORN ST 

S 86TH ST 

WAVERLY RD 

US HIGHWAY 6 

N 98TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

AVON LA 

ANTHONY LA 

S 98TH ST 

O ST 

PIONEERS BLVD 

S 91ST ST 

S 93RD ST 

S 96TH ST 

N 98TH ST 

N 100TH ST 

ADAMS ST 

PINE LAKE RD 


S 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

N 112TH ST 

S 112TH ST 

OLD CHENEY RD 

BREAGAN RD 

S 98TH ST 



S 105TH ST 

US HIGHWAY 6 

S 110TH ST 

ALVO RD 

N 112TH ST 

S 114TH ST 

DIXIE TRL 


ROKEBY RD 

S 120TH ST 

S 120TH ST 

[


Institutional Structure

Institutional Structure 

Housing 

The institutional structure for providing affordable housing in Lincoln is a complex 

system of public and private partnerships. Private sector players may change over 

the years; public sector players remain fairly constant. 

Urban Development Department (UDD): This City department has been in 

charge of the administration of federal entitlement funding since 1976. UDD’s 

Housing Rehabilitation Division provides direct financial assistance for rehabilitation 

of residential units under a variety of programs carried out “in house”. UDD also 

provides management and oversight in the use of these funds by non-profit 

organizations in carrying out City programs (i.e. NeighborWorks®Lincoln) or in the 

development of newly constructed housing. 

Lincoln Housing Authority (LHA): The Lincoln Housing Authority has over 1,000 

LHA-owned or managed units and administers another 2,800 tenant-based rental 

assisted units (vouchers and certificates). LHA’s goal is not only to supply safe, 

affordable housing to low-income households but to move the tenants from welfare 

to work and convert renters into homeowners. In partnership with Lincoln Public 

Schools, a Northeast High School construction class builds a house each year which 

is sold to a public housing family on a lease-purchase agreement. LHA also provides 

financial support to homeless service providers has developed its own low-income 

tax credit housing projects in non-low-income areas of the community, and provides 

downpayment assistance for clients moving to homeownership. LHA was created 

under State law by the City of Lincoln in 1946. LHA’s Board of Commissioners has 

five members, all appointed by the Mayor of Lincoln and approved by the Lincoln City 

Council. 

Nebraska Investment Finance Authority (NIFA): An independent (private) 

instrumentality created by the State of Nebraska to issue tax exempt revenue bonds 

for funding a variety or programs. NIFA’s first mortgage loans have been a valuable 

tool for the City’s first-time homebuyer program (administered by 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln). One of the NIFA programs targeted for the NRSA and 

offers a substantial below market rate enabling low-moderate income households to 

enter the home market which otherwise may be unobtainable. Under our Home 

Improvement Loan Program (HILP), five lenders use NIFA funds to loan to low- to 

moderate-income homeowners to rehabilitate their property. The City, using CDBG 

funds, buys down the interest rate to 0%. This has been a very successful ongoing 

program with a new agreement (terms and interest rate) every three years. 

Private Non-profit Organizations (affordable rental housing): Over the years, 

numerous non-profit organizations have acted as sponsors and owners of affordable 

rental housing developments in Lincoln. These include: the Indian Center Inc., 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln, the YWCA, Mercy Housing Midwest, CenterPointe, 

Community Action Partnership (CAP) of Lancaster and Saunders Counties, AP Limited 

Partnership (Interfaith Housing Coalition), Program for People (Diocesan Housing), 

and the Lincoln Medical Education Foundation. Some of these entities are housingcentered 

agencies (Habitat, NeighborWorks®Lincoln, and Mercy). Others are 

expanding their mission to include housing (LAP, the Catholic Diocese, Lincoln 

Medical Education Foundation, the Indian Center, and the YWCA). Still others were 

created with a singular housing project in mind (AP Limited). Some of these entities 

1

have taken on more than one project; others stop (or have stopped) at one. 

Private Non-profit Organizations (Homeownership): 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln: NeighborWorks®Lincoln (NWL) is a private nonprofit 

organization involved in a variety of activities in partnership with the 

City to promote and assist in homeownership. NeighborWorks®Lincoln 

provides Homebuyer training funded with CDBG and downpayment assistance 

funded with HOME or Nebraska Affordable Housing Trust Funds (NAHTF) 

through the Nebraska Department of Economic Development. NWL builds 

new houses in cooperation with Lincoln High School construction trades 

students and with YouthBuild. Problem properties are purchased, 

renovated/redeveloped and sold to a first time home buyer under the 

Troubled Property Program. Using stimulus funds called the Neighborhood 

Stabilization Program, an additional 12 vacant, blighted and/or foreclosed 

properties were renovated or redeveloped. Before the end of 2010, the 

Antelope Creek Village project will begin construction which will add 18 

affordable housing units in the Antelope Valley area. NWL’s community 

builder works with neighborhood organizations on revitalization efforts to 

increase home ownership and build community pride through the Free-to- 

Grow program. 

Habitat for Humanity: The Lincoln-Lancaster County Habitat for Humanity 

is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated on February 12, 1988 as an 

affiliate of Habitat International, Inc. Their mission is to create decent 

affordable housing for those in need and to make decent shelter a matter of 

conscience. One hundred eight (108) families are now living in Habitat 

homes averaging 7 to 8 new homes a year. Each year, Urban Development 

assists with HOME funding for lot purchases, site selection and environmental 

review. 

Nebraska Housing Resources Inc.: Neighborhood Housing Resources is a 

non-profit corporation formed in June, 1998 by three members of the Home 

Builders Association of Lincoln. Its purpose is to provide affordable low- and 

moderate-income housing opportunities for first-time buyers in Nebraska. It 

achieves this purpose by encouraging more homebuilders to enter and/or 

expand into this market by increasing the supply of affordable lots and 

arranging attractive financing packages for qualified homebuyers. Partnering 

with the Urban Development Department, Neighborhood Housing Resources 

has created 188 affordable home ownership new construction units in four 

projects in Lincoln. NHR will continue to serve the community by building 

individual houses on an infill basis. 

Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI): AHI is a private non-profit 

organization dedicated to the rehabilitation of one to two housing units a year 

in the NRSA. The qualified buyers complete home buyer training through 

NeighborWorks®Lincoln and receive down payment assistance from UDD’s 

First Home Program. 

For more information about 

2

Rebuilding Together (formerly Christmas in April): Rebuilding Together 

is a non-profit organization with a mission to provide rehabilitation services to 

low-income elderly homeowners. 

State of Nebraska, Department of Economic Development (DED): The 

Department of Economic Development’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund is 

intended to provide funds to eligible recipients for acquisition, rehabilitation, 

construction, and production of affordable housing to increase the supply of 

decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low- to moderate-income Nebraskans. 

The program also provides leverage of private investment in the development 

of affordable housing. Urban Development has used the Nebraska Affordable 

Housing Trust Fund (NAHTF) to develop affordable new construction housing 

projects. 

Private Owners of Project Based Assisted Housing: Under Federal 

housing programs created in the 1980s, numerous private for-profit entities 

developed affordable housing for families and elderly persons in Lincoln. 

Fair Housing 

Lincoln Commission on Human Rights: The legal authority for enforcement and 

decision-making on all complaints of discriminatory actions prohibited by Lincoln’s 

Municipal Code rest with the City’s Commission on Human Rights. The Commission, 

with nine members appointed by the Mayor, receives support from the City’s Equal 

Opportunity Officer, who supervises the staff needed for the daily operation of the 

Commission. The Commission acts as an advisory body to the Mayor, City Council, 

and Equal Opportunity Officer, and also has responsibility for reviewing compliance 

with Affirmative Action and proposing amendments to the City’s anti-discrimination 

ordinance as necessary. The Commission not only investigates, hears, and acts on 

complaints of discrimination, it is also charged with educating the public about 

unlawful discriminatory practices and enforcement measures, formulating City 

policies to eliminate discrimination. In September 2010, the director of the Lincoln 

Commission on Human Rights retired. These duties are now being directly handled 

by the Mayor’s office and complaints are received through the City Attorney’s office 

and assigned to Human Rights staff. As the City budget is completed, the hope is to 

hire a new director in 2011. 

Urban Development Department (UDD): As administering entity for the City’s 

federal housing and community development entitlement programs, the Urban 

Development Department is also responsible for ensuring that the City’s programs 

comply with non-discrimination and equal opportunity requirements. For housing, 

these requirements include the following: the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 

1988, Equal Opportunity in Housing (Executive Order 11063), Title VI of the City 

Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended (Handicap accessibility). UDD is responsible 

for preparing the City’s Analysis of Impediments of Fair Housing and monitoring the 

implementation of activities to remove the barriers identified. 

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC): The NEOC was created by 

the Nebraska Legislature in 1965 and is authorized to enforce several state statues, 

including the Nebraska Fair Housing Act. This Act is substantially equivalent to 

Federal Fair Housing Law and to prevent duplication of proceedings. The NEOC is 

authorized by federal statute to investigate complaints alleging violations of Title VII 

3

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the U.S. Fair Housing Act. It is currently the only 

“local” agency that can provide relief under federal law to victims of housing 

discrimination in Lincoln. 

League of Human Dignity: The League is a consumer-based non-profit 

organization, whose purpose is to actively promote the full integration of persons 

with disabilities into society. In doing so, this organization advocates for the needs 

and rights or persons with disabilities, including access to housing. The League has 

an ADA/Disability Rights Program which provides public education on ADA. 

Fair Housing Center: The Fair Housing Center of Nebraska, located in Omaha, is a 

private non-profit organization that investigates alleged violations of the Fair Housing 

Act and state and local fair housing laws, and carries out research on discrimination 

and compliance with fair housing laws. The Fair Housing Center can help people file 

complaints of alleged housing discrimination and provide assistance and support for 

seeking retribution under fair housing law. They conduct testing and other 

investigatory techniques to determine whether discrimination occurred. The Center 

works to mediate or seek voluntary resolution of discrimination after complaints have 

been filed. 

REALTORS ® Association of Lincoln, Equal Opportunity Cultural Diversity 

Committee: In 1998, this committee worked to institute mandatory fair housing 

training for licensed REALTORS ® in Lincoln. These sessions were implemented to 

better educate Lincoln REALTORS ® on the Fair Housing Act and other fair housing 

laws. Of specific importance is how these laws are used to protect people with 

disabilities against discrimination when buying or renting a home. 

Lincoln’s Continum of Care (CoC 

Lincoln’s CoC includes homeless service providers and programs that make up the 

fundamental components of a “continuum” of homeless services from emergency 

shelters all the way through to supportive permanent housing. Also included are 

the organizations and entities that provide financial resources and other support 

activities for homeless services. In addition, the CoC includes representation from 

the business community, the Lincoln City Council, County government, the Lincoln 

Police Department, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Police Department, Nebraska 

Wesleyan University, the State Department of Health and Human Services, and 

homeless consumers. 

The CoC is led by an executive committee that includes a chair, co-chair, immediate 

past chair, treasurer, and a representative from the Urban Development 

Department. The executive committee is nominated and elected each year by 

majority vote of the CoC. 

Emergency Shelter and Services: Emergency shelter is overnight or short-term 

temporary shelter, including day shelters that provide meals and limited supportive 

services and financial assistance to the homeless in general or for specific 

populations of the homeless. These facilities provide an immediate alternative to the 

street and have a component that can identify an individual’s or family’s needs. 

Agencies providing emergency shelter and services include the following: 

Overnight Shelters 

Friendship Home 

People’s City Mission 

4

Cedar’s Youth Services 

Veteran’s Hospital 

Overnight Shelter Facilities/Programs 

Hotel/Motel Partnership Program 

Developmental Services of Nebraska 

Cornhusker Place 


Community Mental Health Center 

Day Shelters 

Lighthouse 


Case Management (homeless) 



Fresh Start 

St. Monica’s 

Community Action Partnership (CAP) of Lancaster and Saunders 

Counties 

Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach 

Centerpointe 

Nebraska AIDS Project 

Transitional Housing Programs: Transitional housing is designed to provide 

housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate 

movement to independent living within 24 months. Supportive services include, but 

are not limited to, substance abuse treatment, short-term mental health services, 

independent living skills, child care, job training, health services, and transportation. 

Supportive services also implies case management services which ensure that 

persons receive necessary services, for example, that children attend school 

regularly. Transitional housing programs include the following: 

Families 

Catholic Social Services 


Counties 

Lincoln Housing Authority 


Friendship Home 

St. Monica’s Project 

Lincoln Medical Education Foundation 


Fresh Start 

Individuals 

Men and/or Women 



Fresh Start 

Houses of Hope 


5

Youth 

Touchstone 




Development Services of Nebraska 

Ex-Offenders 

House for New Life 

Dual Diagnosis 

CenterPointe 

Mental Illness 


CenterPointe 

Substance Abuse 




Touchstone 

Veterans 


Permanent Supportive Housing: Below is a listing of permanent supportive 

housing projects and programs. Some of the households and persons served by 

these programs do not meet the HUD definition of chronic homelessness; however, 

the remaining listed projects serve those who, without assistance, are at high risk of 

homelessness. 

Permanent Supportive Housing Program providers for individuals who 

meet HUD’s definition of chronic homelessness 

Individuals 

● CenterPointe 

Families 

Indian Center, Inc. 


Mercy Services Corporation 

Catholic Social Services 

YWCA Garden Apartments 

Single Adults 

Interfaith Housing Coalition Ambassador-President Apartments 

Persons with Developmental Disabilities 

Community Alternatives 

Active Community Treatments, Inc. 

Developmental Services of NE, Inc. 

6

Mosiac 

Transfiguration 

Vital Services, Inc. 

Persons with Severe Mental Illness 

OUR Homes 

Prescott Place 

Serenity Place 

Persons with Physical Disabilities 

League of Human Dignity 

Madonna 

Elderly Households (Limited Services) 

Lincoln Housing Authority (Burke Plaza, Mahoney Manor, Crossroads 

House) 

Mercy Services 

Malone Manor 

Indian Center, Inc. 

Homeless Prevention and Other Supportive Services: Prevention is the most 

cost-effective way of addressing homelessness. Intervention methods that prevent 

foreclosure or eviction and supportive services for low-income households, 

physically, mentally, and/or emotionally disabled individuals, and other populations, 

are significantly less costly than strategies that provide emergency shelter and food 

for homeless individuals and families, and finance their “re-entry” into permanent 

housing. Prevention is also essential to reduce the demand for emergency relief. 

The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) funding opportunity provided 

the impetus for unprecedented level so coordination, planning, and program 

development of Lincoln’s homeless prevention efforts. The HPRP program is 

administered by Region V Systems, and included collaboration and coordination with 

Lincoln’s rent and Utility assistance providers. 

HPRP Program 

Region V Systems 

Rent & Utility Assistance Network 

● Community Action Partnership (CAP) of Lancaster and Saunders 

Counties 

● Catholic Social Services 

● Salvation Army 

● People’s City Mission 

● Friendship Home 

● Region V Systems 

Direct Financial Assistance 


Counties 

Lancaster County Office of Health and Human Services 

Salvation Army HeatShare 

Veteran’s Service Office 

Lincoln Housing Authority Security 

7

Case Management (Special Needs Only) 


Centerpointe 


Nebraska AIDS Project 

Health Services 


People City Mission Medical Clinic 

Urban Indian Health Center 

Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department 

People’s Health Center 

Soup Kitchens/Meals 

Gathering Place 



“F” Street Recreation Center 

Lighthouse 

Funders: An important component in the institutional structure for providing 

homeless services is the entities that provide the financial resources for programs. 

Some of those funding sources are as follows: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): In the 

early 1980s, the federal government began, on a limited basis, addressing 

the issue of homelessness. However, it was not until 1987, with the passage 

of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, that the federal 

government assumed a “formal” role in addressing homelessness. 

State of Nebraska: In 1992, the State of Nebraska established the 

Homeless Shelter Assistance Trust Fund (HSATF), with a dedicated revenue 

source generated from the sale of homes and other real estate. 

City of Lincoln and Lancaster County: The City of Lincoln and Lancaster 

County both provide funds to local non-profit human service agencies through 

the Joint Budget Committee. 

United Way of Lincoln and Lancaster County: The United Way distributes 

monies received during its annual fund drive to numerous local human service 

agencies. 

Local Foundations: Lincoln has several local foundations; three of these 

have been in the forefront in providing support for many human service 

agencies, including those that serve the homeless - Woods Charitable Fund, 

the Lincoln Community Foundation, and the Cooper Foundation. 

Private Donations, Non-United Way: Direct donations from private 

individuals, groups, or corporations provide an important source of revenue 

for local homeless service providers. 

8

Economic Development 

Workforce Development and Business Development 

The following is a partial list of economic development resources – both workforce 

development and business development – available in the Lincoln area. This, of 

course, is not an exhaustive list. Additional sources of business services, including 

membership organizations such as the Lincoln Independent Business Association 

(LIBA) and the Nebraska Home-based Business Association, are also available, but 

are not listed. 

Economic Development. Continued fragmentation of economic development 

efforts in Lincoln and Lancaster County prompted the City, County, and Lincoln 

Electric System to jointly fund an economic development and marketing strategy 

study in FY 02. The study, conducted by Angelou Economics from Austin, Texas, 

outlined economic development goals, strategies, and an implementation plan for 

Lincoln to follow over the following five years to create higher paying jobs in a 

diverse economy. The plan clearly identified the Lincoln Partnership for Economic 

Development (LPED), the City of Lincoln and other partnering organizations’ roles in 

economic development. The plan also helped identify a new brand identity and 

marketing strategy to help accomplish growth. 

The Angelou study identified that several organizations currently speak for Lincoln’s 

economic development efforts. This portrays a confusing message to prospects and 

clients. To eliminate confusion, partnering economic development organizations 

have established LPED as the lead clearinghouse for economic development 

information and initiatives in Lincoln. In addition, a communication network among 

all the Lincoln area economic development organizations was developed with the 

newly formed Lincoln Economic Development Council (LEDC) leading the way. LEDC 

is comprised of staff from the Mayor’s Office, LPED, Chamber of Commerce, Lincoln 

Electric System (LES), Aquila (Natural Gas Provider), Lincoln Airport Authority, the 

University of Nebraska Technology Park, and the Nebraska Department of Economic 

Development (NEDED). This group meets regularly to develop project leads, make 

referrals, and exchange information. 

This close collaboration among economic development organizations has already 

resulted in the development of an on-line site selection database developed in 

conjunction with local commercial real estate brokers and the Multiple Listing 

Service. 

With assistance from Urban Development, Lancaster County, LES, DED, and the 

LPED, the Nebraska Business Visitation Program continues in Lincoln on an annual 

basis. Through this program, City, LES and LPED staff visit and conduct interviews 

with key industries in Lincoln. 

An additional economic development committee comprised of City and County staff 

from various departments was developed in FY 01 and continues to meet regularly. 

This committee, lead by the Economic Development Coordinator for the Mayor’s 

Office, meets to discuss and plan numerous economic development projects. 

Referrals from Urban Development to the Nebraska Business Development Center 

(NBDC), the Nebraska Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO), the Lincoln 

Partnership for Economic Development (LPED), the Chamber of Commerce, the 

Downtown Lincoln Association (DLA), Lancaster County Economic Development Loan 

9

Program, and the State of Nebraska Department of Economic Development (DED) 

are on-going. 

Greater Lincoln Workforce Investment Board (LWIB): The Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220, states as its purpose "…to provide 

workforce investment activities, through statewide and local workforce investment 

systems, that increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and 

increase occupational skill attainment by participants, and, as a result, improve the 

quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependence, and enhance the productivity 

and competitiveness of the Nation." The LWIB oversees the implementation and 

operation of the Lincoln Area Workforce System and One Stop Career Center that 

offers expanded services to job seekers and area businesses. 

Neighborhood Revitalization 

City of Lincoln: Multiple departments and partnerships, including the following 

(updated descriptions taken from the City Web sites): 

Urban Development Department: The primary objective of the Urban 

Development Department is the revitalization and maintenance of low- and 

moderate-income communities as productive and vigorous parts of the City as 

a whole. Strategies and programs are created, many using federal financial 

resources, which: 

Coordinate existing city-wide resources – both public and private, 

develop leadership at the individual, neighborhood, and agency level, 

eliminate barriers – physical, social, and economic, and 

create economic and employment opportunities. 

Public Works and Utilities: The purpose of the Department of Public 

Works/Utilities is to serve community growth, well-being, and economic 

success. Working together to provide quality services to our community, we 

finance, design, construct, operate and maintain: 

Municipal Water 

Waste Disposal 

Drainage 

Transportation Systems 

Building and Safety: Our responsibility is to assure that the health, fire, 

and housing safety needs of the public are maintained through adherence to 

those requirements established by law in the construction or use of every 

building in the community. This includes buildings in which people live, eat, 

sleep, play, work, worship, study, recuperate or are entertained. By 

accomplishing this mission the quality of life in the community is enhanced. 

Parks and Recreation: Studies show that many do not understand the 

value parks and recreation brings to our community’s quality of life. We feel a 

responsibility to close that gap—and to inspire more people to learn why a 

quality parks and recreation system is fundamental to youth development, 

active living, neighborhoods and families, special places and community 

events, and economic development. Most of all, we want to inspire you to 

enjoy the opportunities we offer. 

10

Lincoln/Lancaster County Planning Department: The Lincoln/Lancaster 

County Planning Department promotes and facilitates the efficient, highquality 

development of the City of Lincoln and Lancaster County resulting 

from meaningful interaction with our customers and the community. 

Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department: Protect and promote the 

public's health . It’s vision is a sustainable public health system serving all 

people to achieve optimal health 

Lincoln Police Department: Operates Crime Stoppers, Neighborhood 

Watch, uses Community Police Teams and operates under the philosophy of 

Community Based Policing. 

Problem Resolution Team (PRT): A multi-agency, multi-departmental 

team created to address long-term problem properties. 

Focus Area Concept Team (FACTeam): A multi-departmental team 

created to assist in identifying issues and focusing resources in neighborhood 

focus areas. 

Other Entities: 

Railroad Transportation Safety Board (RTSD): The Railroad 

Transportation Safety Board helps to plan and then fund the implementation 

of revitalization projects involving railroad safety. 

State Department of Roads: Assists in funding some transportation 

projects. 

Federal Department of Transportation: Assists in funding transportation 

projects. 

Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (NRD): Assists in 

planning and funding projects and maintenance of soil and water resources. 

Army Corps of Engineers: Assists in planning and funding projects, in the 

case of the City of Lincoln, primarily the Antelope Valley Project. 

Neighborhood Associations: A principle partner with the City in planning 

and implementation of revitalization projects. 

Antelope Valley Partners: The Antelope Valley Project was started in 1996 

to resolve transportation, flooding, and community revitalization issues in 

Lincoln’s central core neighborhoods, primarily Malone, Clinton, and the North 

Bottoms. This study brought together the City, the University of Nebraska- 

Lincoln, the Lower Platte Natural Resources District, federal agencies, 

neighborhoods, and the private sector to discuss concerns and identify 

solutions in this area. Throughout the process, the Urban Development 

Department has been actively involved as a member of the Management 

Committee, the Community Revitalization Advisory Committee, the Citizen’s 

Advisory Committee, and the City Directors Antelope Valley Committee. 

11

Free to Grow: Free to Grow is a neighborhood revitalization program with 

partners from the private, non-profit and public sectors working together to 

help develop solutions to problems that contribute to crime, an unhealthy 

environment, and substandard housing. The group concentrates revitalization 

efforts in smaller areas within a neighborhood. The program Core Team 

meets biweekly to keep current on the issues and to ensure action steps are 

being met. 

Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative: On March 13, 2008 Mayor 

Beutler launched the Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, a partnership 

between government, non-profits, schools, neighborhoods, churches, and the 

business and development community. The program is designed to improve 

neighborhoods and revitalize problem areas. A Mayoral Aide was hired and 

assigned to the Lincoln Police Department to head the initiative. Stronger 

Safer Neighborhoods is a problem oriented policing program. It involves a 

comprehensive approach that recognized the connections between crime, 

poverty, blight and social behaviors. It is predicated on a belief that we 

cannot arrest our way out of these problems. We have to address the 

underlying conditions in order to create lasting stability, safety, and health. 

12


HSG Need Table

CPMP Version 1.3 

Household Income 30 to 50 to 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 

With Any Housing Problems 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 10945 

With Any Housing Problems 83.6 9145 43 43 43 0 #### H C & H 

Cost Burden > 30% 18.1 1976 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 64.7 7078 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 


With Any Housing Problems 78.7 2215 0 #### 

Cost Burden > 30% 23.0 649 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 55.7 1567 0 #### 

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 100% 

With Any Housing Problems 0 0 #### 0 

Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 43.8 3470 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 15.7 1240 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 25.4 1175 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 30.2 1400 0 #### 

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 100% 

With Any Housing Problems 0 0 #### 0 

Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 23.3 2401 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 1.6 160 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 0 0 #### 



Cost Burden > 30% 34.8 3315 0 #### 

Cost Burden >50% 10.1 965 0 #### 

Goal 

Actual 

Total Any Housing Problem 253 0 253 0 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Disabled 0 

Total 215 Renter 0 Tot. Elderly 0 Total Lead Hazard 0 

Total 215 Owner 0 Tot. Sm. Related 0 

Total Renters 33240 

Total 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tot. Lg. Related 0 

Total Owners 18201 

Goal 

Actual 

Goal 

Actual 

Goal 

Actual 

% of 

Goal 

Priority 

Need? 

Plan 

to 

Fund? 

Fund 

Source 

Households 

with a Disabled 

Member 

HSGNeed 1 CPMP 

% 

HSHLD 

# 

HSHLD 

Dispropo 

rtionate 

Racial/ 

Ethnic 

Need? 

# of 

Househ 

olds in 

lead- 

Hazard 

Housing 

Total Low 

Income 

HIV/ AIDS 

Population


Homeless Table

1. Chronically Homeless 62 

2. Severely Mentally Ill 85 

3. Chronic Substance Abuse 157 

4. Veterans 45 

5. Persons with HIV/AIDS 0 

6. Victims of Domestic Violence 204 

7. Youth (Under 18 years of age) 

76 

Beds 

Emergency Shelters 

Transitional Housing 

Permanent Supportive 

Housing 

Total 

Chronically Homeless 

Beds 

CPMP Version 1.3 

Continuum of Care Homeless Population and Subpopulations 

Chart 

Sheltered 

Part 1: Homeless Population Emergency Transitional 

1. Homeless Individuals 177 

252 23 

2. Homeless Families with Children 

2a. Persons in Homeless with 

55 124 

1 

Children Families 

193 

325 

3 

Total (lines 1 + 2a) 

370 

577 26 

Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations 

Sheltered 

Un-sheltered 

Part 3: Homeless Needs 

Table: Individuals 

Part 4: Homeless Needs 

Table: Families 

Emergency Shelters 

Transitional Housing 

Permanent Supportive 

Housing 

Needs 


Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 

Goal 

Complete 

Goal 

Complete 

Complete 

295 161 134 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 0 0% M N 

525 310 215 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 0 0% M Y 

416 41 375 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 50 0 0% H Y 

1236 512 724 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 0 0% 

125 18 



Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 

Total 

Needs 

Currently 

Available 

Currently 

Available 

Gap Gap 

Goal 

Complete 

Goal 

Complete 

Complete 

Goal 

Goal 

197 162 35 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 #### H N 

379 345 34 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 #### M Y SHP 

70 8 62 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 #### M Y 

Total 

646 515 131 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 36 #### 

Completing Part 1: Homeless Population. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless 

persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time. The counts must be from: (A) administrative records, (N) 

enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality of the data presented in each box must be identified as: (A), 

(N), (S) or (E). 

Goal 

12 

4 

11 

1 

0 

4 

0 

Complete 

Complete 

452 

180 

521 

973 

Total 

Data Quality 

74 

89 

168 

46 

0 

208 

76 

Unsheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. Places not meant for human 

habitation include streets, parks, alleys, parking ramps, parts of the highway system, transportation depots and other parts of 

transportation systems (e.g. subway tunnels, railroad car), all-night commercial establishments (e.g. movie theaters, laundromats, 

restaurants), abandoned buildings, building roofs or stairwells, chicken coops and other farm outbuildings, caves, campgrounds, vehicles, 

and other similar places. 

Goal 

Goal 

Complete 

Complete 

Goal 

Goal 

Total 

Actual 

Actual 



Priority H, M, L 

Priority H, M, L 

Plan to Fund? Y N 


Fund Source: 

CDBG, HOME, 

HOPWA, ESG or 

Other 

Other 

Other 

Fund Source: 

CDBG, HOME, 

HOPWA, ESG or 

Other 

Completing Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of 

homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time. The numbers must be from: (A) administrative records, 

(N) enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality of the data presented in each box must be identified as: 

(A), (N), (S) or (E). 

Sheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth residing in shelters for the homeless. “Shelters” include all emergency shelters and 

transitional shelters for the homeless, including domestic violence shelters, residential programs for runaway/homeless youth, and any 

hotel/motel/apartment voucher arrangements paid by a public/private agency because the person or family is homeless. Do not count: (1) 

persons who are living doubled up in conventional housing; (2) formerly homeless persons who are residing in Section 8 SRO, Shelter Plus 

Care, SHP permanent housing or other permanent housing units; (3) children or youth, who because of their own or a parent’s 

homelessness or abandonment, now reside temporarily and for a short anticipated duration in hospitals, residential treatment facilities, 

emergency foster care, detention facilities and the like; and (4) adults living in mental health facilities, chemical dependency facilities, or 

criminal justice facilities. 

Goal 

Un-sheltered Total 

Jurisdiction 

Data Quality 

Homeless 1 CPMP 


SHP


Housing Market Analysis

--- Overview --- > 

Economy 

The Lincoln Housing Market Area (HMA) economy continues growing modestly, primarily supported by 

the education and health services and the financial activities subsectors. Employment in the state and local 

government subsector has a stabilizing influence on the Lincoln economy. A ten year economic employment 

forecast (2006-2016) projected average increases of 1.59% annually. However, during 2009, resident employment 

decreased by approximately 1% compared to the employment levels of 2008. The county unemployment rate 

increased from 3.1 to 4.4% 1 during the same analysis period. This rate increase reflects national unemployment 

trends and more recent forecasts. Most notable is the adjusted growth rate for the Lincoln HMA economy (2008- 

2010) which predicts area economic growth at .07% until the current (2010) calendar year. Future forecasts are 

available from the Nebraska Department of Labor. 

Sales Market 

In 2009, single-family home sales (4,029 reported sold) remained nearly even with its five year average. 

However, it was up nearly 11% compared with the number of sales recorded in 2008, while the average home 

sales price declined by nearly 4% to $146,705. 

Rental Market 

The rental housing market in the Lincoln HMA is slightly soft, with a 2009 vacancy rate of approx. 10.0% 2 

compared to 6.5% 3 the previous year. Causes for the increase are directly unknown, however causes for higher 

vacancies are likely due to the national economy. Supply and demand of units not recognized by existing 

administrative data (i.e. Supply: Home owners renting affordable spare rooms. Demand: number of new/expanded 

roommate pairing, housing overcrowding and tax incentives promoting home ownership) may help to explain this 

trend. 

Data Review 

For this document trends historically identified through the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 

cannot be identified due to a reconfiguration of the data set. The ability to predict/display housing trends related 

to medium family income cannot be done at this time. Thus this report is limited in its ability to predict future 

need. However, relevant data from the Census, State and Federal bureau of labor, administrative data and 

community information were drawn upon to understand and make an assessment of future options. 

< --- Report --- > 

Employment Trends 

Resident employment in the Lincoln HMA slowed in the early 2000s compared with employment levels 

recorded in the 1990s. During the 1990s, resident employment increased by an average of 2550 workers, or 1.94%, 

a year. Between 2000 and 2003, employment growth averaged 306.5 workers a year, reflecting the effect of the 

weaker national economy. Since 2004 but excluding 2009, resident employment growth has increased an average 

of 601 workers a year. 

The unemployment rate in the HMA was relatively low during the 1990s, reaching a low of 2.6% in 1992. 

In 2009, the rate peaked at 4.4%, corresponding to the decline in resident employment that began in late 2007. 

Furthermore, both national and local layoffs have continued to aggravate future employment growth estimates 

which initially were projected at 1.59% annually 4 (2007-2016) but where recently adjusted to 0.7% (2008-2010) 5 . 

Figure 1 shows trends in the labor force, resident employment, and average unemployment rate in the HMA from 

1990 to 2009. An additionally trend line computed from historical unemployment rates forecasts possible future 

unemployment rates. 

1 

Yearly averages. Note that the January unemployment numbers was approx 5% 

2 

Informal survey by the Real Estate Owners and Managers Association (REOMA). They represents the interests of over 7000 residential 

properties in the Lincoln 

3 

Multi-family Rental Property Report 2008 

4 

Long Term Industry Employment Projections, Nebraska Department of Labor 

5 

Short Term Industry Employment Projections, Nebraska Department of Labor 

1

The Lincoln HMA economy is anchored by the service-providing sectors. In general since 1990, 

government positions (i.e. local, state and federal) have accounted for the largest share of employment. As stated 

earlier, the educational and health service and the financial activities sectors have led job growth over the same 

period increasing by 9.3% and 17.6% respectively. Employers that have headquarters or substantial organizational 

capacity in Lincoln include; the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, State of Nebraska, Lincoln Public Schools, BryanLGH 

Medical Center, B&R Stores and Ameritas Life Insurance among others (see Table 2). For clarity, Table 3 shows 

employment sector change in the HMA from 2002 to the current date and Chart 1 illustrates current employment 

in the HMA by sector. 

During the 12 months ending December 2009, nonfarm employment decreased by 2,207 jobs to a total of 

164,979 jobs compared with the number recorded during the previous 12-month period (see Table 3). During 

2009, employment in the goods-producing sectors was down by approximately 1,515 jobs due to declines in the 

construction and manufacturing sectors. Employment rates in these sectors continue to reflect the national 

economy 6 . Employment in the service-providing sectors registered a net decrease of 692 jobs, with gains in the 

government and financial activities slightly offsetting job losses in other sectors. Employment in the 

leisure/hospitality, education and health service sectors remained steady in 2009, but may decline in the future if 

current economic conditions remain or deteriorate further. 

During 2009, the Greater Lincoln Workforce Investment Board helped train 299 persons and provided 

employment opportunities to 207 youth from April to December. A majority of those trained entered into various 

health care occupations, business fields, and the transportation industry. Low income adults and dislocated 

workers who received training earned 130% and 84% more respectively 7 . Additionally, Assurity, a leading employer 

in the financial sector, recently began development a new consolidated center in Antelope Valley. Further 

development opportunities include Urban 38, Bock 68 and the West Haymarket area. These commitments to both 

social and physical development should position the local economy to respond to other mitigating influences 

within the three year plan period. 

Resident employment for 2008 hovered near 3.9% although projections of it surpassing 5.0% in early 2010 

are valid 8 . Nevertheless, with the addition of twelve census tracks being identified as areas of substantial 

unemployment (ASU) -up from five in 2009- and the relative low employment rate can be misleading. In 2009 

there was an unemployed population of 4,357 within the aforementioned areas. Additionally, within the Lincoln 

reporting area 14,317 persons were classified as an economically disadvantaged adult 9 . Acknowledging limitations 

within these data sets, it appears that within Lincoln’s LMI 10 area there is a growing gap between the ‘haves’ and 

‘have nots’. Housing cost burden distribution is of concern. To illustrate this consider that from 2005 to 05-07 

statistical reporting period those who reported having a housing cost burden 11 >30% and >50% had a percentage 

change increase of 5.91% and 42.26% respectively. Furthermore those households with housing problems had a 

percentage change increase, within the same period, of 17.24%. Coupled with the national housing market crash in 

2008-09 these cost burden percentages are greater. 

Still, setbacks aside, resident employment is forecasted to grow during the next three years as additional 

workforce enhancement activities and physical development options continue to occur arise. An employment 

growth rate is expected to be 0.84% 12 for the next forecast period. Lastly, given stricter mortgage lending 

requirements 13 and a sluggish national economy, Lincoln’s insurance and banking industries are likely to record 

only moderate employment growth within the forecast period due to the lead time required to bring new policies 

into play 14 . 

Population and Households 

6 

U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics: Employment Situation Summary - March, 2010 

7 

A six month average compared to the earning power at minimum wage 

8 

Analysis by Workforce Investment Board 

9 

Reference Greater Lincoln Workforce Investment Plan July 2007-2011 

10 

LMI, ‘Low-to Moderate-Income’. An area identified by the City of Lincoln UDD using 2000 US Census income data in conjunction with HUD’s 

definition of low-mod. 

11 

A burden that is relative to the amount paid for rent or mortgage spent per month to household income 

12 

Analyst estimates 

13 

Although at the time of this writing national policy debates and development were occurring. Those results could change this perception. 

14 Perception of Sen. Ben Nelson office 

2

The population of the Lincoln HMA increased at a slower rate from 2000 to the current date, when the 

annual growth rate was 1.44%, than it did during the 1990s, when the population grew by 1.75% a year. Chart 2 

shows components of population change in the HMA from 1990 to 2008 (2009-2012 using a forecasted .7% growth 

rate). The current population is estimated at 278,728 and is forecasted to reach near 300,000 by January 1, 2012 15 . 

However, it should be noted that other agencies 16 predict that the Lincoln Metropolitan Statistical Area 17 will reach 

300,000 by the end of 2010. Table 4 illustrates single-family detached building permits in the HMA from 2005 to 

2009. During the 1990s, the number of new households in the HMA grew by approximately 885 a year compared 

with an average increase of 931 a year from 2000 to the current date 18 . However from new home permits have 

decreased by 60.54% from 2005 (958) to the current year (378). As of January 1, 2009, an estimated 99,494 

households are in the HMA. Chart 3 illustrates the number of new single family households in the HMA from 1975 

to the current date. While a trend may indicate a decreasing rate, new homes are still being built. The total 

number of households in the HMA is forecast to increase by 450 a year to approximately 100,843 by the end of the 

3-year forecast period. 

The condition of the communities housing stock in residential zoned areas, within the city of Lincoln 

limits, as determined through the use of an internal condition, desire and utility (CDU) index shows that a wide 

variety exists. The CDU index is a subjective scale with ranges from 0 to 8. A score of 0 implies that the structure 

needs to be removed and has adverse affects on the surrounding area. Where-as a score of 8 implies that that 

home is in immaculate condition. Most new home construction ranges from 4-6. In review and of important 

significance is that the percentage of homes within each CDU cohort, below a score of four, is higher in the LMI 

area and contains a greater share of each cohort as the index decreases (see Table 5). 

The number of vacant/abandoned buildings within the city limits is always in a state of flux. In 2008 there 

were 3,160 – as of April 30 th , 2010 there are 3,721. The estimate of those units is available or suitable or 

rehabilitation is unavailable. Additionally, without further third party vendor purchases the ability to know how 

many of those vacancies are related to recent macro and micro mortgage issues and policies. Please reference 

Table 6 for a break down by zip code. 

Lastly, those with disabilities and HIV/AIDS compete for the same limited number of rental units and 

ownership properties as all other low-income residents. An additional difficulty is that a number of these units may 

not be suitable for their disability and/or have necessary service available. However, there are several 

organizations that assist with access modifications if they meet income guidelines. 

Housing Market Trends 

Single Family Lot Supply 

As of January 1, 2010, there were 8,212 detached single family lots in the City of Lincoln’s lot supply. 

These lots are in various stages of the approval process including final platted lots, preliminary platted lots, and 

submitted lots that are in the process of review. This updated single family lot supply is effectively the same as one 

year ago (8,200 in January 2009). Overall platting activity continues to be slow, much like what is occurring both 

regionally and nationally. 

Of these 8,212, the number of final platted lots is 2,334, which is down 232 lots from the supply in 

January 2009, and is down by 535 from January 2008. While the final platted lot supply number has decreased, the 

preliminary platted single family lot supply has increased by 244 lots over the past year. The take-down of final 

platted lots and increase in preliminary lots hopefully are early signs of a recovery in the local housing market. 

Single Family Demand 

The number of building permits for new single family homes declined again last year compared to 

previous years. In 2009, 378 detached single family building permits were issued, the lowest number since 1983, 

compared to 410 in 2008, 569 in 2007, and 794 in 2006. Each of the past 4 years is significantly lower than the 10year 

average of 933. The slowdown in the national economy has been especially harsh on the construction sector, 

15 

Assuming a constant linear growth rate of 3,500 per year 

16 

University of Nebraska Center for Public Affairs Research 

17 

Lincoln and Seward counties 

18 

Numerous permits were filled for new homes constructions prior to March 13, 2003 when a city impact fee was adopted. 

3

and Lincoln has experienced a related slowdown. With these lower building trends, the supply of final platted 

detached single family lots has now increased to a 5.1 year supply based on the 3 year building average. Using the 

overall number of 8,212 single family detached lots available and in the pipeline (final platted, preliminary platted, 

and submitted), the lot supply increases to 18.1 years. 

Multi-Family Supply 

The supply of potential multi-family units increased over the past year by over 200 units, with the increase 

coming in preliminarily approved units. In the past few years there has been less apartment construction than in 

previous years, and a number of multi-family sites have been rezoned for other uses. However, with the downturn 

in the economy and slowdown in single family demand, there may be increased demand for new multi-family 

units. 

Overall Supply 

The community has a potential for 51,000 new dwelling units within the 2030 future service limit for 

Lincoln. Of these units, about 16,700 (single family and multi-family combined) are approved or in the approval 

process. The remainder of the potential units is currently without infrastructure. The development of the City’s sixyear 

Capital Improvement Program, which is annually updated, along with the Comprehensive Plan, should take 

these market realities into account. 

Overall Market Activity and Trends 

According to the Lincoln Realtors Association, at the end of December 2009, there were 1,672 singlefamily 

residential homes on the market; nearly 20% below the number on the market one year ago. Also, there 

were 6,895 new listings processed through the Multiple List Service (MLS) system during 2009; 8.9% below the 

number processed one year ago (includes re-listed properties). There were a total of 4,041 single-family homes 

sold through the MLS system during 2009; 11.4% higher than the total number sold in 2008 (3,626); and 12.8% 

lower than the total number of record sales in 2004 (4,632). Lastly, the overall median price of single-family home 

sold through the MLS system during 2009 was $129,900.; 2.3% lower than 2008 ($133,000); and 3.8% below the 

record high in 2005 and 2006 ($135,000). 

Sales Market: Existing Home Sales 

There were 3,574 existing single-family homes sold through the MLS in 2009; up 13.1% from 2008; and 

nearly even with the record high in 2005 (3,599). The median sale price of an existing single-family home sold 

through the MLS remained at $125,000 in 2008 and 2009; 1.6% below the record-high in 2007($127,000). 

Sales Market: New Home Sales 

There were 467 new single-family homes sold through the MLS in 2009; up by one home from 2008 (466) 

which was the lowest-level in more than ten years. The number of new single-family homes sold through the MLS 

in 2009 (467) was 25.5% lower than the number sold in 2007 (627), and was 57.2% lower than the record number 

sold in 2003 (1090). Lastly, the median sale price of a new single-family home sold through the MLS in 2009 was 

$179,975; 6% lower than 2008 ($191,543); and 8% below the record high in 2006 ($195,000). 

Public Housing Market and Availability 

The Lincoln Housing Authority (LHA) is a governmental entity established in 1946 with the mission of 

providing housing to the residents of Lincoln, Nebraska. The Authority fulfills that mission by: (1) The ownership 

and/or management of 1552 units of affordable and assisted rental housing, (2) The administration of 2929 federal 

section 8 vouchers, (3) the operation of two home ownership programs, (3) the provision of tenant supportive 

services and (4) community partnerships with other providers of housing and social services. LHA does not plan on 

adding to or removing units to/from their existing housing stock. As of December 2009, 5764 total applications 

were on the wait list with an expected wait of 2.5 years. LHA receives ongoing feedback from their clients and 

urban development consults with LHA at the end of each fiscal year. Due to its high performance rating the LHA 

continues to be part of HUD’s Moving to Work Program (MTW) which gives greater control to local agencies. For 

4

detailed information on the authority, programs, voucher options and organizations who participate in the LHA, 

please refer to most recent 2009 Annual Report. 19 

Limitations 

Due to the technical expertise of the staff projections of housing need were not generated however 

through mutual interactive partnerships with the Lincoln Planning Department and other governmental and nonprofit 

partners the Urban Development Department staff remains very informed about housing issues that arise 

and affect the community. 

Appendix: 

Figure 1: Trends in Labor Force, Resident Employment, and Unemployment Rate in the Lincoln HMA 

19 Contact information can be obtained from their website, http://www.l-housing.com/ 

5

Table 2: Top Greater Lincoln Region Employers 

Rank Agency/Business Number 

1 University of Nebraska - Lincoln 5,000-10,000 

2 State of Nebraska 5,000-10,000 

3 Lincoln Public Schools 5,000-10,000 

4 BryanLGH Medical Center 5,000 

5 B&R Stores 2,200 

6 Ameritas Life Insurance 1,000-2,500 

7 City of Lincoln 1,000-2,500 

8 Duncan Aviation 2,000 

9 Hy-Vee Stores Inc 1000-2500 

10 Lancaster County 1,000-2,500 

Source: Economic Scan of the Greater Lincoln Region 

Table 3: Employment Change by sector and Year. 

Level Place of Work 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Non-Farm Employment 159367 159398 160546 161302 161401 165211 170552 167186 164979 

I Goods-Producing 25377 24571 23634 23152 22334 22199 21813 21194 19679 

II Manufacturing ** 16481 15336 14627 ** ** ** ** 1359 

III Durable Goods ** 9235 8144 7724 ** ** ** ** 499 

III Non-Durable Goods ** 7246 7192 6902 ** ** ** ** 27 

II Natural Resources & Const 7955 8090 8298 8526 8108 7951 7558 7321 7106 

I Service-Providing 

Trade, Trans, Warehouse, 

133990 134827 136912 138150 139067 143012 148739 145992 145300 

II Utilities 27751 27344 27831 27531 ** ** ** ** 4367 

III Total Trade ** 20891 21205 20836 20853 20842 21252 21269 20936 

IIII Wholesale Trade ** 4536 4399 3983 3895 3828 3791 3720 3660 

IIII Retail Trade 16405 16355 16806 16852 16958 17014 17461 17549 17276 

III Trans, Wareh, Util ** 6452 6627 6695 ** ** ** ** 800 

II Information ** 3362 3507 3132 ** ** ** 2561 2245 

II Financial Activities 10298 10778 11111 11540 12157 12193 12458 12488 12628 

II Prof & Bus Serv ** 16315 15905 16192 ** ** ** ** 2150 

II Ed & Health Serv 18688 19993 21090 22289 22638 22785 23067 21676 21853 

II Leisure & Hosp 14581 14786 15201 15166 15139 15216 15120 15456 15554 

II Other Services 

Tot Government (Pub 

6105 6270 6725 6835 7112 6644 6657 6714 6573 

II Admin) 35742 35981 35541 35466 35584 36050 39599 37168 37913 

III Federal Government 2922 2761 2761 2749 2703 2658 2650 2792 2938 

IIII State Government 20373 20423 19731 19614 19710 20024 23415 20673 20890 

IIII Local Government 12447 12798 13049 13103 13172 13368 13534 13703 14086 

* Means that data has been suppressed or is not available 

6

Chart 1: 2009 Employment by Sector 

Chart 2: Lincoln’ Population Growth 

7

Chart 3: Single Family Permits 1975-2009 

Table4: City of Lincoln - Detached Single Family - 4 - Year Table 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

# Cost # Cost # Cost # Cost # Cost 

Jan. 68 774,591 89 1,007,372 88 1,163,863 81 907,619 71 784,232 

Feb. 67 910,004 87 967,125 78 909,207 76 947,505 76 706,588 

March 109 1,213,341 100 1,147,674 107 1,280,089 89 800,412 72 946,927 

April 99 883,165 87 706,214 88 1,031,776 82 877,275 85 813,112 

May 86 675,079 120 1,042,668 115 1,578,971 79 723,878 65 617,270 

June 91 675,834 97 985,229 97 736,760 76 662,915 89 766,615 

July 86 736,801 94 1,072,119 117 1,258,848 77 1,143,624 96 1,172,764 

August 91 577,553 44 433,967 110 1,138,598 92 1,264,374 77 790,319 

Sept. 96 1,066,767 92 674,348 94 1,070,733 83 962,319 78 778,464 

Oct. 92 644,856 96 966,277 96 868,251 80 750,551 79 552,852 

Nov. 93 1,070,079 66 423,155 88 961,501 62 1,071,515 81 890,150 

Dec. 63 512,579 74 871,566 61 686,991 58 474,216 60 743,974 

Total 1,041 9,740,649 1,046 10,297,714 1,139 12,685,588 935 10,586,203 929 9,563,267 

Avg. 

Cost 9,357 9,845 11,137 11,322 10,294 

8

Table5: Residental Condition, Desirability and Utility Comparison – Low Mod Income Area vs. the City 

Examining only those parcels within a R zoning designation 

% LMI 

ALL LMI Difference of Total 

Range CDU Parcel Count % Parcel Count % 

Tear Down 0 22 0.03% 16 0.07% 0.04% 72.73% 

1 89 0.13% 77 0.35% 0.22% 86.52% 

2 1130 1.61% 960 4.38% 2.77% 84.96% 

3 6782 9.64% 4744 21.64% 12.01% 69.95% 

4 46160 65.60% 13794 62.93% -2.67% 29.88% 

5 15042 21.38% 2310 10.54% -10.84% 15.36% 

6 791 1.12% 17 0.08% -1.05% 2.15% 

7 273 0.39% 0 0.00% -0.39% 0.00% 

Emaculant 8 74 0.11% 0 0.00% -0.11% 0.00% 

Totals 70,363 21,918 

% Below 3 - - - - 11.40% - - - - 26.45% 

Table 6: Count of RESIDENTIAL addresses that are vacant 90 days or longer 

Zip 

Possible 

deliverable 

addresses 

Actual 

deliverable 

addresses 

Difference / 

Vacant 

68502 11,783 10,945 838 

68503 6,543 6,137 406 

68504 6,250 5,936 314 

68505 6,036 5,894 142 

68506 12,810 12,433 377 

68507 5,582 5,417 165 

68508 4,519 4,087 432 

68510 9,788 9,305 483 

68512 1,552 1,514 38 

68516 5,476 5,369 107 

68521 4,928 4,696 232 

68522 837 799 38 

68524 1,387 1,358 29 

68528 2,490 2,370 120 

Sum 79,981 76,260 3,721 

Source: USPS, 04/23/10 

9


Non‐Homeless Table

CPMP 

Grantee Name: Jurisdiction 

Non-Homeless Special Needs 

Including HOPWA 

Housing Needed (N/A = Not 

Adailable) 

Supportive Services Needed 

52. Elderly 

53. Frail Elderly 

54. Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness 

55. Developmentally Disabled 

56. Physically Disabled 

57. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted 

58. Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their families 

59. Public Housing Residents 

Total 

60. Elderly 

61. Frail Elderly 

62. Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness 

63. Developmentally Disabled 

64. Physically Disabled 

65. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted 

66. Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their families 

67. Public Housing Residents 

Total 

Needs 

Currently 

Available 

GAP 

Goal 

Complete 

Goal 

3-5 Year Quantities 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* Year 5* 

Complete 

9325 6034 3291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

1755 1316 439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

2097 1447 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

1042 0 1042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

285 0 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

6385 3642 2743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

20889 12439 8450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

1975 0 1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

1646 0 1646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

2097 1447 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

1042 0 1042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

300 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

7071 1447 5624 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 

Goal 

Complete 

Goal 

Complete 

Goal 

Complete 

Goal 

Actual 

Total 


Priority Need: H, M, L 


Fund Source: CDBG, HOM

Three-Year Strategic Plan - City of Lincoln & Lancaster County ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?