Three-Year Strategic Plan - City of Lincoln & Lancaster County ...
Three-Year Strategic Plan - City of Lincoln & Lancaster County ...
Three-Year Strategic Plan - City of Lincoln & Lancaster County ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
FY 2010 – 2012<br />
For<br />
HUD Entitlement Programs<br />
Prepared by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Director: David Landis<br />
Urban Development Department<br />
September 1, 2010<br />
Mayor Chris Beutler
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
3 year <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010 – 2012<br />
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents<br />
Executive Summary 1<br />
General Topics<br />
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> 10<br />
General Questions 11<br />
Managing the Process 13<br />
Citizen Participation 16<br />
Institutional Structure 21<br />
Monitoring 22<br />
Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies 23<br />
Lead based Paint 24<br />
Housing Topics<br />
Housing Needs 25<br />
Priority Housing Needs 27<br />
Housing Market Analysis 29<br />
Specific Housing Objectives 32<br />
Needs <strong>of</strong> Public Housing 36<br />
Public Housing Strategy 37<br />
Barriers to Affordable Housing 39<br />
Homeless Topics<br />
Homeless Needs 41<br />
Priority Homeless Needs 43<br />
Homeless Inventory 44<br />
Homeless <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> 44<br />
Emergency Shelter Grants 47<br />
Community Development Topics<br />
Community Development 47<br />
Public Facilities and Improvement Objectives 52<br />
Public Services Objectives 53<br />
Economic Development Objectives 55<br />
Additional Community Development Division Objectives 55<br />
Antipoverty Strategy 56<br />
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Coordination 58
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010 – 2012<br />
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents Continued<br />
Non-Homeless Special Needs Topics<br />
Specific Special Needs Objectives 58<br />
Non‐homeless Special Needs Analysis (including HOPWA) 59<br />
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) 64<br />
Specific HOPWA Objectives 65<br />
Other Narratives 65<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Additional Files<br />
Community Dev Table<br />
LMI NRSA Map<br />
Minority Maps (Black, Asian and Native American)<br />
Differential Association: A Pilot Neighborhood Assessment Tool<br />
ASU NRSA Map<br />
Response Distribution Map<br />
Institutional Structure<br />
HSG Need Table<br />
Homeless Table<br />
Housing Market Analysis<br />
Non‐Homeless Table
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010 ‐ 2012<br />
This document includes Narrative Responses to specific questions that grantees <strong>of</strong><br />
the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, Housing<br />
Opportunities for People with AIDS and Emergency Shelter Grants Programs must<br />
respond to in order to be compliant with the Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong>ning Regulations.<br />
GENERAL<br />
Executive Summary<br />
The <strong>Three</strong>‐<strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> is a unified, comprehensive vision for community development in <strong>Lincoln</strong>,<br />
Nebraska. It serves as a tool to coordinate economic, physical, environmental, community, and human<br />
development activities for three years, starting September 1, 2010 and ending August 31, 2013.<br />
The <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> is required by the U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because<br />
the <strong>City</strong> receives funding through HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME<br />
Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. These HUD programs have three major statutory goals:<br />
provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, all<br />
primarily for low‐ and moderate‐income persons.<br />
The lead agency for <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s community development activities is the <strong>City</strong>’s Urban Development<br />
Department. Other agencies responsible for administering the programs include NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>,<br />
the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority, the League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity, and the Homeless Coalition.<br />
For the CDBG and HOME programs, HUD has identified objectives for the three major statutory goals.<br />
They are:<br />
HUD Objective 1: Creating Suitable Living Environments – this relates to activities that are designed to<br />
benefit communities, families, or individuals by addressing issues in their living environment. It relates<br />
to activities that are intended to address a wide range <strong>of</strong> issues faced by low‐ and moderate‐income<br />
persons, from physical problems with their environment, such as poor quality infrastructure, to social<br />
issues such as crime prevention, literacy, or elderly health services.<br />
HUD Objective 2: Providing Decent Housing – this covers the wide range <strong>of</strong> housing activities that are<br />
generally undertaken with HOME, CDBG, or HOPWA funds. This objective focuses on housing<br />
activities whose purpose is to meet individual family or community needs. It does not include<br />
programs where housing is an element <strong>of</strong> a larger effort to make community‐wide improvements,<br />
since such programs would be more appropriately reported under Suitable Living Environments.<br />
HUD Objective 3: Creating Economic Opportunities – this applies to activities related to economic<br />
development, commercial revitalization, or job creation.<br />
HUD further identifies three program outcomes to help refine the <strong>City</strong>’s objectives. Program outcomes<br />
are designed to capture the nature <strong>of</strong> the change or expected result <strong>of</strong> an activity. They are:<br />
Outcome 1: Availability/Accessibility – applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public<br />
services, public facilities, housing, or shelter available or accessible to low‐ and moderate‐income<br />
people, including persons with disabilities. In this category, accessibility does not refer only to physical<br />
barriers, but also to making the affordable basics <strong>of</strong> daily living available and accessible to low‐ and<br />
moderate‐income people where they live.<br />
Outcome 2: Affordability – applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety <strong>of</strong> ways in the<br />
lives <strong>of</strong> low‐ and moderate‐income people. It can include the creation or maintenance <strong>of</strong> affordable<br />
housing, basic infrastructure hook‐ups, or services such as transportation or day care. Affordability is<br />
1
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
an appropriate objective wherever an activity is lowering the cost, improving the quality or increasing<br />
the affordability <strong>of</strong> a product or service to benefit a low‐income household.<br />
Outcome 3: Sustainability – applies to activities that are aimed at improving communities or<br />
neighborhoods, helping to make them livable or viable by providing benefit to persons <strong>of</strong> low‐ and<br />
moderate‐income or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas, through multiple activities or<br />
services that sustain communities or neighborhoods.<br />
The table below illustrates the 9 possible combinations <strong>of</strong> objectives and outcomes.<br />
HUD Objective 1:<br />
Decent Housing<br />
HUD Objective 2:<br />
Suitable Living<br />
Environment<br />
HUD Objective 3:<br />
Economic<br />
Opportunity<br />
Outcome 1:<br />
Availability/Accessibility<br />
Accessibility for the purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> providing Decent<br />
Housing (DH‐1)<br />
Accessibility for the purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> creating Suitable Living<br />
Environments (SL‐1)<br />
Accessibility for the purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> creating Economic<br />
Opportunities (EO‐1)<br />
Outcome 2:<br />
Affordability<br />
Affordability for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> providing<br />
Decent Housing (DH‐2)<br />
Affordability for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> creating Suitable<br />
Living Environments (SL‐2)<br />
Affordability for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> creating<br />
Economic Opportunities<br />
(EO‐2)<br />
Outcome 3:<br />
Sustainability<br />
Sustainability for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> providing<br />
Decent Housing (DH‐3)<br />
Sustainability for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> creating Suitable<br />
Living Environments (SL‐3)<br />
Sustainability for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> creating<br />
Economic Opportunities<br />
(EO‐3)<br />
Within their federal criteria, CDBG and HOME programs are designed to be shaped locally to meet the<br />
recipient community's specific needs. <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s specific needs were identified through a public<br />
involvement process that included four surveys ‐‐ a Community Needs Survey conducted by Urban<br />
Development Department, a <strong>City</strong>‐wide survey conducted by the Mayor's Office, a scientific survey<br />
conducted by the <strong>Lincoln</strong>‐<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Department in conjunction with updating the <strong>City</strong>'s<br />
Comprehensive <strong>Plan</strong>, and a client survey conducted by the Center for People in Need.<br />
Social service needs were further determined by use <strong>of</strong> the Community Services Initiatives’ (CSI) priority<br />
needs assessment. A Housing Market Analysis and data provided by HUD were used to further define<br />
housing needs.<br />
The local needs identified were grouped into priority areas and then each priority area was evaluated<br />
based on the following criteria:<br />
• Would it further or be consistent with a city and/or federal priority area?<br />
• Would it impact a large number <strong>of</strong> low‐ and moderate‐income households?<br />
• Would it meet unique needs <strong>of</strong> certain geographic areas?<br />
• Based on past experience, would it successfully meet the identified needs?<br />
Using that evaluation, <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s 2010 ‐ 2013 priority areas were identified:<br />
• Affordable housing – identified as the greatest need through the public involvement process.<br />
• Sustainability – including urban agriculture (community gardens and orchards), promoting green<br />
space and healthy activities, and rain gardens.<br />
• Food security – addressing the rising problem <strong>of</strong> low‐income families not having enough food.<br />
• Increasing neighborhood livability – through physical improvements to neighborhoods.<br />
• Fair housing – removing barriers to fair housing, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and completing<br />
and implementing the Analysis <strong>of</strong> Impediments to Fair Housing.<br />
• Transportation – improving availability for low income people.<br />
• Jobs – training for low‐income people.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
2
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
To address these priority areas, local objectives and activities were developed. The table beginning on the<br />
following page identifies local objectives and the corresponding HUD Objectives and Outcomes. Also see<br />
the Community Dev Table in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
3
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Local Housing Objectives<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
Objective 1: Preserve and provide for safe and decent affordable housing by promoting the preservation and<br />
revitalization <strong>of</strong> affordable housing and rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> substandard or inadequate housing throughout the<br />
<strong>City</strong> with emphasis on the NRSA and LMI area.<br />
Activity 1: Continue the Urban Development Housing Rehabilitation Programs. DH ‐ 2<br />
Activity 2: Continue to fund the PRIDE Program with grants to low‐income homeowners<br />
in NRSA neighborhoods for materials to accomplish exterior repairs.<br />
Activity 3: Continue to use lead‐based paint certified housing staff to inform and educate<br />
housing clients, non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it agencies, and the private sector housing<br />
community.<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
Activity 4: Continue to work with the Mayor's Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Program. DH ‐ 2<br />
Activity 5: Continue to fund the Troubled Property Program administered by<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> and support their effort to obtain neighborhood<br />
rehabilitation funds from other sources.<br />
Activity 6: Support non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it landlords to sustain long‐term affordability for tenants<br />
under 30% <strong>of</strong> median income and projects with expiring Low‐Income<br />
Housing Tax Credits and fund a new LIHTC project using the Housing<br />
Development Loan Program (added by amendment in FY 10).<br />
Activity 7: Support the effort <strong>of</strong> Paint‐a‐thon to paint houses <strong>of</strong> elderly and disabled<br />
homeowners. Using non‐Federal funds, complete one project per year.<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
Objective 2: Assist low‐income homeowners in sustaining their home ownership status during emergency<br />
situations and reduce the overall instance <strong>of</strong> emergency situations.<br />
Activity 1: Continue to fund the Rebuilding Together Project through the HEART (Helping<br />
Elderly Access Rebuilding Together) Program.<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
Activity 2: Continue to fund the Emergency Repair Program. DH ‐ 2<br />
Activity 3: Continue to fund the removal <strong>of</strong> physical and architectural barriers in existing<br />
housing through the League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity.<br />
Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
4
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Local Housing Objectives ‐‐ continued<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
Objective 3: Create and sustain homeownership opportunities and increase the rate <strong>of</strong> homeownership among<br />
households headed by persons who are racial and/or ethnic minorities.<br />
Activity 1: Continue the First Home Program (with incentives for purchasing in the NRSA<br />
and LMI), administered by NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
DH – 2<br />
Activity 2: Explore incentives for returning veterans in the First Home Program. DH ‐ 2<br />
Activity 3: Continue to fund the First Time Home Buyer Training classes administered by<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Activity 4: Provide a range <strong>of</strong> technical resources, including housing program brochures<br />
and trainings, from Urban Development and other housing agencies in other<br />
languages in addition to English.<br />
Activity 5: Leverage funds in conjunction with NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> using the<br />
Troubled Property Program for infill housing.<br />
Activity 6: Continue partnering with and leveraging funds for additional home buyer<br />
programs <strong>of</strong> other housing or lending agencies.<br />
Activity 7: Continue to work with the Mayor's Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative to<br />
encourage and support home ownership.<br />
Activity 8: Continue to fund Affordable Housing Initiative and Habitat for Humanity<br />
through the Housing Development Loan Program to create new affordable<br />
homeownership opportunities by building affordable homes on infill lots or<br />
by substantially rehabilitating dilapidated units.<br />
Activity 9: Continue to assist low‐income homeowners using the Housing Rehabilitation<br />
Programs to rehabilitate their homes in order to maintain their<br />
homeownership status.<br />
Activity 10: Create additional affordable housing opportunities by partnering with the<br />
Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development using Nebraska Affordable<br />
Housing Trust Funds or federal stimulus funds.<br />
Activity 11: Continue the function <strong>of</strong> the Minority Marketing Committee to implement<br />
the Minority Marketing <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
Activity 12: Continue to partner with NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> to develop affordable and<br />
mixed income housing as part <strong>of</strong> the community revitalization portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Antelope Valley project.<br />
Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
5
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Local Housing Objectives ‐‐ continued<br />
Objective 4: Remove barriers to fair housing and affirmatively further fair housing.<br />
Activity 1: Encourage providers <strong>of</strong> affordable housing and special needs housing to work<br />
with neighborhood associations before and during the process <strong>of</strong> obtaining<br />
permits.<br />
Activity 2: Improve and expand the collection and sharing <strong>of</strong> fair housing and affordable<br />
housing information across public and private entities, among housing<br />
industry entities, and within the public realm to improve understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
fair housing laws, encourage reporting <strong>of</strong> violations, address existing and<br />
future housing needs, facilitate implementation <strong>of</strong> best practices, and<br />
reduce discrimination.<br />
Activity 3: Monitor, evaluate, and update fair housing plans, policies, and programs to<br />
ensure that the <strong>City</strong> is affirmatively furthering fair housing as required by<br />
HUD.<br />
Activity 4: Continue to participate on boards and committees <strong>of</strong> local organizations<br />
(public, private, and nonpr<strong>of</strong>it) to share fair housing information.<br />
Activity 5: Work with <strong>Lincoln</strong> Commission on Human Rights to monitor compliance <strong>of</strong><br />
Title 11 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Municipal Code with Federal Fair Housing Law.<br />
Activity 6: Monitor compliance with affirmative fair housing requirements by sub‐<br />
recipients and borrowers.<br />
Activity 7: Continue to implement and update the "Minority Marketing <strong>Plan</strong>" for Urban<br />
Development programs.<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
6<br />
DH‐1<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
Objective 5: Strengthen or establish public policies, procedures, and institutions that support and maintain the<br />
quality, affordability, accessibility, sustainability and availability <strong>of</strong> housing for low‐income households.<br />
Activity 1: Continue to work within the Development Services Center to improve policies<br />
and procedures to enhance the quality <strong>of</strong> older neighborhoods.<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
Activity 2: Continue to work with the Mayor's Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Program. DH ‐ 1<br />
Activity 3: Continue to work with the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development<br />
on strengthening our policies and procedures in creating affordable housing.<br />
Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability<br />
DH ‐ 1
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Local Public Facilities and Improvements Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Further the <strong>City</strong>’s priorities <strong>of</strong> Antelope Valley and Stronger Safer Neighborhoods.<br />
Activity 1: Complete public improvements in the Malone neighborhood and South<br />
Capitol area (Near South and Everett neighborhoods) that implement<br />
projects identified in Focus Area <strong>Plan</strong>s, “closer to home” strategies identified<br />
in the Antelope Valley and South Capitol Redevelopment <strong>Plan</strong>s, and from<br />
Free to Grow. Projects include curbs, alleys, gutters, lighting and streetscape<br />
projects, sidewalk improvements, and tree planting.<br />
Activity 2: Support and utilize the Free to Grow Program in the Malone neighborhood<br />
and South Capitol Area. Free to Grow is a neighborhood revitalization<br />
program with partners from the private, nonpr<strong>of</strong>it, and public sectors<br />
working together to help develop solutions to problems that contribute to<br />
crime, an unhealthy environment, and substandard housing.<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
Objective 2: Implement sustainability projects consistent with the Mayor’s Energy and Sustainability Policy,<br />
and federal emphasis on sustainability.<br />
Activity 1: Complete park improvement projects in LMI neighborhoods. Recreation and<br />
access to open spaces and open lands is an element <strong>of</strong> sustainable<br />
communities ‐‐ promoting green space and healthy activities.<br />
Activity 2: Design and install rain gardens in LMI parks, and other property owned by the<br />
public and nonpr<strong>of</strong>it organizations. Rain gardens are depressions planted<br />
with native or adapted plants that help absorb excess water and filter out<br />
excess nutrients before rain water enters the groundwater system. This<br />
activity complements a rain garden grant program for private property<br />
owners <strong>of</strong>fered by the Watershed Management Division <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> Public<br />
Works and Utilities Department.<br />
Objective 3: Improve the livability <strong>of</strong> core neighborhoods by improving general neighborhood conditions.<br />
Activity 1: Provide non‐federal funding for LMI neighborhood self‐help grants for clean‐<br />
up and improvement projects.<br />
Activity 2: Continue to fund the Tree Management and the Demolition <strong>of</strong> Secondary<br />
Structures Programs. The Tree Management Program provides grants to<br />
low‐income property owners and investors with low‐income tenants for<br />
removal <strong>of</strong> dead and potentially dangerous branches or removal <strong>of</strong> dead or<br />
dangerous trees. The Demolition <strong>of</strong> Secondary Structures Program provides<br />
grants to low‐income people for removal <strong>of</strong> substandard and dangerous<br />
buildings.<br />
Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
7<br />
SL ‐ 3<br />
SL ‐ 3<br />
SL ‐ 3<br />
SL ‐ 3<br />
SL ‐ 3<br />
SL‐3
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Local Public Services Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Increase food security for low‐income people and families.<br />
Activity 1: Support Community CROPS in the installation <strong>of</strong> community gardens and<br />
orchards in LMI parks and other property owned by public and nonpr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organizations. The lack <strong>of</strong> food and accompanying issue <strong>of</strong> hunger is a<br />
priority need in <strong>Lincoln</strong>. In addition to providing food for low‐income people,<br />
community gardens and orchards further sustainability by promoting urban<br />
agriculture, reducing transportation costs for food, and encouraging healthy<br />
and ecologically sound food production.<br />
Activity 2: Provide scholarships to low‐income people to rent space in community<br />
gardens. Deleted by amendment in FY 10.<br />
Activity 3: Support operations for Community CROPS.<br />
Objective 2: Provide services and support for returning veterans and their families.<br />
Activity 1: Install a Community Garden or Orchard designated for returning veterans and<br />
their families.<br />
Objective 3: Work to improve transportation options for low‐income people.<br />
Activity 1: Support CSI transportation goals for low‐income people by continuing to serve<br />
on the grant selection committee for Federal Transit Administration Job<br />
Access & Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom funds. These<br />
programs are intended to expand transportation services to the elderly, low‐<br />
income, or disabled residents in the <strong>Lincoln</strong> area.<br />
Objective 4: Increase job opportunities for low‐income people.<br />
Activity 1: Provide funding to support One Stop Employment Solutions.<br />
Objective 5: Continue to work toward reducing poverty in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Activity 1: Continue staff participation with CSI and with other agencies, boards, and<br />
committees working to reduce poverty in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability<br />
HUD Objective<br />
/Outcome<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
8<br />
SL ‐ 1<br />
SL ‐ 2<br />
SL ‐ 2<br />
SL ‐ 1<br />
SL ‐ 2<br />
EO ‐ 1<br />
SL ‐ 2
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Local Economic Development Objectives<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
Activity 1: Continue the administration <strong>of</strong> outstanding economic development loans. EO ‐ 1<br />
Additional Local Community Development Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Actively work to further Fair Housing.<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
Activity 1: Complete an updated Analysis <strong>of</strong> Impediments to Fair Housing SL ‐ 1<br />
Activity 2: Educate <strong>City</strong> staff and elected <strong>of</strong>ficials about fair housing laws and the<br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> equal access to affordable housing through the annual Civil<br />
Rights Conference hosted by the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Commission on Human Rights.<br />
Activity 3: Continue staff participation on the Civil Rights Conference planning<br />
committee<br />
Objective 2: Continue support for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), an electronic data<br />
collection system that stores longitudinal person‐level information about people who access the homeless<br />
services system.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
9<br />
SL ‐ 1<br />
SL ‐ 1<br />
Activity 1: Continue to fund HMIS. SL ‐ 2<br />
Local Specific Special Needs Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Create and sustain affordable housing opportunities for Special Needs Populations.<br />
Activity 1: Assist in maintaining the stock <strong>of</strong> rental and owner housing for Special Needs<br />
Populations.<br />
Activity 2: Assist in increasing the supply <strong>of</strong> rental and owner housing for Special Needs<br />
Populations.<br />
HUD Objective/<br />
Outcome<br />
DH ‐ 2<br />
DH ‐ 1<br />
Activity 3: Enhance the provision <strong>of</strong> supportive housing services. DH ‐ 1<br />
Activity 4: Remove regulatory barriers to housing for Special Needs Populations DH ‐ 1<br />
Key for HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
DH = Decent Housing SL = Suitable Living Environment EO = Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
As the new <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> was being prepared, evaluation <strong>of</strong> the previous plan, the Five‐<strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong> for 2005 ‐ 2009, showed the majority <strong>of</strong> activities achieving planned results. A further look shows:<br />
The strongest successes were in activities that helped provide or maintain housing for low‐ and<br />
moderate‐income households.<br />
Activities that helped first‐time homebuyers responded to the difficult economy by slowing, but then<br />
stabilized.<br />
Activities aimed at stabilizing or improving neighborhood living environments achieved planned,<br />
expected results.<br />
A few activities were revised mid‐plan period, to improve effectiveness, and<br />
A few activities were discontinued during the five‐year period ‐‐ some due to ineffectiveness, some<br />
due to staffing cuts ‐‐ with funds redirected to other activities.<br />
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Due every three, four, or five years (length <strong>of</strong> period is at the grantee’s discretion) no less than 45 days<br />
prior to the start <strong>of</strong> the grantee’s program year start date. HUD does not accept plans between August 15<br />
and November 15.<br />
Mission:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska 3‐<strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> for 2010‐2012 establishes a unified vision for<br />
community development by integrating economic, physical, environmental, community, and human<br />
development in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion.<br />
The goals set forth in this <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> are in keeping with the overall mission <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community <strong>Plan</strong>ning and Development Programs: Community<br />
Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME). The statutes for these<br />
programs set three primary goals for the benefit <strong>of</strong> low‐, very low‐ and extremely low‐income persons:<br />
Provide Decent Housing, which includes:<br />
o Assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing;<br />
o Assisting persons at risk <strong>of</strong> becoming homeless;<br />
o Retaining the affordable housing stock;<br />
o Increasing the availability <strong>of</strong> affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low‐income<br />
and moderate‐income families, particularly to members <strong>of</strong> disadvantaged minorities without<br />
discrimination on the basis <strong>of</strong> race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or<br />
disability;<br />
o Increasing the supply <strong>of</strong> supportive housing which includes structural features and services to<br />
enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/AIDS) to live in dignity and<br />
independence; and<br />
o Providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities.<br />
Provide a Suitable Living Environment, which includes:<br />
o Improving the safety and livability <strong>of</strong> neighborhoods;<br />
o Eliminating blighting influences and the deterioration <strong>of</strong> property and facilities;<br />
o Increasing access to quality public and private facilities and services;<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
10
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Reducing the isolation <strong>of</strong> income groups within areas through spatial deconcentration <strong>of</strong> housing<br />
opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization <strong>of</strong> deteriorating neighborhoods;<br />
o Restoring and preserving properties <strong>of</strong> special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value; and<br />
o Conserving energy resources and use <strong>of</strong> renewable energy sources.<br />
Expanded Economic Opportunities, which includes:<br />
o Job creation and retention;<br />
o Establishment, stabilization and expansion <strong>of</strong> small businesses (including micro‐businesses);<br />
o The provision <strong>of</strong> public services concerned with employment;<br />
o The provision <strong>of</strong> jobs to low‐income persons living in areas affected by those programs and<br />
activities, or jobs resulting from carrying out activities under programs covered by the plan;<br />
o Availability <strong>of</strong> mortgage financing for low‐income persons at reasonable rates using non‐<br />
discriminatory lending practices;<br />
o Access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long‐term economic and<br />
social viability <strong>of</strong> the community; and<br />
o Empowerment and self‐sufficiency for low‐income persons to reduce generational poverty in<br />
federally assisted housing and public housing.<br />
General Questions<br />
1. Describe the geographic areas <strong>of</strong> the jurisdiction (including areas <strong>of</strong> low income families and/or<br />
racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed.<br />
2. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the<br />
EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a)(1)) and the basis for assigning the priority (including the relative<br />
priority, where required) given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs (91.215(a)(2)). Where appropriate,<br />
the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage <strong>of</strong> funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target<br />
areas.<br />
3. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs (91.215(a)(3)).<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> General Questions response:<br />
1. The <strong>Lincoln</strong> city limit boundaries define the jurisdiction; however, assistance will be directed primarily<br />
in the low‐ and moderate‐income area (LMI) and the Neighborhood Revitalization Service Area<br />
(NRSA). Please see the ‘LMI_NRSA’ and three ‘Minority’ maps in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files”<br />
folder. No area comprises greater than 10% <strong>of</strong> any majority minority race at the analysis level<br />
provided by the <strong>City</strong>/<strong>County</strong> Health department.<br />
2. Allocating investments geographically was based on the LMI and NRSA and two <strong>City</strong> priorities: 1) the<br />
Stronger, Safer, Neighborhoods Initiative in the Near South and Everett Neighborhoods, and 2) the<br />
Antelope Valley Project, focusing on the Malone Neighborhood. In addition, client‐based programs<br />
are based on individual income eligibility. Assigning priorities was based on:<br />
o Public input through a Community Needs Survey, conducted by Urban Development and other<br />
community surveys,<br />
o <strong>City</strong> priorities: Mayor's Energy and Sustainability Policy (in progress), Antelope Valley, and the<br />
Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative,<br />
o Federal priorities: sustainability, homelessness, returning veterans and their families, and Fair<br />
Housing,<br />
o Community Services Initiative (CSI) priorities.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
11
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> has identified an NRSA that was approved by HUD as part <strong>of</strong> the FY 2005‐2009 <strong>Strategic</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning process. There are no changes to the NRSA in this <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>. Again, a map titled ‘LMI<br />
NRSA’ illustrates the NRSA boundary and is included in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder.<br />
The NRSA is geographically smaller than the LMI area and generally covers the oldest residential<br />
neighborhoods in the <strong>City</strong> with some exceptions. The purpose <strong>of</strong> the NRSA is to provide increased<br />
flexibility for the use <strong>of</strong> Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in meeting the following<br />
types <strong>of</strong> goals (1) Economic Development ‐ Low Priority, (2) Housing ‐ High Priority and (3) Public<br />
Services ‐ High Priority. Additionally, the Urban Development Department has used the delineation <strong>of</strong><br />
the NRSA to concentrate homeownership and neighborhood revitalization activities. The<br />
methodology originally used to define the NRSA can be found in the 2005‐2009 Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong>. A<br />
copy <strong>of</strong> that plan is available in the Urban Development <strong>of</strong>fice at 555 S 10 th St, Suite 204.<br />
Urban Development staff re‐evaluated the existing NRSA to assess if real progress is being made. For<br />
example, maybe goals and objectives are being met for the most part, but the impact is not being<br />
achieved. A re‐evaluation may determine, (1) that different goals and objectives need to be set; (2)<br />
the NRSA area needs to be more concentrated, (3) more funds are needed or (4) funds need to be re‐<br />
targeted.<br />
An in‐house study that mimics HUD’s CHAS program data projections 1 , found that the current<br />
boundaries are visually/spatially reasonable in terms <strong>of</strong> the theories and methodology used. In short,<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> concentrated disadvantage were determined and then modified using an operationalization<br />
differential association theory, developed for this process. While the theory initially concentrated on<br />
the impacts <strong>of</strong> individuals … it is also by proxy a reasonable predictor <strong>of</strong> neighborhood distress.<br />
Indicators analyzed include population characteristics (poverty, disability, unemployment, minority,<br />
education), housing data ( single family homes, housing cost burdens, vacant housing, housing built<br />
before 1939, mortgages), neighborhood crime types, neighborhood social resources (Great<br />
Neighborhood graduates, neighborhood coordinator, neighborhood association presidents,<br />
Neighborhood Watch members, election poll worker, community facilities) which can be assessed<br />
against voting behavior, building and safety issues, health department issues and <strong>Lincoln</strong> Public<br />
Schools achievement scores to determine correlations. The result <strong>of</strong> this analysis concluded that the<br />
NRSA which was initially defined via 2000 US Census data and augmented with current data and<br />
theoretical processes is not only defensible but very communicable to the general public. That report<br />
‘Differential Association: A Pilot Neighborhood Assessment Tool’ is located in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Additional Files” folder should a fuller explanation be required.<br />
It should also be noted that the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Labor has designated a portion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> as an “area <strong>of</strong> substantial unemployment” and it is further justification for the NRSA<br />
boundary. An area <strong>of</strong> substantial unemployment (ASU) is defined as a contiguous area with a current<br />
population <strong>of</strong> at least 10,000 and an average unemployment rate <strong>of</strong> at least 6.5 percent for the<br />
month reference period (July 2009 – June 2010 and July, 2010 to June 2012). <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2010 ASU<br />
contains a majority <strong>of</strong> the NRSA. Please see the map ‘ASU_NRSA’ in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional<br />
Files” folder.<br />
1 Base data (i.e. 2000 census data) was used and then augmented with additional data.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
12
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Goals: Goals for activities for the 3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> period overall and within the NRSA include:<br />
Activity 3 <strong>Year</strong> Goal ‐ Total 3 <strong>Year</strong> NRSA Goal % in NRSA<br />
Rehab; Single‐Unit Residential (7<br />
programs)<br />
537 366 68%<br />
Lead‐Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate 24 12 50%<br />
Homeownership assistance (First Home)<br />
Program)<br />
153 69 45%<br />
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities Improvements to 3 parks 1 park 33%<br />
Tree <strong>Plan</strong>ting 3 projects All are in the NRSA 100%<br />
Flood Drainage Improvements (rain<br />
gardens)<br />
30 projects 10 projects 33%<br />
Street Improvements (gravel alleys) 30 alleys All are in the NRSA 100%<br />
Sidewalks (streetscapes and sidewalk 2 streetscapes, 3 sidewalk All are in the NRSA 100%<br />
improvements<br />
projects<br />
Tree Management & demo <strong>of</strong> secondary<br />
structures<br />
18 trees, 3 structures All are in the NRSA 100%<br />
Public Facilities (General) (construct<br />
community gardens/orchards)<br />
15 5 33%<br />
Public Services (General) (scholarships<br />
for community gardens)<br />
300 people 100 people 33%<br />
3. Answer to Question #3<br />
o The current financial and mortgage crisis:<br />
More families are in need <strong>of</strong> services and there is an increased need for affordable housing, both<br />
owner and renter, while lenders are making it more difficult for new home buyers, and waiting<br />
lists for rental assistance are longer. Social service needs are also greater, resulting in higher<br />
needs for food and more families struggling to make ends meet, having to choose between food<br />
and other needs. Social service agencies are more stressed to meet needs while the financial<br />
crisis has reduced donations.<br />
o Jobs:<br />
The need for good paying jobs, problems due to loss <strong>of</strong> jobs (and resulting family budgetary<br />
issues including loss <strong>of</strong> housing) people working at low paying jobs and not making ends meet.<br />
Managing the Process (91.200 (b))<br />
1. Lead Agency. Identify the lead agency or entity for overseeing the development <strong>of</strong> the plan and the<br />
major public and private agencies responsible for administering programs covered by the<br />
consolidated plan.<br />
2. Identify the significant aspects <strong>of</strong> the process by which the plan was developed, and the agencies,<br />
groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process.<br />
3. Describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities,<br />
including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons<br />
with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons.<br />
*Note: HOPWA grantees must consult broadly to develop a metropolitan‐wide strategy and other jurisdictions must assist in<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> the HOPWA submission.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
13
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Managing the Process response:<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Urban Development Department is the lead agency for overseeing the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Plan</strong> and the administration <strong>of</strong> programs included in the <strong>Plan</strong>. The Department<br />
has six divisions: Administration which includes Downtown Redevelopment, Community<br />
Development, Housing Rehabilitation and Real Estate, Workforce Investment Administration, One<br />
Stop Employment Solutions (Workforce Investment Act Program) and Parking Services. The<br />
Workforce Investment Administration Division and One Stop Employment Solutions Division are<br />
responsible for the oversight <strong>of</strong> job training funds from the U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Labor. The Parking<br />
Services Division’s mission is to protect the <strong>City</strong>'s investment in the parking system by maintaining<br />
and improving on safe, reliable, and efficient parking facilities and equipment. The Divisions involved<br />
in the administration <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Plan</strong> are responsible for the following:<br />
o Administration:<br />
General program oversight, fiscal management and program monitoring.<br />
o Downtown Redevelopment:<br />
Downtown redevelopment primarily using Tax Increment Financing (TIF).<br />
o Community Development:<br />
Research, planning, and report preparation; project management; neighborhood assistance; focus<br />
area planning and plan implementation; Fair Housing; homelessness; public participation; non‐<br />
downtown redevelopment activities using TIF funds; and administration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s Economic<br />
Development loan programs.<br />
o Housing Rehabilitation and Real Estate:<br />
Program development, administration, and staffing <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s housing rehabilitation programs;<br />
management <strong>of</strong> housing funds to non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations; relocation, property acquisition for all<br />
<strong>City</strong> departments, and the sale <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>‐owned surplus property for various <strong>City</strong> departments.<br />
Major agencies responsible for administering the programs outlined in the Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong> include:<br />
o NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> through the Homebuyer Training Program, Troubled Property Program,<br />
and the First Home Program which assists with down payment assistance.<br />
o The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority which administers the Security Deposit Program.<br />
o The League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity which operates the Barrier Removal Program.<br />
o The Homeless Coalition, <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care, is an organization <strong>of</strong> homeless service<br />
providers, homeless individuals, and other community stakeholders. Organizational<br />
responsibilities include, 1) development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s annual Supportive Housing Program Grant, 2)<br />
an agency peer review process, 3) administration <strong>of</strong> the “point‐in‐Time” count, and 4)<br />
strengthening collaboration and efficiency in services proved to the homeless.<br />
2. The process for developing the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> was based first on identifying needs. To identify housing<br />
needs, input was received from non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it housing organizations and the results <strong>of</strong> four surveys (see<br />
below under A. Public Involvement). CHAS data was also used along with the Housing Market<br />
Analysis. For non‐housing needs, two methods were used:<br />
A. Public involvement:<br />
Four surveys were used to obtain public input. The primary source was a Community Needs<br />
Survey administered by Urban Development that surveyed staff and board members from<br />
housing providers (all facets including, realtors, bankers, and agencies providing homeownership,<br />
rehab, and rental assistance), social service agencies, and Neighborhood Association Presidents.<br />
The survey was also on Urban Development’s website and available for the general public to<br />
complete. Public input was also received from a <strong>City</strong>‐wide survey conducted by the Mayor’s<br />
Office and a scientific survey conducted by the <strong>City</strong>’s <strong>Plan</strong>ning Department for the update <strong>of</strong> the<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
14
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
<strong>City</strong>’s Comprehensive <strong>Plan</strong>. Lastly, results from surveys <strong>of</strong> clients conducted by the Center for<br />
People in Need.<br />
B. Social Service Priorities:<br />
Determining social service needs and priorities relied heavily on the Community Services<br />
Initiative (CSI), a community‐wide planning effort designed to identify emerging issues and<br />
critical needs in the local health and human services delivery system. This year CSI has identified<br />
hunger as a priority need in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Needs were then considered within the context <strong>of</strong> local and federal priorities:<br />
A. Local Priorities:<br />
Local priorities include the Mayor's Energy and Sustainability policy (in progress), Antelope<br />
Valley, and the Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative. The <strong>City</strong>’s outcome‐based budgeting<br />
process was also considered: through an extensive public involvement process, the Mayor has<br />
developed three tiers <strong>of</strong> budgetary priorities for <strong>City</strong> involvement. For the Urban Development<br />
Department, housing and neighborhood revitalization activities are ranked in Tier 1, the highest<br />
priority and economic development as Tier 3, the lowest priority.<br />
B. Federal priorities considered include sustainability, homelessness, returning veterans and their<br />
families, and Fair Housing.<br />
Needs were then prioritized based on the following criteria:<br />
o It furthers or is consistent with a city and/or federal priority area.<br />
o It is identified as a need in the community involvement process.<br />
o Its impacts on a large number <strong>of</strong> low‐ and moderate‐income households.<br />
o It meets unique needs <strong>of</strong> certain geographic areas.<br />
o It reflects past successes <strong>of</strong> projects and activities in meeting needs.<br />
Lastly, objectives and strategies were developed to address the identified needs.<br />
3. Consultation with public and private agencies that provide health services, social and fair housing<br />
services is an on‐going process throughout the year. Urban Development participates in Community<br />
Services Initiative (CSI), a community‐wide planning effort designed to identify emerging issues and<br />
critical needs in the local health and human services delivery system. It includes four coalitions:<br />
Basic and Emergency Needs, Behavioral Health, Children and Youth, and Stop Abuse. For the<br />
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>, contact was also made with the Human Services Federation for survey input. The<br />
Federation is comprised <strong>of</strong> representatives from 125 non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it agency members dedicated to<br />
providing quality health and human services in <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>.<br />
Additional consultation during <strong>Plan</strong> development included Community CROPS (Combining Resources,<br />
Opportunities and People for Sustainability), the <strong>City</strong>’s Stormwater Management Division <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Works and Utilities, and the Parks and Recreation Department.<br />
Regarding homeless issues, <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s CoC collaborates with a wide variety <strong>of</strong> local, state, and federal<br />
entities to identify homeless needs. Four primary data collection activities or efforts provide the CoC<br />
with information necessary to conduct annual planning efforts: the annual Point‐In‐Time count (PIT),<br />
information compiled for the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s 2009 CoC<br />
Exhibit 1, which includes <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s Housing and Inventory Chart (HIC), and the Homelessness<br />
Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing <strong>Plan</strong> (HPRP) for <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. Data from these four sources<br />
provide a snapshot <strong>of</strong> homelessness in <strong>Lincoln</strong>, including an estimate <strong>of</strong> the size and nature <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>'s homeless population, an inventory <strong>of</strong> available beds and services, and ultimately provide the<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
15
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
basis for planning efforts to meet identified gaps in services and anticipate future needs. For detailed<br />
information on the agencies, groups, and organizations who participate in <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s CoC, please refer<br />
to sections 1A ‐ 1D in <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s 2009 Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care (CoC) Exhibit 1 available at<br />
www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless.<br />
On general housing issues, the Urban Development staff consulted with the non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it housing<br />
organizations that are subrecipients for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>. NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong> administers the<br />
Urban Development funded First Time Home Buyer Training and they receive HOME funds for down<br />
payment assistance under the First Home Program and the CHDO set‐aside Troubled Property<br />
Program. NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> receives ongoing feedback from their clients and Urban<br />
Development staff consults with the agency’s staff at the end <strong>of</strong> each fiscal year. Other subrecipient<br />
agencies include: Affordable Housing Initiative, Habitat for Humanity, League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity, and<br />
Rebuilding Together. Other agencies consulted on an ongoing basis include: <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing<br />
Authority, Community Action Partners, REALTORS ® , Nebraska Investment Finance Authority, and the<br />
Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development.<br />
On lead‐based paint issues, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> consults with Nebraska Asbestos and Lead Based Paint<br />
Abatement Program and <strong>Lincoln</strong>‐<strong>Lancaster</strong> Health Department.<br />
For public housing issues, consultation was made with the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority (LHA). LHA is a<br />
governmental entity established in 1946 with the mission <strong>of</strong> providing housing to the residents <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. LHA receives ongoing feedback from their clients and urban development consults<br />
with LHA at the end <strong>of</strong> each fiscal year. For detailed information on the authority, programs, and<br />
organizations who participate in the LHA, please refer to most recent 2009 Annual Report available<br />
by contacting LHA at www.l‐housing.com.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> is not part <strong>of</strong> a metropolitan area nor a Council <strong>of</strong> Governments (COG).<br />
Citizen Participation (91.200 (b))<br />
1. Provide a summary <strong>of</strong> the citizen participation process.<br />
2. Provide a summary <strong>of</strong> citizen comments or views on the plan.<br />
3. Provide a summary <strong>of</strong> efforts made to broaden public participation in the development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
consolidated plan, including outreach to minorities and non‐English speaking persons, as well as<br />
persons with disabilities.<br />
4. Provide a written explanation <strong>of</strong> comments not accepted and the reasons why these comments were<br />
not accepted.<br />
*Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP Tool.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Citizen Participation response:<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> has a Citizen Participation <strong>Plan</strong> that details the public involvement process. The<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> is available at www.lincoln.gov, keyword: urban. Public participation is an on‐going process, not<br />
confined to preparation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>. The public is encouraged to participate by becoming<br />
involved with their neighborhood association, in other community organizations and in business<br />
associations. Residents are also encouraged to attend public hearings and open houses held for<br />
special projects and plans.<br />
However, the Citizen Participation <strong>Plan</strong> specifies that during development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>, ad<br />
hoc committees and/or surveys may be used to obtain additional input. For this <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>,<br />
surveys were heavily relied upon. Four surveys were used to obtain public input: (1) a Community<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
16
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Needs Survey administered by Urban Development that surveyed staff and board members from<br />
housing providers (all facets including, realtors, bankers, and agencies providing homeownership,<br />
rehab, and rental assistance), social service agencies, and Neighborhood Association Presidents. (2) A<br />
<strong>City</strong>‐wide survey conducted by the Mayor’s Office. (3) A scientific survey conducted by the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Department for the update <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s Comprehensive <strong>Plan</strong>. (4) Surveys <strong>of</strong> clients<br />
conducted by the Center for People in Need.<br />
Community Needs Survey:<br />
This non‐scientific survey was conducted by the Urban Development Department between March<br />
and May, 2010. Its purpose was to identify needs and obstacles regarding housing, social services,<br />
and economic issues. The survey was distributed to three groups: 341 people representing the 125<br />
member agencies in the Human Services Federation (HSF), 26 staff and board members <strong>of</strong><br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>, and neighborhood presidents or the contact person for 53 neighborhood<br />
associations. The survey was also on Urban Development’s website and available for the general<br />
public to complete. E‐mails were sent to 356 individuals representing 120 government contacts, 127<br />
community contacts, 56 <strong>Lincoln</strong> Public Schools principals, and 53 neighborhood association leaders<br />
informing them that the survey was available on the website and inviting them to complete the<br />
survey. Note that neighborhood leaders were contacted twice. In addition, those receiving the e‐<br />
mail from the following groups were asked to forward the e‐mail and survey to their membership:<br />
Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Workforce Investment Board and Youth Council = approximately 50 people, <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Realtors = 750, Public Library staff = approximately 50. This represents an additional 850 individuals<br />
who received the survey.<br />
Respondents were asked for the location <strong>of</strong> their agency and home address, both <strong>of</strong> which were<br />
mapped and are included in “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder – ‘Response Distribution’ map.<br />
The map illustrates that respondents provide a good geographic representation <strong>of</strong> the LMI area in<br />
particular and the city as a whole. The return rate for the HSF group was 38.56%,<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> was 30.76% and neighborhood associations 22.64%. Responses were<br />
received from the following neighborhood representatives or agencies:<br />
Neighborhood Associations Respondents<br />
Clinton Hawley South Salt Creek<br />
College View Autumn Wood Witherbee<br />
Everett Near South Woods Park<br />
Far South Salt Valley View Meadowlane<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
17
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Listing <strong>of</strong> Agency/Organization Respondents<br />
ABC General Assistance NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Affordable Housing Initiatives Heartland Big Brothers Big Sisters Peoples Health Center<br />
Albers Co Home Real Estate Realtor<br />
Calvary Methodist Church Houses <strong>of</strong> Hope Rebuilding Together <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
CASA for <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Human Services Reinke Property Management<br />
Cedars Youth Services Indian Center ServeNebraska<br />
Center for People in Need Interfaith Housing Coalition St. Monica's<br />
CenterPointe <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority The Salvation Army<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> Medical … Partnership Center for Children/Family/Law<br />
Civic Input <strong>Lincoln</strong> Public Schools US Bank Home Mortgage<br />
Community Mental Health Center Matt Talbot Kitchen and Outreach Voices <strong>of</strong> Hope<br />
Complete Children's Health Mercy Housing Volunteer Partners<br />
Family Health Services NAF MHDC Woods Charitable Fund<br />
Family Service WIC NAI/FMA Realty<br />
Fresh Start Nebraska Dept <strong>of</strong> Econ Dev.<br />
General Thoughts and Outcomes:<br />
Survey results indicated that by far the greatest need in <strong>Lincoln</strong> is affordable housing, for both<br />
homeowners and renters. All groups indicated affordable housing as the greatest need. The need for<br />
good paying jobs was also cited repeatedly by all groups as a high priority. Other issues identified<br />
most <strong>of</strong>ten included:<br />
o Learning to spend and save wisely<br />
o Medical costs and access<br />
o Mental health, behavioral health and substance abuse assistance<br />
o Transportation issues<br />
o Special needs housing – the need for more and for more services<br />
o Housing discrimination as a barrier to fair housing<br />
o Immigrant needs and discrimination<br />
o Need for tenant education<br />
o Cleaning up the core <strong>of</strong> the city<br />
o Homelessness and the need for emergency and transitional housing<br />
<strong>City</strong>‐Wide Satisfaction Survey:<br />
This was a scientific survey coordinated by the Mayor’s Office. This survey was conducted from<br />
December 1 through December 6, 2009, by Opinion Research Corporation out <strong>of</strong> Princeton, New<br />
Jersey. All statistical analysis was completed by the University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska –<strong>Lincoln</strong> Public Policy<br />
Center. In total, 607 <strong>Lincoln</strong> residents completed the survey, yielding a +/‐ 4.4% margin <strong>of</strong> error. At<br />
the request <strong>of</strong> Urban Development, University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska Public Policy Center compiled results<br />
comparing responses from people living in zip codes primarily representing the LMI neighborhoods to<br />
the rest <strong>of</strong> the city. Results were generally the same with a few exceptions:<br />
o The number <strong>of</strong> unsightly or blighted properties in the city: 46.2% <strong>of</strong> LMI respondents were<br />
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied compared to 35.6% for the rest <strong>of</strong> the city.<br />
o Availability <strong>of</strong> affordable quality housing: 22.5% <strong>of</strong> LMI respondents were dissatisfied or very<br />
dissatisfied compared to 14.4% for the rest <strong>of</strong> the city.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
18
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o General safety and security in your neighborhood: 18.3 % <strong>of</strong> LMI respondents were<br />
dissatisfied to very dissatisfied compared to 8.2% <strong>of</strong> the remaining city. Conversely, 84.1%<br />
<strong>of</strong> the remaining city was satisfied to very satisfied compared to 66.3% for LMI residents.<br />
2010 Public Opinion Survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning and Development Issues in <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>*:<br />
This survey was completed by the Sigma Group, LLC for the <strong>Lincoln</strong>‐<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Department as part <strong>of</strong> the Comprehensive <strong>Plan</strong> update. A total <strong>of</strong> 700 residents were surveyed<br />
between February 18 and March 29, 2010. The margin <strong>of</strong> error is +/‐ 3.7%. Some <strong>of</strong> the major survey<br />
findings regarding perceptions <strong>of</strong> growth and development include:<br />
o Respondents were more likely to agree that there are plenty <strong>of</strong> housing choices by type and<br />
size (90%) than by price range (79%). People living the northeast area were less likely than<br />
others to agree that housing choices were adequate across price ranges (72%).<br />
o Five out <strong>of</strong> six respondents agreed that more production <strong>of</strong> local food sources should be<br />
encouraged (84%). Agreement on this issue was greater among those under 45 (89%)<br />
compared to those 65 and older (72%).<br />
o Limiting energy consumption is an important issue to 82% <strong>of</strong> residents.<br />
Overall, residents put the greatest importance on six planning priorities:<br />
o Investing in clean alternative energy sources.<br />
o Developing and maintaining a system <strong>of</strong> parks and recreation facilities.<br />
o Developing water conservation policies that reduce water usage.<br />
o Widening existing roads to provide better traffic flow in the north‐south direction.<br />
o Preserving the quality <strong>of</strong> rural life and highly productive agricultural land in the county.<br />
o Maintaining and preserving existing wetlands, streams, trees, flood plains, wildlife habitat,<br />
and other natural resources.<br />
*Source: Sigma Group, LLC draft report, April 2010, pp. i., vi.<br />
Center For People in Need (CFPIN):<br />
CFPIN has completed four annual poverty surveys and published results in The Face <strong>of</strong> Poverty Today<br />
in <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. Results <strong>of</strong> the most recent survey have not yet been made public. However,<br />
CFPIN shared the draft report and survey results with Urban Development staff for use in preparing<br />
the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>. According to the report, “The information in this report comes from a survey<br />
conducted by the Center for People in Need in December 2009. Data were collected during a toy<br />
distribution event for parents and caregivers in need. The survey was given to over 2,300<br />
respondents; it was available in four languages – English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic.<br />
Participation was voluntary and data were kept confidential. Only one person per family completed a<br />
questionnaire….the goal <strong>of</strong> this annual survey…is to gather information about the personal<br />
experiences <strong>of</strong> people in need…the Center aims to give a voice and put a face to the actual<br />
experience <strong>of</strong> poverty – what individuals struggle with, what they need, and how they use community<br />
resources to get by. The Face <strong>of</strong> Poverty report provides information for others to better understand<br />
and respond to the needs <strong>of</strong> the poor.” Some key findings from last year’s survey and report<br />
(December, 2008) are included below, reprinted with permission:<br />
o Challenges Faced in Finding Employment: Concerns/Challenges were somewhat similar for<br />
US‐ and foreign‐born respondents…one exception is that the top concern for the foreign‐<br />
born respondents was that lack <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in English was a hindrance to getting a good<br />
job. Like last year, the top challenge for US born respondents was finding a job that paid<br />
enough to support oneself and one’s family, followed by a need for more education…the top<br />
challenge for foreign‐born respondents was language, followed by finding a job that paid<br />
enough (p. 13).<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
19
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Food Challenges: Majority <strong>of</strong> respondents reported having problems buying enough food<br />
for their families – sometimes, <strong>of</strong>ten, or always (80%). The most common response to lack<br />
<strong>of</strong> money for food was choosing between paying bills and paying for food, followed by<br />
skipping meals by someone (not children) in the family. Several respondents commented<br />
that the adults, but not the children, skipped meals. Patterns did not differ between US‐ and<br />
foreign‐born respondents (p. 15).<br />
o Other Community Resources Accessed for Aid with Food: Majority <strong>of</strong> participants utilized<br />
some form <strong>of</strong> assistance to help them afford/obtain enough food for their households.<br />
However, a large percentage still experience challenges even after receiving government<br />
and/or community assistance. Among those who are working AND using food stamps<br />
AND/OR accessing one or more <strong>of</strong> the resources above, 79% still report having problems<br />
obtaining enough food for their families (p. 18).<br />
o Problems Paying for Utilities…Rent or Mortgage: More than half <strong>of</strong> the respondents<br />
reported having experienced some type <strong>of</strong> challenge in paying for utilities. 32% <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents reported a utility had been disconnected within the past year because they<br />
could not pay the bill. 72% <strong>of</strong> respondents report either “always”, “<strong>of</strong>ten”, or “sometimes”<br />
having problems in paying for rent or mortgage. This is higher than last year’s figure <strong>of</strong> 62%<br />
(p.26).<br />
The full report can be requested from the Center For People in Need<br />
www.CenterforPeopleInNeed.org<br />
Other public involvement included:<br />
o A 30 day public comment period began on May 28, 2010. A “notice <strong>of</strong> availability” was<br />
published in the legal notices section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Journal Star and at www.lincoln.ne.gov,<br />
keyword: urban. Residents were advised that the document is available: 1) on the Urban<br />
Development Department Web page: www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: urban; and 2) at the<br />
Urban Development Department <strong>of</strong>fice: 555 S. 10 th , room 205, <strong>Lincoln</strong>, NE 68508.<br />
o Presentation <strong>of</strong> the draft plan at the Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable on June 14, 2010.<br />
The Roundtable meets with the Mayor monthly to discuss issues and topics <strong>of</strong> interest and<br />
concern to neighborhoods. Eighteen neighborhood representatives attended representing<br />
ten neighborhood associations.<br />
o The Urban Development Department also held a public open house to present needs, goals,<br />
objectives and proposed actions in the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>. The meeting was held on June 16,<br />
2010 at the Urban Development Department <strong>of</strong>fice. Notice <strong>of</strong> the meeting containing date,<br />
time, place, and purpose was published on May 28, 2010 in the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Journal Star, and<br />
announced at the Mayor’s Neighborhood Roundtable. No one attended the open house.<br />
o The <strong>Plan</strong> also went before the <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council on June 28, 2010 for public hearing and<br />
approval. No citizens spoke and the <strong>Plan</strong> was unanimously approved by the <strong>City</strong> Council.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
No comments were received.<br />
3. Answer to question #3<br />
o Low‐ and moderate‐income residents where housing and community development funds<br />
may be spent: through surveys, on‐going attendance by Urban Development staff at<br />
neighborhood and business association meetings.<br />
o Minorities and non‐English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities: through<br />
surveys, particularly use <strong>of</strong> The Center for People in Need, and through contact with<br />
agencies serving non‐English speaking people and those with disabilities.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
20
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Local and regional institutions and other organizations (including businesses, developers,<br />
community and faith‐based organizations): through one‐on‐one meetings, surveys, and<br />
attending meetings <strong>of</strong> organizations and business associations.<br />
o Residents <strong>of</strong> public and assisted housing developments and recipients <strong>of</strong> tenant‐based<br />
assistance: through surveys and agencies.<br />
o Residents <strong>of</strong> targeted revitalization areas: through surveys and attending neighborhood<br />
association meetings.<br />
Institutional Structure (91.215 (i))<br />
1. Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan,<br />
including private industry, non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations, and public institutions.<br />
2. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system.<br />
3. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system for public housing, including a description <strong>of</strong> the<br />
organizational relationship between the jurisdiction and the public housing agency, including the<br />
appointing authority for the commissioners or board <strong>of</strong> housing agency, relationship regarding hiring,<br />
contracting and procurement; provision <strong>of</strong> services funded by the jurisdiction; review by the<br />
jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> proposed capital improvements as well as proposed development, demolition or<br />
disposition <strong>of</strong> public housing developments.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Institutional Structure response:<br />
1. The Urban Development Department has an established Institutional Structure in place. Please see<br />
the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder for the Institutional Structure description. Included in the<br />
description is an explanation <strong>of</strong> efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses,<br />
developers and social service agencies, particularly with regard to the development <strong>of</strong> the city’s<br />
economic development strategy.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
o Strengths in the delivery system:<br />
General willingness <strong>of</strong> public and private agencies to share information and work together to<br />
accomplish goals to help the citizens <strong>of</strong> our community.<br />
Numerous task forces that bring coalitions <strong>of</strong> agencies together to coordinate services and<br />
case management for clients.<br />
o Potential gaps in the service delivery system:<br />
Financial support to meet individual, community, and agencies needs at all levels and from<br />
both public and private resources.<br />
3. Answer to Question #3<br />
o Strengths in the delivery system:<br />
Financially stable: has access to non‐HUD funding streams<br />
Model tax credit projects<br />
Experienced leadership and pr<strong>of</strong>icient staff<br />
o Potential gaps in the service delivery system:<br />
Need exceeds the supply<br />
Financial support is variable<br />
The demand for section 8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083 (over a two‐<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
21
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
year estimated waiting period). LHA receives roughly 500 new applications each month.<br />
LHA is a partner with the Urban Development Department in trying to meet the needs for low‐<br />
income housing. Urban Development makes funding available to assist homeless families with<br />
security deposits. The LHA is a governmental entity established under state law, by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>, with a mission <strong>of</strong> providing affordable housing to the residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. The<br />
Housing Authority fulfills that mission through:<br />
o the ownership and/or management <strong>of</strong> 1,450+ units <strong>of</strong> rental housing<br />
o the administration <strong>of</strong> the Federal Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program in <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong><br />
o the operation <strong>of</strong> two homeownership programs<br />
o tenant supportive services<br />
o community partnerships with other providers <strong>of</strong> housing and social services<br />
Although the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority is a governmental entity, it does not have the power to<br />
tax, and does not receive local tax dollars. It is governed by a five member Board <strong>of</strong><br />
Commissioners appointed by <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Mayor and approved by the <strong>City</strong> Council. The Board <strong>of</strong><br />
Commissioners appoints an Executive Director to oversee the day‐to‐day operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Housing Authority, and to ensure that the Board’s policies are implemented.<br />
Currently, the LHA has 80.5 employees and operates with an annual budget <strong>of</strong> 24 million.<br />
Approximately 15 million <strong>of</strong> that budget is Federal funds distributed annually from the U.S.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority has been<br />
providing affordable housing to the citizens <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> for over 64 years.<br />
Urban Development is not involved in the LHA’s capital improvements nor the LHA’s<br />
development, demolition or disposition <strong>of</strong> its public housing developments.<br />
For detailed information on the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority’s “2010‐2011 Annual <strong>Plan</strong>” please visit<br />
their Web site at http://www.l‐housing.com.<br />
Monitoring (91.230)<br />
1. Describe the standards and procedures the jurisdiction will use to monitor its housing and community<br />
development projects and ensure long‐term compliance with program requirements and<br />
comprehensive planning requirements.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Monitoring response:<br />
1. General grant administration activities include preparation and management <strong>of</strong> annual operating and<br />
programmatic budgets, including allocation <strong>of</strong> personnel and overhead costs; analysis <strong>of</strong> past and<br />
current year performance and expenditures in all program areas (i.e., housing rehabilitation and<br />
homeownership, economic development, community services, public improvements, etc.); oversight<br />
<strong>of</strong> revenues, “timeliness” <strong>of</strong> expenditures; and coordination and utilization <strong>of</strong> HUD’s IDIS system for<br />
reporting and fund drawdowns.<br />
Program/project monitoring ensures that the <strong>City</strong> and its subrecipients (or borrowers) meet<br />
performance objectives within schedule and budget. Most importantly, it provides documentation <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>City</strong>’s compliance with program (CDBG, HOME) objectives, rules, and regulations. A critical part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s monitoring system is an assessment <strong>of</strong> each subrecipient or borrower to identify high risk<br />
agencies that require more extensive oversight and monitoring. Agencies identified as high risk<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
22
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
include those who are new to the program, are experiencing turnover in key staff positions, have<br />
been plagued by past compliance or performance problems, are undertaking multiple funding<br />
activities for the first time, and/or are not submitting timely reports. These agencies are provided<br />
with regular on‐site visits and desk‐top reviews and at least one on‐site visit per year.<br />
A standardized procedure for review and monitoring has been established, and monitoring manuals<br />
have been prepared utilizing monitoring tools developed for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and ADDI programs<br />
(although ESG and ADDI funds are no longer received by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>). Areas addressed<br />
include, (1) Project or Program Status; (2) Program Benefit; (3) Fair Housing/Equal Opportunity; (4)<br />
Consistency <strong>of</strong> Records; and (5) Financial Accountability. Desk‐top reviews involve examining<br />
progress reports, compliance reports, and financial information. On‐site monitoring visits are<br />
performed to determine adequate control over program and financial performance and to verify<br />
proper records maintenance. On‐site visits also involve examining beneficiary documentation, audit<br />
reports, accounting records, invoices, payroll documentation, and timesheets.<br />
The Program Monitor also works with subrecipients, borrowers, the <strong>City</strong> Building and Safety<br />
Department and recipients to ensure compliance with all Federal rules and regulations. Occupancy<br />
reports submitted for assisted housing projects are examined to determine compliance with<br />
affordability and tenant eligibility. Interviews with contractor employees are conducted and certified<br />
payrolls are examined to ensure compliance with Fair Labor Standards, Davis‐Bacon wage<br />
requirements and HOME standards.<br />
Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies (91.215 (a))<br />
1. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs.<br />
2. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
o The Needs/Housing Table (see the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder).<br />
o Non‐homeless Table ‐ (see the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder).<br />
o The Antelope Valley Redevelopment <strong>Plan</strong>, particularly the section on Neighborhood<br />
Enhancement and Housing Strategies.<br />
o Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, including previously completed Focus Area <strong>Plan</strong>s for the<br />
Malone, Near South and Everett Neighborhoods.<br />
o Input from community surveys.<br />
o The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Mayor’s priority policy on Energy and Sustainability (under development).<br />
o Federal emphasis areas <strong>of</strong> Fair Housing, Sustainability, and returning veterans and their families.<br />
o Priority needs areas identified by the Community Services Initiative.<br />
o Consultations with service providers, other <strong>City</strong> departments, and other funding agencies.<br />
o <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> outcome‐based budgeting process.<br />
The following criteria were also applied:<br />
o It furthers or is consistent with a city and/or federal priority area.<br />
o It is identified as a need in the community involvement process.<br />
o Its impacts on a large number <strong>of</strong> low‐ and moderate‐income households.<br />
o It meets unique needs <strong>of</strong> certain geographic areas.<br />
o It reflects past successes <strong>of</strong> projects and activities in meeting needs.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
23
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
o The current financial and mortgage crisis:<br />
More families are in need <strong>of</strong> services and there is an increased need for affordable housing, both<br />
owner and renter, while lenders are making it more difficult for new home buyers, and waiting<br />
lists for rental assistance are longer. Social service needs are also greater, resulting in higher<br />
needs for food and more families struggling to make ends meet, having to choose between food<br />
and other needs. Social service agencies are more stressed to meet needs while the financial<br />
crisis has reduced donations.<br />
o Jobs:<br />
The need for good paying jobs, problems due to loss <strong>of</strong> jobs (and resulting family budgetary<br />
issues including loss <strong>of</strong> housing) people working at low paying jobs and not making ends meet.<br />
Lack <strong>of</strong> financial support to meet individual, community, and agencies needs at all levels and<br />
from both public and private resources.<br />
Lead‐based Paint (91.215 (g))<br />
1. Estimate the number <strong>of</strong> housing units that contain lead‐based paint hazards, as defined in section<br />
1004 <strong>of</strong> the Residential Lead‐Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act <strong>of</strong> 1992, and are occupied by<br />
extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families.<br />
2. Outline actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead‐based paint hazards and<br />
describe how lead based paint hazards will be integrated into housing policies and programs, and<br />
how the plan for the reduction <strong>of</strong> lead‐based hazards is related to the extent <strong>of</strong> lead poisoning and<br />
hazards.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Lead‐based Paint response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
o According to the National Safety Council, about two‐thirds <strong>of</strong> homes built before 1940, half <strong>of</strong><br />
the homes built between 1940 and 1960 and a lesser number <strong>of</strong> homes built between 1960 and<br />
1978 contain lead from lead‐based paint. In the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s low‐ to moderate‐income area,<br />
there are 20,512 housing units; 12,930 are owner‐occupied and 7582 are rental.<br />
o It is estimated that lead can be found in two‐thirds or 3,996 <strong>of</strong> the 5,909 owner‐occupied houses<br />
built before 1940. Of the 4,224 built between 1940 and 1960, one‐half or 2,112, probably contain<br />
lead. The data are unclear as to percentage but a reasonable figure <strong>of</strong> one‐third or 932 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
2,797 houses built between 1960 and 1979 contained lead. In the LMI area, 7,040 owner‐<br />
occupied houses are estimated to contain lead.<br />
o Two‐thirds or 2,934 <strong>of</strong> the 4,405 rental units built before 1940 are likely to contain lead. Of the<br />
additional 2,170 units built between 1940 and 1960, about one‐half or 1,085 contain lead.<br />
Another 1,007 rental units were built between 1960 and 1979, <strong>of</strong> which an estimated one‐third<br />
or 336 contain lead. In the LMI area, 4,355 rental units are estimated to contain lead.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
o Since September <strong>of</strong> 2000, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> has integrated lead‐based paint hazard reduction<br />
activities into their HUD‐assisted housing policies and programs.<br />
o The Urban Development Department is involved with between 300 to 400 housing units a year<br />
providing rehabilitation and home ownership assistance. Urban Development operates various<br />
in‐house rehabilitation programs and works with several non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations to provide a<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
24
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
full range <strong>of</strong> housing options.<br />
o All <strong>of</strong> the in‐house rehabilitation projects receive a lead paint inspection based on the<br />
requirements set forth in 24 CFR Part 35 by one <strong>of</strong> the three Rehabilitation Specialists who are<br />
Certified Lead Risk Assessors. They also lend their technical expertise to assist smaller non‐<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>its that have lead procedure questions.<br />
o The First Home Program is administered by NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>, a recipient <strong>of</strong> HOME funds<br />
from the Urban Development Department. The funds are used to provide down payment and<br />
rehabilitation assistance. The Rehabilitation Specialist that conducts the housing inspections for<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> is also a Certified Lead Risk Assessor.<br />
o The majority <strong>of</strong> Urban Development’s program funds benefit households in <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s low‐ to<br />
moderate‐income area which has the oldest housing stock. This same area is the subject <strong>of</strong><br />
studies by the <strong>Lincoln</strong>‐<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Health Department for elevated blood lead levels in<br />
children. This program prioritized neighborhoods as high risk based on age <strong>of</strong> housing and the<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> children under age six below the poverty level.<br />
o The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority implemented 24 CFR Part 35 (Subparts A,B, R & M) into their<br />
Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program and continues to work with the Health Department to<br />
identify children with elevated blood lead levels.<br />
HOUSING<br />
Housing Needs (91.205)<br />
*Please also refer to the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook<br />
1. Describe the estimated housing needs projected for the next five year period for the following<br />
categories <strong>of</strong> persons: extremely low‐income, low‐income, moderate‐income, and middle‐income<br />
families:<br />
o renters and owners,<br />
o elderly persons, persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their<br />
families,<br />
o single persons,<br />
o large families,<br />
o public housing residents, victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence,<br />
o families on the public housing and section 8 tenant‐based waiting list,<br />
and discuss specific housing problems, including: cost‐burden, severe cost‐ burden, substandard<br />
housing, and overcrowding (especially large families).<br />
2. To the extent that any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need for any income<br />
category in comparison to the needs <strong>of</strong> that category as a whole, the jurisdiction must complete an<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> that specific need. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when the<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> persons in a category <strong>of</strong> need who are members <strong>of</strong> a particular racial or ethnic group is<br />
at least ten percentage points higher than the percentage <strong>of</strong> persons in the category as a whole.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Housing Needs response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
Please also refer to the HSG Needs table and the Non‐Homeless Special Needs table in the “<strong>Strategic</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong> additional files”. Projected needs for the next three years are not quantified for all groups but<br />
are anticipated to increase. Highlights <strong>of</strong> the planning process include the following:<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
25
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Rental Housing According to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2009,<br />
an estimated 39,920 total rental units are needed by existing renter households, with 39,405 <strong>of</strong><br />
those units needed by existing low‐income households <strong>of</strong> which 490 are substandard. There<br />
was a surplus <strong>of</strong> approximately 3,385 rental units in <strong>Lincoln</strong> in 2009. There was an overall<br />
surplus <strong>of</strong> two‐ and three‐bedroom units by 1,710 units and 475 units respectively. Even with<br />
the surplus <strong>of</strong> 3,385 rental units affordable to low‐income households, the fact remains that<br />
17,405 low‐income, renter households were cost overburdened in 2009. Of this group, 7,984<br />
were 30% <strong>of</strong> Area Median Income (AMI) and 8,543 were 50% AMI. Data on overcrowding is<br />
only available from the 2000census and is, therefore, quite dated and not included here.<br />
Overcrowding will be addressed in the next <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> in three years when the 2010 census<br />
data is available.<br />
o Owner Housing Needs<br />
In 2009, there were 68,407 owner‐occupied housing units with 290 being substandard. 1104 are<br />
0 or 1 bedroom units with 4 currently vacant, 15,089 are 2 bedrooms with 310 vacant and 51,495<br />
are 3+ bedrooms with 405 vacant. Of this group, 18,059 were cost burdened using 30% AMI and<br />
5,267 at 50% AMI. Data on overcrowding is only available from the 2000 census and is,<br />
therefore, quite dated and not included here. Overcrowding will be addressed in the next<br />
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> in three years when the 2010 census data is available.<br />
o Community wide data on the non‐homeless developmentally disabled and physically disabled<br />
population is unavailable. However, it is estimated that additional housing for approximately<br />
651 individuals who are identified as severely mentally ill, and for 1,042 physically disabled<br />
individuals is needed.<br />
o Projected housing needs for people with HIV/Aids is not available. Urban Development is<br />
unable to determine an accurate housing need for people with HIV/AIDS because the number <strong>of</strong><br />
people with HIV/AIDS, for <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>, varies depending on the source <strong>of</strong> the data.<br />
Estimates range any where from 150 to 300 persons with HIV/AIDS but data on their housing<br />
needs is not available.<br />
o Public housing units are fully occupied and the waiting list for <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority units is<br />
two and a half years. LHA is finding it extremely difficult to serve the needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s<br />
extremely low‐income, low‐income, and moderate‐income families. Limited federal funding has<br />
resulted in no new Section 8 vouchers available to serve <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s lower‐income population.<br />
This particular population is growing as <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s general population base continues to grow.<br />
The average cost per unit <strong>of</strong> subsidy for each Section 8 voucher has continued to rise from $353<br />
per unit in April 2004 to $365 per unit in March 2010. The increased cost is due primarily to<br />
serving more, larger families than elderly/small families and a decline in the income <strong>of</strong><br />
households assisted. When combined with the federal funding limitations, the number <strong>of</strong><br />
families LHA will be able to assist will remain almost the same number. The demand for section<br />
8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083. LHA receives roughly 500 new<br />
applications each month. Likewise the ability to expand public housing is similar. The count <strong>of</strong><br />
public and section 8 units are expected to remain the same.<br />
o Victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence: A Gallup survey conducted in <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> by Friendship<br />
Home (<strong>Lincoln</strong>'s leading Domestic Violence Shelter) indicates that 1 in 4 women will be victims<br />
<strong>of</strong> domestic violence. The vast majority <strong>of</strong> domestic violence victims who access shelter and<br />
services in <strong>Lincoln</strong> are low‐income. Although no data exists to present a definitive picture <strong>of</strong> the<br />
size and scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>'s domestic violence housing needs, information from the Gallup<br />
Survey commissioned by Friendship Home, and additional data from CoC resources, indicates<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
26
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
that although housing is generally available in the community, the need for wrap around<br />
domestic violence support services is high.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
o Minority Owner Housing Needs<br />
CHAS data was used to identify when the percentage <strong>of</strong> black, non‐Hispanic, or Hispanic<br />
households in an income category are not within 10 percent <strong>of</strong> the figures found in the “all<br />
households” column for that income category. These are the only categories that CHAS data<br />
currently provides. According to that data Black, non‐Hispanic, and Hispanic renter and owner<br />
households are more likely to be in the lowest income category than households in general.<br />
However, none are more than 10% as a category as a whole.<br />
Priority Housing Needs (91.215 (b))<br />
1. Identify the priority housing needs and activities in accordance with the categories specified in the<br />
Housing Needs Table (formerly Table 2A). These categories correspond with special tabulations <strong>of</strong><br />
U.S. census data provided by HUD for the preparation <strong>of</strong> the Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
2. Provide an analysis <strong>of</strong> how the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the housing market and the severity <strong>of</strong> housing<br />
problems and needs <strong>of</strong> each category <strong>of</strong> residents provided the basis for determining the relative<br />
priority <strong>of</strong> each priority housing need category.<br />
Note: Family and income types may be grouped in the case <strong>of</strong> closely related categories <strong>of</strong> residents<br />
where the analysis would apply to more than one family or income type.<br />
3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs.<br />
4. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Priority Housing Needs response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
High Priority Needs:<br />
The highest priority needs are among low‐income special needs populations, including physically<br />
disabled persons, seriously mentally ill persons, and refugees and immigrants, not only due to<br />
housing need, but also supportive housing services. Extremely‐low income renters <strong>of</strong> all<br />
household types and very‐low income (except single households) are also high priority<br />
households. Elderly owners who are extremely low‐income are a high priority as well.<br />
As long as the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority has funds to support extremely and very low‐income<br />
renters, the majority <strong>of</strong> the federal funds under the oversight <strong>of</strong> the Urban Development<br />
Department, Housing Division will be targeted toward other high priority needs including home<br />
owners and potential home owners who are very low‐ and low‐income.<br />
Medium Priority Needs:<br />
Single households with incomes at 30 to 50 percent <strong>of</strong> the median, renter households between<br />
50 to 80 percent <strong>of</strong> the median and not looking to own, and owners with incomes under 30<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> the median and looking to become renters are medium priority households.<br />
However, these households may not be good candidates for either the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority<br />
or Urban Development programs. Needs are not classified as medium priority if they are being<br />
served by other programs or agencies.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
27
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Additionally, marketing <strong>of</strong> programs will target single‐parent households, immigrants, refugees,<br />
and other ethnic and/or racial minorities.<br />
Low Priority Needs:<br />
Households with low priority needs are those making more than 80 percent <strong>of</strong> the median<br />
income for the <strong>City</strong>. These households tend to be served through other programs or through<br />
conventional means.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
The characteristics <strong>of</strong> the current housing market continue to put pressure on buyers purchasing<br />
their first home and on lower income existing home owners to sustain home ownership. Lenders’<br />
loan underwriting has become more stringent thus affecting the ability <strong>of</strong> households below 80%<br />
AMI from purchasing a home. Existing home owners have seen a slowing in their equity<br />
accumulation and a home improvement loan has been harder to obtain. Elderly home owners<br />
living on social security have a reduced capacity <strong>of</strong> obtaining a loan. Home owners under 50%<br />
AMI are especially impacted when an emergency situation arises. Affordable housing is available<br />
in <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s low‐ to moderate‐income area but the necessary rehabilitation needed to make<br />
housing sustainable is a problem. The majority <strong>of</strong> the federal funds under the oversight <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Urban Development Department, Housing Division will be targeted toward the high priority need<br />
households comprised <strong>of</strong> very low‐ and low‐income home owners and potential home owners.<br />
3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs.<br />
The neighborhoods in <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s low‐ to moderate‐income area have a very low home ownership<br />
rate. The priority was to create new home owners in the 50‐80% AMI category and to sustain<br />
the home ownership <strong>of</strong> households 80% AMI and below.<br />
4. Answer to question #4<br />
Because many <strong>of</strong> the high priority households tend to need supportive services to find and/or<br />
remain in affordable housing, these are the most challenging households to serve as well. One <strong>of</strong><br />
the greatest challenges will be finding additional funds to allow the <strong>City</strong> and its partners to<br />
provide these supportive services.<br />
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority will continue to serve those extremely low‐income and very low‐<br />
income households, with priorities for special needs populations, families, and the elderly, as<br />
federal funds for rental housing assistance remain available. Cuts in assistance will be a difficult<br />
barrier to overcome. Another obstacle to meeting these high priority rental housing needs will<br />
be maintaining the infrastructure that supports these households. The <strong>City</strong> will also rely on<br />
internal (i.e. Urban Development and the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority) and external (i.e., Urban<br />
Development and the League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity for the Barrier Removal Program) partnerships to<br />
meet these challenges where appropriate.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the greatest obstacles include social and cultural barriers in reaching markets that tend<br />
not to seek assistance, including Black and Vietnamese householders. Other obstacles include<br />
household income, basic financial skills and knowledge about homeownership, tightening bank<br />
underwriting, NIMBY attitudes, lack <strong>of</strong> quality affordable housing for homeownership, and<br />
regulations (both local and federal) that limit the supply <strong>of</strong> affordable housing or the ability to<br />
subsidize housing.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
28
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Housing Market Analysis (91.210)<br />
*Please also refer to the Housing Market Analysis Table in the Needs.xls workbook<br />
1. Based on information available to the jurisdiction, describe the significant characteristics <strong>of</strong> the<br />
housing market in terms <strong>of</strong> supply, demand, condition, and the cost <strong>of</strong> housing; the housing stock<br />
available to serve persons with disabilities; and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.<br />
Data on the housing market should include, to the extent information is available, an estimate <strong>of</strong> the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> vacant or abandoned buildings and whether units in these buildings are suitable for<br />
rehabilitation.<br />
2. Describe the number and targeting (income level and type <strong>of</strong> household served) <strong>of</strong> units currently<br />
assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an assessment <strong>of</strong> whether any such units<br />
are expected to be lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason, (i.e. expiration <strong>of</strong> Section<br />
8 contracts).<br />
3. Indicate how the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the housing market will influence the use <strong>of</strong> funds made available<br />
for rental assistance, production <strong>of</strong> new units, rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> old units, or acquisition <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
units. Please note, the goal <strong>of</strong> affordable housing is not met by beds in nursing homes.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Housing Market Analysis responses:<br />
A Housing Market Analysis was completed for the 2010‐2012 Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong> and is found in the<br />
“<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder. Highlights include:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
o The community has a potential for 51,000 new dwelling units within the 2030 future service limit<br />
for <strong>Lincoln</strong>. Of these units, about 16,700 (single family and multi‐family combined) are approved<br />
or in the approval process. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the potential units is currently without<br />
infrastructure. The development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s six‐year Capital Improvement Program, which is<br />
annually updated, along with the Comprehensive <strong>Plan</strong>, should take these market realities into<br />
account.<br />
o The number <strong>of</strong> building permits for new single family homes declined again last year compared<br />
to previous years. In 2009, 378 detached single family building permits were issued, the lowest<br />
number since 1983, compared to 410 in 2008, 569 in 2007, and 794 in 2006. Each <strong>of</strong> the past four<br />
years is significantly lower than the ten‐year average <strong>of</strong> 933. The slowdown in the national<br />
economy has been especially harsh on the construction sector, and <strong>Lincoln</strong> has experienced a<br />
related slowdown. With these lower building trends, the supply <strong>of</strong> final platted detached single<br />
family lots has now increased to a 5.1 year supply based on the 3 year building average. Using<br />
the overall number <strong>of</strong> 8,212 single family detached lots available and in the pipeline (final<br />
platted, preliminary platted, and submitted), the lot supply increases to 18.1 years.<br />
o According to the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Realtors Association (LRA), at the end <strong>of</strong> December 2009, there were<br />
1,672 single‐family residential homes on the market; nearly 20% below the number on the<br />
market one year ago. Also, there were 6,895 new listings processed through the Multiple List<br />
Service (MLS) system during 2009; 8.9% below the number processed one year ago (includes re‐<br />
listed properties). There were a total <strong>of</strong> 4,041 single‐family homes sold through the MLS system<br />
during 2009; 11.4% higher than the total number sold in 2008 (3,626); and 12.8% lower than the<br />
total number <strong>of</strong> record sales in 2004 (4,632). Lastly, the overall median price <strong>of</strong> single‐family<br />
home sold through the MLS system during 2009 was $129,900.; 2.3% lower than 2008<br />
($133,000); and 3.8% below the record high in 2005 and 2006 ($135,000). Rent cost burdens vary<br />
based on location, unit size and type. The holistic general rent cost burden, via the LHA gross rent<br />
figures (not affordable rents), are as follows: 0‐1 bedroom ($429.26), 2 bedroom ($606.27) and<br />
3+ bedrooms ($890.60). LRA no longer conducts a yearly rental survey.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
29
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o The number <strong>of</strong> vacant/abandoned buildings within the city limits is always in a state <strong>of</strong> flux. In<br />
2008 there were 3,160 – as <strong>of</strong> April 30 th , 2010 there are 3,721. The estimate <strong>of</strong> those units that<br />
are available or suitable for rehabilitation is unavailable. Additionally, without purchasing a<br />
private third party vendor list, the ability to know how many <strong>of</strong> those vacancies are related to<br />
recent macro and micro mortgage issues and policies is not possible at this time.<br />
o Lastly, those with disabilities and HIV/AIDS compete for the same limited number <strong>of</strong> rental units<br />
and ownership properties as all other low‐income residents. An additional difficulty is that a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> these units may not be suitable for their disability and/or have necessary service<br />
available. However, there are several organizations that assist with access modifications if they<br />
meet income guidelines.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
o See also section ‘Needs <strong>of</strong> Public Housing (91.210 (b))’ (See below)<br />
o The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority’s applicants are very low‐income or below 50 percent <strong>of</strong> the area<br />
median income. Preference is given to the homeless or those who will be homeless pending<br />
release from transitional housing or treatment facility. Others are assisted based on the date <strong>of</strong><br />
application. Single individuals who are not disabled or elderly are the lowest priority. The<br />
demand for section 8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083. LHA receives<br />
roughly 500 new applications each month. Likewise the ability to expand public housing is<br />
similar. The count <strong>of</strong> public and section 8 units are expected to remain the same.<br />
o There are 1,079 units currently funded through federal programs that, in some cases, also<br />
include state and local funds. These units provide housing for low‐ and moderate‐income<br />
elderly, families, and disabled/special needs households. None <strong>of</strong> the units are expected to be<br />
lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason. There are 655 <strong>of</strong> these units for low‐<br />
and moderate‐income elderly households which includes the following projects:<br />
Project Name Number <strong>of</strong><br />
Units<br />
Huntington Park 42<br />
L‐E‐W Housing for the Elderly 105<br />
Malone Manor 50<br />
Plaza V (Moulton) Apartments 35<br />
Tabitha Village 128<br />
Union Manor 56<br />
The Walter 100<br />
Indian Center (Eliz Stabler/Ray Phillips) 48<br />
Burke Plaza 91<br />
Total 655<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
30
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Projects for low‐ and moderate‐income families include 336 units as follows:<br />
Project Name Number <strong>of</strong><br />
Units<br />
Fairfield West 50<br />
Garden Apartments 23<br />
Glenbrook Townhomes 90<br />
Mercy Northglen Apartments 60<br />
Mercy Western Manor 81<br />
New 32 apartments 32<br />
Total 336<br />
Housing for low‐ and moderate‐income disabled/special needs households include the following<br />
88 units:<br />
Project Name Number <strong>of</strong><br />
Units<br />
Arc Capitol Housing 50<br />
League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity ‐ scattered 18<br />
Overland Trail Apartments 10<br />
Mosaic Housing Corp XII (Martin Luther<br />
Homes)<br />
10<br />
Total 88<br />
o Locally, NIFA administers the Low‐income Housing Tax Credit Program that assists households at<br />
60% <strong>of</strong> median income. Two projects are currently receiving funding: Appleton Apartments with<br />
84 units and Creekside Village with 60 units. In addition, Creekside Village will designate 20 units<br />
for Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI).<br />
3. Answer to question #3<br />
o The housing market analysis showed the need to support five key funding areas with federal<br />
funds: owner occupied housing units (maintenance and construction), homebuyer subsidies,<br />
renter‐ occupied housing units (maintenance and construction), rental subsidies, and special<br />
needs housing (maintenance, construction, and supportive services).<br />
o The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority will continue to fund rental subsidies as well as maintain existing<br />
public housing for extremely‐ and very‐ low‐income households. Funding for LHA is steady, and<br />
hopes to remain steady for the next three years.<br />
o The Urban Development Department will continue to use funding for four key areas. The market<br />
analysis showed the need to maintain existing, and create opportunities for more, affordable<br />
owner‐occupancy. In general, the low single‐family vacancy rates, return to historically normal<br />
median prices for new construction, and concentration <strong>of</strong> affordable housing in the NRSA and<br />
LMI areas is evidence <strong>of</strong> the need for new construction <strong>of</strong> affordable housing while construction<br />
costs remain suppressed. These factors also demonstrate the need for the use <strong>of</strong> programs like<br />
HDLP (Housing Development Loan Program) in meeting the demand for new affordable housing<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> the NRSA and LMI areas. The declining number <strong>of</strong> affordable homes for sale without<br />
need <strong>of</strong> substantial rehabilitation is also evidence <strong>of</strong> the continuing need for programs like the<br />
Troubled Property Program and Urban Development Department Rehabilitation programs.<br />
o The Housing Market Analysis also showed that renters were increasingly being priced out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
homebuyer market, as housing prices were rising faster than incomes. However, with the<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
31
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
national shift in the economy, effort should be placed into assuring that those receiving help are<br />
informed and responsible recipients. This highlights the need for programs like the First Home<br />
Program to help renters become home owners. This program combined with rehabilitation<br />
programs helps to make affordable homeownership attainable by some low‐income households.<br />
o The Urban Development Department will also continue to use the Barrier Removal Program to<br />
eliminate architectural barriers to affordable housing as the need for barrier‐free and modified<br />
units exists.<br />
o Not shown in the housing market analysis, but identified as housing barriers are other factors<br />
(i.e., increase in predatory lending, NIMBYism) that impact households and the housing market.<br />
Housing market factors and these barriers increase the need for strengthening partnerships and<br />
institutions, targeting marketing and information dissemination, increasing staff support and<br />
technical assistance, and evaluating and measuring outcomes.<br />
Specific Housing Objectives (91.215 (b))<br />
1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve over a specified time<br />
period.<br />
2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably<br />
expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the<br />
strategic plan.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Specific Housing Objectives response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
Objective 1: Preserve and Provide for Safe and Decent Affordable Housing by promoting the<br />
preservation and revitalization <strong>of</strong> affordable housing and rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> substandard or inadequate<br />
housing throughout the <strong>City</strong> with emphasis on the NRSA and the LMI area.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Continue the Urban Development Housing Rehabilitation Programs.<br />
Project<br />
Housing Improvement<br />
Loan Program (HILP) and<br />
Deferred Payment Loan<br />
(DPL) Program<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential<br />
570.202<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
38 38 38 114<br />
Projects<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Continue to fund the PRIDE Program with grants to low‐income homeowners in NRSA<br />
neighborhoods for materials to accomplish exterior repairs.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Pride Program 14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential<br />
570.202<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
105 105 105 315<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Continue to use lead‐based paint certified housing staff to inform and educate housing<br />
clients, non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it agencies, and the private sector housing industry.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
32
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Project<br />
Lead‐Based Paint Testing<br />
and Mitigation<br />
Project<br />
Troubled Property<br />
Program<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
14I Lead‐Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate<br />
570.202<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
8 8 8 24<br />
o Activity 4:<br />
Continue to work with the Mayor’s Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative.<br />
o Activity 5:<br />
Continue to fund the Troubled Property Program administered by NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
and support their effort to obtain neighborhood rehabilitation funds from other sources.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
12 Construction <strong>of</strong> Housing 570.201(m) 3 3 3 9 Projects<br />
o Activity 6:<br />
Support non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it landlords to sustain long‐term affordability for tenants under 30% <strong>of</strong><br />
median income, projects with expiring Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits and fund a new<br />
LIHTC project using the Housing Development Loan Program. (Added by plan amendment in<br />
FY 2010).<br />
Project<br />
Housing Development<br />
Loan Program<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
12 Construction <strong>of</strong> Housing 570.201(m) 0 1 0 1 Project<br />
o Activity 7:<br />
Support the effort <strong>of</strong> Paint‐a‐thon to paint houses <strong>of</strong> elderly and disabled home owners.<br />
Using non‐Federal funds, complete one project in this fiscal year.<br />
Objective 2: Assist low‐income homeowners in sustaining their home ownership status during<br />
emergency situations and reduce the overall instance <strong>of</strong> emergency situations.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Continue to fund the Rebuilding Together Project through the HEART (Helping Elderly Access<br />
Rebuilding Together) Program.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
HEART Program 14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential<br />
570.202<br />
Project<br />
Emergency Repair<br />
Program<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Continue to fund the Emergency Repair Program.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential<br />
570.202<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
5 5 5 15<br />
Projects<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
30 30 30 90<br />
Projects<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
33
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Continue to fund the removal <strong>of</strong> physical and architectural barriers in existing housing<br />
through the League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Barrier Removal 14A Rehab; Single‐unit Residential<br />
570.202; 14B Rehab; Multi‐Unit<br />
Residential 570.202<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
7 7 7 21<br />
Projects<br />
Objective 3: Create and Sustain Homeownership Opportunities and increase the rate <strong>of</strong><br />
homeownership among households headed by persons who are racial and/or ethnic minorities.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Continue the First Home Program (with incentives for purchasing in the NRSA and LMI)<br />
administered by NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
First Home 13 Direct Home Ownership Assistance<br />
570.201(n)<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Explore incentives for returning veterans in the First Home Program.<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
51 51 51 153<br />
Projects<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Continue to fund the First Time Home Buyer Training classes administered by<br />
NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
Home buyer Training 05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) 150 150 150 450<br />
People<br />
o Activity 4:<br />
Provide a range <strong>of</strong> technical resources, including housing program brochures and trainings,<br />
from Urban Development and other housing agencies in other languages in addition to<br />
English.<br />
o Activity 5:<br />
Leverage funds in conjunction with NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong> using the Troubled Property<br />
Program for infill housing.<br />
o Activity 6:<br />
Continue partnering with and leveraging funds for additional homebuyer programs <strong>of</strong> other<br />
housing or lending agencies.<br />
o Activity 7:<br />
Continue to work with the Mayor’s Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative to encourage<br />
and support home ownership.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
34
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Project<br />
Affordable Housing<br />
Initiative<br />
o Activity 8:<br />
Continue to fund Affordable Housing Initiative and Habitat for Humanity through the<br />
Housing Development Loan Program to create new affordable homeownership<br />
opportunities by building affordable homes on infill lots or by substantially rehabilitating<br />
dilapidated units.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
14G Acquisition for Rehabilitation<br />
570.202<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Habitat for Humanity 01 Acquisition <strong>of</strong> Real Property<br />
570.201(a)<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
1 1 1 3 Projects<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
3 3 3 9 Projects<br />
o Activity 9:<br />
Continue to assist low‐income homeowners using the Housing Rehabilitation Programs to<br />
rehabilitate their homes in order to maintain their home ownership status.<br />
o Activity 10:<br />
Create additional affordable housing opportunities by partnering with the Nebraska<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development using Nebraska Affordable Housing Trust Funds or<br />
federal stimulus funds.<br />
o Activity 11:<br />
Continue the function <strong>of</strong> the Minority Marketing Committee to implement the Minority<br />
Marketing <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
o Activity 12:<br />
Continue to partner with NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong> to develop affordable and mixed income<br />
housing project as part <strong>of</strong> the community revitalization portion <strong>of</strong> the Antelope Valley<br />
project.<br />
Objective 4: Remove Barriers to Fair Housing and Affirmatively Further Fair Housing:<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Encourage providers <strong>of</strong> affordable housing and special needs housing to work with<br />
neighborhood associations before and during the process <strong>of</strong> obtaining permits.<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Improve and expand the collection and sharing <strong>of</strong> fair housing and affordable housing<br />
information across public and private entities, among housing industry entities, and within<br />
the public realm to improve understanding <strong>of</strong> fair housing laws, encourage reporting <strong>of</strong><br />
violations, address existing and future housing needs, facilitate implementation <strong>of</strong> best<br />
practices, and reduce discrimination.<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Monitor, evaluate, and update fair housing plans, policies, and programs to ensure that the<br />
<strong>City</strong> is affirmatively furthering fair housing as required by HUD.<br />
o Activity 4:<br />
Continue to participate on boards and committees <strong>of</strong> local organizations (public, private, and<br />
nonpr<strong>of</strong>it) to share fair housing information.<br />
o Activity 5:<br />
Work with the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Commission on Human Rights to monitor compliance <strong>of</strong> Title 11 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Municipal Code with Federal Fair Housing Law.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
35
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Activity 6:<br />
Monitor compliance with affirmatively fair housing market requirements by subrecipients<br />
and borrowers.<br />
o Activity 7:<br />
Continue to implement and update the "Minority Marketing <strong>Plan</strong>" for Urban Development<br />
Department programs.<br />
Objective 5: Strengthen or establish public policies, procedures, and institutions that support and<br />
maintain the quality, affordability, accessibility, sustainability and availability <strong>of</strong> housing for low‐<br />
income households.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Continue to work within the Development Services Center to improve policies and<br />
procedures to enhance the quality <strong>of</strong> older neighborhoods.<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Continue to work with the Mayor’s Stronger, Safer Neighborhoods Initiative.<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Continue to work with the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development on<br />
strengthening our policies and procedures in creating affordable housing.<br />
2. The State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development will continue to have the Nebraska<br />
Affordable Housing Trust Fund available to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>. This fund will be used by the <strong>City</strong> and<br />
its non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it housing partners for the creation and preservation <strong>of</strong> affordable housing. It is<br />
anticipated NDED will have available $300,000 each year for the next three years.<br />
o The private sector lenders will continue to be the first mortgage source for the affordable<br />
homeownership programs with the Federal HOME funds as down payment assistance.<br />
o The private sector will supply approximately $6,600,000 in first mortgage funds per year over the<br />
next three years.<br />
o The federal entitlement funds in the form <strong>of</strong> CDBG, HOME and American Recovery and<br />
Reinvestment (ARRA) will be used in conjunction with the above mentioned resources to<br />
leverage and/or finance projects in the plan.<br />
Needs <strong>of</strong> Public Housing (91.210 (b))<br />
In cooperation with the public housing agency or agencies located within its boundaries, describe the<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> public housing, including:<br />
1. The number <strong>of</strong> public housing units in the jurisdiction,<br />
2. The physical condition <strong>of</strong> such units,<br />
3. The restoration and revitalization needs <strong>of</strong> public housing projects within the jurisdiction, and<br />
other factors, including<br />
4. The number <strong>of</strong> families on public housing and tenant‐based waiting lists and<br />
5. Results from the Section 504 needs assessment <strong>of</strong> public housing projects located within its<br />
boundaries (i.e. assessment <strong>of</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> tenants and applicants on waiting list for accessible units<br />
as required by 24 CFR 8.25).<br />
The public housing agency and jurisdiction can use the optional Priority Public Housing Needs Table<br />
(formerly Table 4) <strong>of</strong> the Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong> to identify priority public housing needs to assist in this<br />
process.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
36
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Needs <strong>of</strong> Public Housing response:<br />
1. Number <strong>of</strong> public housing units (05/18/2010): 320<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> section 8 units (05/18/2010): 2865 Section 8, 35 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing<br />
(VASH) and 20 Mainstream Housing Opportunities (for disabled individuals or families)<br />
2. Physical Condition <strong>of</strong> units: Good to Excellent<br />
3. Restoration and Revitalization needs: Improvements as needed. Preventative modifications were<br />
completed with recent stimulus funds (ARRA).<br />
4. Number <strong>of</strong> families on Public Housing waiting lists (05/18/2010): 900<br />
The Public housing waiting list is currently open and taking applications.<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> families on the Section 8 waiting list (05/18/2010): 4,083<br />
The section 8 waiting list is currently open.<br />
A wait list does exist and is modified monthly.<br />
5. LHA has 16 public housing units and 28 other managed units that are 504 compliant.<br />
Public Housing Strategy (91.210)<br />
1. Describe the public housing agency's strategy to serve the needs <strong>of</strong> extremely low‐income, low‐<br />
income, and moderate‐income families residing in the jurisdiction served by the public housing<br />
agency (including families on the public housing and section 8 tenant‐based waiting list), the public<br />
housing agency’s strategy for addressing the revitalization and restoration needs <strong>of</strong> public housing<br />
projects within the jurisdiction and improving the management and operation <strong>of</strong> such public housing,<br />
and the public housing agency’s strategy for improving the living environment <strong>of</strong> extremely low‐<br />
income, low‐income, and moderate families residing in public housing.<br />
2. Describe the manner in which the plan <strong>of</strong> the jurisdiction will help address the needs <strong>of</strong> public<br />
housing and activities it will undertake to encourage public housing residents to become more<br />
involved in management and participate in homeownership. (NAHA Sec. 105 (b)(11) and (91.215 (k))<br />
3. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly,<br />
the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance in<br />
improving its operations to remove such designation. (NAHA Sec. 105 (g))<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Public Housing Strategy response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
LHA is finding it extremely difficult to serve the needs <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s extremely low‐income, low‐income,<br />
and moderate‐income families. Limited federal funding has resulted in no new Section 8 vouchers<br />
available to serve <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s lower‐income population. This particular population is growing as<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s general population base continues to grow. The average cost per unit <strong>of</strong> subsidy for each<br />
Section 8 voucher has continued to rise from $353 per unit in April 2004 to $365 per unit in March<br />
2010. The increased cost is due primarily to serving more, larger families than elderly/small families<br />
and a decline in the income <strong>of</strong> households assisted. When combined with the federal funding<br />
limitations, the number <strong>of</strong> families LHA will be able to assist will remain almost the same number. The<br />
demand for section 8 vouchers has risen from roughly 1,500 in 2000 to 4,083. LHA receives roughly<br />
500 new applications each month. Likewise the ability to expand public housing is similar. The count<br />
<strong>of</strong> public and section 8 units are expected to remain the same.<br />
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority continues to efficiently operate/provide a supply that is determined<br />
within their annual Moving to Work (MTK) program. (Note: <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Housing Authority continues to<br />
be involved in HUD’s Moving to Work (MTW) program). Furthermore, the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
37
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
continues to make needed improvements on a priority basis. Its current public housing stock is in<br />
good to excellent condition with a very low vacancy rate.<br />
Specific Objectives and Activities are:<br />
Objective I: Increase the number <strong>of</strong> Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing<br />
participants working or making progress towards educational goals, work experience, and self<br />
sufficiency.<br />
o Activities:<br />
Provide incentives for able‐bodied participants to work or seek self‐sufficiency<br />
through job training or education. Also provide disincentives to able‐bodied<br />
participants who choose not to work, seek job training, or further education<br />
Form community and state partnerships to provide needed programs and<br />
services that encourage participation in recognized self‐sufficiency programs.<br />
Objective 2: Reduce administrative costs and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal<br />
housing assistance expenditures while ensuring the continued integrity <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />
o Activities:<br />
Simplify the operation <strong>of</strong> the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and<br />
the Public Housing program with the purpose <strong>of</strong> reducing calculation errors,<br />
staff review time, and program administrative costs.<br />
Work with landlords, housing participants, and human service organizations to<br />
identify areas <strong>of</strong> needed change in the operation <strong>of</strong> the Section 8 Housing<br />
Choice Voucher program and the Public Housing program.<br />
Objective 3: Expand the spatial dispersal <strong>of</strong> assisted rental units and increase housing choices for<br />
voucher holders.<br />
o Activities:<br />
Provide incentives to seek housing opportunities outside areas <strong>of</strong> low‐income<br />
concentration.<br />
Create affordable housing opportunities in growth areas <strong>of</strong> the community.<br />
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:<br />
ONGOING MOVING TO WORK (MTW) INITIATIVES: The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority will continue<br />
to implement the following HUD‐approved initiatives:<br />
o Rent Reform Initiatives<br />
o Reduce annual and interim reexaminations<br />
o Implement minimum rent policies and 27% TTP requirements<br />
o Calculate annual income using Minimum Earned Income (MEI)<br />
o Cap rent burden at 50% (voucher only)<br />
o Implement average utility allowances bedroom size (voucher only)<br />
o Implement biennial reexaminations for elderly & disabled households<br />
Other Initiatives:<br />
o Restrict portability (voucher only) as a result <strong>of</strong> work requirements<br />
o Implement voucher inspection waiver for properties meeting HQS at initial<br />
inspection<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
38
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority has participated in the HUD Moving To Work Demonstration program<br />
since 1999. <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Moving To Work program has concentrated its efforts in the following long‐term<br />
operational vision for the MTW program.<br />
o Retain program flexibility to meet the many changes encountered in program funding, local<br />
housing market conditions, and the needs <strong>of</strong> the families and individuals participating in<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Moving To Work program.<br />
o Continue to seek ways to simplify and streamline the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher<br />
program and Public Housing programs while protecting the integrity <strong>of</strong> the program and<br />
accepting accountability for administrative requirements. The Section 8 Housing Choice<br />
Voucher program is needlessly complicated for participants, landlords, and implementing<br />
staff. The complexity <strong>of</strong> the system results in several areas where errors occur with<br />
substantial frequency. Tenants are confused about deductions allowed and disallowed and<br />
how their portion <strong>of</strong> rent is determined. Landlords are frustrated by the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
paperwork and complex rules and regulations that the landlord must follow to be paid. The<br />
complexity is limiting needed landlord participation. Lack <strong>of</strong> housing choices results when<br />
landlords refuse to participate.<br />
o Continue to promote opportunities for tenant self‐sufficiency either through education or<br />
meaningful work experience. The need for lower‐income participants to complete their<br />
education and expand their work experiences will provide a solid base for continued success<br />
in their personal and family development.<br />
o Continue the various community partnerships required to enhance participant opportunities<br />
in expanding family support services such as social services, education, transportation, and<br />
health care programs.<br />
3. Not applicable to <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Barriers to Affordable Housing (91.210 (e) and 91.215 (f))<br />
1. Explain whether the cost <strong>of</strong> housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve affordable<br />
housing are affected by public policies, particularly those <strong>of</strong> the local jurisdiction. Such policies<br />
include tax policy affecting land and other property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building<br />
codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment.<br />
2. Describe the strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects <strong>of</strong> public policies that serve as barriers<br />
to affordable housing, except that, if a State requires a unit <strong>of</strong> general local government to submit a<br />
regulatory barrier assessment that is substantially equivalent to the information required under this<br />
part, as determined by HUD, the unit <strong>of</strong> general local government may submit that assessment to<br />
HUD and it shall be considered to have complied with this requirement.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Barriers to Affordable Housing response:<br />
1. Answer to question #1<br />
o Zoning, subdivision regulations, and building codes can hamper the development <strong>of</strong> new<br />
affordable housing, rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing affordable housing, and creation <strong>of</strong> housing for<br />
special populations. New affordable housing development could be hindered by requiring large<br />
minimum lot sizes in newly developing areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>. However, <strong>Plan</strong>ned Unit Developments<br />
and other more flexible regulations permitted by the <strong>City</strong> may allow affordable housing<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
39
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
developers to include affordable housing in their plans.<br />
o The rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing structures for affordable housing can also be hindered by existing<br />
building codes. The <strong>City</strong> does not have a rehabilitation sub‐code, which would allow for more<br />
flexibility in the rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing structures. Those who wish to rehabilitate the upper<br />
floors <strong>of</strong> commercial buildings, deconvert converted single‐family homes, and reuse industrial or<br />
other building types may find the cost <strong>of</strong> meeting codes for new structures cost prohibitive.<br />
o Property taxes may discourage the rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing housing and maintenance <strong>of</strong><br />
housing. Property assessments that occur as a result <strong>of</strong> rehabilitation increases annual owner<br />
costs.<br />
o Local incentives to develop and preserve affordable housing are mostly limited to financial<br />
incentives provided through federal sources (directly or indirectly through the state and local<br />
government, private, and non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it entities). The <strong>City</strong> does not provide local tax breaks for<br />
affordable housing (i.e., tax abatement). The money the <strong>City</strong> does contribute toward affordable<br />
housing is federal (i.e. CDBG and HOME) and insufficient in addressing existing needs.<br />
o The <strong>City</strong> also does not require developers to construct or preserve affordable housing (i.e. set‐<br />
asides) as part <strong>of</strong> their plans. For example, tearing down low‐income housing to build higher<br />
income housing in older areas can displace households and reduce their affordable housing<br />
options. The lack <strong>of</strong> both a carrot and stick approach to developing and preserving affordable<br />
housing could contribute to the existing supply problem.<br />
o Service providers, both public and private, find that federal regulations and programs are difficult<br />
to work with at times. Strict federal program requirements addressing specific local needs can<br />
be difficult. Lead‐based paint abatement requirements are an unfunded mandate that adds to<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> rehabilitation projects; and, therefore, makes some projects unfeasible.<br />
Environmental regulations can also add to the cost <strong>of</strong> developing affordable housing.<br />
o Loan <strong>of</strong>ficers, REALTORS ® , and others that assist clients in the home buying process have<br />
expressed concern with being able to keep current with local and federal program changes. In<br />
their view these changes are not communicated with regularity and, at times, are not clear.<br />
Additionally, those in the private sector that do not frequently work with federal or local<br />
programs feel that they have difficulty keeping informed.<br />
o Because <strong>of</strong> the current financial and mortgage crisis, more families are in need <strong>of</strong> affordable<br />
housing. Both homeowners and renters are encountering lenders who are making it more<br />
difficult for new home buyers, and waiting lists for rental assistance are longer.<br />
2. Answer to question #2<br />
o The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong>fers an impact fee exemption to low income, owner‐occupied home buyers. This<br />
popular and successful program has been in existence for six years. The funding source is the<br />
<strong>City</strong>’s General Fund. The purpose <strong>of</strong> the incentive is to provide home buyers with additional<br />
funds for down payment or payment <strong>of</strong> fees associated with originating their mortgage.<br />
o In the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2005‐2009, one strategy identified to remove the barriers to affordable<br />
housing specified that the <strong>City</strong> would work with developers on ways to reduce the length <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development process. In March 2010, the <strong>City</strong> opened the Development Services Center (DSC).<br />
The DSC is a centralized location with the capacity to meet efficiently all the development<br />
services needs for builders, developers and property owners. This centrally located function<br />
includes staff from five departments including Urban Development.<br />
o The Urban Development Department and NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> have established programs to<br />
help finance the rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> owner‐occupied units in the NRSA and LMI areas that help to<br />
remove or ameliorate the negative effects that some public policies may have on affordable<br />
housing.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
40
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
HOMELESS<br />
Homeless Needs (91.205 (b) and 91.215 (c))<br />
*Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook<br />
Homeless Needs— The jurisdiction must provide a concise summary <strong>of</strong> the nature and extent <strong>of</strong><br />
homelessness in the jurisdiction, (including rural homelessness and chronic homelessness where<br />
applicable), addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless persons and homeless<br />
families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations, in accordance with<br />
Table 1A. The summary must include the characteristics and needs <strong>of</strong> low‐income individuals and<br />
children, (especially extremely low‐income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk <strong>of</strong> either<br />
residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered. In addition, to the extent information is available, the plan<br />
must include a description <strong>of</strong> the nature and extent <strong>of</strong> homelessness by racial and ethnic group. A<br />
quantitative analysis is not required. If a jurisdiction provides estimates <strong>of</strong> the at‐risk population(s), it<br />
should also include a description <strong>of</strong> the operational definition <strong>of</strong> the at‐risk group and the methodology<br />
used to generate the estimates.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Homeless Needs response:<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> the nature and extent <strong>of</strong> homelessness in <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care (CoC) relies on several data collection efforts that form the basis for all<br />
planning, evaluation, and program development for homeless services. Key planning or data collection<br />
efforts include the annual Point‐in‐Time (PIT) count, the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), and<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Program (HPRP) <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
o All homeless service goals, objectives, strategies, and analysis <strong>of</strong> need are ultimately developed<br />
and reported as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s yearly CoC application, specifically referred to as <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009<br />
CoC application.<br />
o <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s (PIT) homeless count was conducted between January 22 nd and January 31 st <strong>of</strong> 2009.<br />
The results indicate there were 973 homeless persons; 521 were in families with children, 452<br />
were individual adults, and 62 were chronically homeless.<br />
o Although the State Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Human Services considers <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s PIT process as<br />
a model for PIT counts in Nebraska, the PIT does have limitations. PIT counts likely under report<br />
some aspects <strong>of</strong> homelessness that are difficult to quantify.<br />
o <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC participated in HUD’s 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to<br />
Congress. Data from this report is based primarily on Homeless Management Information<br />
Systems (HMIS) data about homeless persons who used emergency shelter or transitional<br />
housing programs during the 12 month period between October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009.<br />
Theoretically, this year long data tracking process addresses some <strong>of</strong> the weaknesses <strong>of</strong> the<br />
“one‐time” PIT counts.<br />
o All AHAR data is based on unduplicated counts, such that each person is counted only once<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> how many different programs the person used.<br />
o To provide further depth to the evaluation <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> homelessness in <strong>Lincoln</strong>, AHAR data is<br />
included to aid in the identification <strong>of</strong> needs, priorities, and goals.<br />
o <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 AHAR estimated that between 10/1/2008 – 9/30/2009, there were a total <strong>of</strong> 3,237<br />
individuals who experienced homelessness in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
o Based on the PIT and the AHAR, there are roughly 973 homeless individuals any given night in<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>, with approximately 3,237 individuals experiencing homeless over the course <strong>of</strong> a year.<br />
These numbers are significantly higher than reported in previous years, and likely a reflection <strong>of</strong><br />
the current economic downturn.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
41
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Description <strong>of</strong> the nature and extent <strong>of</strong> homelessness by racial and ethnic group<br />
The AHAR, which to reiterate, reflects unduplicated data over the course <strong>of</strong> a year, reveals the following<br />
demographic characteristics <strong>of</strong> sheltered homeless persons:<br />
Gender<br />
Demographic Characteristics <strong>of</strong> Sheltered Homeless Persons<br />
Reporting <strong>Year</strong>: 10/1/2008 – 9/30/2009<br />
Persons in /<br />
Families in<br />
Emergency<br />
Shelters<br />
Individuals in<br />
Emergency<br />
Shelters<br />
Individuals<br />
Transitional<br />
Housing<br />
Female 84% 21% 63%<br />
Male 16% 79% 37%<br />
Ethnicity<br />
Non Hispanic / Non Latino 90% 88% 92%<br />
Hispanic / Latino 10% 12% 12%<br />
Race<br />
White 29% 53% 70%<br />
African American 40% 21% 8%<br />
Asian 0% 1% 0%<br />
American Indian Or Alaska native 4% 4% 3%<br />
Native Hawaiian Or other Pacific Islander 1% 0% 0%<br />
Several Races 19% 12% 13%<br />
Unknown 5% 5% 3%<br />
Age<br />
Under 1 6% 1% 2%<br />
1 to 5 26% 4% 1%<br />
6 to 12 25% 3% 0%<br />
13 to 17 8% 1% 12%<br />
18‐30 19% 26% 33%<br />
31 to 50 15% 47% 44%<br />
51 and up 1% 18% 8%<br />
Need for facilities and services<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC used data from the PIT, the AHAR, waiting list information, and other data to identify the<br />
following gaps in service or unmet needs, as identified in the 2009 CoC Housing Inventory Chart (HIC).<br />
(See the <strong>Lincoln</strong> 2009 HIC Chart in <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, available at<br />
www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless). On‐going planning efforts and data review are a regular<br />
feature <strong>of</strong> monthly CoC subcommittee meetings, including the CoC Executive Committee, the Supportive<br />
Housing Committee, and the Data and <strong>Plan</strong>ning Committee. Consideration <strong>of</strong> the data presented here<br />
ultimately drives the process for identifying needs and priorities.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
42
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Unmet Need<br />
Total Additional Beds Needed to Meet Demand<br />
Beds for<br />
Households w/<br />
Children<br />
Units for<br />
Households w/<br />
Children<br />
Beds for<br />
Individuals<br />
Total Beds<br />
Needed<br />
Emergency Shelter 35 14 134 169<br />
Transitional Housing 34 14 215 249<br />
Permanent Supportive Housing 62 25 375 437<br />
The HPRP <strong>Plan</strong> for <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska identifies additional needs regarding homeless prevention efforts,<br />
specifically regarding rent and utility assistance. Please refer to “Section II. Data Collection and Analysis,”<br />
for additional information (available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless).<br />
Priority Homeless Needs<br />
1. Using the results <strong>of</strong> the Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care planning process, identify the jurisdiction's homeless and<br />
homeless prevention priorities specified in Table 1A, the Homeless and Special Needs Populations<br />
Chart. The description <strong>of</strong> the jurisdiction's choice <strong>of</strong> priority needs and allocation priorities must be<br />
based on reliable data meeting HUD standards and should reflect the required consultation with<br />
homeless assistance providers, homeless persons, and other concerned citizens regarding the needs<br />
<strong>of</strong> homeless families with children and individuals. The jurisdiction must provide an analysis <strong>of</strong> how<br />
the needs <strong>of</strong> each category <strong>of</strong> residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority <strong>of</strong><br />
each priority homeless need category. A separate brief narrative should be directed to addressing<br />
gaps in services and housing for the sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless.<br />
2. A community should give a high priority to chronically homeless persons, where the jurisdiction<br />
identifies sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless persons in its Homeless Needs Table ‐<br />
Homeless Populations and Subpopulations.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Priority Homeless Needs response:<br />
Goal 1: Homeless Prevention.<br />
Implement <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing Program (HPRP) <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
Goal 2: Emergency Shelter Housing & Supportive Services. Sustain the availability <strong>of</strong> emergency housing<br />
and maintain support services for homeless individuals and families.<br />
Goal 3: Transitional Housing & Supportive Services.<br />
Sustain the availability <strong>of</strong> transitional housing and maintain support services for homeless individuals and<br />
families.<br />
Goal 4: Permanent Supportive Housing<br />
Sustain the availability <strong>of</strong> permanent supportive housing and support efforts by <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC to attain<br />
new funding for permanent supportive housing and services for the chronically homeless.<br />
Goal 5: Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).<br />
Sustain the availability, growth, and management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s HMIS to aid in the development <strong>of</strong> quality<br />
data collection and encouraging collaboration and data sharing across the CoC.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
43
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Goal 6: Addressing chronic homelessness<br />
Continue to implement the State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska 10 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> to End Chronic Homelessness<br />
Homeless Inventory (91.210 (c))<br />
The jurisdiction shall provide a concise summary <strong>of</strong> the existing facilities and services (including a brief<br />
inventory) that assist homeless persons and families with children and subpopulations identified in Table<br />
1A. These include outreach and assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing,<br />
permanent supportive housing, access to permanent housing, and activities to prevent low‐income<br />
individuals and families with children (especially extremely low‐income) from becoming homeless. The<br />
jurisdiction can use the optional Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care Housing Activity Chart and Service Activity Chart to<br />
meet this requirement.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Homeless Inventory response:<br />
o Please see <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 HIC in <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, available at<br />
www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless .<br />
Homeless <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> (91.215 (c))<br />
1. Homelessness— Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for developing a system to address homelessness<br />
and the priority needs <strong>of</strong> homeless persons and families (including the subpopulations identified in<br />
the needs section). The jurisdiction's strategy must consider the housing and supportive services<br />
needed in each stage <strong>of</strong> the process which includes preventing homelessness, outreach/assessment,<br />
emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, and helping homeless persons (especially any<br />
persons that are chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent housing and independent<br />
living. The jurisdiction must also describe its strategy for helping extremely low‐ and low‐income<br />
individuals and families who are at imminent risk <strong>of</strong> becoming homeless.<br />
2. Chronic homelessness—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy for eliminating chronic homelessness by<br />
2012. This should include the strategy for helping homeless persons make the transition to<br />
permanent housing and independent living. This strategy should, to the maximum extent feasible, be<br />
coordinated with the strategy presented Exhibit 1 <strong>of</strong> the Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care (CoC) application and any<br />
other strategy or plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. Also describe, in a narrative, relationships<br />
and efforts to coordinate the Conplan, CoC, and any other strategy or plan to address chronic<br />
homelessness.<br />
3. Homelessness Prevention—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy to help prevent homelessness for<br />
individuals and families with children who are at imminent risk <strong>of</strong> becoming homeless.<br />
4. Institutional Structure—Briefly describe the institutional structure, including private industry, non‐<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction will carry out its<br />
homelessness strategy.<br />
5. Discharge Coordination Policy—Every jurisdiction receiving McKinney‐Vento Homeless Assistance Act<br />
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, or Section 8 SRO Program<br />
funds must develop and implement a Discharge Coordination Policy, to the maximum extent<br />
practicable. Such a policy should include “policies and protocols for the discharge <strong>of</strong> persons from<br />
publicly funded institutions or systems <strong>of</strong> care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other<br />
youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
44
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons.” The jurisdiction should describe its planned<br />
activities to implement a cohesive, community‐wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how the<br />
community will move toward such a policy.<br />
3‐5 <strong>Year</strong> Homeless <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> response:<br />
1. Homelessness— To allow for a coordinated and comprehensive planning process for developing a<br />
system to address homelessness in <strong>Lincoln</strong>, the CoC gathers information from a number <strong>of</strong><br />
collaborative sources and partners with a variety <strong>of</strong> community coalitions and groups. It is important<br />
to note that homeless persons contribute insight and opinions to the Homeless CoC, as meetings<br />
routinely feature input and information from homeless individuals. In general, the data and goals<br />
presented here represent a link between the Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong> and <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s annual CoC Application,<br />
in an effort to reduce duplication.<br />
Strategies for meeting homeless needs are structured by considering housing and supportive services<br />
needed along a “continuum” <strong>of</strong> homelessness – from outreach efforts to those living on the streets at<br />
one end <strong>of</strong> the spectrum, through emergency shelter, then transitional housing, and ultimately to<br />
permanent housing and independent living at the other end.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s overall strategy or vision to combat homelessness is to develop and sustain a coordinated,<br />
comprehensive, community‐based system that can respond to various needs <strong>of</strong> homeless and near<br />
homeless individuals and families and to move them to safe, decent, affordable, permanent housing<br />
and self‐sufficiency. <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s vision strives for the full development <strong>of</strong> quality services in each<br />
component <strong>of</strong> the Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care. Components for combating homeless are listed below.<br />
o Quality data collection<br />
o Outreach to homeless populations<br />
o Flexible and collaborative homeless prevention programs<br />
o Adequate emergency shelter facilities<br />
o Effective transitional housing services<br />
o Competent supportive services and case management<br />
o Sustainable permanent housing with supportive services<br />
A strong homeless prevention component is key to <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s vision <strong>of</strong> combating homelessness, since<br />
it is far easier and more cost efficient to assist people before they become homeless. Towards this<br />
end, implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s HPRP <strong>Plan</strong> represents the first time that <strong>Lincoln</strong> has had the<br />
resources to develop a collaborative community‐wide program aimed specifically at prevention.<br />
2. Chronic homelessness ‐ <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC does not have a local 10 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> to End Chronic<br />
Homelessness, but has formally adopted and implemented the state plan, i.e., Nebraska’s Action <strong>Plan</strong><br />
for Increasing Access to Mainstream Resources for People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. The<br />
central goals to combating chronic homelessness include: 1) Maintaining a community wide<br />
infrastructure to lead in planning and to increase access to mainstream resources for persons<br />
experiencing chronic homelessness; 2) Create additional appropriate Supportive Housing Choices; 3)<br />
Increase access to mainstream services and resources; 4) Increase strategies addressing prevention<br />
and discharge planning; 5) Ensure culturally competent services; and 6) Data collection and<br />
evaluation.<br />
In addition, further details on <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s chronic homeless population and individual strategies and<br />
action steps are reported in <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 CoC Application.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
45
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
3. Homelessness Prevention ‐ The development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s only coordinated effort to develop<br />
comprehensive and community wide programming for Homeless Prevention is a result <strong>of</strong> American<br />
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding via the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re‐Housing<br />
Program (HPRP).<br />
The HPRP program is administered by Region V Systems, and provides a systematic and city‐wide<br />
approach that involves all <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s rental and utility assistance providers. The primary HPRP<br />
strategies include outreach, financial assistance, housing relocation and stabilization services, case<br />
management, data collection and evaluation, and coordination with other ARRA programs. For more<br />
detail on <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s homeless prevention strategies and goals for individuals and families with children<br />
who are at imminent risk <strong>of</strong> becoming homeless, please refer to the HPRP <strong>Plan</strong> for <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless.<br />
Urban Development also provides funding to the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority for the Security Deposit<br />
Assistance Program. This HOME funded program provides financial assistance to homeless or near‐<br />
homeless families for rental security deposits.<br />
Project<br />
Security Deposit<br />
Assistance Program<br />
Matrix Code<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
FY 10 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
05T Security Deposits 45 45 45 135<br />
Households<br />
4. Institutional Structure ‐ The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Urban Development Department serves as the liaison<br />
between the <strong>City</strong> and <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC. The CoC is comprised <strong>of</strong> more than two dozen homeless service<br />
providers, as well as representatives from local businesses, the <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council, the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Police<br />
Department, the State Health and Human Services Department, and the faith‐based community.<br />
The CoC is led by an executive committee comprised <strong>of</strong> a chair, co‐chair, immediate past chair,<br />
recorder, and a representative <strong>of</strong> the Urban Development Department staff. The executive<br />
committee is nominated and elected by CoC members on an annual basis. As part <strong>of</strong> the executive<br />
committee, Urban Development staff work with the CoC to set the monthly agenda and assist in<br />
facilitating meetings. Participation by Urban Development assures integration <strong>of</strong> the Homeless CoC<br />
into the <strong>City</strong>’s Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
The CoC and several key CoC subcommittees meet monthly to assess the adequacy <strong>of</strong> current<br />
services in the continuum, coordinate community‐wide efforts to serve special needs populations,<br />
identify service gaps, prioritize needs, and create strategies to leverage resources in the community.<br />
The CoC recognizes the importance <strong>of</strong> being pro‐active in educating and informing <strong>Lincoln</strong> about its<br />
homeless population situation and being future‐oriented in planning efforts. In addition, the<br />
Homeless CoC provides technical assistance to provider agencies to develop project proposals for the<br />
consolidated application process and ranks these proposals based upon community gaps and needs.<br />
In addition, the local CoC collaborates with the State CoC, and the Nebraska Management<br />
Information System to coordinate efforts regionally and state wide.<br />
Please Refer to <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, Sections 1A – 1D for more details on the<br />
structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC, available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless).<br />
5. Discharge Coordination Policy ‐ Discharge coordination policy and planning is a key component <strong>of</strong><br />
Nebraska’s Action <strong>Plan</strong> for Increasing Access to Mainstream Services for People Experiencing Chronic<br />
Homelessness. The plan is built on four primary strategies, including efforts to foster coordination<br />
between corrections and the State Department <strong>of</strong> Health & Human Services, particularly for those<br />
individuals discharging from corrections with behavioral health issues or HIV/AIDS; researching the<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
46
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
issue <strong>of</strong> individuals who cycle through <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> jail terms; identifying and examining data on<br />
youth who age out or discharged from state custody, i.e., foster care; and lastly, identifying the scope<br />
<strong>of</strong> the difficulties and issues <strong>of</strong> individuals discharging from hospitals, including the limits and legal<br />
responsibilities <strong>of</strong> hospitals and psychiatric facilities, with an eye towards the development <strong>of</strong><br />
comprehensive housing planning and additional support service coordination.<br />
Please Refer to <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s 2009 CoC Application, Exhibit 1, Section 3B. “CoC Discharge <strong>Plan</strong>ning” for<br />
more details available at www.lincoln.ne.gov, keyword: homeless.<br />
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)<br />
(States only) Describe the process for awarding grants to State recipients, and a description <strong>of</strong> how the<br />
allocation will be made available to units <strong>of</strong> local government.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> ESG response:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> does not receive Emergency Shelter Grants.<br />
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT<br />
Community Development (91.215 (e))<br />
*Please also refer to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook<br />
1. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non‐housing community development needs eligible for assistance<br />
by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community Development Needs Table (formerly Table<br />
2B), i.e., public facilities, public improvements, public services and economic development.<br />
2. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs.<br />
3. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.<br />
4. Identify specific long‐term and short‐term community development objectives (including economic<br />
development activities that create jobs), developed in accordance with the statutory goals described<br />
in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the primary objective <strong>of</strong> the CDBG program to provide decent housing and<br />
a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low‐ and<br />
moderate‐income persons.<br />
NOTE: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number and contain proposed<br />
accomplishments, the time period (i.e., one, two, three, or more years), and annual program year numeric goals the<br />
jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Community Development response:<br />
Please see the Community Dev Table in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder.<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> non‐housing priority needs are listed below.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
47
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Public Facilities and Improvements<br />
Community Development Need Priority<br />
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities High<br />
Tree <strong>Plan</strong>ting High<br />
Flood Drainage Improvements High<br />
Street Improvements High<br />
Sidewalks High<br />
Other High<br />
Public Services<br />
Community Development Need Priority<br />
Transportation Services High<br />
Employment/Training services High<br />
Neighborhood Clean‐ups High<br />
Other Services High<br />
Economic Development<br />
Community Development Need Priority<br />
CI Land Acquisition/Disposition Low<br />
CI Infrastructure Development Low<br />
CI Building Acquisition, Construction, rehabilitation Low<br />
Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements Low<br />
ED Assistance to For‐Pr<strong>of</strong>it Low<br />
ED Technical Assistance Low<br />
Micro‐enterprise Assistance Low<br />
2. Needs were prioritized based on the following criteria:<br />
o It furthers or is consistent with a city and/or federal priority area.<br />
o It is identified as a need in the community involvement process.<br />
o Its impact on a large number <strong>of</strong> low‐ and moderate‐income households.<br />
o It meets unique needs <strong>of</strong> certain geographic areas.<br />
o It reflects past successes <strong>of</strong> projects and activities in meeting needs.<br />
<strong>City</strong> and federal priority areas and needs identified through the public involvement process are discussed<br />
below.<br />
<strong>City</strong> Priorities:<br />
A. Energy and Sustainability:<br />
The Mayor’s Energy and Sustainability Policy, currently being developed, addresses key priority<br />
areas for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, including:<br />
o Energy production – solar, wind<br />
o Food production – urban agriculture, greenhouses, farmers markets, community<br />
gardens/orchards<br />
o Water conservation – tree preservation and planting, rain barrels, rain gardens<br />
o Reduction <strong>of</strong> green house gases – reduce reliance on the automobile through mixed‐use<br />
development; carbon‐neutral developments: avoid deforestation or require more tree<br />
planting<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
48
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Climate change – green ro<strong>of</strong>s to <strong>of</strong>fset CO2 emissions and help cool <strong>of</strong>f the city<br />
o Health – walkable, bikeable communities; stress relief – recreation and access to open<br />
spaces and open lands<br />
o Safety – pedestrian safety<br />
o Other issues: waste recycling, air quality, housing choices, transportation, habitat<br />
protection and wildlife mitigation<br />
As this policy is further developed, it is anticipated it will be incorporated into existing city<br />
regulations, guide how growth and development occurs in the city, and improves existing<br />
neighborhoods.<br />
B. Antelope Valley Redevelopment <strong>Plan</strong><br />
The Antelope Valley Project is a partnership between the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska‐<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> (UNL), and the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (LPSNRD). Its purpose is to<br />
address flooding, transportation and community revitalization in the core <strong>of</strong> the city. The<br />
project has been on‐going since 1998 with the stormwater and transportation construction<br />
projects nearly complete. The showcase <strong>of</strong> Antelope Valley is Union Plaza, a three‐block park in<br />
the Malone Neighborhood, being referred to as “<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Central Park.” A Redevelopment <strong>Plan</strong><br />
for community development was completed and adopted by the <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council in<br />
November 2004 that identifies projects for revitalizing the core Antelope Valley neighborhoods.<br />
Strategies referred to as “closer to home” are identified in the plan that includes alley paving or<br />
rocking; sidewalk improvements; tree trimming, planting and removal; street improvements;<br />
park improvements/expansion; clean up <strong>of</strong> trash and weeds; street and alley light improvements;<br />
fences and screening programs; street calming and abatement <strong>of</strong> cut‐through traffic; dilapidated<br />
housing; affordable housing; high density issues; porch building program; neighborhood based<br />
retail; trails; convenient public transportation; and vacant buildings and lots.<br />
C. Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative<br />
On March 13, 2008 Mayor Beutler launched the Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, a<br />
partnership between government, non‐pr<strong>of</strong>its, schools, neighborhoods, churches, and the<br />
business and development community. The program is designed to improve neighborhoods and<br />
revitalize problem areas. The focus is currently on an area referred to as South Capitol, and<br />
includes parts <strong>of</strong> the Near South and Everett Neighborhoods. A redevelopment plan is in the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> being developed for South Capitol and implementation <strong>of</strong> previously completed Focus<br />
Area <strong>Plan</strong>s for both neighborhoods will continue. The Focus Area plans identify strategies for<br />
improving the are area, including many <strong>of</strong> the same “closer to home” strategies described in the<br />
Antelope Valley section, above.<br />
D. <strong>City</strong> Budget Process<br />
Through an extensive public involvement process titled Taking Charge, the Mayor has developed<br />
three tiers <strong>of</strong> budgetary priorities for <strong>City</strong> involvement. For the Urban Development Department,<br />
redevelopment, downtown and neighborhood focus areas; first time homebuyer loans and<br />
affordable housing rehab programs are ranked in Tier 1, the highest priority. Business<br />
improvement districts, Workforce investment act (WIA) programs and public parking as Tier 2,<br />
and the Regional Innovation Grant (RIG), economic development, and non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it public facility<br />
loans as Tier 3, the lowest priority.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
49
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Federal Priorities:<br />
A. Sustainability<br />
HUD is also placing new emphasis on sustainability, notably through creation <strong>of</strong> the Office <strong>of</strong><br />
Sustainable Housing and Communities whose mission is “to create strong, sustainable<br />
communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation, and helping to build a<br />
clean energy economy” (HUD web site, Sustainable Housing and Communities). In addition,<br />
HUD along with the Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection<br />
Agency (EPA) have joined together in creating the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable<br />
Communities. The Partnership has identified six “livability principles” to coordinate policy (from<br />
DOT 80‐09 Press release) :<br />
o Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable and economical<br />
transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s<br />
dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and<br />
promote public health.<br />
o Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location‐ and energy‐efficient housing<br />
choices for people <strong>of</strong> all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and<br />
lower the combined cost <strong>of</strong> housing and transportation.<br />
o Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through<br />
reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services<br />
and other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business access to markets.<br />
o Support existing communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities –<br />
through such strategies as transit‐oriented, mixed‐use development and land recycling –<br />
to increase community revitalization, improve the efficiency <strong>of</strong> public works<br />
investments, and safeguard rural landscapes.<br />
o Coordinate policies and leverage investment. Align federal policies and funding to<br />
remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding and increase the accountability and<br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> al levels <strong>of</strong> government to plan for future growth, including making<br />
smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy.<br />
o Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics <strong>of</strong> all<br />
communities by investing in healthy, safe and walkable neighborhoods – rural, urban or<br />
suburban.<br />
B. Fair Housing<br />
Although not new, HUD appears to be placing renewed efforts into Fair Housing. HUD, “…is<br />
committed to eliminating racial and ethnic segregation, illegal physical and other barriers to<br />
persons with disabilities and other discriminatory practices in housing. Additionally, the<br />
Department will use all <strong>of</strong> its programmatic and enforcement tools to achieve this goal. The<br />
fundamental goal <strong>of</strong> HUD’s fair housing policy is to make housing choice a reality through Fair<br />
Housing <strong>Plan</strong>ning (FHP)” (Fair Housing <strong>Plan</strong>ning Guide, p. 1‐1).<br />
C. Veterans Assistance<br />
Assisting veterans and their families was urged by HUD as an important matter to consider in the<br />
planning process. A letter dated April 9, 2010 to Mayor Beutler from Mercedes Marquez,<br />
Assistant Secretary, states, “Our fellow Americans have served our nation on the battlefields <strong>of</strong><br />
Iraq and Afghanistan and countless other places around the globe. Many veterans are returning<br />
to our communities with wounds and injuries that may make it difficult for them to find housing<br />
or support themselves and/or their families. I ask that you consider their sacrifice and ensure<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
50
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
that these men and women receive every appropriate consideration in the use <strong>of</strong> these funds at<br />
the local level.”<br />
Needs Identified Through the Public Participation Process:<br />
A. Community Survey Results<br />
The Urban Development Department Community Needs survey identified that by far the greatest<br />
need in <strong>Lincoln</strong> is affordable housing, for both homeowners and renters. All groups responding<br />
(housing sector, social services, neighborhoods) indicated affordable housing as the greatest<br />
need. The need for good paying jobs was also cited repeatedly by all groups as a high priority.<br />
Other issues identified most <strong>of</strong>ten included:<br />
o Learning to spend and save wisely<br />
o Medical costs and access<br />
o Mental health, behavioral health and substance abuse assistance<br />
o Transportation issues<br />
o Special needs housing – the need for more and for more services<br />
o Housing discrimination as a barrier to fair housing<br />
o Immigrant needs and discrimination<br />
o Need for tenant education<br />
o Cleaning up the core <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Homelessness and the need for emergency and transitional housing<br />
Priorities from other surveys included energy, parks and recreation facilities, water conservation<br />
polices, preserving natural resources, and local food production. In general, residents in older<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> the city are more dissatisfied with blighting conditions in their neighborhoods, housing<br />
affordability and general safety.<br />
Survey data from the Center for People in Need identified areas in which families are struggling<br />
including housing, food, and employment.<br />
B. Community Services Initiative (CSI)<br />
Hunger is CSI’s current priority and is completing A Food and Hunger Report. The Report is<br />
intended to provide information and recommendations for planning efforts related to increasing<br />
food security for low‐income people. The draft report states, “Food security for families should<br />
be <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s goal – hunger, missing meals, and inability to provide nutritious meals for a family is<br />
the symptom that indicates the community has not achieved the food security goal” (p. 1).<br />
Based on priority needs and local and federal priorities, for non‐housing, emphasis is given to the<br />
following areas:<br />
o Sustainability – including urban agriculture (community gardens and orchards),<br />
promoting green space and healthy activities, and rain gardens.<br />
o Food security – due to the rising problem <strong>of</strong> low‐income families not having enough<br />
food.<br />
o Increasing neighborhood livability – through physical improvements to neighborhoods<br />
o Fair housing – removing barriers to fair housing , affirmatively furthering fair housing,<br />
and completing and implementing the Analysis <strong>of</strong> Impediments to Fair Housing.<br />
o Transportation – improving availability for low income people.<br />
o Jobs – training for low‐income people<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
51
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
2. Obstacles to meeting underserved needs are:<br />
o The current financial and mortgage crisis:<br />
More families are in need <strong>of</strong> services and there is an increased need for affordable housing, both<br />
owner and renter, while lenders are making it more difficult for new home buyers, and waiting<br />
lists for rental assistance are longer. Social service needs are also greater, resulting in higher<br />
needs for food and more families struggling to make ends meet, having to choose between food<br />
and other needs. Social service agencies are more stressed to meet needs while the financial<br />
crisis has reduced donations.<br />
o Jobs:<br />
The need for good paying jobs, problems due to loss <strong>of</strong> jobs (and resulting family budgetary<br />
issues including loss <strong>of</strong> housing) people working at low paying jobs and not making ends meet.<br />
o Lack <strong>of</strong> financial support to meet individual, community, and agencies needs at all levels and<br />
from both public and private resources.<br />
3. Long‐ and short‐term objectives:<br />
The long‐term non‐housing community development goal is to provide opportunities and services for<br />
low‐ and moderate‐income people, increase job opportunities, enhance the quality <strong>of</strong> life, and<br />
provide a suitable living environment including quality neighborhoods.<br />
Short‐term objectives to help meet the long‐term goal were developed based on priority needs and<br />
projects developed to meet those needs. Objectives and activities are listed below. Also see the<br />
Community Dev Table in the “<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files” folder.<br />
Public Facilities and Improvements Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Further the <strong>City</strong>’s priorities <strong>of</strong> Antelope Valley and Stronger Safer Neighborhoods.<br />
This objective addresses the priority area <strong>of</strong> Increasing Neighborhood Livability.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Complete public improvements in the Malone neighborhood and South Capitol area<br />
(Near South and Everett neighborhoods) that implement projects identified in Focus<br />
Area <strong>Plan</strong>s, “closer to home” strategies identified in the Antelope Valley and South<br />
Capitol Redevelopment <strong>Plan</strong>s, and from Free to Grow. Projects include curbs, alleys,<br />
gutters, lighting and streetscape projects, sidewalk improvements, and tree planting.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
Gravel Alleys 03K Street Improvements 570.201(c) 10 10 10 30 Alleys<br />
Streetscape Projects 03L Sidewalks 570.210(c) 2 Continue Continue 2 Projects<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 1<br />
Sidewalk Improvements 03L Sidewalks 570.201(c) 1 1 1 3 Projects<br />
Tree <strong>Plan</strong>ting 03N Tree <strong>Plan</strong>ting 570.201(c) 2 2 2 6 Projects<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Support and utilize the Free to Grow Program in the Malone Neighborhood and South<br />
Capitol Area. Free to Grow is a neighborhood revitalization program with partners from<br />
the private, non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it and public sectors working together to help develop solutions to<br />
problems that contribute to crime, an unhealthy environment, and substandard<br />
housing. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than Community<br />
Development Division staff time.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
52
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Objective 2: Implement sustainability projects consistent with the Mayor’s Energy and<br />
Sustainability Policy, and federal emphasis on sustainability. This objective addresses the priority<br />
area <strong>of</strong> Sustainability.<br />
Project<br />
Park Improvements in<br />
LMI Neighborhoods<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Complete park improvement projects in LMI neighborhoods. Recreation and access to<br />
open spaces and open lands is an element <strong>of</strong> sustainable communities by promoting<br />
green space and healthy activities.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
03F Parks, Recreational Facilities<br />
570.210(c)<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
1 1 1 3 Parks<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Design and install rain gardens in LMI parks, other property owned by the public, and by<br />
non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations. A growing awareness <strong>of</strong> the pollutants in rainwater has led to<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> rain gardens – depressions planted with native or adapted plants that help<br />
absorb excess water and filter out excess nutrients before entering the groundwater<br />
system. This activity complements the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Watershed Management Division<br />
<strong>of</strong> Public Works and Utilities Department’s rain garden grant program for private<br />
property owners.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Construct Rain Gardens 03I Flood Drain Improvements<br />
570.210(c)<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
10 10 10 30<br />
Projects<br />
Objective 3: Improve the livability <strong>of</strong> core neighborhoods by improving general neighborhood<br />
conditions. This objective addresses the priority area <strong>of</strong> Increasing Neighborhood Livability.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Provide non‐federal funding for LMI neighborhood self‐help grants for clean‐up and<br />
improvement projects. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than<br />
Community Development Division staff time.<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Continue to fund the Tree Management and the Demolition <strong>of</strong> Secondary Structures<br />
Programs. The Tree Management Program provides grants to low‐income property<br />
owners for removal <strong>of</strong> dead and potentially dangerous branches or removal <strong>of</strong> dead or<br />
dangerous trees. The Demolition <strong>of</strong> Secondary Structures Program provides grants to<br />
low‐income people for the removal <strong>of</strong> substandard and dangerous buildings.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
Tree Management 06 Interim Assistance 570.210(f) 6 6 6 18 Trees<br />
Demolition <strong>of</strong> Secondary 04 Clearance and Demolition 570.201(d) 1 1 1 3<br />
Structures<br />
Structures<br />
Public Services Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Increase food security for low‐income people and families. This objective addresses<br />
the priority areas <strong>of</strong> Sustainability and Food Security.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
53
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Project<br />
Construct Community<br />
Gardens and Orchards<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Support Community CROPS in the installation and operation <strong>of</strong> community gardens and<br />
orchards in LMI parks, other property owned by the public, and by non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organizations. The lack <strong>of</strong> food and accompanying issue <strong>of</strong> hunger is a priority need in<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>. In addition to providing food for low‐income people, community gardens and<br />
orchards further sustainability by promoting urban agriculture, reducing transportation<br />
costs for food, and encourages healthy and ecologically sound food production.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
03 Public Facilities and Improvements<br />
(General) 570.201(c)<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
60 60 60 180<br />
People<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Provide scholarships to low‐income people to rent garden space in community gardens.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
Provide Scholarships 05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) 100 100 100 300<br />
People<br />
This activity deleted by plan amendment in FY 10. Community CROPS did not have<br />
enough staff to complete the immigration status verification required by law for all<br />
applicants. Funds moved to Activity 3, below.<br />
Project<br />
Operations Support for<br />
Community CROPS<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Support operations for Community CROPS.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,500<br />
People<br />
Objective 2: Provide services and support for returning veterans and their families. This<br />
objective addresses the priority areas <strong>of</strong> Sustainability and Food Security and a HUD area <strong>of</strong><br />
emphasis.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Install a Community Garden or Orchard designated exclusively for veterans and their<br />
families.<br />
Objective 3: Work to improve transportation options for low‐income people. This objective<br />
addresses the priority area <strong>of</strong> Transportation – improving availability for low‐income people.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Support CSI transportation goals for low income people by continuing to serve on the<br />
grant selection committee for Federal Transit Administration Job Access & Reverse<br />
Commute (JARC) and New Freedom funds. These programs are intended to expand<br />
transportation services for the elderly, low income or disabled residents in the <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
area. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than Community<br />
Development Division staff time.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
54
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Objective 4: Increase job opportunities for low‐income people. This objective addresses the<br />
priority area <strong>of</strong> Jobs – training for low‐income people.<br />
Project<br />
Funding for One Stop<br />
Employment Solutions<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Provide funding to support One Stop Employment Solutions.<br />
It is worth noting is that the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Labor has designated a portion <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> as an “area <strong>of</strong> substantial unemployment.” An area <strong>of</strong> substantial<br />
unemployment (ASU) is defined as a contiguous area with a current population <strong>of</strong> at<br />
least 10,000 and an average unemployment rate <strong>of</strong> at least 6.5 percent for the month<br />
reference period (July 2009 – June 2010 and July, 2010 to June 2012).<br />
This ASU designation is a factor in the distribution <strong>of</strong> Workforce Investment Action<br />
(WIA) funds and means an increase in funding for adults, dislocated workers and youth<br />
programs for the program year beginning July 1, 2010.<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
05H Employment Training 570.201(e) 14 14 14 42 People<br />
Objective 5: Continue to work toward reducing poverty in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
o Continue staff participation with CSI and with other agencies, boards and committees<br />
working to reduce poverty in <strong>Lincoln</strong>. Although not specifically identified as a priority<br />
area in the plan development process, reducing poverty is an on‐going priority for HUD<br />
and Urban Development. No federal funds are allocated to this activity, other than<br />
Community Development Division staff time.<br />
Economic Development Objectives<br />
In the 2008 <strong>City</strong> outcome‐based budget process, economic development was rated a low‐priority since it<br />
was identified as a Tier 3 (lowest priority) activity. This does not mean it is a low priority for the city as a<br />
whole, just for Urban Development Department involvement, and it was eliminated in 2009. Participants<br />
in the process generally believed that economic development activities are best pursued by other<br />
agencies, <strong>City</strong> departments and the private sector. In this planning period, staff will continue to<br />
administer outstanding economic development loans.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Continue the administration <strong>of</strong> outstanding economic development loans.<br />
Additional Community Development Division Objectives<br />
Objective 1: Actively work to further Fair Housing. This objective addresses the priority area <strong>of</strong><br />
Fair Housing – completing and implementing the Analysis <strong>of</strong> Impediments to Fair Housing.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Complete an updated Analysis <strong>of</strong> Impediments to Fair Housing.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
55
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Educate <strong>City</strong> staff and elected <strong>of</strong>ficials about fair housing laws and the benefits <strong>of</strong> equal<br />
access to affordable housing through the annual Fair Housing Conference hosted by the<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Commission on Human Rights.<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Continue staff participation on the Civil Rights Conference planning committee.<br />
Objective 2: Continue support for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). HMIS<br />
is an electronic data collection system that stores longitudinal person‐level information about<br />
people who access the homeless services system. Although not specifically identified as a<br />
priority area in the plan development process, addressing homelessness issues is an on‐going<br />
priority for HUD and Urban Development.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Continue to fund HMIS.<br />
Project<br />
Matrix Code, National Objective<br />
Goals Per <strong>Year</strong><br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 Total<br />
HMIS Funding 05 Public Services (General) 570.210(e) 10,000 10,000 10,000 Data for<br />
30,000<br />
People<br />
Antipoverty Strategy (91.215 (h))<br />
1. Describe the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number <strong>of</strong> poverty level<br />
families (as defined by the Office <strong>of</strong> Management and Budget and revised annually). In consultation<br />
with other appropriate public and private agencies, (i.e. TANF agency) state how the jurisdiction's<br />
goals, programs, and policies for producing and preserving affordable housing set forth in the housing<br />
component <strong>of</strong> the consolidated plan will be coordinated with other programs and services for which<br />
the jurisdiction is responsible.<br />
2. Identify the extent to which this strategy will reduce (or assist in reducing) the number <strong>of</strong> poverty<br />
level families, taking into consideration factors over which the jurisdiction has control.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Antipoverty Strategy response:<br />
1. Community Action Partnership (CAP) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders Counties (formerly known as <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Action Program ‐ LAP) is a non‐pr<strong>of</strong>it agency that has <strong>of</strong>ten been a leader in reducing poverty by<br />
working with families in moving them towards self‐sufficiency. Using a self‐sufficiency assessment<br />
tool called FAT, Family Assessment Tool, family strengths are assessed and, using case management,<br />
families are helped in getting what they need to achieve self‐sufficiency. They receive assistance in<br />
areas such as housing, employment, education, and nutrition.<br />
The approach is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy <strong>of</strong> Needs coupled with an assessment <strong>of</strong> a family’s<br />
strengths in the areas <strong>of</strong> employment, health linkages, education, housing, nutrition, emergency<br />
assistance, income, and self‐sufficiency.<br />
In working with these families, CAP has established a mechanism to meet basic and emergency needs<br />
in the short‐term and engage families in the longer‐term process to help them achieve self‐<br />
sufficiency.<br />
Other agencies provide case management targeted at special populations such as people with<br />
developmental disabilities or illness, or people with substance abuse problems. Examples <strong>of</strong> such<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
56
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
agencies are, St. Monica’s, Fresh Start, Catholic Social Services, Cedar’s Youth Services, CenterPointe,<br />
and Vocational Rehabilitation.<br />
Another anti‐poverty strategy is the Community Services Initiative (CSI) involving the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
and the Human Services Federation. The overall purpose <strong>of</strong> CSI is to give the community direction in<br />
human services; to show how CSI work impacts the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>; and to<br />
ensure ongoing funding needs. Specifically, five broad goals have been identified:<br />
o To identify the emerging issues and critical needs in the Health and Human Services delivery<br />
system based on accurate data.<br />
o To develop plans to address those issues.<br />
o To recognize where <strong>Lincoln</strong> is compared to its economic sister cities.<br />
o To anticipate where the <strong>City</strong> might be three years from today in the Health and Human<br />
Services system.<br />
o To share knowledge and intentions with funders, consumers, and the general public.<br />
CSI is administered by the Human Services Federation, a consortium <strong>of</strong> health and human services<br />
agencies in <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>. In order to meet these goals, the Federation is working<br />
with the CSI Implementation Coalitions specializing in the following four areas: 1) Stop Abuse (Family<br />
Violence), 2) Behavioral Health, 3) Early Child and Youth Development, and 4) Basic and Emergency<br />
Needs. Urban Development staff continues to be involved with the Basic and Emergency Needs<br />
Coalition.<br />
Affordable housing is a primary goal for reducing poverty. In keeping with the goals, programs, and<br />
policies outlined in the Housing Section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>, Urban Development works and<br />
coordinates with the agencies listed below in producing and preserving affordable housing stock:<br />
o NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong> through the Homebuyer Training Program, Troubled Property<br />
Program, and the First Home Program which assists with down payment assistance.<br />
o Affordable Housing Initiative and Habitat for Humanity<br />
o The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority which administers the Security Deposit Program.<br />
o The League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity which operates the Barrier Removal Program.<br />
o <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC is an organization <strong>of</strong> homeless service providers, homeless individuals, and<br />
other community stakeholders. Organizational responsibilities include the development <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s annual CoC Grant, an agency peer review process, administering the “Point‐in‐<br />
Time” count, and strengthening collaboration and efficiency in services provided to the<br />
homeless.<br />
Good paying jobs are also a priority goal for reducing poverty. The Workforce Investment Act <strong>of</strong><br />
1998, Public Law 105‐220, states as its purpose "…to provide workforce investment activities, through<br />
statewide and local workforce investment systems, that increase the employment, retention, and<br />
earnings <strong>of</strong> participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, and, as a result,<br />
improve the quality <strong>of</strong> the workforce, reduce welfare dependence, and enhance the productivity and<br />
competitiveness <strong>of</strong> the Nation." The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Workforce Investment Board (LWIB) oversees the<br />
implementation and operation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Area Workforce System and One Stop Career Center<br />
that <strong>of</strong>fers expanded services to job seekers and area businesses.<br />
2. The extent to which programs <strong>of</strong>fered through CAP, NeighborWorks ® <strong>Lincoln</strong>, the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing<br />
Authority, the League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity, Affordable Housing Initiative, Habitat for Humanity and the<br />
activities <strong>of</strong> the Homeless Coalition, CSI and One Stop Center reduces or assists in reducing the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> poverty‐level families is difficult to quantify. Documentation does exist on the success <strong>of</strong><br />
the CAP’s efforts as evident in reports from independent evaluators, but as the population <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
continues to grow, so does the number <strong>of</strong> people who need assistance.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
57
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Coordination (91.315 (k))<br />
1. (States only) Describe the strategy to coordinate the Low‐income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) with the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> housing that is affordable to low‐ and moderate‐income families.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> LIHTC Coordination response:<br />
1. Not Applicable.<br />
NON‐HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS<br />
Specific Special Needs Objectives (91.215)<br />
1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve over a specified time<br />
period.<br />
2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably<br />
expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the<br />
strategic plan.<br />
3‐5 <strong>Year</strong> Non‐homeless Special Needs Analysis response:<br />
1. The priorities and specific objectives that Urban Development hopes to achieve over the next three<br />
years include the following:<br />
Objective 1: Create and sustain affordable housing opportunities for Special Needs Populations.<br />
Support the ability <strong>of</strong> special needs populations (i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities,<br />
persons with alcohol or drug addiction, persons with HIV/AIDS) to live in permanent affordable<br />
housing situations.<br />
o Activity 1:<br />
Assist in maintaining the stock <strong>of</strong> rental and owner housing for special needs<br />
populations.<br />
o Activity 2:<br />
Assist in increasing the supply <strong>of</strong> rental and owner housing for special needs<br />
populations.<br />
o Activity 3:<br />
Enhance the provision <strong>of</strong> supportive housing services.<br />
o Activity 4:<br />
Remove regulatory barriers to housing for special needs populations.<br />
2. The <strong>City</strong> will also partner with various special needs providers to maintain and expand the housing<br />
units available to this population for existing facilities. The Nebraska Investment Finance Authority<br />
(NIFA) and the State Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development (DED) are additional available resources<br />
for these projects.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
58
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Non‐homeless Special Needs (91.205 (d) and 91.210 (d)) Analysis (including HOPWA)<br />
*Please also refer to the Non‐homeless Special Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.<br />
1. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number <strong>of</strong> persons in various subpopulations that are not<br />
homeless but may require housing or supportive services, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons<br />
with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons<br />
with alcohol or other drug addiction, victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence, and any other categories the<br />
jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs. The jurisdiction can use the<br />
Non‐Homeless Special Needs Table (formerly Table 1B) <strong>of</strong> their Consolidated <strong>Plan</strong> to help identify<br />
these needs.<br />
*Note: HOPWA recipients must identify the size and characteristics <strong>of</strong> the population with HIV/AIDS and their families that will<br />
be served in the metropolitan area.<br />
2. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs <strong>of</strong> persons who are not homeless but may<br />
or may not require supportive housing, i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental,<br />
physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other<br />
drug addiction by using the Non‐homeless Special Needs Table.<br />
3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs.<br />
4. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.<br />
5. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are<br />
not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from<br />
mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.<br />
6. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to assist one or more <strong>of</strong><br />
these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such assistance in the plan.<br />
3‐5 <strong>Year</strong> Non‐homeless Special Needs Analysis response:<br />
1. Community wide data on Non‐Homeless special needs populations is not readily available. The<br />
following information includes estimates based on 2000 Census data and <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Affordable<br />
Housing Needs Assessment. Also see the Non‐homeless Special Needs Table in the “Additional Files”<br />
folder. Some key elements include:<br />
Elderly & Frail Elderly Housing. It is estimated that 3,730 Elderly & Frail elderly persons need<br />
housing. This includes an estimate <strong>of</strong> 439 frail elderly. Of these 3,730 individuals, it is estimated that<br />
approximately 2,800 would qualify as low‐income.<br />
Persons with Disabilities. Community wide data on the non‐homeless developmentally disabled and<br />
physically disabled population is unavailable. However, it is estimated that additional housing for<br />
approximately 651 individuals who are identified as severely mentally ill, and for 1,042 physically<br />
disabled individuals is needed.<br />
Persons with Alcohol or other drug Addiction. Community wide data on the non‐homeless<br />
substance abuse population is unavailable.<br />
Persons with HIV/AIDS & their Families. Community wide data on housing needs for individuals with<br />
HIV/AIDS and their families is unavailable.<br />
Supportive Services Needed. Wrap around supportive services for populations including the elderly,<br />
frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and<br />
their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, and victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence is<br />
estimated at approximately 8,066. This is likely a conservative estimate. For example, a Gallup<br />
survey commissioned by the Friendship Home, <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s leading domestic violence shelter, indicated<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
59
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
that one in four women in <strong>Lincoln</strong>/<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> were victims <strong>of</strong> domestic violence at some point<br />
in their lives. Generally speaking, housing units are available. The support services necessary to<br />
maintain housing for many <strong>of</strong> these subpopulations continues to be a challenging gap to address.<br />
Data indicates that approximately 40 percent <strong>of</strong> persons 65 and older have some type <strong>of</strong> disability<br />
(i.e., physical, mental, sensory, self‐care) and five percent <strong>of</strong> persons 65 and older with a disability are<br />
institutionalized, based on these assumptions, an estimated 1,550 total rental units (1,180 low‐<br />
income units) should have some type <strong>of</strong> supportive services for elderly persons with disabilities (i.e.,<br />
transportation, individualized care). (This figure does not include services for elderly persons with<br />
disabilities who were not in one‐ or two‐person family households in 2000, such as those living with<br />
extended families or in group care facilities.) However, the number <strong>of</strong> total rental units needing<br />
these services could be higher or lower due to lack <strong>of</strong> information about householders with<br />
disabilities and the proportion <strong>of</strong> elderly renters who are disabled compared to homeowners. Some<br />
people have speculated that a higher proportion <strong>of</strong> elderly disabled householders may be renters<br />
than homeowners.<br />
2. The highest priority housing and supportive services needs are for low‐income special needs<br />
populations, including physically disabled persons, seriously mentally ill persons, and persons with<br />
other disabilities (including frail elderly). Extremely low‐ (below 30 percent <strong>of</strong> median) and very low‐<br />
income (30 to 50 percent <strong>of</strong> median), elderly renters and extremely low‐income owners are also high<br />
priority households. Those households that fall under medium priority include other low‐income<br />
elderly renters (between 50 and 80 percent <strong>of</strong> median) and elderly owners who are very low‐ and<br />
low‐income.<br />
Urban Development is unable to determine an accurate housing need for people with HIV/AIDS<br />
because the number <strong>of</strong> people with HIV/AIDS, for <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>, varies depending on the source<br />
<strong>of</strong> the data. Estimates range any where from 150 to 300 persons with HIV/AIDS but data on their<br />
housing needs is not available.<br />
Below is additional information regarding some <strong>of</strong> the high priority need areas.<br />
Needs in Housing for Persons with a Disability.<br />
On average, Assistive Technology Partnership and the League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity receive<br />
approximately 75 requests a year (about half <strong>of</strong> which they can assist) for home modifications,<br />
including interior and exterior, rental and owner‐occupied, for persons <strong>of</strong> all ages in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>. Households can apply for additional modifications to the same house year after year.<br />
There is no one source <strong>of</strong> data on the number <strong>of</strong> owner‐occupied units that have been modified or<br />
built for persons with disabilities. Additionally, because the modifications are <strong>of</strong>ten dependent upon<br />
the level <strong>of</strong> disability and type <strong>of</strong> disability, there will likely always be a gap in this type <strong>of</strong> housing.<br />
However, it is encouraging that more architects and builders are aware <strong>of</strong> universal design and<br />
building houses that are more adaptable.<br />
Needs in Housing for Other Persons with a Severe Mental Illness. According to the Hanna: Keelan<br />
“Statewide Consumer Housing Needs Study for Extremely Low Income Persons with a Serious Mental<br />
Illness” (SMI), July, 2004, there was a need for creating 593 additional units for persons 19 years <strong>of</strong><br />
age and older with a SMI by the year 2008 in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>. No New projections are available.<br />
The need was estimated at 31 percent <strong>of</strong> the 2005 population. There are currently 27 social service<br />
providers serving over 4,100 individuals in the area <strong>of</strong> the State that includes the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and<br />
several rural counties. Affordable and independent apartment units and transitional housing are the<br />
types <strong>of</strong> units most needed in the area.<br />
Needs in Elderly Housing. Over half <strong>of</strong> all low‐income, elderly, renter households, or a total <strong>of</strong> 1,663<br />
were cost overburdened in 2000. This group is more likely than small‐family or large‐family<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
60
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
households to be cost overburdened. However, they are less likely to experience overcrowding or<br />
other housing problems.<br />
Because most elderly households do not choose to become first‐time homeowners late in life the gap<br />
in elderly owner housing may be very low. In fact the gap may be negative. Over half <strong>of</strong> the<br />
extremely low‐income, cost overburdened owner households, or a total <strong>of</strong> 439, were elderly<br />
households in 2000. An additional 489 very low‐income elderly households and 368 other low‐<br />
income, elderly households were also cost overburdened. These households may need to be added<br />
to the gap in elderly rental housing. If these households could be relocated to affordable rental<br />
housing, this could ease housing problems and add 1,296 units (if they are safe and sound) to the<br />
affordable housing market for families. There are an additional 4,010 units owned by elderly<br />
households with incomes less than 80 percent <strong>of</strong> median income.<br />
3. The basis for assigning the priority given to each category <strong>of</strong> priority needs was determined through<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> survey results, provider input, community objectives and institutional knowledge.<br />
4. Because all <strong>of</strong> the special needs households tend to need supportive services to find and/or remain in<br />
affordable housing, these are the most challenging households to serve. One <strong>of</strong> the greatest<br />
challenges is finding additional funds to allow the <strong>City</strong> and its partners to provide these supportive<br />
services.<br />
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority will continue to serve those extremely low‐income and very low‐<br />
income households, with priorities for special needs populations, families, and the elderly as federal<br />
funds for rental housing assistance remain available. Cuts in assistance will be a difficult barrier to<br />
overcome, and will mean additional wait times for special needs populations and no housing for<br />
others.<br />
Another barrier to meeting these high priority rental housing needs will be maintaining the<br />
infrastructure that supports these households. The <strong>City</strong> will also rely on internal (i.e. Urban<br />
Development and the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority) and external (i.e., Urban Development and the<br />
League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity for the Barrier Removal Program) partnerships to meet these challenges<br />
where appropriate.<br />
Additionally, persons with special needs, because they are more likely to be low‐income than the<br />
general population, <strong>of</strong>ten face income barriers to housing. Also, the supportive services and/or<br />
additional health care expenses can further reduce income available for housing. Therefore, special<br />
needs groups, including persons who are elderly, persons with physical or mental disabilities, etc., are<br />
more likely to be affected by public and private policies that limit the availability <strong>of</strong> affordable<br />
housing. These groups are more likely to live in substandard housing and experience cost overburden<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the shortage <strong>of</strong> housing for extremely low‐income households, and the condition <strong>of</strong><br />
housing affordable to those households. As another barrier, special needs households are further<br />
limited by the location <strong>of</strong> services needed by these households.<br />
Institutional barriers, whether public or private, can also limit access to housing by special needs<br />
populations. In particular, the lack <strong>of</strong> sufficient financial support/subsidies for housing for persons<br />
with special needs is an obstacle. NIMBY attitudes, especially toward multi‐family and special needs<br />
housing, manufactured housing, public housing, and other types <strong>of</strong> affordable housing, that influence<br />
public policy can create barriers.<br />
Barriers in filing fair housing complaints, including lack <strong>of</strong> awareness <strong>of</strong> fair housing policies and<br />
procedures and fears associated with the process <strong>of</strong> filing a complaint, also limits one’s ability to find<br />
relief from barriers.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
61
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Private policy, whether discriminatory or legal, including action by landlords, financial institutions,<br />
REALTORS ® , developers, insurers, etc., can exacerbate existing supply problems and create additional<br />
barriers. Lack <strong>of</strong> awareness <strong>of</strong> the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Fair Housing Act, Fair Housing Amendments<br />
Act, and subsequent related regulations, by the industry can create barriers. Other barriers include,<br />
landlords and property managers not accepting Section 8 vouchers, lenders not making multi‐family<br />
loans, lenders unaware <strong>of</strong> housing programs, and practices which limit loans or insurance in low‐<br />
income areas, etc.<br />
5. Answer to question #5<br />
Facilities and Services<br />
Agency Description<br />
AARP Issues related to senior citizens such as training, employment, medical, advocacy,<br />
etc.<br />
Active Community<br />
Treatments, Inc.<br />
Helps adults and children with disabilities to gain skills, knowledge, and experience<br />
to increasingly use and benefit from the resources and settings available to all<br />
citizens <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong> community.<br />
ARC <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> Advocacy, self‐advocacy, recreation, and individual and family support services for<br />
people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.<br />
Bel‐Air Homes Assisted living facility for people with serious mental illness.<br />
Bryan/LGH Daily reassurance calls for those who live alone. Information, evaluation, and<br />
treatment services for people with chemical dependency, dual diagnosis and their<br />
families and 24‐hour information and crisis assistance. Evaluation and treatment <strong>of</strong><br />
behavioral and emotional problems, information and referral.<br />
CenterPointe Residential dual disorders treatment program, day rehabilitation and outpatient<br />
services for adults. Residential and outpatient treatment for youth.<br />
Champion Homes Assisted living facility for adults with mental disabilities.<br />
Child Guidance Out patient mental health clinic for children, adolescents, and their families,<br />
including individual, family, group, and home‐based therapy. Day treatment.<br />
Community Alternatives Provides opportunities to persons with developmental disabilities to learn skills to<br />
Nebraska<br />
enable them to participate and contribute actively in the community.<br />
Community Mental Health Outpatient, community support, partial care, consultation, education, vocational,<br />
Center<br />
24‐hour emergency services.<br />
Cornhusker Place Medically supervised emergency detoxification, short‐ and long‐term substance<br />
abuse programs.<br />
Developmental Services <strong>of</strong><br />
Nebraska, Inc.<br />
Services for people with developmental disabilities and mental health needs.<br />
Includes intensive residential group homes, independent living, emergency shelter<br />
care, and outpatient mental health.<br />
Goodwill Industries Employment and training opportunities for individuals who face barriers to<br />
employment.<br />
Harvest Project Substance abuse and mental heath services for the elderly.<br />
Home Services for<br />
In‐home services for aged persons with disabilities.<br />
Independent Living<br />
Houses <strong>of</strong> Hope To provide affordable comprehensive counseling services in a supportive residential<br />
environment to individuals in recovery from substance abuse.<br />
League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity Independent living services for those with disabilities, including, information and<br />
referral, Medicaid waiver coordination, peer counseling, advocacy, skill and<br />
awareness training; accessibility consultation; home and business medication;<br />
housing relocation and referral; modification, sales and repairs <strong>of</strong> vans, scooters,<br />
power wheelchairs and other specialized equipment.<br />
Aging Partners Offers meals, advocacy, emergency response, assisted living, in‐home services,<br />
minor home repairs, lawn care, large appliance repair, companionship for<br />
homebound and frail elderly, and assistance with financial benefit programs. Daily<br />
reassurance calls/friendly visit calls.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
62
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Agency Description<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Medical Education Medical services to low‐income and elderly including home visits.<br />
Partnership<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority Federal subsidized housing for low‐income families and elderly persons, and non‐<br />
subsidized affordable housing units.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Community health services, health clinics, home visitation, immunizations, early<br />
Health Department<br />
intervention services, childhood lead poisoning prevention, school health programs,<br />
Mobile Health Clinic, child’s environmental health programs, child care, WIC, dental<br />
services, youth risk behavior studies, Summer Food program, injury prevention,<br />
tobacco prevention, Healthy Homes minority outreach, and information and referral<br />
services.<br />
Lutheran Family Services Adult outpatient, intensive outpatient, and aftercare services for alcohol/drug<br />
abuse. Counseling.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Regional Center Comprehensive mental health services.<br />
Madonna Day care for people with disabilities or older persons, health monitoring, assistance<br />
with personal care, recreation, meals, supervision, and transportation.<br />
Medicaid Waiver In‐home services for those eligible, 65+.<br />
Mercy Services Corporation Provides affordable housing for individual families <strong>of</strong> low‐ to moderate‐income and<br />
a neighborhood learning center.<br />
MOSIAC Provides support and advocates for people with disabilities.<br />
Nebraska Advocacy Services, Advocacy services for people with mental and physical disabilities.<br />
Inc.<br />
Nebraska Health & Human Financial aid and social services to families and individuals. Includes Food Stamps,<br />
Services<br />
Medicaid, ADC, etc.<br />
Nebraska Urban Indian Health Primary health care for people with Medicaid or other health insurance regardless<br />
Center<br />
<strong>of</strong> race, religion, income status or age.<br />
O.U.R. Homes Residential facility for people with serious mental illness.<br />
People’s Health Center Provides affordable, comprehensive primary health care especially for those with<br />
limited resources. Services include medical, dental, pharmacy, WIC, HIV/STD<br />
testing, translation, mental health on a referral basis, and a physician house call<br />
program for chronically ill homebound elderly.<br />
Prescott Place Assisted living facility for people with serious mental illness.<br />
Region V Residential services in small group homes, own home and apartments, as well as,<br />
LEAP and SOAR daytime support and training for individuals with developmental<br />
and other disabilities. Small group home, own home, Extended Family Home,<br />
apartment and employment daytime – support and training for individuals with<br />
developmental and other disabilities.<br />
Serenity Place Assisted living facility for people with serious mental illness.<br />
ServiceLinc Services for the successful employment <strong>of</strong> people with disabilities.<br />
St. Elizabeth’s Hospital Hospital, health care outreach and wellness, burn center, oncology, pediatric center,<br />
radiology.<br />
St. Monica’s Full continuum <strong>of</strong> substance abuse and mental health treatment, primary<br />
treatment, residential program for women/women with children under 10, and<br />
adolescent and outpatient relapse prevention/aftercare.<br />
Tabitha Non‐acute health care services, including Medicare certified and private, round‐the‐<br />
clock home health care; hospice; rehabilitation, including inpatient and outpatient<br />
physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech/language pathology; case<br />
management; subacute and long‐term care; Meals on Wheels; adult day services;<br />
Alzheimer’s/dementia care, intergenerational services, pastoral care; and<br />
retirement housing.<br />
Therapy Plus Comprehensive rehabilitation facility for children and adults with injuries or<br />
debilitating illness. Inpatient and outpatient therapy programs; adult day services;<br />
work injury rehabilitation and prevention programs; driver retraining; and<br />
ventilator‐assisted, Alzheimer’s and extended care units. Assisted living facility for<br />
young adults with severe disabilities.<br />
V. A. Services Substance abuse treatment for veterans. Domestic violence program.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
63
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
Agency Description<br />
Valley Hope Regular and intensive outpatient treatment, continuing care sessions, DWI classes,<br />
education/awareness, alcohol/drug evaluations, and referral for chemically<br />
dependent.<br />
Villa Marie Boarding and day school for mild/moderate mentally handicapped children.<br />
Vital Services, Inc. Group homes and day services for people with disabilities.<br />
Women in Community Female residential program, women’s Job Corps, halfway house program for<br />
Services<br />
adolescents continuing their recovery.<br />
Workforce Development Job referral, career counseling, special services for veterans, older workers, youth,<br />
and people with disabilities.<br />
6. The Urban Development Department does not do tenant‐based rental assistance therefore no HOME<br />
funds are used. However, the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority has a number <strong>of</strong> units that uses tenant‐<br />
based rental assistance.<br />
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)<br />
*Please also refer to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook.<br />
1. The <strong>Plan</strong> includes a description <strong>of</strong> the activities to be undertaken with its HOPWA Program funds to<br />
address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible population. Activities will assist persons who<br />
are not homeless but require supportive housing, such as efforts to prevent low‐income individuals<br />
and families from becoming homeless and may address the housing needs <strong>of</strong> persons who are<br />
homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and<br />
independent living. The plan would identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs and<br />
summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to<br />
address identified needs.<br />
2. The <strong>Plan</strong> must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number <strong>of</strong> households to be<br />
assisted during the year in: (1) short‐term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid<br />
homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as community<br />
residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. The<br />
plan can also describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for persons<br />
who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be used in connection with an<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks <strong>of</strong> homelessness and<br />
improved access to care.<br />
3. For housing facility projects being developed, a target date for the completion <strong>of</strong> each development<br />
activity must be included and information on the continued use <strong>of</strong> these units for the eligible<br />
population based on their stewardship requirements (e.g. within the ten‐year use periods for projects<br />
involving acquisition, new construction or substantial rehabilitation).<br />
4. The <strong>Plan</strong> includes an explanation <strong>of</strong> how the funds will be allocated including a description <strong>of</strong> the<br />
geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the rationale for these geographic<br />
allocations and priorities. Include the name <strong>of</strong> each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary<br />
area(s) <strong>of</strong> planned activities, amounts committed to that sponsor, and whether the sponsor is a faith‐<br />
based and/or grassroots organization.<br />
5. The <strong>Plan</strong> describes the role <strong>of</strong> the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA),<br />
involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan‐wide strategy for addressing the needs <strong>of</strong><br />
persons with HIV/AIDS and their families living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions<br />
within the EMSA; (b) the standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities<br />
in order to ensure compliance by project sponsors <strong>of</strong> the requirements <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />
6. The <strong>Plan</strong> includes the certifications relevant to the HOPWA Program.<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
64
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> HOPWA response:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> does not receive HOPWA Funds.<br />
Specific HOPWA Objectives<br />
1. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably<br />
expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the<br />
strategic plan.<br />
3‐5 <strong>Year</strong> Specific HOPWA Objectives response:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> does not receive HOPWA Funds.<br />
OTHER NARRATIVE<br />
Include any <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> information that was not covered by a narrative in any other section.<br />
The Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Regional Innovation Grant (RIG) is a 12‐county collaborative initiative to generate<br />
opportunities for further regional economic prosperity. Education, economic and workforce<br />
development entities in southeast Nebraska have collaborated to develop a strategic regional plan with a<br />
focus on addressing present and future economic dislocation events; to support regional economic<br />
growth and competitiveness, and to enhance workers’ employment and advancement.<br />
The project covers the Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> local workforce investment area <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders<br />
counties along with the surrounding counties <strong>of</strong> Fillmore, Gage, Johnson, Nemaha, Otoe, Pawnee,<br />
Richardson, Saline, Seward, and York. The key partners are the Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Workforce Investment<br />
Board, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> Urban Development Department, <strong>Lincoln</strong> Partnership for Economic<br />
Development & the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Area Development Partners, Southeast Community College, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Nebraska, Peru State College, and Aquila.<br />
Activities include conducting outreach to potential stakeholders, preparing a map <strong>of</strong> the regional assets,<br />
producing a detailed assessment <strong>of</strong> the region to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and<br />
threats (SWOT), and developing a regional communication network. Participants are now developing and<br />
prioritizing short and long‐term strategies in line with the newly defined regional economy and aimed at<br />
shortening or eliminating the time from worker dislocation to re‐employment.<br />
The RIG reports can be found on‐line at www.lincolnarearig.com<br />
3 <strong>Year</strong> <strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> FY 2010‐2012 Version 2.0<br />
65
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Community Dev Table
Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections.<br />
5-<strong>Year</strong> Quantities<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3<br />
01 Acquisition <strong>of</strong> Real Property 570.201(a) Habitat for Humanity (HDLP) **<br />
0 0 0 3 3 3 9 0 0% H $300 Y HOME DH-2<br />
02 Disposition 570.201(b)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
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<br />
Public Facilities and Improvements<br />
03A Senior Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03B Handicapped Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03C Homeless Facilities (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03D Youth Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03E Neighborhood Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
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<br />
03G Parking Facilities 570.201© 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03H Solid Waste Disposal Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03I Flood Drain Improvements 570.201© Rain Gardens 0 0 0 10 10 10 30 0 0% H $75 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
03J Water/Sewer Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03K Street Improvements 570.201© Alley graveling 0 0 0 10 10 10 30 0 0% H $15 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
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<br />
03M Child Care Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03N Tree <strong>Plan</strong>ting 570.201(c) Tree planting in two neighborhoods 0 0 0 2 2 2 6 0 0% H $30 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
03O Fire Stations/Equipment 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03P Health Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03Q Abused and Neglected Children Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03R Asbestos Removal 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03S Facilities for AIDS Patients (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
03T Operating Costs <strong>of</strong> Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
04 Clearance and Demolition 570.201(d) Demolition <strong>of</strong> Secondary Structures Program<br />
0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0% H $3 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
04A Clean-up <strong>of</strong> Contaminated Sites 570.201(d)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
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<br />
Public Services<br />
Housing and Community Development Activities (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Activites/Projects in Bold)<br />
Needs<br />
05A Senior Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05B Handicapped Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05C Legal Services 570.201(E) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05D Youth Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05E Transportation Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05F Substance Abuse Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05G Battered and Abused Spouses 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05H Employment Training 570.201(e) 0 0 0 14 14 14 42 0 0% H $90 Y CDBG EO-1<br />
05I Crime Awareness 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05J Fair Housing Activities (if CDBG, then subject to 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05K Tenant/Landlord Counseling 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05L Child Care Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05M Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05N Abused and Neglected Children 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05O Mental Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05P Screening for Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazards Poison 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05Q Subsistence Payments 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05R Homeownership Assistance (not direct) 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
05S Rental Housing Subsidies (if HOME, not part <strong>of</strong> 5% 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Current<br />
Gap<br />
05T Security Deposits (if HOME, not part <strong>of</strong> 5% Admin c <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority 0 0 0 45 45 45 135 0 0% H $75 Y HOME DH-2<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Cumulative<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Goal<br />
Priority Need:<br />
H, M, L<br />
Dollars to<br />
Address in<br />
1,000s<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> to Fund?<br />
Y/N<br />
Fund Source<br />
HUD Obj/<br />
Outcome*
Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections.<br />
Housing and Community Development Activities (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Activites/Projects in Bold)<br />
Needs<br />
Current<br />
Gap<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
5-<strong>Year</strong> Quantities<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3<br />
06 Interim Assistance 570.201(f) Tree Management Program<br />
0 0 0 6 6 6 18 0 0% H $27 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
07 Urban Renewal Completion 570.201(h)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
08 Relocation 570.201(i)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
09 Loss <strong>of</strong> Rental Income 570.201(j)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
10 Removal <strong>of</strong> Architectural Barriers 570.201(k)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
11 Privately Owned Utilities 570.201(l)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
12 Construction <strong>of</strong> Housing 570.201(m) Troubled Property Program, HDLP<br />
0 0 0 3 17 3 23 0 0% H $548 Y HOME DH-2<br />
13 Direct Homeownership Assistance 570.201(n) First Home Program<br />
0 0 0 51 51 51 153 0 0% H $1,899 Y HOME DH-2<br />
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<br />
14B Rehab; Multi-Unit Residential 570.202 Barrier Removal 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0% H $21 CDBG DH-1<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Cumulative<br />
14C Public Housing Modernization 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
14D Rehab; Other Publicly-Owned Residential Buildings 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
14E Rehab; Publicly or Privately-Owned Commercial/Indu 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
14F Energy Efficiency Improvements 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
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<br />
14H Rehabilitation Administration 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $1,165 Y CDBG DH-2<br />
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<br />
15 Code Enforcement 570.202(c)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
16A Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
16B Non-Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d)<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
17A CI Land Acquisition/Disposition 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
17B CI Infrastructure Development 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
17C CI Building Acquisition, Construction, Rehabilitat 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
17D Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
18A ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Pr<strong>of</strong>its 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
18B ED Technical Assistance 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
18C Micro-Enterprise Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19A HOME Admin/<strong>Plan</strong>ning Costs <strong>of</strong> PJ (not part <strong>of</strong> 5% Ad 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19B HOME CHDO Operating Costs (not part <strong>of</strong> 5% Admin ca 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19C CDBG Non-pr<strong>of</strong>it Organization Capacity Building 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19D CDBG Assistance to Institutes <strong>of</strong> Higher Education 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19E CDBG Operation and Repair <strong>of</strong> Foreclosed Property 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19F <strong>Plan</strong>ned Repayment <strong>of</strong> Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19G Unplanned Repayment <strong>of</strong> Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
19H State CDBG Technical Assistance to Grantees 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
20 <strong>Plan</strong>ning 570.205 CD staff<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $873 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
21A General Program Administration 570.206 Administration staff 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $579 Y CDBG SL-3<br />
21B Indirect Costs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
21D Fair Housing Activities (subject to 20% Admin cap) 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
21E Submissions or Applications for Federal Programs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
21F HOME Rental Subsidy Payments (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
21G HOME Security Deposits (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
21H HOME Admin/<strong>Plan</strong>ning Costs <strong>of</strong> PJ (subject to 5% cap 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $244.00 Y HOME DH-2<br />
21I HOME CHDO Operating Expenses (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! H $120 Y HOME DH-2<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Goal<br />
Priority Need:<br />
H, M, L<br />
Dollars to<br />
Address in<br />
1,000s<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> to Fund?<br />
Y/N<br />
Fund Source<br />
HUD Obj/<br />
Outcome*
Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections.<br />
Housing and Community Development Activities (<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Activites/Projects in Bold)<br />
Needs<br />
Current<br />
Gap<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
5-<strong>Year</strong> Quantities<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3<br />
22 Unprogrammed Funds<br />
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31J Facility based housing – development 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31K Facility based housing - operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31G Short term rent mortgage utility payments 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31F Tenant based rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31E Supportive service 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31I Housing information services 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31H Resource identification 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31B Administration - grantee 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
31D Administration - project sponsor 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Acquisition <strong>of</strong> existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Production <strong>of</strong> new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Acquisition <strong>of</strong> existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Production <strong>of</strong> new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing owner units Includes 7 programs***** 0 0 0 183 183 183 549 0 0% H $2,465 Y CDBG DH-2<br />
HOPWA<br />
HOME CDBG<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Cumulative<br />
Homeownership assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Acquisition <strong>of</strong> existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Production <strong>of</strong> new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Acquisition <strong>of</strong> existing owner units Troubled Property Program 0 0 0 3 3 3 9 0 0% H $548 Y HOME DH-2<br />
Production <strong>of</strong> new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> 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<br />
Homeownership assistance First Home Program 0 0 0 51 51 51 153 0 0% H $1,899 Y HOME DH-2<br />
Totals 0 0 0 12399 0 12411 0 12397 0 37207 0 #DIV/0!<br />
*HUD Objectives and Outcomes:<br />
Objective 1: Decent Housing<br />
Objective 2: Suitable Living Environment<br />
Objective 3: Economic Opportunity<br />
1 = Availability/Accessibility 2 = Affordability 3 = Sustainability<br />
N/A = Not Applicable<br />
**HDLP includes two programs, Habitat for Humanity, Matrix Code 01 and Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI), Matrix Code 14G<br />
***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.<br />
****The 7 programs are: Barrier Removal, Emergency Repair (ER), Deferred Payment Loan CDBG (DPL), HOME DPL, Home Improvement Loan Program (HILP), PRIDE, and HEART<br />
***** Includes HILP, DPL, ER, Lead Based Paint, Barrier Removal, PRIDE and HEART<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Goal<br />
Priority Need:<br />
H, M, L<br />
Dollars to<br />
Address in<br />
1,000s<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> to Fund?<br />
Y/N<br />
Fund Source<br />
HUD Obj/<br />
Outcome*
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
LMI NRSA Map
NW 56TH ST<br />
STATE SPUR 79<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W O ST<br />
W A ST<br />
NW 40TH ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W A ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
W O ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W A ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
W A ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
2010 - NRSA & LMI<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
W O ST<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
A ST<br />
O ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
A ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
O ST<br />
A ST<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
O ST<br />
A ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
<strong>City</strong> Limit - 2009 Major Streets Streets Streams NRSA LMI<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> - Urban Development<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
O ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
O ST<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
O ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
A ST<br />
O ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
A ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
O ST<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
A ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
O ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
Created/Compiled by:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>: UDD<br />
Created/Compiled on: 04/01/2010<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
A ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
A ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST N 112TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
O ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
[
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Minority Maps<br />
(Black, Asian, and Native American)
103<br />
SW 70th<br />
SW 56th<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Blacks<br />
0.0 - 1.0<br />
1.1 - 2.5<br />
2.6 - 5.0<br />
5.1 - 8.4<br />
32.02<br />
SW 40th<br />
102<br />
32.01<br />
SW 27th<br />
36.04<br />
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> Black Population<br />
by Census Tract<br />
33<br />
34<br />
<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Nebraska<br />
SW 12th<br />
31.02<br />
35<br />
1st<br />
14th<br />
27th<br />
40th<br />
29<br />
30.02 30.03<br />
31.01<br />
3 2.02 2.01<br />
21<br />
5<br />
22<br />
6<br />
19<br />
20<br />
28<br />
36.01<br />
36.05<br />
36.06<br />
30.01<br />
7<br />
18<br />
17<br />
23<br />
4<br />
24<br />
8<br />
16<br />
37.04<br />
37.08<br />
9<br />
25<br />
37.1<br />
14<br />
15<br />
27.01<br />
27.02<br />
37.09<br />
56th<br />
10<br />
13.01<br />
13.02<br />
70th<br />
1<br />
37.11<br />
11<br />
12<br />
37.06<br />
37.07<br />
38.02<br />
38.01<br />
84th<br />
37.12<br />
98th<br />
McKelvie Rd.<br />
Alvo Rd.<br />
Fletcher Ave.<br />
Havelock Ave.<br />
Adams St.<br />
Holdrege St.<br />
'O' St.<br />
'A' St.<br />
Van Dorn St.<br />
Pioneers Blvd<br />
Old Cheney Rd.<br />
Pine Lake Rd.<br />
Yankee Hill Rd.<br />
·<br />
101<br />
104<br />
Created 8/20/04
103<br />
SW 70th<br />
SW 56th<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Asians<br />
0.0 - 1.0<br />
1.1 - 2.5<br />
2.6 - 5.0<br />
Above 5%<br />
32.02<br />
SW 40th<br />
102<br />
32.01<br />
SW 27th<br />
36.04<br />
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> Asian Population<br />
by Census Tract<br />
33<br />
34<br />
<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Nebraska<br />
SW 12th<br />
31.02<br />
35<br />
1st<br />
14th<br />
27th<br />
40th<br />
29<br />
30.02 30.03<br />
31.01<br />
3 2.02 2.01<br />
21<br />
5<br />
22<br />
6<br />
19<br />
20<br />
28<br />
36.01<br />
36.05<br />
36.06<br />
30.01<br />
7<br />
18<br />
17<br />
23<br />
4<br />
24<br />
8<br />
16<br />
37.04<br />
37.08<br />
9<br />
25<br />
37.1<br />
14<br />
15<br />
27.01<br />
27.02<br />
37.09<br />
56th<br />
10<br />
13.01<br />
13.02<br />
70th<br />
1<br />
37.11<br />
11<br />
12<br />
37.06<br />
37.07<br />
38.02<br />
38.01<br />
84th<br />
37.12<br />
98th<br />
McKelvie Rd.<br />
Alvo Rd.<br />
Fletcher Ave.<br />
Havelock Ave.<br />
Adams St.<br />
Holdrege St.<br />
'O' St.<br />
'A' St.<br />
Van Dorn St.<br />
Pioneers Blvd<br />
Old Cheney Rd.<br />
Pine Lake Rd.<br />
Yankee Hill Rd.<br />
·<br />
101<br />
104<br />
Created 8/20/04
103<br />
Distribution <strong>of</strong> Native American Population<br />
by Census Tract<br />
SW 70th<br />
SW 56th<br />
32.02<br />
SW 40th<br />
102<br />
32.01<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Native American<br />
0.0 - 1.0<br />
1.1 - 2.5<br />
2.6 - 5.0<br />
Above 5%<br />
SW 27th<br />
36.04<br />
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau<br />
33<br />
34<br />
<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Nebraska<br />
SW 12th<br />
31.02<br />
35<br />
1st<br />
14th<br />
27th<br />
40th<br />
29<br />
30.02 30.03<br />
31.01<br />
3 2.02 2.01<br />
21<br />
5<br />
22<br />
6<br />
19<br />
20<br />
28<br />
36.01<br />
36.05<br />
36.06<br />
30.01<br />
7<br />
18<br />
17<br />
23<br />
4<br />
24<br />
8<br />
16<br />
37.04<br />
37.08<br />
9<br />
25<br />
37.1<br />
14<br />
15<br />
27.01<br />
27.02<br />
37.09<br />
56th<br />
10<br />
13.01<br />
13.02<br />
70th<br />
1<br />
37.11<br />
11<br />
12<br />
37.06<br />
37.07<br />
38.02<br />
38.01<br />
84th<br />
37.12<br />
98th<br />
McKelvie Rd.<br />
Alvo Rd.<br />
Fletcher Ave.<br />
Havelock Ave.<br />
Adams St.<br />
Holdrege St.<br />
'O' St.<br />
'A' St.<br />
Van Dorn St.<br />
Pioneers Blvd<br />
Old Cheney Rd.<br />
Pine Lake Rd.<br />
Yankee Hill Rd.<br />
·<br />
101<br />
104<br />
Created 8/20/04
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Differential Association:<br />
A Pilot Neighborhood<br />
Assessment Tool
Introduction<br />
No one can doubt that most American cities these days are deeply troubled places. At the root <strong>of</strong><br />
the problems are the massive economic shifts that have marked the last two decades. Hundreds <strong>of</strong><br />
thousands <strong>of</strong> industrial jobs have either disappeared or moved away from the central city and its<br />
neighborhoods. And while many downtown areas have experienced a "renaissance," the jobs<br />
created there are different from those that once sustained neighborhoods … Either these new jobs<br />
are highly pr<strong>of</strong>essionalized, and require elaborate education and credentials for entry, or they are<br />
routine, low paying service jobs without much <strong>of</strong> a future. In effect, these shifts in the economy,<br />
and particularly the disappearance <strong>of</strong> decent employment possibilities from low-income<br />
neighborhoods, have removed the bottom rung from the fabled American "ladder <strong>of</strong> opportunity.”<br />
For many people in older city neighborhoods, new approaches to rebuilding their lives and<br />
communities, new openings toward opportunity, are a vital necessity<br />
(Kretzman and McKnight 1993, pg. 1).<br />
The former UNL Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC), <strong>of</strong> which the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Nebraska – <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s departments <strong>of</strong> Sociology, Community and Regional <strong>Plan</strong>ning and Agricultural<br />
Leadership, Education and Communication were leading members, [worked] to establish community<br />
programs aimed at addressing specific neighborhood needs by working together to revitalize<br />
neighborhoods, encourage community development, provide needed educational programs and reverse the<br />
deteriorating quality <strong>of</strong> life <strong>of</strong> the neighborhoods that surround the University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska <strong>Lincoln</strong> (UNL<br />
CPOC Grant, 1998). One <strong>of</strong> the COPC projects was to address areas <strong>of</strong> growing “social isolation,” through<br />
an asset based development approach (as proposed by Kretzman & McKnight, 1993).<br />
In this same vein, many articles have previously explored various neighborhood development and<br />
safety concepts as they relate to a range <strong>of</strong> variables while only reporting their significance in statistical<br />
terms. This can be particularly confusing to neighborhood-based stakeholders in community<br />
redevelopment, because few lay residents can understand the meaning <strong>of</strong> statistical language (r squared or<br />
other statistical values). Past research has identified links between neighborhood social composition,<br />
disorder, crime and violence. However, newer research suggests that crime is not solely attributed to<br />
individuals’ aggregate demographic characteristic, “rather crime is a function <strong>of</strong> social and organizational<br />
characteristics” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1997 pg.2).<br />
Within the context <strong>of</strong> the COPC project, the Everett Neighborhood was targeted. The<br />
neighborhood selected through the use <strong>of</strong> antidotal stories, criminal patterns, and 2000 US Census reports.<br />
However, the need to rate/predict where resources and effort should be placed, sustained or moved ought to<br />
be not only defined and easily communicable but also broadly defendable. With this in mind I found Robert<br />
Sutherlands Differential Association Theory, which predates most <strong>of</strong> the work cited thus far, interesting<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the seemly ‘common sense’ tenet that the more negative definitions an individual experiences<br />
the more likely they are to commit deviant behavior. While some components are broad and undefined, it’s<br />
a concept that many can relate to. Therefore this paper will examine Dr. Edwin H Sutherlands Differential<br />
Association Theory as how it relates to neighborhood development.<br />
To be clear, the purpose <strong>of</strong> this paper is to review Dr. Sutherlands Differential Association Theory<br />
and select criticisms, with the intent <strong>of</strong> communicating/operationalizing his theory using data sources<br />
common to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> Nebraska, within the context <strong>of</strong> neighborhood redevelopment. Next, a brief<br />
overview / visual analysis <strong>of</strong> the results will follow and finally, I will conclude with a brief discussion and<br />
closing comments.<br />
Literature Review and Select Criticism<br />
Differential Association Theory was Sutherland's major sociological contribution to criminology;<br />
similar in importance to strain theory and social control theory. These theories all explain deviance in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> the individual's social relationships (FSU & Whitt, 2009). "[Sutherland] rejected biological determinism<br />
and the extreme individualism <strong>of</strong> psychiatry, as well as economic explanations <strong>of</strong> crime. His search for an<br />
alternative understanding <strong>of</strong> crime led to the development <strong>of</strong> Differential Association Theory. In contrast to<br />
both classical and biological theories, Differential Association Theory poses no obvious threats to the<br />
humane treatment <strong>of</strong> those identified as criminals."(Gaylord, 1988:1)<br />
1
The postulates <strong>of</strong> differential association asserts that a person becomes delinquent/deviant because<br />
<strong>of</strong> an "excess" <strong>of</strong> definitions favorable to violation <strong>of</strong> law over definitions unfavorable to violation <strong>of</strong> law<br />
which is stated in postulate #6 below. In other word, “… criminal behavior emerges when one is exposed to<br />
more social message favoring [negative] conduct than pro-social [conduct] (Sutherland, 1947). “Sutherland<br />
also argued that the concept <strong>of</strong> differential association and differential social organization could be applied<br />
to the individual level and to aggregation [or group] level respectively.<br />
The first explicit statement <strong>of</strong> the theory <strong>of</strong> differential association appeared in the 1939 edition <strong>of</strong><br />
Principles <strong>of</strong> Criminology and in the fourth edition <strong>of</strong> it, he presented his final theory. His theory has nine<br />
basic postulates (FSU, & Sutherland, 1974: 75-76).<br />
1. Criminal behavior is learned.<br />
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process <strong>of</strong> communication.<br />
(Includes both Verbal & Non-Verbal Communication)<br />
3. The principal part <strong>of</strong> the learning <strong>of</strong> criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.<br />
(Excludes movies, newspapers ETC, Maybe because those can be controlled)<br />
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques <strong>of</strong> committing the crime,<br />
which are sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction <strong>of</strong> motives, drives, rationalizations,<br />
and attitudes.<br />
5. The specific direction <strong>of</strong> the motives and drives is learned from definitions <strong>of</strong> the legal codes as<br />
favorable or unfavorable. (Problems among cultural differences are important)<br />
6. A person becomes delinquent because <strong>of</strong> an excess <strong>of</strong> definitions favorable to violation <strong>of</strong> law<br />
over definitions unfavorable to violation <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
This is the heart <strong>of</strong> differential association. When people become deviant, they do so not only because <strong>of</strong><br />
contacts with criminal patterns (direct and indirect) but also because <strong>of</strong> isolation from positive patterns.<br />
7. Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.<br />
a. Frequency is how <strong>of</strong>ten you interact with the other person<br />
b. Duration is how long you have known the other person<br />
c. Priority has to do with when in your life you have the relationship<br />
d. Intensity consists <strong>of</strong> (a) your emotional relationship with the other person and (b) that<br />
person’s prestige in your eyes<br />
8. The process <strong>of</strong> learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns<br />
involves all <strong>of</strong> the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.<br />
9. While criminal behavior is an expression <strong>of</strong> general needs and values, it is not explained by those<br />
general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression <strong>of</strong> the same needs and<br />
values.<br />
Criticisms<br />
While general in its nature, and due to the same, it has endured criticism and continued praise<br />
alike. Reasons for criticism vary. Some argued that criticism <strong>of</strong>ten resulted from misinterpretation <strong>of</strong><br />
Sutherland's theory. For example, just because you live in an area with high prepotencies <strong>of</strong> negative<br />
influences, doesn’t automatically make a person bad or deviant. However, others (FSU & Akers, 1996 &<br />
Whitt, 2009) would argue that this misinterprets Sutherland’s fourth postulates that states criminal behavior<br />
is learned through association … not simply through proximity contact.<br />
Still, there are two major weaknesses to the theory that are generally agreed upon. The first<br />
problem is that the concept/term <strong>of</strong> ‘definitions’ is not defined, nor is there initial guidance on how to<br />
operationalize the ratio or ‘excess <strong>of</strong> definitions’. The second real problem is that it left the learning process<br />
unspecified. Did learning have to follow a similar process, or could certain elements ‘test-out’ <strong>of</strong> certain<br />
levels to advance? Furthermore, (1) how could we predict where and when that learning would occur and<br />
(2) How should positive programming be paid for and where should it occur?<br />
2
According to other critiques differential association and social learning theory 1 rests on the<br />
assumption that socialization is completely successful and that cultural variability is unlimited among<br />
others (Akers: 1996:229).<br />
Differential association has been subject to a number <strong>of</strong> other criticisms (Sutherland, 1974: 82).<br />
1. Is defective because it omits consideration <strong>of</strong> free will<br />
2. Is based on a psychology assuming rational deliberation<br />
3. Ignores the role <strong>of</strong> the victim<br />
4. Does not explain the origin <strong>of</strong> crime<br />
5. Does not define terms such as "systematic" and "excess"<br />
6. Does not take "biological factors" into account<br />
7. Is <strong>of</strong> little or no value to "practical men"<br />
8. Is not comprehensive enough because it is not interdisciplinary<br />
9. Is not allied closely enough with more general sociological theory and research<br />
10. Is too comprehensive because it applies to noncriminals<br />
11. Assumes that all persons have equal access to criminal and anticriminal behavior patterns<br />
In sum, I believe other critics have correctly identified ‘measurement problems’ as the greatest hurdle<br />
to operationalizing Sutherland’s theory when Pfohl wrote, "The likelihood <strong>of</strong> deviant behavior could be<br />
determined by calculating the difference between favorable and unfavorable associations. Yet, as<br />
Sutherland recognized, the development <strong>of</strong> such a formula would be extremely difficult. Although the<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> associations is obviously influenced by such factors, the factors themselves are difficult to<br />
reliably measure in any standardized fashion." (Pfohl, 1994:303) He echoed (Matsueda, 1988: 296) when<br />
he wrote, “Perhaps the most fundamental research problem involves identifying the content <strong>of</strong> definitions<br />
favorable to crime”.<br />
My personal criticisms <strong>of</strong> the theory are fairly simple. They echo other known criticism but <strong>of</strong>fer more<br />
insight, given my background (i.e Urban <strong>Plan</strong>ner, and Geographic Information System Analyst - GIS).<br />
1. The theory is difficult because It has no defined beginning or end.<br />
2. The theory, I believe, assumes that all crimes impact “definition” and “operationalization”<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> the spatial location. For example, does check forgery in a business district directly<br />
impact a bully in grade school?<br />
3. It assumes all behavior (criminal) is relevant regardless <strong>of</strong> the classified outcome. For examples<br />
does a larceny from auto enable/teach a person to become a rapist?<br />
Modeling Differential Association<br />
It’s assumed that its hard to model Differential Association Theory. On the other hand, I question<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> ‘hard’ – because (1) NOT knowing what positives and negatives should be considered, (2)<br />
unknown definitions, (3) the vagueness (when communicating the inputs and outputs) for lay individuals is<br />
<strong>of</strong> concern and (4) not having a starting point from which to base an analysis LEADS to the FREEDOM to<br />
place context within each section <strong>of</strong> the theory. Therefore below is a simple model that I will use, via GIS,<br />
to operationalize this theory for further examination. See figure 1 below<br />
1 Not directly covered in this project<br />
3
Figure 1: Projects Proposed Operationalized Model and Process<br />
Model Description<br />
This project identified and recognized alike that into order to operationalize Sutherlands<br />
Differential Association Theory a starting and end point was needed to standardize a process <strong>of</strong> capturing a<br />
snapshot <strong>of</strong> an area within the context <strong>of</strong> available data sources. To begin, note that the entire model is self<br />
contained within its own process. This was done intentionally to provide broad interpretation/application to<br />
terms (defined and undefined) within the theory. Next, moving left to right, US Census Data was processed<br />
(both in numeric’s and format) in a Geographic Information System (GIS) 2 to produce a raster image which<br />
depicts the level <strong>of</strong> concentrated disadvantage. Using each raster cell’s individual value in conjunction with<br />
positive and negative externalities, which were modified through modalities and additional GIS processing<br />
thereby cell values depicting the likely hood <strong>of</strong> neighborhood distress and/or disorder are created.<br />
The four rose boxes on the right; voting efficacy, building and safety issues, health department<br />
issues and student achievement scores are variables that may be able to explain the validity <strong>of</strong> the model.<br />
However, and again, this project only completes an initial visual analysis.<br />
Concentrated Disadvantage<br />
Studies <strong>of</strong> crime and disorder have traditionally emphasized structural dimensions <strong>of</strong> an economic<br />
nature primarily concentrated on poverty and its concomitant lack <strong>of</strong> social resources (Sampson &<br />
Raudenbush, 1999 pg. 609). Areas <strong>of</strong> concentrated disadvantage are poor neighborhoods that concentrate<br />
not only low incomes, but also high unemployment, financial dependence and institutional disinvestment<br />
(Hager & Peterson, 1995). These areas <strong>of</strong> concentrated disadvantage find it difficult to support viable<br />
commercial enterprises, promote housing investment, locate employment opportunities, and have access to<br />
services and communal assets (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). However, structural constraints affecting<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> concentrated disadvantage are not just <strong>of</strong> an economic nature or <strong>of</strong> a limited material circumstance.<br />
An ecological human aspect is also <strong>of</strong> importance. This includes social networks, residential instability,<br />
public transportation nodes, population density and non-residential land use. Social networks examine the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> connections (e.g. friends, family) and how a person interacts with them. Residential instability is<br />
important because it may signal a lack <strong>of</strong> attachment to the general neighborhood and may point to low<br />
involvement.<br />
Because concentrated disadvantage is both physical and social in nature it lends it self to be a good<br />
starting point for a Differential Association Theory. Additionally, a concentrated disadvantaged scale can<br />
be interrupted in both positive and negative contexts (i.e. if an area has a value <strong>of</strong> five on a scale <strong>of</strong> one to<br />
ten, its worth is both positive and negative). Again, this duality lends its self nicely to the operationalizing<br />
<strong>of</strong> differential association.<br />
2 GIS, Geographic Information System. More on GIS is covered in later sections<br />
4
Positive Externalities<br />
Numerous externalities could be applied to demonstrate the ‘good’ that promotes different<br />
learning processes within groups. However, because this project focuses on the neighborhood context, I<br />
focused my efforts on defining/using common data source that many communities would have access to.<br />
Those data sources should reference at some level concepts such as social control/capital 3 and collective<br />
efficacy. Because, Sutherland’s theory doesn’t define ‘positive’ there is latitude to its application.<br />
However, this project believes that his theory works best within small aggregation groups and at the<br />
individual and parcel level.<br />
Social Control via Social Capital<br />
Social control is the desire to live “free <strong>of</strong> … disorder” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 pg. 611)<br />
which spurs the type <strong>of</strong> action/capacity a “social unit needs to regulate itself according to mutually desired<br />
goals” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 pg. 610). Social control via capital (a resource) is exerted in two<br />
forms. The first, formal control, takes the form <strong>of</strong> an externally induced action by formal community<br />
organizations such as the police department (police crackdowns), urban development (housing, code<br />
enforcement) and the health department (trash, weeds), schools (student achievement) and voting<br />
(individual efficacy) The second is localized informal control by informal community action such as<br />
individual efficacy (the willingness <strong>of</strong> residents to intervene, civic participation) and neighborhood efficacy<br />
(shared cohesion, shared expectations) which requires neighbors working to build the collective efficacy <strong>of</strong><br />
an area through effort, in an endeavor to limit negative behaviors, (e.g. street corner harassment, loitering,<br />
fighting) and enhance their willingness to initiate or achieve social control through the creation <strong>of</strong> relational<br />
connections between family, neighborhood members and public groups.<br />
Collective Efficacy<br />
A long line <strong>of</strong> urban research suggests that participation in social exchange, friend/kinship ties,<br />
and affective identification with the local area increases mutual trust and shared expectations for collective<br />
action in support <strong>of</strong> the neighborhood (Sampson, 1988). Thus, collective efficacy is comprised <strong>of</strong><br />
individual efficacy (e.g. willingness <strong>of</strong> residents to intervene in daily life, civic participation) and<br />
neighborhood efficacy (e.g. neighborhood social cohesion, shared expectations). Collective efficacy is the<br />
defining aggregate characteristic <strong>of</strong> informal control which is defined as the creation <strong>of</strong> “cohesion among<br />
residents with shared expectations for the social control <strong>of</strong> public spaces” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999<br />
pg. 603).<br />
Negative Externalities<br />
Past efforts have reported that the type <strong>of</strong> crime relevant to perceptions <strong>of</strong> neighborhood safety is<br />
predatory and neighborhood crime (e.g. robbery, assault, murder, rape, gangs, location <strong>of</strong> sex <strong>of</strong>fenders …<br />
etc). This kind <strong>of</strong> crime is interesting, because “[it] builds on the insight that it involves the intersection in<br />
time and space <strong>of</strong> motivated <strong>of</strong>fenders, suitable targets, and the absence <strong>of</strong> capable guardians [active<br />
citizens]” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999 pg.610). With respect to the issue at hand, differential<br />
association, it would make sense to assume if an area, or persons in an area knew (1) criminal activity was<br />
occurring , (2) people were getting away with it, (4) distress/disorder is evident and (5) it appears that<br />
neighbors aren’t involve that YES an indirect learning and teaching process is occurring 4 . It may not be as<br />
efficient as direct communication, but the physical state <strong>of</strong> a neighborhood along with criminal argot roles<br />
(i.e. story telling), still follows Sutherlands fourth and fifth postulates. Again, because Sutherland did not<br />
define ‘negative’ this project references others work and selects neighborhood crime as its measure,<br />
because crime information is point based, objective, documented and easy to manipulate.<br />
Neighborhood Value<br />
Reaching back, and seizing criticisms <strong>of</strong> Sutherlands theory this project recognizes that<br />
operationalization <strong>of</strong> differential association is tough. However, it also recognizes that when theory is<br />
placed into purpose, communication <strong>of</strong> concepts is achievable. Therefore this projects end product is a<br />
raster image with cells that have independent values derived from Sutherlands theory based on best effort<br />
3 Social resources<br />
4 These five ‘knowns’ echo Sampson and Raudenbush’s Broken Windows Theory<br />
5
definitions, data sources and processes. Finally, while the name implicitly implies worth, the intended use<br />
<strong>of</strong> ‘value’ in this context is for comparison between areas in an economic fashion.<br />
Communicating the Model<br />
With the model identified and described, how does one best communicate this knowledge so that<br />
stakeholders and the public may become engaged in positive dialog? The answer is to first find data to<br />
represent and illustrate the components <strong>of</strong> the model: neighborhood crime levels, levels <strong>of</strong> manifested<br />
deprivation, incidents <strong>of</strong> disorder and incidents <strong>of</strong> social efficacy. Second, by depicting the components <strong>of</strong><br />
the model in a geographic information system, i.e., mapping the: crime, disorder, concentrated<br />
disadvantage and social control <strong>of</strong> for city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. The selected information 5 must serve a<br />
dual purpose. The data must be more than a table <strong>of</strong> numbers; it must be information that can be manifested<br />
through geography to a physical location (point), area (shape) or path (line) in a geographic information<br />
system (GIS), and it must be readily available. With data <strong>of</strong> this nature a simplified form <strong>of</strong><br />
operationalization, analysis and communication <strong>of</strong> Sutherland’s theory is achieved.<br />
GIS and Neighborhood Values<br />
“The purpose <strong>of</strong> GIS, regardless <strong>of</strong> specific application, is ultimately to tell a story or relay a<br />
message about a place in time. Logical applications as well as unforeseen benefits <strong>of</strong> GIS are becoming<br />
popular topics <strong>of</strong> discussion ....” (Colwell, 2004 pg. 5) Numerous agencies have adopted GIS for improving<br />
methods <strong>of</strong> crime forecasting, trend analysis, information sharing, quality <strong>of</strong> life assessment, and decision<br />
making (Casady, 2003; Heywood et al., 1992).<br />
Graphically displayed data can persuade an audience to believe in a state <strong>of</strong> affairs that may or<br />
may not exist (Canter 1998). Due to the especially persuasive nature <strong>of</strong> GIS, the capability to rapidly<br />
generate maps and reports comes with the responsibility <strong>of</strong> understanding what is being generated and what<br />
purpose will be served by the resulting information (Piper, 2002). This section will address how GIS can be<br />
used in Differential Association Theory analysis. Included in this discussion will be some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
advancements GIS has contributed to in the spatial analysis <strong>of</strong> crime and social capital, resources and<br />
control.<br />
“One <strong>of</strong> the ways in which … analysts use GIS is to generate, analyze, and distribute … statistics<br />
[and maps] about neighborhood [order]” (Colwell, 2004 pg. 5). “The aim is to keep law [/code]<br />
enforcement personnel, public administrators, and citizens abreast <strong>of</strong> the state <strong>of</strong> the environment in which<br />
they work and reside” (Casady, 2003; <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Beaverton Oregon, 2003). From helping to maintain it, to<br />
initiating security, education or employment programs, to willingly committing neighborhood resources to<br />
ensure the health <strong>of</strong> it, active, engaged residents can become the neighborhood’s biggest assets and<br />
defenders.<br />
With the exception <strong>of</strong> Colwell (2004), and the participating cities involved with the<br />
National Neighborhood Indicator Partnership, previous research and projects done concerning<br />
neighborhood analysis is lacking in the ability to visually communicate a clear message. As stated before,<br />
many authors have only reported their findings in statistical terms, which can be hard for many lay<br />
politicians, residents and activists to fully comprehend. This study will shadow Colwell (2004), who had<br />
examined the macro quality <strong>of</strong> life for the city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> through the use <strong>of</strong> GIS in an attempt to spatially<br />
display Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory which may encourage local engagement and promote<br />
activism in local residents and politicians.<br />
GIS s<strong>of</strong>tware <strong>of</strong>fers a vast number <strong>of</strong> tools that promote the understanding <strong>of</strong> the spatial<br />
relationships that exist among data (Luc, Cohen, Cook, Gorr & Tita; 2000). Advancing applications in GIS<br />
have greatly encouraged the development <strong>of</strong> spatial algorithms for use in data analysis, many <strong>of</strong> which are<br />
applicable in neighborhood safety analysis. It is recognized that crime occurrence is not random. In fact,<br />
distribution <strong>of</strong> criminal activity, [disorder locations]/socially undesirable behavior is <strong>of</strong>ten found in<br />
spatially concentrated pools (Luc et al., 2000; Brantingham, 1986). As a result, the processes most<br />
applicable to this study include work done on point pattern, cluster and hotspot analysis. Point pattern<br />
analysis is largely concerned with identifying the randomness <strong>of</strong> point distribution across space. Data is<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten assessed by determining the presence <strong>of</strong> clusters or dispersion <strong>of</strong> points, in comparison to a random<br />
5 This information could be indicators or other benchmark data<br />
6
distribution <strong>of</strong> those points across the same surface (Luc et al., 2000; McLafferty et al. 2000). “Cluster<br />
analysis evolved into what is now commonly referred to as hotspot analysis. Hotspot analysis provides a<br />
means <strong>of</strong> interpreting large amounts <strong>of</strong> point data across a surface. Hotspots are commonly assessed in one<br />
<strong>of</strong> two ways. The first is to aggregate the information into boundaries such as neighborhoods, blocks or<br />
census tracts, <strong>of</strong>ten resulting in the production <strong>of</strong> tables, bar charts and choropleth maps.” (Colwell, 2004<br />
pg. 6) The second method <strong>of</strong> representation, which is the method that will be used in this project,<br />
diminishes the boundary issues associated with point aggregation. In this method, a grid-based surface is<br />
created to display the hotspots <strong>of</strong> crime over an uninterrupted surface. This type <strong>of</strong> hotspot analysis<br />
estimates the location and density <strong>of</strong> events with finer precision than aggregating point data [into a raster<br />
grid format] (McLafferty et al., 2000). “If used with caution, GIS may help uncover clues about why<br />
certain … trends and hotspots occur” (Colwell, 2004 pg. 7).<br />
Upon review, indicators (for concentrated disadvantage, negative and positive externalities) that<br />
were used in other studies and communities were narrowed into a list that could be applied within the city<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. Information used for the final indicator and benchmark selection is based on two<br />
criteria. First, that the data be readily available, and second that the information can be used in a GIS. A<br />
table listing each indicator, rank, priority and /or measurement or method can be found in appendix B.<br />
Concentrated Disadvantage<br />
Distress [leading to concentrated disadvantage] doesn’t just happen overnight; instead, it’s a<br />
process <strong>of</strong> community deterioration resulting from the impact that current levels <strong>of</strong> socio-economic<br />
indicators have on the social and physical form <strong>of</strong> a community. In general, a distressed area may exist<br />
where residents and associations that have the desire to reverse the downward trend are unable to because<br />
they lack the financial resources, expertise, coordination <strong>of</strong> efforts, time, and/or leadership skills necessary<br />
to significantly document needs and devise programs to address those needs which would ultimately<br />
improve their neighborhood safety and quality <strong>of</strong> life. (UNL COPC Grant, 1998) Therefore distress (Katz,<br />
2004) is a grouping <strong>of</strong> indicators (UNL COPC Grant, 1998; Berube, 2005), whose negative effects, can<br />
define an area as unfavorable.<br />
A common question is, ‘what are the indicators that I should use in my community?’ The simple<br />
answer is that there is no one best list. Instead, communities need to come together and decide what<br />
information will detail their community. They can then collect, manage, process and propagate compiled<br />
information to citizens, activists and politicians to aid in the development <strong>of</strong> a comprehensive community<br />
initiative. Therefore, after a review <strong>of</strong> relevant literature (Haque, 1998; Berube & Katz, 2005; Sawicki & Flynn,<br />
1996) the project selected eleven socio-economic indicators (see table one).<br />
Table 1:<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Distress Indicators, when geo-processed results in Concentrated Disadvantage Values<br />
Indicator Definition Data Source /<br />
Geo - level<br />
<br />
1 Population Population Block<br />
2 Poverty Individuals below poverty Block Group<br />
3 Single family Number <strong>of</strong> own children (18 and under) in single-parent Block<br />
homes<br />
families<br />
4 Disability Number <strong>of</strong> individuals (age 21 to 64) with a disability Block Group<br />
5 Housing cost Number <strong>of</strong> rental households paying at least 30% <strong>of</strong> their Block Group<br />
burdens income for rent<br />
6 Unemployment Number <strong>of</strong> adult (25-65) civilian labor force that is<br />
unemployed<br />
Block Group<br />
7 Minority Population that is a minority Block<br />
8 Education Number <strong>of</strong> persons (25+) with less than a 12 grade education Block Group<br />
9 Vacant Housing Number <strong>of</strong> vacant housing units Block<br />
10 Housing built<br />
before 1939<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> housing units built before 1939 Block Group<br />
11 Mortgages Number <strong>of</strong> housing units with a mortgage Block Group<br />
7
To determine where troubled areas exist in <strong>Lincoln</strong> this project created an index <strong>of</strong> concentrated<br />
disadvantage with census data from the smallest possible geography 6 . It then joined data with the<br />
corresponding geography polygons in a GIS. This index will measure distress on a 1-10 scale (one being no<br />
distress and one being the most distressed). To form a ranking this study normalized each indicator with its<br />
census geography’s area (acres). The normalized values were divided by the largest value per factor to<br />
create an impact scale from 0-1. Next, each indicator was converted to a raster. Through the use <strong>of</strong> a raster<br />
calculator, common in most GIS, impact values <strong>of</strong> each indicator were summed together and reclassified<br />
into values from 1 to 10. Finally, this raster was divided into ten equal interval classes thereby displaying<br />
the location <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s distressed areas in an easily understood and communicable format.<br />
Image 1: Areas <strong>of</strong> Concentrated Disadvantage<br />
STATE SPUR 55-M<br />
NW 105TH ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
NW 84TH ST<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
W PIONEERS BLVD<br />
STATE SPUR 55-A<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
NW 70TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
W A ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W VINE ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
W O ST<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
Negative/Positive Externalities and Modality Modification<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
N 10TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
L ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
The externalities used within this study conform to the purpose from which this project began.<br />
That being, how does Differential Association Theory relate to neighborhood development and deviant<br />
behavior? Due to the lack <strong>of</strong> definitions, this project chooses to use those incidents that the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Police<br />
Department chief <strong>of</strong> police selected as crimes that impact neighborhood development as negative indicators<br />
(See table two below). Positive factors that have been used in a past conference presentations (Nam &<br />
Elder, 2008) 7 will serve as the positive indicators. (See table three below.)<br />
6 The census has different aggregation levels. Check www.census.gov to learn more that them<br />
7 Conference presentation August 2008, Chicago Il<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
8<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
A ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
O ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
<strong>City</strong> Limits<br />
Major Streets<br />
Streets<br />
Streams<br />
Solution CD (11)<br />
<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10
Table 2: Negative Externalities: Neighborhood Crime Types<br />
Impact Call Type Count<br />
9<br />
Impact<br />
Distance<br />
Buffer<br />
Distance<br />
10 ASLT GUN Assault - Gun 65 4 1,200<br />
10 ASLT KNIFE Assault - Knife 179 5 1,500<br />
8 ASLT ODW Assault - Other dang Weapon 597 3 900<br />
7 * NO WEAP Assault - Weapon 3,357 5 1,500<br />
7 BURG RD FE Residential Dwelling - Forced Entry 170 5 1,500<br />
7 BURG RN FE * Forced Entry 153 5 1,500<br />
7 BURG RU FE Residential Unit - Forced Entry 499 5 1,500<br />
7 SELL NARCO Narcotics - Sell 86 7 2,100<br />
6 ASLT PO/KNIF Assault - Pulled - Knife 4 6 1,800<br />
6 ASLT PO/ODW Assault - Pulled Other dang weapon 8 6 1,800<br />
6 LFA $1-49 Larceny from Auto 347 1 300<br />
6 LFA $200 + Larceny from Auto 606 1 300<br />
6 LFA $50-199 Larceny from Auto 401 1 300<br />
5 BURG RD NFE Residential Dwelling - NonForced Ent 92 3 900<br />
5 BURG RN NFE * Non Forced Entry 128 5 1,500<br />
5 BURG RU NFE Residential Unit - Non Forced Entry 306 3 900<br />
4 DISTURBANCE Disturbance 2,163 2 600<br />
4 LAA $1-49 Larceny Auto Access 339 2 600<br />
4 LAA $200 + Larceny Auto Access 544 2 600<br />
4 LAA $50-199 Larceny Auto Access 451 2 600<br />
4 LFA ATTEMPT Larceny from Auto - Attempted 260 1 300<br />
3 BURG RD ATT Residential Dwelling - Attempt 35 5 1,500<br />
3 BURG RN ATT Residential Unit <strong>of</strong> some sort 31 5 1,500<br />
3 BURG RU ATT Residential Unit - Attempt 100 5 1,500<br />
3 NARCO-OTH Narcotics - Other 59 3 900<br />
2 LAA ATTEMPT Larceny Auto Access - Attempted 54 2 600<br />
2 POSS NARCO Narcotics - Possession 1,667 1 300<br />
1 ASLT PO/N WP Assault - Pulled Non Dang Weapon 36 6 1,800<br />
Table 3: Positive Externalities: Neighborhood Social Resources<br />
Intensity Type Count Impact Distance Buffer Distance<br />
10 Great Neighborhood Graduates 86 2 600<br />
7 Neighborhood Coordinator 1,005 5 1,500<br />
7 Neighborhood Association Presidents 47 10 3,000<br />
6 Neighborhood Watch Members 13,778 2 600<br />
4 Election Poll Worker 1,074 1 300<br />
3 Community Facilities 22 8 2,400<br />
Furthermore this study, through the use <strong>of</strong> GIS processing, recognizes that not all crime and social<br />
capital (a resource) are equal. Because Sutherland was vague the project sought creditable advice from<br />
select personal in the city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Urban Development department, Neighbor Works (Part <strong>of</strong><br />
NeighborWorks America) and various community activists about how those crimes should be interrupted<br />
and operationalized. In general, an initial list with reasonable ranking was developed and modified with<br />
each contacts input. Also, <strong>of</strong> 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<br />
safety. Each rater/contact had the right to comment on each variable by proposing a priority (1-10 – low to<br />
high) rank in comparison to the others & effect on neighborhood development. Furthermore, they were<br />
each asked to specify an impact distance that each crime or social resource would have 9 . This project asked<br />
each reviewer if ‘x’ happened - how far away from it would you need to be to not feel impacted by it.<br />
Disturbances (i.e. family feuds, parties or public quarrels etc) depending on the intensity could create a<br />
huge impact or reversely almost none. Neighborhood watch members, depending on the concentration<br />
(house address) will impact an area differently. In the end the priority ranks and impact areas are subjective<br />
but a decent starting location.<br />
The Process for both Externalities<br />
1. The GIS system created an area for each point from the duration/distance value. This is [Value A]<br />
2. All the point values within this area are aggregated according to its impact.<br />
This results in [Value B] 10<br />
3. Next a raster version <strong>of</strong> the frequency (counts <strong>of</strong> crime per census block) is added to [Value B] …<br />
thereby creating [Value C] 11<br />
4. [Value C] is multiple by the value from a resampled density map 12 creating [Value D]<br />
5. [Value E] 13 is multiplied by the Concentrated Disadvantage 14 value, and reclassified creating<br />
[Value F]<br />
Final results were raster images, with values assigned, via GIS processing, to 500*500 foot cells.<br />
Neighborhood Values<br />
Negative externalities were subtracted from positive externalities. This output was not reclassified. Each<br />
cell value, within the concept <strong>of</strong> Differential Association Theory, represents the likely hood <strong>of</strong> persons to<br />
directly or indirectly learn about deviant behavior and social norms. The results vary from negative nine to<br />
positive nine (i.e. poor to great). Additionally, these values can be used as a rough indicator value for<br />
neighborhood classification and resource targeting.<br />
Results and Analysis/Discussion<br />
A quick visual analysis shows that those areas with the greatest negative values are within the core<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> which surrounds its downtown business district and the University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska’s <strong>City</strong> Campus<br />
(See image two). On the other end <strong>of</strong> the scale are areas <strong>of</strong> high positive values. These areas <strong>of</strong> high values<br />
are not widespread instead they are clustered primarily around large scale retirement developments. Those<br />
areas that are positive (greater than zero) dominate a majority <strong>of</strong> the city’s space … however this ‘pretty’<br />
image is slightly unclear. It is unclear because an observer would not be able to determine the statistical or<br />
practical significance <strong>of</strong> the information/map. Questions such as what’s the mean, what’s standard<br />
deviation or where should we place limited resources have no clear answers.<br />
8<br />
39,649 Crime data points were pulled for the year 2007, <strong>of</strong> those 12,737 were selected as neighborhood crime types.<br />
16,012 Social resource points were used in this project<br />
9<br />
Also, keep in mind that no text analysis <strong>of</strong> police reports was used prioritize ranks.<br />
10<br />
This data will be converted to a raster with cell sizes roughly equal to the size <strong>of</strong> city blocks and resample into 10<br />
equal segments<br />
11<br />
Again this data set is resampled into 10 equal segments<br />
12<br />
Kernel density, 1500 foot search radius – Impact values did not weight the output<br />
13<br />
Again this data set is resampled into 10 equal segments<br />
14<br />
Depending on the externality the concentrated disadvantage value was reciprocated.<br />
10
Image 2: Operationalized Differential Association Theory<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W A ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W VINE ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W O ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
SUN VALLEY BLVD<br />
A ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
L ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
O ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
Therefore, the raster data needs to be symbolized according to a standard deviation analysis. For<br />
some contextual background remember that each analysis cell is 500*500 feet. A breakdown <strong>of</strong> cell counts<br />
by value is found in appendix B, table 4. Image three shows the breakdown <strong>of</strong> the cell vales using one<br />
standard deviation. For clarity image four displays the data breaks (7), mean (3), standard deviation (2) and<br />
other information.<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
11<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
VALUE<br />
<strong>City</strong> Limits<br />
Major Streets<br />
Streets<br />
Streams<br />
-9<br />
-8<br />
-7<br />
-6<br />
-5<br />
-4<br />
-3<br />
-2<br />
-1<br />
0<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9
Image 3: Statistical Operationalized Differential Association Theory: Standard Deviation<br />
NW 84TH ST<br />
NW 84TH ST<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 34<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
W PIONEERS BLVD<br />
W OLD CHENEY RD<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W A ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
INTERSTATE 80 W O ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
Image 4: Basic Statistical Breakdown<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
SUN VALLEY BLVD<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
A ST<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
L ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 33RD ST N 33RD ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
12<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
O ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
-9 to -2<br />
-1 to 0<br />
1 to 2<br />
3 to 4<br />
5 to 6<br />
7 to 7<br />
8 to 9
Image three is interesting because it heavily mirrors the initial concentrated disadvantage datasets.<br />
Perhaps this isn’t an error, but instead a reaffirmation <strong>of</strong> what is commonly assumed about personal priority<br />
according to Maslow’s Hierarchy <strong>of</strong> need. In general, Maslow's hierarchy <strong>of</strong> needs is predetermined in<br />
order <strong>of</strong> importance. It is <strong>of</strong>ten depicted as a pyramid consisting <strong>of</strong> five levels: the lowest level is associated<br />
with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly<br />
those related to identity and purpose. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the<br />
lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the<br />
lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set <strong>of</strong> needs is no longer being met, the individual will<br />
temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not<br />
permanently regress to the lower level (Shane Hudson , 2009). The areas below the standard deviation, and<br />
signified as such, contain many working poor, and those whose priorities are not neighborhood first.<br />
Instead, work, income and family dominate their resources. Its easy to see how those areas are symbolized<br />
the way that they are.<br />
The real test comes down to application and how ‘true/significant’ these values are to other<br />
variables such as voting efficacy, building and safety issues, health department issues and student<br />
achievement score … all <strong>of</strong> which were depicted in the projects proposed operationalized theory and<br />
process figure (figure 1). Unfortunately that is outside <strong>of</strong> this project, but would be very interesting if those<br />
data sets were assembled. Still, the validity <strong>of</strong> this project and the general context <strong>of</strong> differential<br />
association’s impact on neighborhood development is clear; Through the use <strong>of</strong> a broad theory, community<br />
specific indicators can be identified, gather, processed and communicated in a visual form that aids<br />
comprehension, rational policy development and defensible, efficient, equatible resource/program<br />
distribution.<br />
In conclusion this project examined how Differential Association Theory could be operationalized<br />
and applied within the context <strong>of</strong> neighborhood development and redevelopment. It succeeds in its purpose.<br />
However, policy and quality data driven processes are only as strong as the political leadership to place and<br />
commit dedicated resources to (1) identified areas or (2) areas where problems can be encapsulated.<br />
Communities are dynamic structures that require intentional support and focused intent from not only the<br />
community’s political processes, but from its citizens as well. I hope that the former will be able to use this<br />
project as a guide for leading the ladder through budget and policy/program creation and implementation.<br />
References:<br />
Berube, A., Katz, B. (2005). Katrina. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from Brookings Institute Web site:<br />
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2005/10poverty_berube.aspx<br />
Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1986). Perceived and Actual Crime. Metropolitan Crime<br />
Patterns. 139-159.<br />
Casady, T. (2003). <strong>Lincoln</strong> Police Department. GIS in Law Enforcement: Implementation issues<br />
and case studies,<br />
Canter, P. (1998). Geographic Information Systems and Crime Analysis. Crime Mapping & Crime<br />
Prevention. 157-190.<br />
Sawicki, D., & Flynn, P. (1996). Neighborhood Indicators: A Review <strong>of</strong> the literature and an Assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Journal <strong>of</strong> the the American <strong>Plan</strong>ning Association. 62, 165-183.<br />
Definition <strong>of</strong> Crime. (1988). In The Electronic Encyclopedia (1st ed., Unknown: Vol. Unknown).<br />
Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc.<br />
FSU, Initials. (n.d.). Edward H. Sutherland. Retrieved from<br />
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/sutherland.html<br />
Haque, A (1998).Use <strong>of</strong> Geographical Information Systems in Mapping Distressed Areas <strong>of</strong> Cities. Journal<br />
<strong>of</strong> Urban Technology. 5, 47-59.<br />
13
Katz, B. (2004). There Goes the Neighborhood. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from Brookings Institute Web<br />
site: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0714metropolitanpolicy_katz.aspx<br />
Kretzman, J., McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward<br />
finding and mobilizing a communities assets. Chicago IL: ACTA Publications.<br />
Luc, A., Cohen, J., Cook, D., Gorr, D., & Tita, G. (2000). Measurement and Analysis <strong>of</strong> Crime<br />
and Justice. Criminal Justice. 4, 213-262.<br />
McLafferty, S., Williamson, D., McGuire. (2000). Identifying Crime<br />
Hot Spots Using Kernel Smoothing. Analyzing Crime Patterns: Frontiers <strong>of</strong><br />
Practice, 77-85.<br />
Piper, K. (2002). Cartographic Fictions: Maps, Race, and Identity. New Brunswik: Rutgers<br />
University Press.<br />
Ronald L. Akers. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology.<br />
Ross L. Matsueda. (1988). The current state <strong>of</strong> Differential Association Theory. Crime and<br />
Delinquency(July 1988). Sage Publication<br />
Shane Hudson , SH. (2009, Febuary 19). Maslow’s hierarchy <strong>of</strong> needs. Retrieved from<br />
http://www.successcircuit.com/knowledge/maslows-hierarchy-<strong>of</strong>-needs/<br />
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study <strong>of</strong><br />
collective efficacy. Science. 277, 918.<br />
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic Social Observation <strong>of</strong> Public Spaces: A New<br />
Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Sociology. 105, 603-651.<br />
Stephen Pfohl. (1994). Images <strong>of</strong> deviance and social control. McGraw-Hill, Inc.<br />
Sutherland. (1974). Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company<br />
UNL COPC Grant, 1998<br />
14
Appendix A: Figures<br />
Figure 1:<br />
Projects Proposed Operationalized Model and Process<br />
15
Appendix B: Tables<br />
Table 1:<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Distress Indicators, when geo-processed results in Concentrated Disadvantage Values<br />
Indicator Definition Data Source<br />
<br />
1 Population Population Block<br />
2 Poverty Individuals below poverty Block Group<br />
3 Single family Number <strong>of</strong> own children (18 and under) in single-parent Block<br />
homes<br />
families<br />
4 Disability Number <strong>of</strong> individuals (age 21 to 64) with a disability Block Group<br />
5 Housing cost Number <strong>of</strong> rental households paying at least 30% <strong>of</strong> their Block Group<br />
burdens income for rent<br />
6 Unemployment Number <strong>of</strong> adult (25-65) civilian labor force that is<br />
unemployed<br />
Block Group<br />
7 Minority Population that is a minority Block<br />
8 Education Number <strong>of</strong> persons (25+) with less than a 12 grade education Block Group<br />
9 Vacant Housing Number <strong>of</strong> vacant housing units Block<br />
10 Housing built<br />
before 1939<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> housing units built before 1939 Block Group<br />
11 Mortgages Number <strong>of</strong> housing units with a mortgage Block Group<br />
Table 2:<br />
Negative Externalities: Neighborhood Crime Types<br />
Impact Call Type Count<br />
16<br />
Impact<br />
Distance<br />
Buffer<br />
Distance<br />
10 ASLT GUN Assault - Gun 65 4 1,200<br />
10 ASLT KNIFE Assault - Knife 179 5 1,500<br />
8 ASLT ODW Assault - Other dang Weapon 597 3 900<br />
7 * NO WEAP Assault - Weapon 3,357 5 1,500<br />
7 BURG RD FE Residential Dwelling - Forced Entry 170 5 1,500<br />
7 BURG RN FE * Forced Entry 153 5 1,500<br />
7 BURG RU FE Residential Unit - Forced Entry 499 5 1,500<br />
7 SELL NARCO Narcotics - Sell 86 7 2,100<br />
6 ASLT PO/KNIF Assault - Pulled - Knife 4 6 1,800<br />
6 ASLT PO/ODW Assault - Pulled Other dang weapon 8 6 1,800<br />
6 LFA $1-49 Larceny from Auto 347 1 300<br />
6 LFA $200 + Larceny from Auto 606 1 300<br />
6 LFA $50-199 Larceny from Auto 401 1 300<br />
5 BURG RD NFE Residential Dwelling - NonForced Ent 92 3 900<br />
5 BURG RN NFE * Non Forced Entry 128 5 1,500<br />
5 BURG RU NFE Residential Unit - Non Forced Entry 306 3 900<br />
4 DISTURBANCE Disturbance 2,163 2 600<br />
4 LAA $1-49 Larceny Auto Access 339 2 600<br />
4 LAA $200 + Larceny Auto Access 544 2 600<br />
4 LAA $50-199 Larceny Auto Access 451 2 600<br />
4 LFA ATTEMPT Larceny from Auto - Attempted 260 1 300<br />
3 BURG RD ATT Residential Dwelling - Attempt 35 5 1,500<br />
3 BURG RN ATT Residential Unit <strong>of</strong> some sort 31 5 1,500
3 BURG RU ATT Residential Unit - Attempt 100 5 1,500<br />
3 NARCO-OTH Narcotics - Other 59 3 900<br />
2 LAA ATTEMPT Larceny Auto Access - Attempted 54 2 600<br />
2 POSS NARCO Narcotics - Possession 1,667 1 300<br />
1 ASLT PO/N WP Assault - Pulled Non Dang Weapon 36 6 1,800<br />
Table 3:<br />
Positive Externalities: Neighborhood Social Resources<br />
Intensity Type Count Impact Distance Buffer Distance<br />
10 Great Neighborhood Graduates 86 2 600<br />
7 Neighborhood Coordinator 1,005 5 1,500<br />
7 Neighborhood Association Presidents 47 10 3,000<br />
6 Neighborhood Watch Members 13,778 2 600<br />
4 Election Poll Worker 1,074 1 300<br />
3 Community Facilities 22 8 2,400<br />
Table 4:<br />
Raster Cell Break down<br />
Value Count SqFt Acres<br />
-9 6 1,500,000 34.44<br />
-8 2 500,000 11.48<br />
-7 12 3,000,000 68.87<br />
-6 19 4,750,000 109.04<br />
-5 14 3,500,000 80.35<br />
-4 26 6,500,000 149.22<br />
-3 44 11,000,000 252.53<br />
-2 64 16,000,000 367.31<br />
-1 159 39,750,000 912.53<br />
0 244 61,000,000 1,400.37<br />
1 386 96,500,000 2,215.34<br />
2 824 206,000,000 4,729.11<br />
3 1686 421,500,000 9,676.31<br />
4 2680 670,000,000 15,381.08<br />
5 144 36,000,000 826.45<br />
6 37 9,250,000 212.35<br />
7 9 2,250,000 51.65<br />
8 7 1,750,000 40.17<br />
9 3 750,000 17.22<br />
17
Appendix C: Images<br />
Image 1: Areas <strong>of</strong> Concentrated Disadvantage<br />
STATE SPUR 55-M<br />
NW 105TH ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
NW 84TH ST<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
W PIONEERS BLVD<br />
STATE SPUR 55-A<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
NW 70TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W A ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W VINE ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
W O ST<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
N 10TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
L ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
18<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
A ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
O ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
<strong>City</strong> Limits<br />
Major Streets<br />
Streets<br />
Streams<br />
Solution CD (11)<br />
<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10
Image 2:<br />
Operationalized Differential Association Theory<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W A ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W VINE ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W O ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
SUN VALLEY BLVD<br />
A ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
L ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
O ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
19<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
VALUE<br />
<strong>City</strong> Limits<br />
Major Streets<br />
Streets<br />
Streams<br />
-9<br />
-8<br />
-7<br />
-6<br />
-5<br />
-4<br />
-3<br />
-2<br />
-1<br />
0<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9
Image 3:<br />
Statistical Operationalized Differential Association Theory: Standard Deviation<br />
NW 84TH ST<br />
NW 84TH ST<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
SW 84TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 34<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
W PIONEERS BLVD<br />
W OLD CHENEY RD<br />
SW 70TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W A ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
INTERSTATE 80 W O ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
SUN VALLEY BLVD<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
A ST<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
L ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 33RD ST N 33RD ST<br />
20<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
CORNHUSKER HWY<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
O ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
-9 to -2<br />
-1 to 0<br />
1 to 2<br />
3 to 4<br />
5 to 6<br />
7 to 7<br />
8 to 9
Image 4:<br />
Basic Statistical Breakdown<br />
21
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
ASU NRSA Map
NW 56TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 34<br />
W SUPERIOR ST<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
W PIONEERS BLVD<br />
W OLD CHENEY RD<br />
W YANKEE HILL RD<br />
SW 58TH ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W WAVERLY RD<br />
W MCKELVIE RD<br />
NW 54TH ST<br />
PINE KNOT DR<br />
W A ST<br />
NW 40TH ST<br />
NW 41ST ST<br />
NW 38TH ST<br />
NW 36TH ST<br />
NW 40TH ST<br />
W F ST<br />
SW 47TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W BUCKS DR<br />
SW 40TH ST<br />
W BLUFF RD<br />
NW 31ST ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
SW 36TH ST<br />
SW 33RD ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
W WAVERLY RD<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W CLAIRE AV<br />
W BURGESS LA<br />
W BENNET RD<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
SW 12TH ST<br />
NW 12TH ST<br />
W ALVO RD<br />
NORTH PARK RD<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
AVIATION RD<br />
W LAKESHORE DR<br />
W S ST<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W CORNHU SKER HWY<br />
W O ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W A ST<br />
HOMESTE AD EXPY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
SW 14TH ST<br />
W BLUFF RD<br />
W BURT DR<br />
PIER 2<br />
W P ST<br />
W O ST<br />
N 1ST ST<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W B ST<br />
SW 2ND ST<br />
S 1ST ST<br />
BLUFF RD<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
ADAMS ST ADAMS ST<br />
SUN VALLEY BLVD<br />
A ST<br />
O ST<br />
N 9TH ST<br />
N 11TH ST<br />
S 9TH ST<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
N 10TH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
VAN D ORN ST<br />
S 6TH ST<br />
N 7TH ST<br />
PION EERS B L VD<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
N 14TH ST<br />
MORTON ST<br />
J ST<br />
C ST<br />
S 9TH ST<br />
HILLTOP RD<br />
S 14TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
MANATT ST<br />
HILL ST<br />
Q ST<br />
P ST<br />
L ST<br />
G ST<br />
S 16TH ST<br />
KNOX ST<br />
K ST<br />
Y ST<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
CAPITOL PKWY<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
S 25TH ST<br />
U ST<br />
S 22ND ST<br />
TIPPERARY TRL<br />
RIDGE RD<br />
VAVRINA LA<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
NORMAL BL VD<br />
SHERIDA N BLV D<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
WAVERLY RD<br />
N 40TH ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
CO RNHUSKER HWY<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
T ST<br />
D ST<br />
LOVELAND DR<br />
S 29TH ST<br />
S 32ND ST<br />
S 38TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
S 40TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
Y ST<br />
X ST<br />
RANDOLPH ST<br />
B ST<br />
M ST<br />
S 44TH ST<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
ARBOR RD<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
JUDSON ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
CORN HUSKER HWY<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
S 54TH ST<br />
R ST<br />
PRESCOTT AV<br />
LA SALLE ST<br />
WILDBRIAR LA<br />
JACS LA S 46TH ST<br />
SW 13TH ST<br />
ASTER RD<br />
W JENNIFER DR<br />
NANCE AV<br />
ASU and NRSA Comparison<br />
ASU_2009 <strong>City</strong> Limits<br />
3<br />
nrsa2006<br />
Selected Major Streets<br />
SW 24TH ST<br />
SW 18TH ST<br />
Miles<br />
Streets - Major<br />
Streets<br />
LMI2000_Polygon<br />
N 1ST ST<br />
S 1ST ST<br />
S 1ST ST<br />
MCKELVIE RD<br />
S 5TH ST<br />
ALVO RD<br />
N 15TH ST<br />
FLETCHER AV<br />
S 7TH ST<br />
X ST<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
ELBA AV<br />
W ST<br />
M ST<br />
B ST<br />
S 15TH ST<br />
S 15TH ST<br />
S 17TH ST<br />
S 19TH ST<br />
LAKE ST<br />
GARRET LA<br />
N 19TH ST<br />
N 23RD ST<br />
ACCESS ROAD<br />
DODGE ST<br />
M ST<br />
R ST<br />
MERRILL ST<br />
KEYSTONE DR<br />
L ST<br />
F ST<br />
CABLE AV<br />
HIGH ST<br />
N 32ND ST<br />
S 34TH ST<br />
BLUFF RD<br />
FLETCHER AV<br />
FAIR ST<br />
J ST<br />
CROMWELL DR<br />
N 51ST ST<br />
N ST<br />
L ST<br />
HIGH ST<br />
HILLSIDE ST<br />
N 61ST ST<br />
ELDON DR<br />
BRIDLE LA<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
REBEL DR<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
MCCORMICK DR<br />
SEWARD AV<br />
FULTON AV<br />
FRANCIS ST<br />
X ST<br />
P ST<br />
M ST<br />
ELKCREST DR<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 66TH ST<br />
SUMNER ST<br />
HIGH ST<br />
S 59TH ST<br />
S 67TH ST<br />
N 68TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
GARLAND ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
VINE ST<br />
S OUTH ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
S 66TH ST<br />
KESS DR<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
DEERHAVEN DR<br />
SOUTHDALE RD<br />
S 68TH ST<br />
MCKELVIE RD<br />
N COTNER BLVD<br />
LOGAN AV<br />
L ST<br />
N 74TH ST<br />
W RIO RD<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
S 76TH ST<br />
BENNET RD<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
S 75TH ST<br />
N 79TH ST<br />
S 82ND ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
FLETCHER AV<br />
LEIGHTON AV<br />
E AVON LA<br />
GLYNOAKS DR<br />
S 80TH ST<br />
N 85TH ST<br />
PINEDALE AV<br />
S 78TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
S 86TH ST<br />
WAVERLY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
N 98TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
AVON LA<br />
ANTHONY LA<br />
S 98TH ST<br />
O ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
S 91ST ST<br />
S 93RD ST<br />
S 96TH ST<br />
N 98TH ST<br />
N 100TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
BREAGAN RD<br />
S 98TH ST<br />
Created/Compiled by:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>: UDD<br />
S 105TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
S 110TH ST<br />
ALVO RD<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 114TH ST<br />
DIXIE TRL<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 120TH ST<br />
S 120TH ST<br />
[
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Response Distribution Map
NW 56TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 34<br />
W SUPERIOR ST<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W HOLDREGE ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
W PIONEERS BLVD<br />
W OLD CHENEY RD<br />
W YANKEE HILL RD<br />
SW 58TH ST<br />
NW 56TH ST<br />
SW 56TH ST<br />
NW 48TH ST<br />
W WAVERLY RD<br />
W MCKELVIE RD<br />
NW 54TH ST<br />
PINE KNOT DR<br />
W A ST<br />
NW 40TH ST<br />
NW 41ST ST<br />
NW 38TH ST<br />
NW 36TH ST<br />
NW 40TH ST<br />
W F ST<br />
SW 47TH ST<br />
W O ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W BUCKS DR<br />
SW 40TH ST<br />
W BLUFF RD<br />
NW 31ST ST<br />
W VINE ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
SW 36TH ST<br />
SW 33RD ST<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
W WAVERLY RD<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
NW 27TH ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
!(<br />
W O ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
W VAN DORN ST<br />
W CLAIRE AV<br />
W BURGESS LA<br />
W BENNET RD<br />
SW 27TH ST<br />
NORTH PARK RD<br />
W ADAMS ST<br />
SW 24TH ST<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
S CODDINGTON AV<br />
W DENTON RD<br />
SW 12TH ST<br />
NW 12TH ST<br />
W ALVO RD<br />
AVIATION RD<br />
W LAKESHORE DR<br />
W S ST<br />
!(<br />
PURPLE HEART HWY<br />
W CORNHU SKER HWY<br />
W O ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W A ST<br />
HOMESTE AD EXPY<br />
W CALVERT ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
S FOLSOM ST<br />
W ROKEBY RD<br />
W SALTILLO RD<br />
SW 14TH ST<br />
W BLUFF RD<br />
W BURT DR<br />
PIER 2<br />
W P ST<br />
W O ST<br />
N 1ST ST<br />
ROSA PARKS WAY<br />
W B ST<br />
W SOUTH ST<br />
SW 2ND ST<br />
S 1ST ST<br />
BLUFF RD<br />
INTERSTATE 180<br />
SUN VALLEY BLVD<br />
N 9TH ST<br />
N 11TH ST<br />
S 9TH ST<br />
!(<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
N 10TH ST<br />
S 10TH ST<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
ADAMS ST ADAMS ST<br />
A ST<br />
O ST<br />
VAN D ORN ST<br />
S 6TH ST<br />
N 7TH ST<br />
PION EERS B L VD<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
N 14TH ST<br />
MORTON ST<br />
J ST<br />
C ST<br />
S 9TH ST<br />
HILLTOP RD<br />
S 14TH ST<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
MANATT ST<br />
HILL ST<br />
!( !(<br />
L ST<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
Q ST<br />
P ST<br />
G ST<br />
S 16TH ST<br />
KNOX ST<br />
K ST<br />
Y ST<br />
!(<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
!(<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
N 27TH ST<br />
CAPITOL PKWY<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
!(!(<br />
T ST!(<br />
M ST<br />
N ST !(<br />
L ST !(<br />
!( !( !( !(<br />
!(<br />
!( !( RANDOLPH ST<br />
!( !(<br />
!(<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
S 25TH ST<br />
U ST<br />
S 22ND ST<br />
TIPPERARY TRL<br />
RIDGE RD<br />
VAVRINA LA<br />
S 27TH ST<br />
!(<br />
SUPERIOR ST<br />
NORMAL BL VD<br />
SHERIDA N BLV D<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
N 33RD ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
S 33RD ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
CALVERT ST<br />
!(<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
WAVERLY RD<br />
N 40TH ST<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
LA SALLE ST<br />
!(<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
CO RNHUSKER HWY<br />
HOLDREGE ST<br />
D ST<br />
LOVELAND DR<br />
S 29TH ST<br />
S 32ND ST<br />
S 38TH ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
S 40TH ST<br />
N 48TH ST<br />
Y ST<br />
X ST<br />
B ST<br />
S 44TH ST<br />
WILDBRIAR LA<br />
JACS LA S 46TH ST<br />
SW 18TH ST<br />
SW 13TH ST<br />
ASTER RD<br />
W JENNIFER DR<br />
N 1ST ST<br />
NANCE AV<br />
S 1ST ST<br />
S 1ST ST<br />
MCKELVIE RD<br />
S 5TH ST<br />
ALVO RD<br />
N 15TH ST<br />
FLETCHER AV<br />
S 7TH ST<br />
ELBA AV<br />
W ST<br />
M ST<br />
S 15TH ST<br />
S 17TH ST<br />
S 19TH ST<br />
LAKE ST<br />
GARRET LA<br />
N 19TH ST<br />
N 23RD ST<br />
ACCESS ROAD<br />
DODGE ST<br />
R ST<br />
MERRILL ST<br />
F ST<br />
CABLE AV<br />
HIGH ST<br />
KEYSTONE DR<br />
N 32ND ST<br />
S 34TH ST<br />
BLUFF RD<br />
FLETCHER AV<br />
FAIR ST<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
S 48TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
ARBOR RD<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
JUDSON ST<br />
N 51ST ST<br />
HIGH ST<br />
HILLSIDE ST<br />
!(<br />
N 56TH ST<br />
!(<br />
!(<br />
!( !(<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
!(<br />
VINE ST<br />
S 56TH ST<br />
INTERSTATE 80<br />
CORN HUSKER HWY<br />
SOUTH ST<br />
!(<br />
NORMAL BLVD<br />
S 54TH ST<br />
R ST<br />
PRESCOTT AV<br />
Survey - Self Identified Respondent Distribution<br />
!( Respondent Cross Street <strong>City</strong> Limits<br />
3<br />
nrsa2006<br />
Selected Major Streets<br />
Miles<br />
Streets - Major<br />
Streets<br />
X ST<br />
LMI2000_Polygon<br />
HOMESTEAD EXPY<br />
B ST<br />
S 15TH ST<br />
M ST<br />
J ST<br />
CROMWELL DR<br />
L ST<br />
N 61ST ST<br />
ELDON DR<br />
BRIDLE LA<br />
!(<br />
SALTILLO RD<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
!(<br />
!( !(<br />
!(<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
REBEL DR<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
MCCORMICK DR<br />
SEWARD AV<br />
FULTON AV<br />
FRANCIS ST<br />
X ST<br />
P ST<br />
M ST<br />
ELKCREST DR<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
N 66TH ST<br />
SUMNER ST<br />
HIGH ST<br />
S 59TH ST<br />
S 67TH ST<br />
N 68TH ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
GARLAND ST<br />
N 70TH ST<br />
S 70TH ST<br />
!(<br />
VINE ST<br />
!(<br />
S OUTH ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
S 66TH ST<br />
KESS DR<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
DEERHAVEN DR<br />
SOUTHDALE RD<br />
S 68TH ST<br />
MCKELVIE RD<br />
N COTNER BLVD<br />
LOGAN AV<br />
L ST<br />
N 74TH ST<br />
W RIO RD<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
S 76TH ST<br />
BENNET RD<br />
HAVELOCK AV<br />
!( !( !(<br />
!(<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
S 84TH ST<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
S 75TH ST<br />
N 79TH ST<br />
S 82ND ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
FLETCHER AV<br />
LEIGHTON AV<br />
E AVON LA<br />
GLYNOAKS DR<br />
S 80TH ST<br />
N 85TH ST<br />
PINEDALE AV<br />
S 78TH ST<br />
N 84TH ST<br />
A ST<br />
VAN DORN ST<br />
S 86TH ST<br />
WAVERLY RD<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
N 98TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
AVON LA<br />
ANTHONY LA<br />
S 98TH ST<br />
O ST<br />
PIONEERS BLVD<br />
S 91ST ST<br />
S 93RD ST<br />
S 96TH ST<br />
N 98TH ST<br />
N 100TH ST<br />
ADAMS ST<br />
PINE LAKE RD<br />
NEBRASKA HWY 2<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 112TH ST<br />
OLD CHENEY RD<br />
BREAGAN RD<br />
S 98TH ST<br />
Created/Compiled by:<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>: UDD<br />
S 105TH ST<br />
US HIGHWAY 6<br />
S 110TH ST<br />
ALVO RD<br />
N 112TH ST<br />
S 114TH ST<br />
DIXIE TRL<br />
YANKEE HILL RD<br />
ROKEBY RD<br />
S 120TH ST<br />
S 120TH ST<br />
[
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Institutional Structure
Institutional Structure<br />
Housing<br />
The institutional structure for providing affordable housing in <strong>Lincoln</strong> is a complex<br />
system <strong>of</strong> public and private partnerships. Private sector players may change over<br />
the years; public sector players remain fairly constant.<br />
Urban Development Department (UDD): This <strong>City</strong> department has been in<br />
charge <strong>of</strong> the administration <strong>of</strong> federal entitlement funding since 1976. UDD’s<br />
Housing Rehabilitation Division provides direct financial assistance for rehabilitation<br />
<strong>of</strong> residential units under a variety <strong>of</strong> programs carried out “in house”. UDD also<br />
provides management and oversight in the use <strong>of</strong> these funds by non-pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organizations in carrying out <strong>City</strong> programs (i.e. NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>) or in the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> newly constructed housing.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority (LHA): The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority has over 1,000<br />
LHA-owned or managed units and administers another 2,800 tenant-based rental<br />
assisted units (vouchers and certificates). LHA’s goal is not only to supply safe,<br />
affordable housing to low-income households but to move the tenants from welfare<br />
to work and convert renters into homeowners. In partnership with <strong>Lincoln</strong> Public<br />
Schools, a Northeast High School construction class builds a house each year which<br />
is sold to a public housing family on a lease-purchase agreement. LHA also provides<br />
financial support to homeless service providers has developed its own low-income<br />
tax credit housing projects in non-low-income areas <strong>of</strong> the community, and provides<br />
downpayment assistance for clients moving to homeownership. LHA was created<br />
under State law by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> in 1946. LHA’s Board <strong>of</strong> Commissioners has<br />
five members, all appointed by the Mayor <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and approved by the <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>City</strong><br />
Council.<br />
Nebraska Investment Finance Authority (NIFA): An independent (private)<br />
instrumentality created by the State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska to issue tax exempt revenue bonds<br />
for funding a variety or programs. NIFA’s first mortgage loans have been a valuable<br />
tool for the <strong>City</strong>’s first-time homebuyer program (administered by<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>). One <strong>of</strong> the NIFA programs targeted for the NRSA and<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers a substantial below market rate enabling low-moderate income households to<br />
enter the home market which otherwise may be unobtainable. Under our Home<br />
Improvement Loan Program (HILP), five lenders use NIFA funds to loan to low- to<br />
moderate-income homeowners to rehabilitate their property. The <strong>City</strong>, using CDBG<br />
funds, buys down the interest rate to 0%. This has been a very successful ongoing<br />
program with a new agreement (terms and interest rate) every three years.<br />
Private Non-pr<strong>of</strong>it Organizations (affordable rental housing): Over the years,<br />
numerous non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organizations have acted as sponsors and owners <strong>of</strong> affordable<br />
rental housing developments in <strong>Lincoln</strong>. These include: the Indian Center Inc.,<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>, the YWCA, Mercy Housing Midwest, CenterPointe,<br />
Community Action Partnership (CAP) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders Counties, AP Limited<br />
Partnership (Interfaith Housing Coalition), Program for People (Diocesan Housing),<br />
and the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Medical Education Foundation. Some <strong>of</strong> these entities are housingcentered<br />
agencies (Habitat, NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>, and Mercy). Others are<br />
expanding their mission to include housing (LAP, the Catholic Diocese, <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Medical Education Foundation, the Indian Center, and the YWCA). Still others were<br />
created with a singular housing project in mind (AP Limited). Some <strong>of</strong> these entities<br />
1
have taken on more than one project; others stop (or have stopped) at one.<br />
Private Non-pr<strong>of</strong>it Organizations (Homeownership):<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong>: NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> (NWL) is a private nonpr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organization involved in a variety <strong>of</strong> activities in partnership with the<br />
<strong>City</strong> to promote and assist in homeownership. NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
provides Homebuyer training funded with CDBG and downpayment assistance<br />
funded with HOME or Nebraska Affordable Housing Trust Funds (NAHTF)<br />
through the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development. NWL builds<br />
new houses in cooperation with <strong>Lincoln</strong> High School construction trades<br />
students and with YouthBuild. Problem properties are purchased,<br />
renovated/redeveloped and sold to a first time home buyer under the<br />
Troubled Property Program. Using stimulus funds called the Neighborhood<br />
Stabilization Program, an additional 12 vacant, blighted and/or foreclosed<br />
properties were renovated or redeveloped. Before the end <strong>of</strong> 2010, the<br />
Antelope Creek Village project will begin construction which will add 18<br />
affordable housing units in the Antelope Valley area. NWL’s community<br />
builder works with neighborhood organizations on revitalization efforts to<br />
increase home ownership and build community pride through the Free-to-<br />
Grow program.<br />
Habitat for Humanity: The <strong>Lincoln</strong>-<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Habitat for Humanity<br />
is a not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it corporation incorporated on February 12, 1988 as an<br />
affiliate <strong>of</strong> Habitat International, Inc. Their mission is to create decent<br />
affordable housing for those in need and to make decent shelter a matter <strong>of</strong><br />
conscience. One hundred eight (108) families are now living in Habitat<br />
homes averaging 7 to 8 new homes a year. Each year, Urban Development<br />
assists with HOME funding for lot purchases, site selection and environmental<br />
review.<br />
Nebraska Housing Resources Inc.: Neighborhood Housing Resources is a<br />
non-pr<strong>of</strong>it corporation formed in June, 1998 by three members <strong>of</strong> the Home<br />
Builders Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>. Its purpose is to provide affordable low- and<br />
moderate-income housing opportunities for first-time buyers in Nebraska. It<br />
achieves this purpose by encouraging more homebuilders to enter and/or<br />
expand into this market by increasing the supply <strong>of</strong> affordable lots and<br />
arranging attractive financing packages for qualified homebuyers. Partnering<br />
with the Urban Development Department, Neighborhood Housing Resources<br />
has created 188 affordable home ownership new construction units in four<br />
projects in <strong>Lincoln</strong>. NHR will continue to serve the community by building<br />
individual houses on an infill basis.<br />
Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI): AHI is a private non-pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organization dedicated to the rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> one to two housing units a year<br />
in the NRSA. The qualified buyers complete home buyer training through<br />
NeighborWorks®<strong>Lincoln</strong> and receive down payment assistance from UDD’s<br />
First Home Program.<br />
For more information about<br />
2
Rebuilding Together (formerly Christmas in April): Rebuilding Together<br />
is a non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organization with a mission to provide rehabilitation services to<br />
low-income elderly homeowners.<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska, Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development (DED): The<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund is<br />
intended to provide funds to eligible recipients for acquisition, rehabilitation,<br />
construction, and production <strong>of</strong> affordable housing to increase the supply <strong>of</strong><br />
decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low- to moderate-income Nebraskans.<br />
The program also provides leverage <strong>of</strong> private investment in the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> affordable housing. Urban Development has used the Nebraska Affordable<br />
Housing Trust Fund (NAHTF) to develop affordable new construction housing<br />
projects.<br />
Private Owners <strong>of</strong> Project Based Assisted Housing: Under Federal<br />
housing programs created in the 1980s, numerous private for-pr<strong>of</strong>it entities<br />
developed affordable housing for families and elderly persons in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
Fair Housing<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Commission on Human Rights: The legal authority for enforcement and<br />
decision-making on all complaints <strong>of</strong> discriminatory actions prohibited by <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s<br />
Municipal Code rest with the <strong>City</strong>’s Commission on Human Rights. The Commission,<br />
with nine members appointed by the Mayor, receives support from the <strong>City</strong>’s Equal<br />
Opportunity Officer, who supervises the staff needed for the daily operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Commission. The Commission acts as an advisory body to the Mayor, <strong>City</strong> Council,<br />
and Equal Opportunity Officer, and also has responsibility for reviewing compliance<br />
with Affirmative Action and proposing amendments to the <strong>City</strong>’s anti-discrimination<br />
ordinance as necessary. The Commission not only investigates, hears, and acts on<br />
complaints <strong>of</strong> discrimination, it is also charged with educating the public about<br />
unlawful discriminatory practices and enforcement measures, formulating <strong>City</strong><br />
policies to eliminate discrimination. In September 2010, the director <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Commission on Human Rights retired. These duties are now being directly handled<br />
by the Mayor’s <strong>of</strong>fice and complaints are received through the <strong>City</strong> Attorney’s <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
and assigned to Human Rights staff. As the <strong>City</strong> budget is completed, the hope is to<br />
hire a new director in 2011.<br />
Urban Development Department (UDD): As administering entity for the <strong>City</strong>’s<br />
federal housing and community development entitlement programs, the Urban<br />
Development Department is also responsible for ensuring that the <strong>City</strong>’s programs<br />
comply with non-discrimination and equal opportunity requirements. For housing,<br />
these requirements include the following: the Fair Housing Amendments Act <strong>of</strong><br />
1988, Equal Opportunity in Housing (Executive Order 11063), Title VI <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong><br />
Rights Act <strong>of</strong> 1964, the Age Discrimination Act <strong>of</strong> 1975, and Section 504 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Rehabilitation Act <strong>of</strong> 1973 as amended (Handicap accessibility). UDD is responsible<br />
for preparing the <strong>City</strong>’s Analysis <strong>of</strong> Impediments <strong>of</strong> Fair Housing and monitoring the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> activities to remove the barriers identified.<br />
Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC): The NEOC was created by<br />
the Nebraska Legislature in 1965 and is authorized to enforce several state statues,<br />
including the Nebraska Fair Housing Act. This Act is substantially equivalent to<br />
Federal Fair Housing Law and to prevent duplication <strong>of</strong> proceedings. The NEOC is<br />
authorized by federal statute to investigate complaints alleging violations <strong>of</strong> Title VII<br />
3
<strong>of</strong> the Civil Rights Act <strong>of</strong> 1964 and the U.S. Fair Housing Act. It is currently the only<br />
“local” agency that can provide relief under federal law to victims <strong>of</strong> housing<br />
discrimination in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity: The League is a consumer-based non-pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
organization, whose purpose is to actively promote the full integration <strong>of</strong> persons<br />
with disabilities into society. In doing so, this organization advocates for the needs<br />
and rights or persons with disabilities, including access to housing. The League has<br />
an ADA/Disability Rights Program which provides public education on ADA.<br />
Fair Housing Center: The Fair Housing Center <strong>of</strong> Nebraska, located in Omaha, is a<br />
private non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organization that investigates alleged violations <strong>of</strong> the Fair Housing<br />
Act and state and local fair housing laws, and carries out research on discrimination<br />
and compliance with fair housing laws. The Fair Housing Center can help people file<br />
complaints <strong>of</strong> alleged housing discrimination and provide assistance and support for<br />
seeking retribution under fair housing law. They conduct testing and other<br />
investigatory techniques to determine whether discrimination occurred. The Center<br />
works to mediate or seek voluntary resolution <strong>of</strong> discrimination after complaints have<br />
been filed.<br />
REALTORS ® Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Equal Opportunity Cultural Diversity<br />
Committee: In 1998, this committee worked to institute mandatory fair housing<br />
training for licensed REALTORS ® in <strong>Lincoln</strong>. These sessions were implemented to<br />
better educate <strong>Lincoln</strong> REALTORS ® on the Fair Housing Act and other fair housing<br />
laws. Of specific importance is how these laws are used to protect people with<br />
disabilities against discrimination when buying or renting a home.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s Continum <strong>of</strong> Care (CoC<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s CoC includes homeless service providers and programs that make up the<br />
fundamental components <strong>of</strong> a “continuum” <strong>of</strong> homeless services from emergency<br />
shelters all the way through to supportive permanent housing. Also included are<br />
the organizations and entities that provide financial resources and other support<br />
activities for homeless services. In addition, the CoC includes representation from<br />
the business community, the <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>City</strong> Council, <strong>County</strong> government, the <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Police Department, the University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska-<strong>Lincoln</strong> Police Department, Nebraska<br />
Wesleyan University, the State Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Human Services, and<br />
homeless consumers.<br />
The CoC is led by an executive committee that includes a chair, co-chair, immediate<br />
past chair, treasurer, and a representative from the Urban Development<br />
Department. The executive committee is nominated and elected each year by<br />
majority vote <strong>of</strong> the CoC.<br />
Emergency Shelter and Services: Emergency shelter is overnight or short-term<br />
temporary shelter, including day shelters that provide meals and limited supportive<br />
services and financial assistance to the homeless in general or for specific<br />
populations <strong>of</strong> the homeless. These facilities provide an immediate alternative to the<br />
street and have a component that can identify an individual’s or family’s needs.<br />
Agencies providing emergency shelter and services include the following:<br />
Overnight Shelters<br />
Friendship Home<br />
People’s <strong>City</strong> Mission<br />
4
Cedar’s Youth Services<br />
Veteran’s Hospital<br />
Overnight Shelter Facilities/Programs<br />
Hotel/Motel Partnership Program<br />
Developmental Services <strong>of</strong> Nebraska<br />
Cornhusker Place<br />
Cedar’s Youth Services<br />
Community Mental Health Center<br />
Day Shelters<br />
Lighthouse<br />
People’s <strong>City</strong> Mission<br />
Case Management (homeless)<br />
Community Mental Health Center<br />
Cornhusker Place<br />
Fresh Start<br />
St. Monica’s<br />
Community Action Partnership (CAP) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders<br />
Counties<br />
Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach<br />
Centerpointe<br />
Nebraska AIDS Project<br />
Transitional Housing Programs: Transitional housing is designed to provide<br />
housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate<br />
movement to independent living within 24 months. Supportive services include, but<br />
are not limited to, substance abuse treatment, short-term mental health services,<br />
independent living skills, child care, job training, health services, and transportation.<br />
Supportive services also implies case management services which ensure that<br />
persons receive necessary services, for example, that children attend school<br />
regularly. Transitional housing programs include the following:<br />
Families<br />
Catholic Social Services<br />
Community Action Partnership (CAP) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders<br />
Counties<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority<br />
Cedar’s Youth Services<br />
Friendship Home<br />
St. Monica’s Project<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Medical Education Foundation<br />
Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach<br />
Fresh Start<br />
Individuals<br />
Men and/or Women<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority<br />
People’s <strong>City</strong> Mission<br />
Fresh Start<br />
Houses <strong>of</strong> Hope<br />
St. Monica’s<br />
5
Youth<br />
Touchstone<br />
Cornhusker Place<br />
Community Mental Health Center<br />
Cedar’s Youth Services<br />
Development Services <strong>of</strong> Nebraska<br />
Ex-Offenders<br />
House for New Life<br />
Dual Diagnosis<br />
CenterPointe<br />
Mental Illness<br />
Community Mental Health Center<br />
CenterPointe<br />
Substance Abuse<br />
Cornhusker Place<br />
Houses <strong>of</strong> Hope<br />
St. Monica’s<br />
Touchstone<br />
Veterans<br />
Houses <strong>of</strong> Hope<br />
Permanent Supportive Housing: Below is a listing <strong>of</strong> permanent supportive<br />
housing projects and programs. Some <strong>of</strong> the households and persons served by<br />
these programs do not meet the HUD definition <strong>of</strong> chronic homelessness; however,<br />
the remaining listed projects serve those who, without assistance, are at high risk <strong>of</strong><br />
homelessness.<br />
Permanent Supportive Housing Program providers for individuals who<br />
meet HUD’s definition <strong>of</strong> chronic homelessness<br />
Individuals<br />
● CenterPointe<br />
Families<br />
Indian Center, Inc.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority<br />
Mercy Services Corporation<br />
Catholic Social Services<br />
YWCA Garden Apartments<br />
Single Adults<br />
Interfaith Housing Coalition Ambassador-President Apartments<br />
Persons with Developmental Disabilities<br />
Community Alternatives<br />
Active Community Treatments, Inc.<br />
Developmental Services <strong>of</strong> NE, Inc.<br />
6
Mosiac<br />
Transfiguration<br />
Vital Services, Inc.<br />
Persons with Severe Mental Illness<br />
OUR Homes<br />
Prescott Place<br />
Serenity Place<br />
Persons with Physical Disabilities<br />
League <strong>of</strong> Human Dignity<br />
Madonna<br />
Elderly Households (Limited Services)<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority (Burke Plaza, Mahoney Manor, Crossroads<br />
House)<br />
Mercy Services<br />
Malone Manor<br />
Indian Center, Inc.<br />
Homeless Prevention and Other Supportive Services: Prevention is the most<br />
cost-effective way <strong>of</strong> addressing homelessness. Intervention methods that prevent<br />
foreclosure or eviction and supportive services for low-income households,<br />
physically, mentally, and/or emotionally disabled individuals, and other populations,<br />
are significantly less costly than strategies that provide emergency shelter and food<br />
for homeless individuals and families, and finance their “re-entry” into permanent<br />
housing. Prevention is also essential to reduce the demand for emergency relief.<br />
The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) funding opportunity provided<br />
the impetus for unprecedented level so coordination, planning, and program<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s homeless prevention efforts. The HPRP program is<br />
administered by Region V Systems, and included collaboration and coordination with<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s rent and Utility assistance providers.<br />
HPRP Program<br />
Region V Systems<br />
Rent & Utility Assistance Network<br />
● Community Action Partnership (CAP) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders<br />
Counties<br />
● Catholic Social Services<br />
● Salvation Army<br />
● People’s <strong>City</strong> Mission<br />
● Friendship Home<br />
● Region V Systems<br />
Direct Financial Assistance<br />
Community Action Partnership (CAP) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lancaster</strong> and Saunders<br />
Counties<br />
<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> Health and Human Services<br />
Salvation Army HeatShare<br />
Veteran’s Service Office<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority Security<br />
7
Case Management (Special Needs Only)<br />
Community Mental Health Center<br />
Centerpointe<br />
St. Monica’s<br />
Nebraska AIDS Project<br />
Health Services<br />
Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach<br />
People <strong>City</strong> Mission Medical Clinic<br />
Urban Indian Health Center<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>-<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Health Department<br />
People’s Health Center<br />
Soup Kitchens/Meals<br />
Gathering Place<br />
Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach<br />
People’s <strong>City</strong> Mission<br />
“F” Street Recreation Center<br />
Lighthouse<br />
Funders: An important component in the institutional structure for providing<br />
homeless services is the entities that provide the financial resources for programs.<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> those funding sources are as follows:<br />
U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Housing and Urban Development (HUD): In the<br />
early 1980s, the federal government began, on a limited basis, addressing<br />
the issue <strong>of</strong> homelessness. However, it was not until 1987, with the passage<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, that the federal<br />
government assumed a “formal” role in addressing homelessness.<br />
State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska: In 1992, the State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska established the<br />
Homeless Shelter Assistance Trust Fund (HSATF), with a dedicated revenue<br />
source generated from the sale <strong>of</strong> homes and other real estate.<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>: The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong><br />
<strong>County</strong> both provide funds to local non-pr<strong>of</strong>it human service agencies through<br />
the Joint Budget Committee.<br />
United Way <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>: The United Way distributes<br />
monies received during its annual fund drive to numerous local human service<br />
agencies.<br />
Local Foundations: <strong>Lincoln</strong> has several local foundations; three <strong>of</strong> these<br />
have been in the forefront in providing support for many human service<br />
agencies, including those that serve the homeless - Woods Charitable Fund,<br />
the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Community Foundation, and the Cooper Foundation.<br />
Private Donations, Non-United Way: Direct donations from private<br />
individuals, groups, or corporations provide an important source <strong>of</strong> revenue<br />
for local homeless service providers.<br />
8
Economic Development<br />
Workforce Development and Business Development<br />
The following is a partial list <strong>of</strong> economic development resources – both workforce<br />
development and business development – available in the <strong>Lincoln</strong> area. This, <strong>of</strong><br />
course, is not an exhaustive list. Additional sources <strong>of</strong> business services, including<br />
membership organizations such as the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Independent Business Association<br />
(LIBA) and the Nebraska Home-based Business Association, are also available, but<br />
are not listed.<br />
Economic Development. Continued fragmentation <strong>of</strong> economic development<br />
efforts in <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> prompted the <strong>City</strong>, <strong>County</strong>, and <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Electric System to jointly fund an economic development and marketing strategy<br />
study in FY 02. The study, conducted by Angelou Economics from Austin, Texas,<br />
outlined economic development goals, strategies, and an implementation plan for<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> to follow over the following five years to create higher paying jobs in a<br />
diverse economy. The plan clearly identified the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Partnership for Economic<br />
Development (LPED), the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and other partnering organizations’ roles in<br />
economic development. The plan also helped identify a new brand identity and<br />
marketing strategy to help accomplish growth.<br />
The Angelou study identified that several organizations currently speak for <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s<br />
economic development efforts. This portrays a confusing message to prospects and<br />
clients. To eliminate confusion, partnering economic development organizations<br />
have established LPED as the lead clearinghouse for economic development<br />
information and initiatives in <strong>Lincoln</strong>. In addition, a communication network among<br />
all the <strong>Lincoln</strong> area economic development organizations was developed with the<br />
newly formed <strong>Lincoln</strong> Economic Development Council (LEDC) leading the way. LEDC<br />
is comprised <strong>of</strong> staff from the Mayor’s Office, LPED, Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce, <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Electric System (LES), Aquila (Natural Gas Provider), <strong>Lincoln</strong> Airport Authority, the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska Technology Park, and the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic<br />
Development (NEDED). This group meets regularly to develop project leads, make<br />
referrals, and exchange information.<br />
This close collaboration among economic development organizations has already<br />
resulted in the development <strong>of</strong> an on-line site selection database developed in<br />
conjunction with local commercial real estate brokers and the Multiple Listing<br />
Service.<br />
With assistance from Urban Development, <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong>, LES, DED, and the<br />
LPED, the Nebraska Business Visitation Program continues in <strong>Lincoln</strong> on an annual<br />
basis. Through this program, <strong>City</strong>, LES and LPED staff visit and conduct interviews<br />
with key industries in <strong>Lincoln</strong>.<br />
An additional economic development committee comprised <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> and <strong>County</strong> staff<br />
from various departments was developed in FY 01 and continues to meet regularly.<br />
This committee, lead by the Economic Development Coordinator for the Mayor’s<br />
Office, meets to discuss and plan numerous economic development projects.<br />
Referrals from Urban Development to the Nebraska Business Development Center<br />
(NBDC), the Nebraska Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO), the <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
Partnership for Economic Development (LPED), the Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce, the<br />
Downtown <strong>Lincoln</strong> Association (DLA), <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Economic Development Loan<br />
9
Program, and the State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Development (DED)<br />
are on-going.<br />
Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Workforce Investment Board (LWIB): The Workforce<br />
Investment Act <strong>of</strong> 1998, Public Law 105-220, states as its purpose "…to provide<br />
workforce investment activities, through statewide and local workforce investment<br />
systems, that increase the employment, retention, and earnings <strong>of</strong> participants, and<br />
increase occupational skill attainment by participants, and, as a result, improve the<br />
quality <strong>of</strong> the workforce, reduce welfare dependence, and enhance the productivity<br />
and competitiveness <strong>of</strong> the Nation." The LWIB oversees the implementation and<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Area Workforce System and One Stop Career Center that<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers expanded services to job seekers and area businesses.<br />
Neighborhood Revitalization<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>: Multiple departments and partnerships, including the following<br />
(updated descriptions taken from the <strong>City</strong> Web sites):<br />
Urban Development Department: The primary objective <strong>of</strong> the Urban<br />
Development Department is the revitalization and maintenance <strong>of</strong> low- and<br />
moderate-income communities as productive and vigorous parts <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> as<br />
a whole. Strategies and programs are created, many using federal financial<br />
resources, which:<br />
Coordinate existing city-wide resources – both public and private,<br />
develop leadership at the individual, neighborhood, and agency level,<br />
eliminate barriers – physical, social, and economic, and<br />
create economic and employment opportunities.<br />
Public Works and Utilities: The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Works/Utilities is to serve community growth, well-being, and economic<br />
success. Working together to provide quality services to our community, we<br />
finance, design, construct, operate and maintain:<br />
Municipal Water<br />
Waste Disposal<br />
Drainage<br />
Transportation Systems<br />
Building and Safety: Our responsibility is to assure that the health, fire,<br />
and housing safety needs <strong>of</strong> the public are maintained through adherence to<br />
those requirements established by law in the construction or use <strong>of</strong> every<br />
building in the community. This includes buildings in which people live, eat,<br />
sleep, play, work, worship, study, recuperate or are entertained. By<br />
accomplishing this mission the quality <strong>of</strong> life in the community is enhanced.<br />
Parks and Recreation: Studies show that many do not understand the<br />
value parks and recreation brings to our community’s quality <strong>of</strong> life. We feel a<br />
responsibility to close that gap—and to inspire more people to learn why a<br />
quality parks and recreation system is fundamental to youth development,<br />
active living, neighborhoods and families, special places and community<br />
events, and economic development. Most <strong>of</strong> all, we want to inspire you to<br />
enjoy the opportunities we <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
10
<strong>Lincoln</strong>/<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Department: The <strong>Lincoln</strong>/<strong>Lancaster</strong><br />
<strong>County</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Department promotes and facilitates the efficient, highquality<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> and <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> resulting<br />
from meaningful interaction with our customers and the community.<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>-<strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> Health Department: Protect and promote the<br />
public's health . It’s vision is a sustainable public health system serving all<br />
people to achieve optimal health<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> Police Department: Operates Crime Stoppers, Neighborhood<br />
Watch, uses Community Police Teams and operates under the philosophy <strong>of</strong><br />
Community Based Policing.<br />
Problem Resolution Team (PRT): A multi-agency, multi-departmental<br />
team created to address long-term problem properties.<br />
Focus Area Concept Team (FACTeam): A multi-departmental team<br />
created to assist in identifying issues and focusing resources in neighborhood<br />
focus areas.<br />
Other Entities:<br />
Railroad Transportation Safety Board (RTSD): The Railroad<br />
Transportation Safety Board helps to plan and then fund the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> revitalization projects involving railroad safety.<br />
State Department <strong>of</strong> Roads: Assists in funding some transportation<br />
projects.<br />
Federal Department <strong>of</strong> Transportation: Assists in funding transportation<br />
projects.<br />
Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (NRD): Assists in<br />
planning and funding projects and maintenance <strong>of</strong> soil and water resources.<br />
Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers: Assists in planning and funding projects, in the<br />
case <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, primarily the Antelope Valley Project.<br />
Neighborhood Associations: A principle partner with the <strong>City</strong> in planning<br />
and implementation <strong>of</strong> revitalization projects.<br />
Antelope Valley Partners: The Antelope Valley Project was started in 1996<br />
to resolve transportation, flooding, and community revitalization issues in<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>’s central core neighborhoods, primarily Malone, Clinton, and the North<br />
Bottoms. This study brought together the <strong>City</strong>, the University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska-<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>, the Lower Platte Natural Resources District, federal agencies,<br />
neighborhoods, and the private sector to discuss concerns and identify<br />
solutions in this area. Throughout the process, the Urban Development<br />
Department has been actively involved as a member <strong>of</strong> the Management<br />
Committee, the Community Revitalization Advisory Committee, the Citizen’s<br />
Advisory Committee, and the <strong>City</strong> Directors Antelope Valley Committee.<br />
11
Free to Grow: Free to Grow is a neighborhood revitalization program with<br />
partners from the private, non-pr<strong>of</strong>it and public sectors working together to<br />
help develop solutions to problems that contribute to crime, an unhealthy<br />
environment, and substandard housing. The group concentrates revitalization<br />
efforts in smaller areas within a neighborhood. The program Core Team<br />
meets biweekly to keep current on the issues and to ensure action steps are<br />
being met.<br />
Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative: On March 13, 2008 Mayor<br />
Beutler launched the Stronger Safer Neighborhoods Initiative, a partnership<br />
between government, non-pr<strong>of</strong>its, schools, neighborhoods, churches, and the<br />
business and development community. The program is designed to improve<br />
neighborhoods and revitalize problem areas. A Mayoral Aide was hired and<br />
assigned to the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Police Department to head the initiative. Stronger<br />
Safer Neighborhoods is a problem oriented policing program. It involves a<br />
comprehensive approach that recognized the connections between crime,<br />
poverty, blight and social behaviors. It is predicated on a belief that we<br />
cannot arrest our way out <strong>of</strong> these problems. We have to address the<br />
underlying conditions in order to create lasting stability, safety, and health.<br />
12
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
HSG Need Table
CPMP Version 1.3<br />
Household Income 30 to 50 to 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 10945<br />
With Any Housing Problems 83.6 9145 43 43 43 0 #### H C & H<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 18.1 1976 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 64.7 7078 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 2815<br />
With Any Housing Problems 78.7 2215 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 23.0 649 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 55.7 1567 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 #### 0<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 7915<br />
With Any Housing Problems 62.4 4940 69 69 69 0 #### H C & H<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 43.8 3470 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 15.7 1240 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 4630<br />
With Any Housing Problems 56.3 2605 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 25.4 1175 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 30.2 1400 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 #### 0<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 10315<br />
With Any Housing Problems 27.4 2830 141 141 141 0 #### H C & H<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 23.3 2401 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 1.6 160 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100%<br />
With Any Housing Problems 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 0 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 0 0 ####<br />
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 9530<br />
With Any Housing Problems 45.2 4310 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden > 30% 34.8 3315 0 ####<br />
Cost Burden >50% 10.1 965 0 ####<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Total Any Housing Problem 253 0 253 0 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Disabled 0<br />
Total 215 Renter 0 Tot. Elderly 0 Total Lead Hazard 0<br />
Total 215 Owner 0 Tot. Sm. Related 0<br />
Total Renters 33240<br />
Total 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tot. Lg. Related 0<br />
Total Owners 18201<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
Goal<br />
Priority<br />
Need?<br />
<strong>Plan</strong><br />
to<br />
Fund?<br />
Fund<br />
Source<br />
Households<br />
with a Disabled<br />
Member<br />
HSGNeed 1 CPMP<br />
%<br />
HSHLD<br />
#<br />
HSHLD<br />
Dispropo<br />
rtionate<br />
Racial/<br />
Ethnic<br />
Need?<br />
# <strong>of</strong><br />
Househ<br />
olds in<br />
lead-<br />
Hazard<br />
Housing<br />
Total Low<br />
Income<br />
HIV/ AIDS<br />
Population
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Homeless Table
1. Chronically Homeless 62<br />
2. Severely Mentally Ill 85<br />
3. Chronic Substance Abuse 157<br />
4. Veterans 45<br />
5. Persons with HIV/AIDS 0<br />
6. Victims <strong>of</strong> Domestic Violence 204<br />
7. Youth (Under 18 years <strong>of</strong> age)<br />
76<br />
Beds<br />
Emergency Shelters<br />
Transitional Housing<br />
Permanent Supportive<br />
Housing<br />
Total<br />
Chronically Homeless<br />
Beds<br />
CPMP Version 1.3<br />
Continuum <strong>of</strong> Care Homeless Population and Subpopulations<br />
Chart<br />
Sheltered<br />
Part 1: Homeless Population Emergency Transitional<br />
1. Homeless Individuals 177<br />
252 23<br />
2. Homeless Families with Children<br />
2a. Persons in Homeless with<br />
55 124<br />
1<br />
Children Families<br />
193<br />
325<br />
3<br />
Total (lines 1 + 2a)<br />
370<br />
577 26<br />
Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations<br />
Sheltered<br />
Un-sheltered<br />
Part 3: Homeless Needs<br />
Table: Individuals<br />
Part 4: Homeless Needs<br />
Table: Families<br />
Emergency Shelters<br />
Transitional Housing<br />
Permanent Supportive<br />
Housing<br />
Needs<br />
5-<strong>Year</strong> Quantities<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 <strong>Year</strong> 4<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Complete<br />
295 161 134 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 0 0% M N<br />
525 310 215 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 0 0% M Y<br />
416 41 375 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 50 0 0% H Y<br />
1236 512 724 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 0 0%<br />
125 18<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1<br />
5-<strong>Year</strong> Quantities<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 <strong>Year</strong> 4 <strong>Year</strong> 5<br />
Total<br />
Needs<br />
Currently<br />
Available<br />
Currently<br />
Available<br />
Gap Gap<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Goal<br />
197 162 35 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25 #### H N<br />
379 345 34 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 #### M Y SHP<br />
70 8 62 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 #### M Y<br />
Total<br />
646 515 131 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 36 ####<br />
Completing Part 1: Homeless Population. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates <strong>of</strong> homeless<br />
persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time. The counts must be from: (A) administrative records, (N)<br />
enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality <strong>of</strong> the data presented in each box must be identified as: (A),<br />
(N), (S) or (E).<br />
Goal<br />
12<br />
4<br />
11<br />
1<br />
0<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Complete<br />
Complete<br />
452<br />
180<br />
521<br />
973<br />
Total<br />
Data Quality<br />
74<br />
89<br />
168<br />
46<br />
0<br />
208<br />
76<br />
Unsheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. Places not meant for human<br />
habitation include streets, parks, alleys, parking ramps, parts <strong>of</strong> the highway system, transportation depots and other parts <strong>of</strong><br />
transportation systems (e.g. subway tunnels, railroad car), all-night commercial establishments (e.g. movie theaters, laundromats,<br />
restaurants), abandoned buildings, building ro<strong>of</strong>s or stairwells, chicken coops and other farm outbuildings, caves, campgrounds, vehicles,<br />
and other similar places.<br />
Goal<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Goal<br />
Total<br />
Actual<br />
Actual<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Goal<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Goal<br />
Priority H, M, L<br />
Priority H, M, L<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> to Fund? Y N<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> to Fund? Y N<br />
Fund Source:<br />
CDBG, HOME,<br />
HOPWA, ESG or<br />
Other<br />
Other<br />
Other<br />
Fund Source:<br />
CDBG, HOME,<br />
HOPWA, ESG or<br />
Other<br />
Completing Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time. The numbers must be from: (A) administrative records,<br />
(N) enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality <strong>of</strong> the data presented in each box must be identified as:<br />
(A), (N), (S) or (E).<br />
Sheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth residing in shelters for the homeless. “Shelters” include all emergency shelters and<br />
transitional shelters for the homeless, including domestic violence shelters, residential programs for runaway/homeless youth, and any<br />
hotel/motel/apartment voucher arrangements paid by a public/private agency because the person or family is homeless. Do not count: (1)<br />
persons who are living doubled up in conventional housing; (2) formerly homeless persons who are residing in Section 8 SRO, Shelter Plus<br />
Care, SHP permanent housing or other permanent housing units; (3) children or youth, who because <strong>of</strong> their own or a parent’s<br />
homelessness or abandonment, now reside temporarily and for a short anticipated duration in hospitals, residential treatment facilities,<br />
emergency foster care, detention facilities and the like; and (4) adults living in mental health facilities, chemical dependency facilities, or<br />
criminal justice facilities.<br />
Goal<br />
Un-sheltered Total<br />
Jurisdiction<br />
Data Quality<br />
Homeless 1 CPMP<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 5<br />
SHP
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Housing Market Analysis
--- Overview --- ><br />
Economy<br />
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Market Area (HMA) economy continues growing modestly, primarily supported by<br />
the education and health services and the financial activities subsectors. Employment in the state and local<br />
government subsector has a stabilizing influence on the <strong>Lincoln</strong> economy. A ten year economic employment<br />
forecast (2006-2016) projected average increases <strong>of</strong> 1.59% annually. However, during 2009, resident employment<br />
decreased by approximately 1% compared to the employment levels <strong>of</strong> 2008. The county unemployment rate<br />
increased from 3.1 to 4.4% 1 during the same analysis period. This rate increase reflects national unemployment<br />
trends and more recent forecasts. Most notable is the adjusted growth rate for the <strong>Lincoln</strong> HMA economy (2008-<br />
2010) which predicts area economic growth at .07% until the current (2010) calendar year. Future forecasts are<br />
available from the Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Labor.<br />
Sales Market<br />
In 2009, single-family home sales (4,029 reported sold) remained nearly even with its five year average.<br />
However, it was up nearly 11% compared with the number <strong>of</strong> sales recorded in 2008, while the average home<br />
sales price declined by nearly 4% to $146,705.<br />
Rental Market<br />
The rental housing market in the <strong>Lincoln</strong> HMA is slightly s<strong>of</strong>t, with a 2009 vacancy rate <strong>of</strong> approx. 10.0% 2<br />
compared to 6.5% 3 the previous year. Causes for the increase are directly unknown, however causes for higher<br />
vacancies are likely due to the national economy. Supply and demand <strong>of</strong> units not recognized by existing<br />
administrative data (i.e. Supply: Home owners renting affordable spare rooms. Demand: number <strong>of</strong> new/expanded<br />
roommate pairing, housing overcrowding and tax incentives promoting home ownership) may help to explain this<br />
trend.<br />
Data Review<br />
For this document trends historically identified through the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy<br />
cannot be identified due to a reconfiguration <strong>of</strong> the data set. The ability to predict/display housing trends related<br />
to medium family income cannot be done at this time. Thus this report is limited in its ability to predict future<br />
need. However, relevant data from the Census, State and Federal bureau <strong>of</strong> labor, administrative data and<br />
community information were drawn upon to understand and make an assessment <strong>of</strong> future options.<br />
< --- Report --- ><br />
Employment Trends<br />
Resident employment in the <strong>Lincoln</strong> HMA slowed in the early 2000s compared with employment levels<br />
recorded in the 1990s. During the 1990s, resident employment increased by an average <strong>of</strong> 2550 workers, or 1.94%,<br />
a year. Between 2000 and 2003, employment growth averaged 306.5 workers a year, reflecting the effect <strong>of</strong> the<br />
weaker national economy. Since 2004 but excluding 2009, resident employment growth has increased an average<br />
<strong>of</strong> 601 workers a year.<br />
The unemployment rate in the HMA was relatively low during the 1990s, reaching a low <strong>of</strong> 2.6% in 1992.<br />
In 2009, the rate peaked at 4.4%, corresponding to the decline in resident employment that began in late 2007.<br />
Furthermore, both national and local lay<strong>of</strong>fs have continued to aggravate future employment growth estimates<br />
which initially were projected at 1.59% annually 4 (2007-2016) but where recently adjusted to 0.7% (2008-2010) 5 .<br />
Figure 1 shows trends in the labor force, resident employment, and average unemployment rate in the HMA from<br />
1990 to 2009. An additionally trend line computed from historical unemployment rates forecasts possible future<br />
unemployment rates.<br />
1<br />
<strong>Year</strong>ly averages. Note that the January unemployment numbers was approx 5%<br />
2<br />
Informal survey by the Real Estate Owners and Managers Association (REOMA). They represents the interests <strong>of</strong> over 7000 residential<br />
properties in the <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
3<br />
Multi-family Rental Property Report 2008<br />
4<br />
Long Term Industry Employment Projections, Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Labor<br />
5<br />
Short Term Industry Employment Projections, Nebraska Department <strong>of</strong> Labor<br />
1
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> HMA economy is anchored by the service-providing sectors. In general since 1990,<br />
government positions (i.e. local, state and federal) have accounted for the largest share <strong>of</strong> employment. As stated<br />
earlier, the educational and health service and the financial activities sectors have led job growth over the same<br />
period increasing by 9.3% and 17.6% respectively. Employers that have headquarters or substantial organizational<br />
capacity in <strong>Lincoln</strong> include; the University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska-<strong>Lincoln</strong>, State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska, <strong>Lincoln</strong> Public Schools, BryanLGH<br />
Medical Center, B&R Stores and Ameritas Life Insurance among others (see Table 2). For clarity, Table 3 shows<br />
employment sector change in the HMA from 2002 to the current date and Chart 1 illustrates current employment<br />
in the HMA by sector.<br />
During the 12 months ending December 2009, nonfarm employment decreased by 2,207 jobs to a total <strong>of</strong><br />
164,979 jobs compared with the number recorded during the previous 12-month period (see Table 3). During<br />
2009, employment in the goods-producing sectors was down by approximately 1,515 jobs due to declines in the<br />
construction and manufacturing sectors. Employment rates in these sectors continue to reflect the national<br />
economy 6 . Employment in the service-providing sectors registered a net decrease <strong>of</strong> 692 jobs, with gains in the<br />
government and financial activities slightly <strong>of</strong>fsetting job losses in other sectors. Employment in the<br />
leisure/hospitality, education and health service sectors remained steady in 2009, but may decline in the future if<br />
current economic conditions remain or deteriorate further.<br />
During 2009, the Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Workforce Investment Board helped train 299 persons and provided<br />
employment opportunities to 207 youth from April to December. A majority <strong>of</strong> those trained entered into various<br />
health care occupations, business fields, and the transportation industry. Low income adults and dislocated<br />
workers who received training earned 130% and 84% more respectively 7 . Additionally, Assurity, a leading employer<br />
in the financial sector, recently began development a new consolidated center in Antelope Valley. Further<br />
development opportunities include Urban 38, Bock 68 and the West Haymarket area. These commitments to both<br />
social and physical development should position the local economy to respond to other mitigating influences<br />
within the three year plan period.<br />
Resident employment for 2008 hovered near 3.9% although projections <strong>of</strong> it surpassing 5.0% in early 2010<br />
are valid 8 . Nevertheless, with the addition <strong>of</strong> twelve census tracks being identified as areas <strong>of</strong> substantial<br />
unemployment (ASU) -up from five in 2009- and the relative low employment rate can be misleading. In 2009<br />
there was an unemployed population <strong>of</strong> 4,357 within the aforementioned areas. Additionally, within the <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
reporting area 14,317 persons were classified as an economically disadvantaged adult 9 . Acknowledging limitations<br />
within these data sets, it appears that within <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s LMI 10 area there is a growing gap between the ‘haves’ and<br />
‘have nots’. Housing cost burden distribution is <strong>of</strong> concern. To illustrate this consider that from 2005 to 05-07<br />
statistical reporting period those who reported having a housing cost burden 11 >30% and >50% had a percentage<br />
change increase <strong>of</strong> 5.91% and 42.26% respectively. Furthermore those households with housing problems had a<br />
percentage change increase, within the same period, <strong>of</strong> 17.24%. Coupled with the national housing market crash in<br />
2008-09 these cost burden percentages are greater.<br />
Still, setbacks aside, resident employment is forecasted to grow during the next three years as additional<br />
workforce enhancement activities and physical development options continue to occur arise. An employment<br />
growth rate is expected to be 0.84% 12 for the next forecast period. Lastly, given stricter mortgage lending<br />
requirements 13 and a sluggish national economy, <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s insurance and banking industries are likely to record<br />
only moderate employment growth within the forecast period due to the lead time required to bring new policies<br />
into play 14 .<br />
Population and Households<br />
6<br />
U.S. Bureau <strong>of</strong> Labor and Statistics: Employment Situation Summary - March, 2010<br />
7<br />
A six month average compared to the earning power at minimum wage<br />
8<br />
Analysis by Workforce Investment Board<br />
9<br />
Reference Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Workforce Investment <strong>Plan</strong> July 2007-2011<br />
10<br />
LMI, ‘Low-to Moderate-Income’. An area identified by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> UDD using 2000 US Census income data in conjunction with HUD’s<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> low-mod.<br />
11<br />
A burden that is relative to the amount paid for rent or mortgage spent per month to household income<br />
12<br />
Analyst estimates<br />
13<br />
Although at the time <strong>of</strong> this writing national policy debates and development were occurring. Those results could change this perception.<br />
14 Perception <strong>of</strong> Sen. Ben Nelson <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
2
The population <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Lincoln</strong> HMA increased at a slower rate from 2000 to the current date, when the<br />
annual growth rate was 1.44%, than it did during the 1990s, when the population grew by 1.75% a year. Chart 2<br />
shows components <strong>of</strong> population change in the HMA from 1990 to 2008 (2009-2012 using a forecasted .7% growth<br />
rate). The current population is estimated at 278,728 and is forecasted to reach near 300,000 by January 1, 2012 15 .<br />
However, it should be noted that other agencies 16 predict that the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Metropolitan Statistical Area 17 will reach<br />
300,000 by the end <strong>of</strong> 2010. Table 4 illustrates single-family detached building permits in the HMA from 2005 to<br />
2009. During the 1990s, the number <strong>of</strong> new households in the HMA grew by approximately 885 a year compared<br />
with an average increase <strong>of</strong> 931 a year from 2000 to the current date 18 . However from new home permits have<br />
decreased by 60.54% from 2005 (958) to the current year (378). As <strong>of</strong> January 1, 2009, an estimated 99,494<br />
households are in the HMA. Chart 3 illustrates the number <strong>of</strong> new single family households in the HMA from 1975<br />
to the current date. While a trend may indicate a decreasing rate, new homes are still being built. The total<br />
number <strong>of</strong> households in the HMA is forecast to increase by 450 a year to approximately 100,843 by the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
3-year forecast period.<br />
The condition <strong>of</strong> the communities housing stock in residential zoned areas, within the city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong><br />
limits, as determined through the use <strong>of</strong> an internal condition, desire and utility (CDU) index shows that a wide<br />
variety exists. The CDU index is a subjective scale with ranges from 0 to 8. A score <strong>of</strong> 0 implies that the structure<br />
needs to be removed and has adverse affects on the surrounding area. Where-as a score <strong>of</strong> 8 implies that that<br />
home is in immaculate condition. Most new home construction ranges from 4-6. In review and <strong>of</strong> important<br />
significance is that the percentage <strong>of</strong> homes within each CDU cohort, below a score <strong>of</strong> four, is higher in the LMI<br />
area and contains a greater share <strong>of</strong> each cohort as the index decreases (see Table 5).<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> vacant/abandoned buildings within the city limits is always in a state <strong>of</strong> flux. In 2008 there<br />
were 3,160 – as <strong>of</strong> April 30 th , 2010 there are 3,721. The estimate <strong>of</strong> those units is available or suitable or<br />
rehabilitation is unavailable. Additionally, without further third party vendor purchases the ability to know how<br />
many <strong>of</strong> those vacancies are related to recent macro and micro mortgage issues and policies. Please reference<br />
Table 6 for a break down by zip code.<br />
Lastly, those with disabilities and HIV/AIDS compete for the same limited number <strong>of</strong> rental units and<br />
ownership properties as all other low-income residents. An additional difficulty is that a number <strong>of</strong> these units may<br />
not be suitable for their disability and/or have necessary service available. However, there are several<br />
organizations that assist with access modifications if they meet income guidelines.<br />
Housing Market Trends<br />
Single Family Lot Supply<br />
As <strong>of</strong> January 1, 2010, there were 8,212 detached single family lots in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>’s lot supply.<br />
These lots are in various stages <strong>of</strong> the approval process including final platted lots, preliminary platted lots, and<br />
submitted lots that are in the process <strong>of</strong> review. This updated single family lot supply is effectively the same as one<br />
year ago (8,200 in January 2009). Overall platting activity continues to be slow, much like what is occurring both<br />
regionally and nationally.<br />
Of these 8,212, the number <strong>of</strong> final platted lots is 2,334, which is down 232 lots from the supply in<br />
January 2009, and is down by 535 from January 2008. While the final platted lot supply number has decreased, the<br />
preliminary platted single family lot supply has increased by 244 lots over the past year. The take-down <strong>of</strong> final<br />
platted lots and increase in preliminary lots hopefully are early signs <strong>of</strong> a recovery in the local housing market.<br />
Single Family Demand<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> building permits for new single family homes declined again last year compared to<br />
previous years. In 2009, 378 detached single family building permits were issued, the lowest number since 1983,<br />
compared to 410 in 2008, 569 in 2007, and 794 in 2006. Each <strong>of</strong> the past 4 years is significantly lower than the 10year<br />
average <strong>of</strong> 933. The slowdown in the national economy has been especially harsh on the construction sector,<br />
15<br />
Assuming a constant linear growth rate <strong>of</strong> 3,500 per year<br />
16<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska Center for Public Affairs Research<br />
17<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong> and Seward counties<br />
18<br />
Numerous permits were filled for new homes constructions prior to March 13, 2003 when a city impact fee was adopted.<br />
3
and <strong>Lincoln</strong> has experienced a related slowdown. With these lower building trends, the supply <strong>of</strong> final platted<br />
detached single family lots has now increased to a 5.1 year supply based on the 3 year building average. Using the<br />
overall number <strong>of</strong> 8,212 single family detached lots available and in the pipeline (final platted, preliminary platted,<br />
and submitted), the lot supply increases to 18.1 years.<br />
Multi-Family Supply<br />
The supply <strong>of</strong> potential multi-family units increased over the past year by over 200 units, with the increase<br />
coming in preliminarily approved units. In the past few years there has been less apartment construction than in<br />
previous years, and a number <strong>of</strong> multi-family sites have been rezoned for other uses. However, with the downturn<br />
in the economy and slowdown in single family demand, there may be increased demand for new multi-family<br />
units.<br />
Overall Supply<br />
The community has a potential for 51,000 new dwelling units within the 2030 future service limit for<br />
<strong>Lincoln</strong>. Of these units, about 16,700 (single family and multi-family combined) are approved or in the approval<br />
process. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the potential units is currently without infrastructure. The development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>’s sixyear<br />
Capital Improvement Program, which is annually updated, along with the Comprehensive <strong>Plan</strong>, should take<br />
these market realities into account.<br />
Overall Market Activity and Trends<br />
According to the <strong>Lincoln</strong> Realtors Association, at the end <strong>of</strong> December 2009, there were 1,672 singlefamily<br />
residential homes on the market; nearly 20% below the number on the market one year ago. Also, there<br />
were 6,895 new listings processed through the Multiple List Service (MLS) system during 2009; 8.9% below the<br />
number processed one year ago (includes re-listed properties). There were a total <strong>of</strong> 4,041 single-family homes<br />
sold through the MLS system during 2009; 11.4% higher than the total number sold in 2008 (3,626); and 12.8%<br />
lower than the total number <strong>of</strong> record sales in 2004 (4,632). Lastly, the overall median price <strong>of</strong> single-family home<br />
sold through the MLS system during 2009 was $129,900.; 2.3% lower than 2008 ($133,000); and 3.8% below the<br />
record high in 2005 and 2006 ($135,000).<br />
Sales Market: Existing Home Sales<br />
There were 3,574 existing single-family homes sold through the MLS in 2009; up 13.1% from 2008; and<br />
nearly even with the record high in 2005 (3,599). The median sale price <strong>of</strong> an existing single-family home sold<br />
through the MLS remained at $125,000 in 2008 and 2009; 1.6% below the record-high in 2007($127,000).<br />
Sales Market: New Home Sales<br />
There were 467 new single-family homes sold through the MLS in 2009; up by one home from 2008 (466)<br />
which was the lowest-level in more than ten years. The number <strong>of</strong> new single-family homes sold through the MLS<br />
in 2009 (467) was 25.5% lower than the number sold in 2007 (627), and was 57.2% lower than the record number<br />
sold in 2003 (1090). Lastly, the median sale price <strong>of</strong> a new single-family home sold through the MLS in 2009 was<br />
$179,975; 6% lower than 2008 ($191,543); and 8% below the record high in 2006 ($195,000).<br />
Public Housing Market and Availability<br />
The <strong>Lincoln</strong> Housing Authority (LHA) is a governmental entity established in 1946 with the mission <strong>of</strong><br />
providing housing to the residents <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong>, Nebraska. The Authority fulfills that mission by: (1) The ownership<br />
and/or management <strong>of</strong> 1552 units <strong>of</strong> affordable and assisted rental housing, (2) The administration <strong>of</strong> 2929 federal<br />
section 8 vouchers, (3) the operation <strong>of</strong> two home ownership programs, (3) the provision <strong>of</strong> tenant supportive<br />
services and (4) community partnerships with other providers <strong>of</strong> housing and social services. LHA does not plan on<br />
adding to or removing units to/from their existing housing stock. As <strong>of</strong> December 2009, 5764 total applications<br />
were on the wait list with an expected wait <strong>of</strong> 2.5 years. LHA receives ongoing feedback from their clients and<br />
urban development consults with LHA at the end <strong>of</strong> each fiscal year. Due to its high performance rating the LHA<br />
continues to be part <strong>of</strong> HUD’s Moving to Work Program (MTW) which gives greater control to local agencies. For<br />
4
detailed information on the authority, programs, voucher options and organizations who participate in the LHA,<br />
please refer to most recent 2009 Annual Report. 19<br />
Limitations<br />
Due to the technical expertise <strong>of</strong> the staff projections <strong>of</strong> housing need were not generated however<br />
through mutual interactive partnerships with the <strong>Lincoln</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning Department and other governmental and nonpr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
partners the Urban Development Department staff remains very informed about housing issues that arise<br />
and affect the community.<br />
Appendix:<br />
Figure 1: Trends in Labor Force, Resident Employment, and Unemployment Rate in the <strong>Lincoln</strong> HMA<br />
19 Contact information can be obtained from their website, http://www.l-housing.com/<br />
5
Table 2: Top Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Region Employers<br />
Rank Agency/Business Number<br />
1 University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska - <strong>Lincoln</strong> 5,000-10,000<br />
2 State <strong>of</strong> Nebraska 5,000-10,000<br />
3 <strong>Lincoln</strong> Public Schools 5,000-10,000<br />
4 BryanLGH Medical Center 5,000<br />
5 B&R Stores 2,200<br />
6 Ameritas Life Insurance 1,000-2,500<br />
7 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> 1,000-2,500<br />
8 Duncan Aviation 2,000<br />
9 Hy-Vee Stores Inc 1000-2500<br />
10 <strong>Lancaster</strong> <strong>County</strong> 1,000-2,500<br />
Source: Economic Scan <strong>of</strong> the Greater <strong>Lincoln</strong> Region<br />
Table 3: Employment Change by sector and <strong>Year</strong>.<br />
Level Place <strong>of</strong> Work 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
Non-Farm Employment 159367 159398 160546 161302 161401 165211 170552 167186 164979<br />
I Goods-Producing 25377 24571 23634 23152 22334 22199 21813 21194 19679<br />
II Manufacturing ** 16481 15336 14627 ** ** ** ** 1359<br />
III Durable Goods ** 9235 8144 7724 ** ** ** ** 499<br />
III Non-Durable Goods ** 7246 7192 6902 ** ** ** ** 27<br />
II Natural Resources & Const 7955 8090 8298 8526 8108 7951 7558 7321 7106<br />
I Service-Providing<br />
Trade, Trans, Warehouse,<br />
133990 134827 136912 138150 139067 143012 148739 145992 145300<br />
II Utilities 27751 27344 27831 27531 ** ** ** ** 4367<br />
III Total Trade ** 20891 21205 20836 20853 20842 21252 21269 20936<br />
IIII Wholesale Trade ** 4536 4399 3983 3895 3828 3791 3720 3660<br />
IIII Retail Trade 16405 16355 16806 16852 16958 17014 17461 17549 17276<br />
III Trans, Wareh, Util ** 6452 6627 6695 ** ** ** ** 800<br />
II Information ** 3362 3507 3132 ** ** ** 2561 2245<br />
II Financial Activities 10298 10778 11111 11540 12157 12193 12458 12488 12628<br />
II Pr<strong>of</strong> & Bus Serv ** 16315 15905 16192 ** ** ** ** 2150<br />
II Ed & Health Serv 18688 19993 21090 22289 22638 22785 23067 21676 21853<br />
II Leisure & Hosp 14581 14786 15201 15166 15139 15216 15120 15456 15554<br />
II Other Services<br />
Tot Government (Pub<br />
6105 6270 6725 6835 7112 6644 6657 6714 6573<br />
II Admin) 35742 35981 35541 35466 35584 36050 39599 37168 37913<br />
III Federal Government 2922 2761 2761 2749 2703 2658 2650 2792 2938<br />
IIII State Government 20373 20423 19731 19614 19710 20024 23415 20673 20890<br />
IIII Local Government 12447 12798 13049 13103 13172 13368 13534 13703 14086<br />
* Means that data has been suppressed or is not available<br />
6
Chart 1: 2009 Employment by Sector<br />
Chart 2: <strong>Lincoln</strong>’ Population Growth<br />
7
Chart 3: Single Family Permits 1975-2009<br />
Table4: <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lincoln</strong> - Detached Single Family - 4 - <strong>Year</strong> Table<br />
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009<br />
# Cost # Cost # Cost # Cost # Cost<br />
Jan. 68 774,591 89 1,007,372 88 1,163,863 81 907,619 71 784,232<br />
Feb. 67 910,004 87 967,125 78 909,207 76 947,505 76 706,588<br />
March 109 1,213,341 100 1,147,674 107 1,280,089 89 800,412 72 946,927<br />
April 99 883,165 87 706,214 88 1,031,776 82 877,275 85 813,112<br />
May 86 675,079 120 1,042,668 115 1,578,971 79 723,878 65 617,270<br />
June 91 675,834 97 985,229 97 736,760 76 662,915 89 766,615<br />
July 86 736,801 94 1,072,119 117 1,258,848 77 1,143,624 96 1,172,764<br />
August 91 577,553 44 433,967 110 1,138,598 92 1,264,374 77 790,319<br />
Sept. 96 1,066,767 92 674,348 94 1,070,733 83 962,319 78 778,464<br />
Oct. 92 644,856 96 966,277 96 868,251 80 750,551 79 552,852<br />
Nov. 93 1,070,079 66 423,155 88 961,501 62 1,071,515 81 890,150<br />
Dec. 63 512,579 74 871,566 61 686,991 58 474,216 60 743,974<br />
Total 1,041 9,740,649 1,046 10,297,714 1,139 12,685,588 935 10,586,203 929 9,563,267<br />
Avg.<br />
Cost 9,357 9,845 11,137 11,322 10,294<br />
8
Table5: Residental Condition, Desirability and Utility Comparison – Low Mod Income Area vs. the <strong>City</strong><br />
Examining only those parcels within a R zoning designation<br />
% LMI<br />
ALL LMI Difference <strong>of</strong> Total<br />
Range CDU Parcel Count % Parcel Count %<br />
Tear Down 0 22 0.03% 16 0.07% 0.04% 72.73%<br />
1 89 0.13% 77 0.35% 0.22% 86.52%<br />
2 1130 1.61% 960 4.38% 2.77% 84.96%<br />
3 6782 9.64% 4744 21.64% 12.01% 69.95%<br />
4 46160 65.60% 13794 62.93% -2.67% 29.88%<br />
5 15042 21.38% 2310 10.54% -10.84% 15.36%<br />
6 791 1.12% 17 0.08% -1.05% 2.15%<br />
7 273 0.39% 0 0.00% -0.39% 0.00%<br />
Emaculant 8 74 0.11% 0 0.00% -0.11% 0.00%<br />
Totals 70,363 21,918<br />
% Below 3 - - - - 11.40% - - - - 26.45%<br />
Table 6: Count <strong>of</strong> RESIDENTIAL addresses that are vacant 90 days or longer<br />
Zip<br />
Possible<br />
deliverable<br />
addresses<br />
Actual<br />
deliverable<br />
addresses<br />
Difference /<br />
Vacant<br />
68502 11,783 10,945 838<br />
68503 6,543 6,137 406<br />
68504 6,250 5,936 314<br />
68505 6,036 5,894 142<br />
68506 12,810 12,433 377<br />
68507 5,582 5,417 165<br />
68508 4,519 4,087 432<br />
68510 9,788 9,305 483<br />
68512 1,552 1,514 38<br />
68516 5,476 5,369 107<br />
68521 4,928 4,696 232<br />
68522 837 799 38<br />
68524 1,387 1,358 29<br />
68528 2,490 2,370 120<br />
Sum 79,981 76,260 3,721<br />
Source: USPS, 04/23/10<br />
9
<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Additional Files:<br />
Non‐Homeless Table
CPMP<br />
Grantee Name: Jurisdiction<br />
Non-Homeless Special Needs<br />
Including HOPWA<br />
Housing Needed (N/A = Not<br />
Adailable)<br />
Supportive Services Needed<br />
52. Elderly<br />
53. Frail Elderly<br />
54. Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness<br />
55. Developmentally Disabled<br />
56. Physically Disabled<br />
57. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted<br />
58. Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their families<br />
59. Public Housing Residents<br />
Total<br />
60. Elderly<br />
61. Frail Elderly<br />
62. Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness<br />
63. Developmentally Disabled<br />
64. Physically Disabled<br />
65. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted<br />
66. Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their families<br />
67. Public Housing Residents<br />
Total<br />
Needs<br />
Currently<br />
Available<br />
GAP<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
3-5 <strong>Year</strong> Quantities<br />
<strong>Year</strong> 1 <strong>Year</strong> 2 <strong>Year</strong> 3 <strong>Year</strong> 4* <strong>Year</strong> 5*<br />
Complete<br />
9325 6034 3291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
1755 1316 439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
2097 1447 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
1042 0 1042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
285 0 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
6385 3642 2743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
20889 12439 8450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
1975 0 1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
1646 0 1646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
2097 1447 651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
1042 0 1042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
300 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
7071 1447 5624 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Complete<br />
Goal<br />
Actual<br />
Total<br />
% <strong>of</strong> Goal<br />
Priority Need: H, M, L<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> to Fund? Y N<br />
Fund Source: CDBG, HOM