1 / 43

The Geography of LIHTC Developments in North Carolina

The Geography of LIHTC Developments in North Carolina. Civil Rights Mandates in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: A Strategic Planning Session July 18 th 2005. Jason Reece, AICP Senior GIS/Demographic Specialist Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity

Renfred
Download Presentation

The Geography of LIHTC Developments in North Carolina

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Geography of LIHTC Developments in North Carolina Civil Rights Mandates in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: A Strategic Planning Session July 18th 2005 Jason Reece, AICP Senior GIS/Demographic Specialist Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity The Ohio State University

  2. The Geography of LIHTC • Key Research Questions • Where are Family LIHTC Projects Located? • Are LIHTC Projects Located in High Poverty Communities? • Are LIHTC Projects Located in Racially Concentrated Communities? • Are the Results Different In Metro vs. Non Metro Areas?

  3. LIHTC in NC and Poverty • Nearly 2/3’s of projects were in neighborhoods with poverty rates greater than the state average in 2000 • Almost 40% were located in “high” poverty neighborhoods with poverty greater than 20% • In comparison, only 19% of the State’s census tracts had poverty rates higher than 20% in 2000 • State wide results were consistent with national and regional (the South) averages for poverty in LIHTC neighborhoods

  4. Family LIHTC and Poverty in NC

  5. LIHTC in NC and Race • The State’s family LIHTC projects are also more likely to be found in neighborhoods with high African American populations • ¾’s of projects are located in neighborhoods with African American population representation higher than the state average • More than ½ of LIHTC projects are in neighborhoods that are more than 40% African American • Projects appear more racially concentrated than national and regional averages for LIHTC neighborhoods

  6. LIHTC in NC and Race

  7. Variations in Metro vs. Non-Metro Areas • The characteristics of LIHTC projects can vary significantly inside and outside of metropolitan areas • Analysis of Metro and Non-Metro family projects in NC finds that both metro and non-metro projects are located in more racially and economically concentrated areas • Metro LIHTC Projects (Neighborhood Avg.) • LIHTC Neighborhoods: 17% Poverty Rate, 47% African American • Metro Average for Poverty (10.9%) and % African American (21.8%) • Non-Metro LIHTC Projects (Neighborhood Avg.) • LIHTC Neighborhoods: 20% Poverty Rate, 43% African American • Non Metro Average for Poverty (15.2%) and % African American (22.7%)

  8. Poverty and LIHTC Metro vs. Non-Metro Areas

  9. African American Population and LIHTC Metro vs. Non-Metro Areas

  10. Trends Within Metro Areas: Poverty and Race(Average, Minimum, Maximum, Std. Dev.)

  11. Analysis of the State’s Largest Regions • Family projects are more likely to be found in racially and economically concentrated neighborhoods in the State’s three largest metropolitan areas • Results vary by region, but generally are consistent with statewide findings

  12. Results for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA Average LIHTC Neighborhood: Poverty Rate 16.3%, 40.1% African American Metro Comparison: Poverty (9.3%), (20.4%) Af. Am.

  13. Zoom Image Of Poverty and “Family” LIHTC Projects

  14. Zoom Image Of African American Population and “Family” LIHTC Projects

  15. Results for the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point MSA Average LIHTC Neighborhood: Poverty Rate 21.4%, 71.7% African American Metro Comparison: Poverty (10.4%), (20.1%) Af. Am.

  16. Zoom Image Of Poverty and “Family” LIHTC Projects

  17. Zoom Image Of African American Population and “Family” LIHTC Projects

  18. Results for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill MSA Average LIHTC Neighborhood: Poverty Rate 15.2%, 41.3% African American Metro Comparison: Poverty (9.3%), (20.4%) Af. Am.

  19. LIHTC and Hispanic/Latino Neighborhoods • The Hispanic/Latino population is one of the fastest growing racial populations in North Carolina • Our analysis of the Hispanic/Latino population within LIHTC neighborhoods indicates that projects are generally not clustered in areas with large Latino populations • But, when analyzing both African American and Latino populations, data suggests that racially concentrated African American LIHTC neighborhoods do contain a substantial Latino population

  20. LIHTC and Hispanic/Latino Neighborhoods • The average LIHTC neighborhood contains a Hispanic/Latino population of 6.3% • (4.7% of NC’s pop. Is Latino) • The average combined Hispanic/Latino and African American population within LIHTC neighborhoods is 52.8% (6.2% of this population appears to be Latino)

  21. Access to Suburban LIHTC Projects • Measuring African American access to suburban LIHTC projects • Preliminary analysis of projects found in blocks in suburban areas outside of Raleigh seem to indicate some African American access, but not extensive access • More analysis with better data is needed to assess this phenomenon

  22. Zoom Image Of African American by Block Population and “Family” LIHTC Projects

  23. Temporal Trends • Has concentration by race and poverty increased or decreased from 1990 to 2004? • Analyzed the average neighborhood poverty rate and percentage African American for projects based upon date • Analysis three periods of data (5 year intervals) • 1990 to 1994 • 1995 to 1999 • 2000 to 2004 • Note fewer projects for analysis during the 2000 to 2004 cycle

  24. Temporal Trends • Results: • More recent projects are located in neighborhoods with a smaller African American population • Mixed results for poverty rates • The average poverty rate for neighborhoods with projects awarded from 1995 to 1999 declined, but more recent projects were located in higher poverty neighborhoods • This could be due to the smaller sample of recent projects available for analysis

  25. Temporal Trends

  26. Conclusions • Family LIHTC projects are clustered in more racially concentrated higher poverty neighborhoods • Both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas exhibit these trends • Concentration in Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods appears to be less severe • Temporal analysis indicates more recent projects are being built in less racially concentrated communities, but poverty results are mixed

  27. Notes on the Data and Methods 1 • Family LIHTC projects were defined by identifying projects that did not have an “elderly” target population (as defined by the State) • This analysis covers projects from 1990 to 2004 and utilized both the HUD LIHTC database and State LIHTC records • “Neighborhoods” were defined by 2000 Census Tract boundaries

  28. Notes on the Data and Methods 2 • Due to missing geographic data in the HUD database and incomplete address data in the State database, some projects could not be mapped for the analysis • Of the 986 LIHTC projects identified for this analysis, 152 were not analyzed due to missing geographic data

  29. Questions or Comments? For More Information Visit Us On-Line:www.KirwanInstitute.org E-Mail @: Reece.35@osu.edu

More Related