Docstoc

AI_Final

Document Sample
AI_Final Powered By Docstoc
					    State of Nebraska
Analysis of Impediments
 to Fair Housing Choice


 Prepared in Support of Nebraska’s
    Five-Year Consolidated Plan

     Plan Year Beginning July 1, 2005



              Final Report

         Revised May 15, 2005
                State of Nebraska
            Analysis of Impediments
             to Fair Housing Choice

             Prepared in Support of Nebraska’s
                Five-Year Consolidated Plan
                         Plan Year Beginning July 1, 2005


                                              FINAL REPORT


                                               Prepared for
                               Nebraska Department of Economic Development

                                                       By
                                         Western Economic Services, LLC
                                              212 S.E. 18th Avenue
                                             Portland, Oregon 97214
                                                 (503) 239-9091
                                              FAX: (503) 239-0236


                                              (Revised May 15, 2005)




Nebraska Department of Economic Development
Nebraska Department of Economic Development
Table of Contents

                                                                    Page

Executive Summary                                                    1

Section I: Introduction                                              3
         Overview                                                    3
         Research Methodology                                        4
         Funding of Study                                            4

Section II: Background                                               5
         Introduction                                                5
         Population and Age Cohorts                                  5
         Sex                                                         6
         Disability Status                                           6
         Race and Ethnicity                                          7
         Labor Force                                                 12
         Unemployment                                                12
         Personal Income                                             13
         Per Capita Income                                           14
         Low-Income Concentrations                                   15
         Poverty                                                     17
         Housing Values                                              17
         Housing Stock                                               18
         Overcrowding                                                18
         Summary                                                     19

Section III: Federal and State Fair Housing Laws                     21
         Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968                            21
         Additional Federal Laws                                     24
         Nebraska Fair Housing Act                                   25

Section IV: Public & Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities    31
         The Department of Housing and Urban Development             31
         Fair Housing Assistance Program                             31
         Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission                       32
         City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights                  33
         Omaha Human Relations Department                            33
         Fair Housing Initiative Program                             34
         Fair Housing Center and Family Housing Advisory Services    34
         High Plains Community Development Corporation               35
         Prospective Changes in Nebraska Fair Housing Law            36
         Related Studies                                             36


Nebraska Department of Economic Development    i
Section V: Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices         39
         2004 Fair Housing Survey                                  39
         HUD Complaint Data                                        47
         Suits Filed by the Department of Justice                  51
         Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data Analysis         52
         Summary                                                   62

Section VI: Summary & Actions to be Implemented                    65
         Summary of Background                                     65
         Public and Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities   66
         Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices           66
         Impediments to Fair Housing Choice                        68
         Strategies to Address Impediments                         69
         Actions to be Implemented                                 69

References                                                         71

Appendix A: HMDA Tables                                            73
Appendix B: Demographic Data                                       81




Nebraska Department of Economic Development      ii
Executive Summary

Introduction
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires jurisdictions to complete an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in order to receive funds from HUD’s formula
grant programs. The Analysis of Impediments serves as the basis for fair housing planning, provides
essential information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing providers, lenders, and fair
housing advocates, and assists in building public support for fair housing efforts.

The Analysis of Impediments is one of three steps required of the State as part of the
Consolidated Plan process and affirmatively furthering fair housing. These are:
 Completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice;
 Taking actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis;
  and,
 Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and any actions taken.

In Nebraska, legal protection is afforded when housing choice is restricted on the basis of color,
disability, familial status, national origin, race, religion, or sex. This Analysis of Impediments
provides a broad analysis that explores and identifies actions, omissions, and conditions in the
State that may have the effect of restricting housing choice for people protected by State and
federal fair housing laws.

Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
This Analysis of Impediments revealed the following impediments to fair housing choice in the
State of Nebraska:
1. There is a general lack of understanding of fair housing law;
2. Violations of fair housing law do occur, particularly in rental markets;
3. Some confusion exists concerning whom to turn to when a violation of fair housing law is
   alleged to occur, as well as how to access the State’s fair housing complaint system;
4. Areas of the State, outside of Lincoln and Omaha, are underserved by the current housing
   complaint and enforcement system;
5. Design and construction standards are not adequately understood or consistently
   implemented;
6. Some minority populations appear to have unusually high home loan denial rates; and,
7. Subprime lenders are offering high home improvement loan amounts for extremely low-
   income homeowners.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development      1
Strategies to Address Impediments
The Nebraska Department of Economic Development has neither the authority to act unilaterally
nor the resources necessary to overcome these impediments to fair housing choice. However, the
DED plans to take action, addressing the State’s impediments to fair housing through three
strategies:
1. Enhance statewide understanding of fair housing law through outreach and education;
2. Enhance consumer understanding of credit markets and the importance of establishing good
   credit; and,
3. Enhance the efficiency and geographic distribution of the fair housing complaint and
   enforcement system.

Actions to be Implemented
In order to accomplish the three strategies listed above, the DED intends to implement the
following actions:
1. Increase exposure and awareness statewide of the HUD fair housing discrimination
   complaint toll-free numbers (800)-669-9777 and for the hearing impaired, TTY (800) 927-
   9275 1-(800) 927-9275.
2. Refer people to HUD with allegations of fair housing violations. Also increase awareness of
   the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), the Lincoln Human Rights
   Commission for people in Lincoln, and the Fair Housing Center for people in Omaha;
3. Endorse complaint-based testing by fair housing education and/or enforcement agencies in
   non-entitled areas of the State;
4. Urge the NEOC to increase enforcement activities in underserved areas of the State, with a
   focus on areas having the most rapidly growing minority populations, especially Hispanic,
   Asian, and other new and rising minority populations;
5. Enhance education and outreach activities concerning fair housing law, including education
   about the fair housing complaint system, as well as design and construction standards;
6. Endorse systemic testing by fair housing education and/or enforcement agencies of new
   construction testing for design and construction standards compliance;
7. Enhance understanding of credit markets through educational efforts targeted both to housing
   consumers and providers through partnering organizations including Fannie Mae Nebraska,
   the NEOC, the Lincoln Human Rights Commission, the Fair Housing Center of Nebraska,
   the Nebraska Housing Developers Association, the Nebraska Commission on Housing and
   Homelessness, the State’s Continuums of Care, and other partners who provide educational
   services in the areas of credit markets to housing consumers and providers; and,
8. Enhance understanding of fair housing law by expanding the role of a fair housing education
   agency, a fair housing enforcement agency and/or a statewide affordable housing education
   agency as an information clearinghouse on Nebraska law, design and construction standards,
   and other resources.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development    2
Section I. Introduction

Overview
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 made it illegal to discriminate in the area of housing because of a
person’s race, color, religion, or national origin. Sex was added as a protected class in the 1970s.
In 1988, the Fair Housing Amendments Act added familial status and disability to the list,
making a total of seven federally protected classes. Familial status includes parents or legal
guardians of minors under the age of 18. Disability covers physical and mental disabilities as
well as people with AIDS or alcoholism. Federal housing protection does not cover income or
source of income.

Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are components of HUD’s housing and
community development programs. These provisions flow from Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair
Housing Act, which requires the Secretary of HUD to administer HUD’s housing and urban
development programs in a manner which affirmatively furthers fair housing.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines impediments to fair
housing as:
   Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability,
    familial status, or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing
    choice; or
   Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or
    the availability of housing choice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
    status, or national origin.

In 1994, HUD published a rule consolidating a number of programs into what is called the
Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. The consolidated programs
include the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI),
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS
(HOPWA). All of these formula grant programs currently are funded in Nebraska.

As part of the Consolidated Plan, the State of Nebraska is required to submit to HUD
certification of affirmatively furthering fair housing, which requires the State to undertake fair
housing planning by:
 Completing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice;
 Taking actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis;
  and,
 Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and any actions taken.

This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice represents one of Nebraska’s efforts to
comply with the HUD requirements.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development        3
Research Methodology
This Analysis of Impediments represents a comprehensive examination of information. Data
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis were collected for the period from 1969 through 2003,
including the total number of jobs, average earnings per worker, and per capita income. This
information was compared with national statistics. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were
collected and analyzed, assessing unemployment rates and the general direction of Nebraska’s
economy. The purpose of this data was to ascertain the strength of economic influences in
Nebraska’s housing marketplace. The 2000 Census was used to assess a variety of demographic,
economic, and housing-related issues, such as race and ethnicity, disability status, low-income
concentrations, poverty, housing values, housing conditions, and cost burdens.

Housing discrimination complaint records for Nebraska in federal fiscal years 1993 through
2003, released by HUD, were tabulated and analyzed. Additionally, the Department of Justice
Web site was reviewed for recent housing discrimination cases brought to litigation.

Congress enacted the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975 and amended it from 1988
to 1991. The Act allows the public to view loan data that can be used to determine whether
financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of their communities and to identify
possible discriminatory lending patterns. For this Analysis of Impediments, HMDA data from
1993 to 2002 were analyzed. This involved evaluation of nearly a half million loan applications
over the 10-year period.

A telephone survey was conducted, along with interviews of representatives from key agencies,
including the Assistive Technology Partnership, Chicano Awareness Center, the Fair Housing
Center in Omaha, the Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, and the Nebraska Equal
Opportunity Commission. Representatives of Nebraska’s Department of Economic Development
prepared a list of 150 prospective respondents for the telephone interviews. Participants in the
survey were drawn from a broad array of housing-related professions across Nebraska, reflecting
an even geographic balance throughout the State and allowing for qualitative analysis of general
views and trends experienced across the State.

Funding of Study
This study was funded by the Nebraska Department of Economic Development. The report was
prepared by Western Economic Services, LLC, a Portland, Ore., consulting organization that
specializes in conducting analysis and research in support of housing and community
development planning.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development     4
Section II. Background

Introduction
The following narrative provides general background information from the 2000 Decennial
Census, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. This
data provides context to Nebraska’s housing market.

Population and Age Cohorts
Nebraska had a Census 2000 population of 1,711,263 people. The State grew by 132,878 people
between the 1990 and 2000 Census, an 8.4 percent increase, as compared to a nationwide
increase of 13.1 percent over the same period. As shown in Table II.1, below, 29.5 percent of the
State’s population was under the age of 20 in 2000, and 28.6 percent of the population was
between the ages of 35 and 54 years.

In the last decade, the 35 to 54 age group experienced the strongest rate of growth, 29.5
percent. The 25 to 34 age group was the only sector that showed a decrease in population,
declining 13.2 percent between 1990 and 2000. The State’s over-65 population increased 4.1
percent overall and, at 13.6 percent of the State’s total population, was 1.2 percent larger than
the national average for this age group.

                                                  TABLE II.1
                                 NEBRASKA POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
                                               1990 AND 2000 CENSUS
                            Subject                    1990          2000   % Change
                                                         Sex
                            Male                    769,439       843,351        9.6
                            Female                  808,946       867,912        7.3
                                                         Age
                            Under 20 years          476,250       504,336         5.9
                            20 to 24 years          108,649       120,331        10.8
                            25 to 34 years          257,208       223,273       -13.2
                            35 to 54 years          378,201       489,588        29.5
                            55 to 64 years          135,009       141,540         4.8
                            65 & over               223,068       232,195         4.1
                               Male                  89,335        95,630         7.1
                               Female               133,733       136,565         2.1
                            Total Population      1,578,385     1,711,263         8.4


Although Nebraska’s population increased overall between 1990 and 2000, growth varied
considerably in different areas of Nebraska. The population increased the most in the eastern
portion of the State and declined the most in the north-central area of Nebraska.

Sex

The percentage of males and females in Nebraska was closely balanced in 1990 and again in
2000. In 2000, approximately 50.7 percent of the State’s population was female, and 49. 3
percent of the State’s population was male. According to 2000 Census data, a higher
percentage, 58.8 percent, of the State’s 65-and-over population was female, although this
segment of the population grew by just 2.1 percent between 1990 and 2000. This growth rate


Nebraska Department of Economic Development              5
was less than a third of the rate seen among males in the 65-and-over age category during the
same time period.

Disability Status
The 2000 Census found that 250,534 Nebraska citizens, 14.6 percent of the State’s total
population, had a disability. 1 This was a significantly lower percentage of the total population
than the average of 19.3 percent disabled found across the entire United States. Over 56
percent of the disabled people in the State were in their prime working years, from 21 to 64
years of age, as seen in Table II.2, below. An additional 80,401 disabled people were 65 years
of age or older.

                                                            TABLE II.2
                                                DISABILITY STATUS BY AGE
                                                             CENSUS 2000
                                 Age                                                         Nebraska
                                 5 to 15 years                                                 13,832
                                 16 to 20 years                                                13,654
                                 21 to 64 years                                               142,647
                                 65 years and over                                             80,401
                                 Total disabled                                               250,534


Race and Ethnicity
The State of Nebraska became significantly more diverse between 1990 and 2000. While the
white population increased 3.6 percent over the decade, whites now compose just 89.6 percent of
the total population, down from 93.8 percent in 1990.

Meanwhile, the State’s racial and ethnic minority populations increased significantly. The
Hispanic population increased 155.4 percent over the decade, the American Indian or Alaskan
Native (hereafter termed “Native American”) population increased 20.0 percent, and the black
population rose 19.4 percent. The number of people who labeled themselves as “some other
race” increased dramatically, 206.9 percent, between 1990 and 2000, while the new Census

1
    The data on disability status were derived from answers to long-form questionnaire items 16 and 17. Item 16 was a two-part
question asked of a sample of the population five years old and over, asking about the existence of these long-lasting conditions: (a)
blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment (sensory disability), and (b) a condition that substantially limits one or
more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying (physical disability). Item 17 was a four-
part question asking if the individual had a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more that made it difficult to
perform certain activities. The four categories were: (a) learning, remembering, or concentrating (mental disability); (b) dressing,
bathing, or getting around inside the home (self-care disability); (c) going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’ s office
(going outside the home disability); and (d) working at a job or business (employment disability). Categories 17a and 17b were
asked of a sample five years old and over; 17c and 17d were asked of a sample 16 years old and over. For data products using the
items individually, these terms are used: sensory disability for 16a, physical disability for 16b, mental disability for 17a, self-care
disability for 17b, going outside the home disability for 17c, and employment disability for 17d. For data products which use a
disability status indicator, individuals were classified as having a disability if any of these three conditions was true: (1) they were
five years old and over and had a response of "yes" to a sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; (2) they were 16 years old
and over and had a response of "yes" to going outside the home disability; or (3) they were 16 to 64 and had a response of "yes" to
employment disability.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                          6
category of “two or more” races included 23,953 people. 2 These data are presented in Table
II.3, on the following page.

                                                                 TABLE II.3
                                              NEBRASKA MINORITY POPULATION
                                                            1990 AND 2000 CENSUS
                    Race/Ethnicity                            1990 Population 2000 Population                           % Change
                    White                                           1,480,558       1,533,261                                 3.6
                    Black                                              57,404          68,541                                19.4
                    Native American                                    12,410          14,896                                20.0
                    Asian                                              12,422          21,931                                76.6
                    Nat. Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (1)                      .             836                                   .
                    Some other Race                                    15,591          47,845                               206.9
                    Two or More Races                                       .          23,953                                   .
                    Hispanic                                           36,969          94,425                               155.4
                    Total population                                1,578,385       1,711,263                                 8.4
                    (1) 1990: Pacific Islander: Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, Pacific Islander, not specified.
                    2000: NH & OPI: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander


Although Nebraska remained substantially less diverse than the nation as a whole, the State’s
racial and ethnic diversity increased substantially from 1990 to 2000. With 5.5 percent of the
total population, Hispanics formed the State’s largest minority group in 2000, replacing blacks,
who formed the largest minority population in 1990 and composed 4.0 percent of the State’s total
population in 2000. Across the United States in 2000, Hispanics formed 12.5 percent and blacks
composed 12.3 percent of the total population.

The State’s 2000 total minority racial concentration by county, as well as the black and
Hispanic concentrations, by county, are presented graphically in Diagrams II.1, II.2, and II.3.

As shown in Diagram II.1, the State’s minority populations were most highly concentrated in
several counties in the eastern portion of the State, including Colfax, Dakota, Douglas, and
Thurston counties, with 18.3, 21.2, 19.0, and 54.2 percent, respectively. However, counties in
other areas of the State also had relatively high minority concentrations, including Dawson and
Hall Counties in the central part of the State, with 17.7 and 11.3 percent respectively, and Scotts
Bluff, Sheridan and Box Butte Counties in the western part of the State, with 12.4, 11.9, and 9.2
percent respectively.

HUD states that an area’s minority concentration is disproportionately high if it is more than 10
percentage points higher than the jurisdiction’s average minority concentration. Using that
threshold, Colfax, Douglas, Dakota, and Thurston had disproportionately high minority
concentrations. Thurston’s high minority concentration – Native Americans compose 52 percent of
the county’s population – is due largely to the Omaha and Winnebago Indian Reservations.

Diagram II.2 shows that Douglas County, with an 11.5 percent concentration of blacks, was the
State’s only county with a large share of the black population.

Diagram II.3 presents the Hispanic ethnic concentration by county. Here, Colfax, Dakota, and
Dawson County had disproportionately high shares of the Hispanic population, with 26.2, 22.6,
and 25.4 percent, respectively. These statistics indicate that high concentrations of minority
2
 Race data for the 2000 Census are not directly comparable to the 1990 Census. In the 2000 Census, people were able to identify themselves as
more than one race; previously, people could indicate only one race. The general positive or negative direction of the change in particular
population groups between 1990 and 2000 is likely to be accurate and is used here to point out State trends.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                                7
racial and ethnic populations exist in many of the more rural areas of the State. The incidence of
fair housing impediments in these areas is, even if not reported, likely to be higher as a result, as
new residents to many of these areas are racial and ethnic minorities.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development       8
                                                            DIAGRAM II.1
                                              NEBRASKA MINORITY CONCENTRATION BY COUNTY
                                                              2000 Census




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                        9
                                                           DIAGRAM II.2
                                              NEBRASKA BLACK CONCENTRATION BY COUNTY
                                                             2000 Census




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                       10
                                                            DIAGRAM II.3
                                              NEBRASKA HISPANIC CONCENTRATION BY COUNTY
                                                              2000 Census




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                       11
Labor Force

Labor force statistics provide a source of employment data that may be utilized to better
understand the status of Nebraska’s economy. These statistics are collected by the Ne braska
Department of Labor and Industry under rules established by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). For this data, employment is defined as people either working or looking
for work.

Between 1990 and 2003, Nebraska’s labor force expanded by 160,716 people, an overall
increase of 16.5 percent. During the same time period, employment increased 139,497 people, or
14.9 percent, and is now at an all-time high. As shown in Table II.4, below, the State’s
unemployment rate rose to 4.0 percent in 2003, the highest unemployment rate since 1990, and a
.4 percent increase over the 2002 rate. Convention suggests that 4.0 percent still represents full
employment of the labor force, with those unemployed primarily a transient portion of the total
labor force. Hence, Nebraska’s unemployment picture remains positive.

                                                     Table II.4
                                    LABOR FORCE STATISTICS, NEBRASKA
                                              BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
            Year         Labor Force            Employment       Unemployment   Unemployment Rate
            1990           815,318                797,167            18,151            2.2
            1991           838,178                814,963            23,215            2.8
            1992           843,511                817,959            25,552            3.0
            1993           865,506                842,500            23,006            2.7
            1994           888,060                862,586            25,474            2.9
            1995           909,607                885,547            24,060            2.6
            1996           924,310                897,235            27,075            2.9
            1997           922,179                898,119            24,060            2.6
            1998           935,136                909,901            25,235            2.7
            1999           931,859                905,213            26,646            2.9
            2000           943,996                915,911            28,085            3.0
            2001           952,869                923,481            29,388            3.1
            2002           959,217                924,870            34,347            3.6
            2003           976,034                936,664            39,370            4.0


Unemployment

As shown in Diagram II.4, on the following page, the national unemployment rate in 2003 was
6.0 percent. The State’s unemployment rate increased each year from 1996 to 2003, and the gap
between State and national unemployment rates reached their lowest level in 2000. However, the
national unemployment rate rose precipitously in the following three years and in 2003 was a full
2.0 percent above the State’s unemployment rate.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                   12
                                                                                   D IAG R AM II.4
                                                           N E B R A S K A A N D U . S . U N E M P L O YM E N T R A T E S

                                      8 .0
                                      7 .5
                                      7 .0
         U n em p lo ym en t R at e




                                      6 .5
                                      6 .0
                                      5 .5
                                      5 .0
                                      4 .5
                                      4 .0
                                      3 .5
                                      3 .0
                                      2 .5
                                      2 .0
                                             1990   1991   199 2   1993     1994     1995     199 6     1997     19 98   1999     2000     2001     2002      2003
                                                                                                   Ye ar

                                                            N e b ra s k a U n e m p lo y m e n t R a t e            U .S . U n e m p l o y m e n t R a t e




Personal Income

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides income and employment data. The BEA
reported that total earnings in Nebraska generally increased after 1969, reaching some $39.4
billion in real dollar terms by 2002. 3 With the addition of dividends, interest, and rent
payments received (as unearned income sources), the State’s total personal income exceeded
$51.2 billion in 2002. Total personal income grew by an average of 2.7 percent per year
between 1969 and 2002.

While earnings rose an average of 2.3 percent per year, property income (comprising dividends,
interest, and rent) rose nearly 3.5 percent per year from 1969 to 2002, surpassing $10 billion in
2002. During the same time period, total employment, defined differently than the BLS as full
and part-time jobs, increased more slowly, about 1.6 percent per year. Consequently, average
real earnings per job rose steadily, reaching $33,372 in 2002. Unfortunately, real earnings per job
in the United States in 2002 were $41,436, $8,064 higher than in Nebraska, even though this was
nearly $1,000 less than the gap seen in 2000. Diagram II.5, on the following page, shows the
comparison between real earnings per job in Nebraska and the United States between 1969 and
2002.




3
    The term “real” is used to indicate that the influences of inflation have been removed, and the values therefore indicate a measure of buying
    power over time.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                                                                 13
                                                                                                     D IAGR AM II.5
                                                                         N EB R A S K A V S U .S . R E A L E A R N I N G S P E R J O B
                                                                                                        2 0 0 3 DO L L A RS
                                          $42,000
                                          $40,000
  R eal A verag e $ Per Jo b




                                          $38,000
                                          $36,000
                                          $34,000
                                          $32,000
                                          $30,000
                                          $28,000
                                          $26,000
                                          $24,000
                                          $22,000
                                                    69 70   71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80              8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 86 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0     91 9 2 9 3 94 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 0 0        01 02



                                                                 R e a l A v e r a g e Ea r n in g s p e r jo b in Ne b ra s ka            R e a l A v e ra g e Ea r n in g s p e r jo b in U .S .




Per Capita Income

In 2003, Nebraska’s real per capita income, defined as total personal income divided by
population, was $30,758, an increase of 3.6 percent from 2002. As seen in Diagram II.6, below,
the U.S. per capita income flattened out after 2000, reaching $31,632 in 2003. Nebraska’s per
capita income continued its steady, positive growth in Nebraska, and was just $874 less than
national norms in 2003.


                                                                                                  D IAGR AM II.6
                                                                    N EB R A S K A V S U . S . R E A L P E R C A P I T A I N C O M E
                                                                                                     2 0 0 3 DO L L A RS
                                          $32,000
                                          $30,000
          R eal Per C ap it a In co m e




                                          $28,000
                                          $26,000
                                          $24,000
                                          $22,000
                                          $20,000
                                          $18,000
                                          $16,000
                                          $14,000
                                          $12,000
                                                     6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 73 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 78 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 83 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3



                                                                                  Ne b ra s ka Pe r Ca p it a In c o m e               U .S . Pe r C a p it a In c o m e




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                                                                                       14
Low-Income Concentrations

According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Nebraska was $39,250, with
income levels varying widely across the State. Sarpy County had the State’s highest median
household income at $53,804, while Keya Paha County had the lowest median income at
$24,911. Table II.5, below, presents household incomes for 2000 in discrete segments, from
under $10,000 to $150,000 or more. In all, 99,612, or 15.0 percent, of Nebraska’s households
had incomes lower than $15,000. Another 14.8 percent of Nebraska households earned
between $15,000 and $24,999.

                                                   TABLE II.5
                                        HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME RANGE
                                                      CENSUS 2000
                               Income Range                         Nebraska
                               Less than $10,000                      55,635
                               $10,000 to $14,999                     43,977
                               $15,000 to $19,999                     47,150
                               $20,000 to $24,999                     51,520
                               $25,000 to $34,999                     97,763
                               $35,000 to $49,999                    122,648
                               $50,000 to $74,999                    135,581
                               $75,000 to $99,999                     58,154
                               $100,000 to $149,999                   36,230
                               $150,000 or more                       17,526
                               Total Households                      666,184
                               Median Household Income                39,250


For this report, extremely low-income households were calculated as those earning $20,000 or
less, or approximately half of the median household income of $39,250. Over 146,700
households in the State fall into this extremely low-income category. Diagram II.7, on the
following page, shows the percentage of these extremely low-income households in each county
in the State.

In 2000, the largest concentration of extremely low-income households was found in Keya Paha
County, with 63.1 percent, followed closely by nearby Rock and Boyd counties, at 55.3 and 55.0
percent, respectively. The lowest concentrations of households earning less than $20,000 per
year were found on the eastern edge of the State, with Sarpy County at 13.2 percent and
neighboring Cass County at 19.6 percent.

While income is not a protected class under State or federal law, minorities tend to comprise a
higher portion of lower-income households. Consequently, these statistics provide further insight
into where one might find a higher incidence of impediments to fair housing.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                   15
                                                             DIAGRAM II.7
                                              NEBRASKA EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION
                                                               Census 2000




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                         16
Poverty
The Census Bureau uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to
determine poverty status. If a family’s total income is less than that family’s threshold, then that
family, and every individual in it, is considered poor. The poverty thresholds do not vary
geographically, but they are updated annually for inflation, using the Consumer Price Index. The
official poverty definition counts monetary income earned before taxes and does not include
capital gains and non-cash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps. Poverty
is not defined for people in military barracks, institutional group quarters, or for unrelated
individuals under the age of 15, such as foster children. These people are excluded from the
poverty calculations.4

In 2000, 161,269 people lived in poverty in Nebraska, a poverty rate of 9.7 percent. This rate was
significantly lower than the 12.4 percent rate seen in the nation, and 1.4 percent lower than found in
the State in 1990. Table II.6, below, shows the number of people in poverty by discrete age
segments. Nearly 55,000 people in the State under the age of 18 lived in poverty in 2000.

                                                                TABLE II.6
                                     POVERTY STATUS OF THE POPULATION BY AGE
                                                                 2000 CENSUS
                              Cohort                                                          Nebraska
                              Under 5 years                                                     15,946
                              5 years                                                            3,434
                              6 to 11 years                                                     18,685
                              12 to 17 years                                                    16,412
                              18 to 64 years                                                    89,407
                              65 to 74 years                                                     6,996
                              75 years and over                                                 10,389
                              Total People in Poverty                                          161,269
                              Poverty Rate                                                         9.7


Housing Values
Housing costs for both homeowner and rental stock in Nebraska are, on average, considerably
lower than what is found nationally. Higher home prices may force prospective buyers to have
larger down payments, choose less expensive homes, or increase the amount they borrow.

The 2000 Census reported that the median gross rent, which includes the estimated costs of utility
services the tenant must pay, was $491 per month in Nebraska, $111 less than the U.S. average of
$602 per month. Home values also were significantly lower in Nebraska than seen nationally. The
median value of a home in Nebraska was $88,000, 26.4 percent lower than in the nation. Both
median gross rent and median home value are shown in Table II.7, below.

                                                                TABLE II.7
                                         MEDIAN GROSS RENT AND HOME VALUES
                                           SPECIFIC OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
                                                                 2000 CENSUS
                                Area                    Median Gross Rent      Median Home Value
                                Nebraska                         491                88,000
                                United States                    602                119,600

4
    Information available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                              17
Housing Stock
The 2000 Census estimated that Nebraska’s housing stock totaled 722,668 units, an increase of
9.4 percent over the 1990 total. Nearly half of all housing had from four to six rooms, and 37
percent had three bedrooms. Of the total units in 2000, 56,484 were vacant, 216,867 were rented,
and the remaining 449,317 were owner-occupied.

Of the State’s total housing stock, 666,184 units were occupied, a 10.6 percent increase over the
1990 total. The Census found the State’s rental vacancy rate to be 7.6 percent in 2000, down .6
percent from 1990. The State’s homeowner vacancy rate was 1.8 in 2000, an increase of 7.8
percent from 1990.

Over one-fourth, 25.3 percent, of the State’s housing stock was built prior to 1940, increasing the
probability of lead-based paint hazards, especially for low-income households. Another 18.6
percent of the State’s housing stock was built between 1940 and 1959.

Single-family, detached homes made up 71.9 percent of the total housing stock. The greatest
increase in a particular type of housing was in dwellings with 20 or more units, which rose by
46.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. The number of single-family, attached units rose 32.6
percent over the decade.

Overcrowding

HUD defines a housing unit that has a housing problem as one in which the householder is
overcrowded, lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, or is experiencing a cost burden. A
household is defined as living in overcrowded housing conditions if the household has between
one and 1.5 people per room. The household is said to have severely overcrowded conditions if
there are more than 1.5 people per room. Statewide, the 2000 Census found that 17,963 households
encountered some degree of overcrowding. Of these, 63.0 percent were overcrowded renters and
37.0 percent were overcrowded homeowners, as shown in Table II.8, below.

                                                        TABLE II.8
                                 INCIDENCE OF OVERCROWDING BY TENURE
                                                        2000 CENSUS
                                                         Nebraska                                 United States
Degree of                                                             % of All     % of All   % of All     % of All
Overcrowding                  Renters         Homeowners    Total     Renters    Homeowners   Renters   Homeowners
Overcrowded                     6,033           4,432       10,465      2.8         1.0         5.2        1.9
Severely Overcrowded            5,279           2,219        7,498      2.4          .5         5.8        1.2
Total                          11,312           6,651       17,963      5.2         1.5        11.0        3.1


In 2000, severely overcrowded conditions occurred disproportionately more often to
Nebraska’s renters than to homeowners. Over 7,498 households in the State, including 5,279
renters, lived in extremely overcrowded conditions in 2000; however, on a percentage basis,
Nebraska’s overcrowding problem both for renters and homeowners was less severe than the
national average.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                   18
Although Nebraska’s overcrowding rates in 2000 compared favorably to national rates,
overcrowding in the State increased precipitously between 1990 and 2000. Severe overcrowding
in the State increased 250.5 percent, and overcrowding increased 44.1 percent.

According to Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, the return of overcrowding as a
national housing problem is almost entirely due to strong growth in foreign-born households,
which are “more likely than the native-born to cope with high housing costs by doubling up.”5
The rising minority population in Nebraska makes it likely that doubling up is occurring in the
State, perhaps accounting for the rapid increases in overcrowding and severe overcrowding.

Summary
Population. Between 1990 and 2000, Nebraska’s population rose by 132,878 people, reaching
1,711,263 in 2000. The strongest rate of growth in the decade was 29.5 percent in the 35 to 54
age group, and the only population decline was in the 25 to 34 age group. The percentage of
males and females in the State remained almost evenly divided from 1990 to 2000. The disabled
population in the State was 250,534 people in 2000, 14.6 percent of the total population.

Race and Ethnicity. Nebraska became significantly more racially and ethnically diverse
between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, the white population composed 89.6 percent of the total
population, down from 93.8 percent in 2000. The Hispanic population rose 155.4 percent over
the decade, the Asian population increased 76.6 percent, and the black and Native American
populations increased 19.4 and 20 percent, respectively. The minority concentrations varied
greatly by county, with the highest concentrations found in some rural as well as urban areas.
The incidence of impediments to fair housing is likely to be higher in high minority
concentration areas.

Labor, Income, and Earnings. Nebraska’s labor force expanded by 160,716 people between
1990 and 2003, or 16.5 percent. Employment increased over the same period by 14.9 percent,
while unemployment rose to 4.0 percent in 2003, still 2.0 percent below that of the nation. Total
employment, including full- and part-time jobs rose an average of 1.6 percent per year between
1969 and 2002.

As of 2002, total earnings in the State increased to $39.4 billion in real dollar terms, while total
personal income exceeded $51.2 billion. The average real earnings per job in the State increased
steadily since 1969, reaching $33,372 in 2002, but was $8,064 less than the national average.
Nebraska’s per capita income in 2003 was $30,758, an increase of 3.6 percent over 2002 figures,
and just $874 less than the national average.

Low-Income and Poverty. The median household income in Nebraska was $39,250 in 2000.
Some 146,700 households, or 22.0 percent of the State’s households, earned less than $20,000
in 2000, and 15.0 percent of all households earned less than $15,000. The 2000 Census
reported that 161,269 people in the State were in poverty, a poverty rate of 9.7 percent. The
extremely low-income concentrations tended to be in the more rural areas of the State,
including many of the same areas with the highest minority concentrations.

5
    The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2004, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2004.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                               19
Housing. In 2000, the median gross rent in Nebraska was $491, $111 less than the national
average. The median home value in Nebraska, at $88,000, was 26.4 percent lower than in the
nation. The State’s housing stock increased 9.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. The greatest increase
in housing stock, 46.5 percent, was in the number of dwellings with 20 or more units. The rental
vacancy rate in 2000 was 7.6 percent, down .6 percent from 1990, and the homeowner vacancy
rate was 1.8 percent, an increase of 7.8 percent.

Overcrowding. Statewide, 17,963 households in the State experienced some degree of
overcrowding in 2000. The majority of these households, 63.0 percent, were renters.
Nebraska’s overcrowding problem increased precipitously between 1990 and 2000. Severe
overcrowding rose 250.5 percent, and overcrowding increased 44.1 percent. Despite the
increases, overcrowding of both types was less severe both for renters and homeowners in
Nebraska as compared to the nation.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development     20
Nebraska Department of Economic Development   21
Section III. Federal and State Fair Housing Laws

Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is known as the Fair Housing Act. The Act, as
amended in 1974 and 1988, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of
dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, familial status, and disability. These seven classifications are collectively termed
federally protected classes. The federal familial status provision protects children under the
age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing
custody of children under the age of 18.

Three significant changes to the Fair Housing Act were made recently.6 These changes are
described briefly as follows:
1. The Housing for Older People Act of 1995 (HOPA) made several changes to the 55 and older
   exemption. Since the 1988 Amendments, the Fair Housing Act has exempted from its
   familial status provisions properties that satisfy the Act's 55 and older housing condition.
   First, HOPA eliminated the requirement that 55 and older housing have "significant facilities
   and services" designed for the elderly.
       Second, HOPA established a "good faith reliance" immunity from damages for people who
       in good faith believe that the 55 and older exemption applies to a particular property, if they
       do not actually know that the property is not eligible for the exemption and if the property
       formally stated in writing that it qualifies for the exemption.
2. Changes were made in the Act to enhance law enforcement, including making amendments
   to criminal penalties in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 for violating the Fair
   Housing Act.
3. Changes were made to provide incentives for self-testing by lenders for discrimination under
   the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. See Title II, subtitle D of the
   Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104 - 208 (9/30/96).

The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-
occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without
the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy
to members.

The Act in its entirety may be found online at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm. The
Fair Housing Act and its amendments refer to a number of prohibited actions. These actions are
summarized briefly in the following pages:7




6
    Information available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm
7
    Ibid.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                            22
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on
race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability:
   Refuse to rent or sell housing;
   Refuse to negotiate for housing;
   Make housing unavailable;
   Deny a dwelling;
   Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling;
   Provide different housing services or facilities;
   Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental;
   For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting); or
   Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing
    service) related to the sale or rental of housing.

In Mortgage Lending: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability:
   Refuse to make a mortgage loan;
   Refuse to provide information regarding loans;
   Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees;
   Discriminate in appraising property;
   Refuse to purchase a loan; or
   Set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan.

In Addition: It is illegal for anyone to do the following:
   Threaten, coerce, intimidate or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or
    assisting others who exercise that right; or
   Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race,
    color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. This prohibition against
    discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is
    otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act.

Additional Protection if You Have a Disability: If you or someone associated with you:
   Have a physical or mental disability (including hearing, mobility and visual impairments,
    chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex and mental
    retardation) that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
   Have a record of such a disability; or
   Are regarded as having such a disability,




Nebraska Department of Economic Development        23
Your landlord may not:
   Refuse to let you make reasonable modifications to your dwelling or common use areas, at
    your expense, if necessary for the disabled person to use the housing. (Where reasonable, the
    landlord may permit changes only if you agree to restore the property to its original condition
    when you move.)
   Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services if
    necessary for the disabled person to use the housing.

Requirements for New Buildings: In buildings that are ready for first occupancy after March
13, 1991, and have an elevator and four or more units:
   Public and common areas must be accessible to people with disabilities
   Doors and hallways must be wide enough for wheelchairs
   All units must have:
    a) An accessible route into and through the unit;
    b) Accessible light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls;
    c) Reinforced bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and,
    d) Kitchens and bathrooms that can be used by people in wheelchairs.

If a building with four or more units has no elevator and will be ready for first occupancy after
March 13, 1991, these standards apply to ground floor units. These requirements for new
buildings do not replace any more stringent standards in State or local law.

Housing Opportunities for Families: Unless a building or community qualifies as housing for
older people, it may not discriminate based on familial status. That is, it may not discriminate
against families in which one or more children under the age of 18 live with:
   A parent;
   A person who has legal custody of the child or children; or,
   The designee of the parent or legal custodian, with the parent or custodian's written permission.
Familial status protection also applies to pregnant women and anyone securing legal custody of a
child under 18.
Housing for older people is exempt from the prohibition against familial status discrimination if:

   The HUD Secretary has determined that it is specifically designed for and occupied by
    elderly people under a Federal, State or local government program; or
   It is occupied solely by people who are 62 or older; or
   It houses at least one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units,
    and adheres to a policy that demonstrates an intent to house people who are 55 or older.
A transition period permits residents on or before September 13, 1988, to continue living in the
housing, regardless of their age, without interfering with the exemption.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development       24
Additional Federal Laws
Since the 1970s, the federal government has enacted several other laws that are aimed
specifically at promoting fair lending practices in the banking and financial services industries.
Although the record generally is improving, discriminatory lending practices have not been
eliminated entirely.

A brief description of federal laws aimed at promoting fair lending follows:
      Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA): Passed in 1974, the ECOA prohibits
       discrimination in lending based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status,
       age, receipt of public assistance, or the exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit
       Protection Act. 8
      Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): In 1975, Congress enacted the HMDA, then
       amended the act from 1988 through 1991. Under the act, financial institutions are required to
       report the race, sex, and income of mortgage applicants and borrowers by Census tract.
       Examination of HMDA data can reveal if loans are denied at higher rates for certain races,
       for example. A substantive analysis of HMDA data for the State of Nebraska is contained in
       this report.
      Community Reinvestment Act (CRA): The CRA was enacted in 1977 to require each federal
       financial supervisory agency to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs
       of their entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods within those
       communities. New regulations went into effect at the beginning of 1996.
      Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Passed in 1990, the ADA prohibits discrimination
       against people with disabilities in the provision of goods as well as services, including
       credit services.
      Fair Lending – Best Practices Agreements: HUD has been working with the lending industry
       to promote these agreements. The agreements represent voluntary efforts to improve
       individual bank performance in providing homeownership opportunities to minorities and
       low-income people by eliminating discriminatory barriers.

Detailed information about individual banks is available. All banking institutions in the United
States fall under one of the following four federal regulatory agencies: the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision, or
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

No central agency within the State receives reports from the banking regulatory agencies about
compliance with fair lending laws. However, such reports are public information and are
available from the regulatory agencies themselves or at the individual banks.




8
    Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending, The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, April 1993.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                            25
Nebraska Fair Housing Act
It is the policy of the State of Nebraska that there shall be no discrimination in the acquisition,
ownership, possession, or enjoyment of housing throughout the State of Nebraska in accordance
with Article I, section 25, of the Constitution of Nebraska.

Section 20-318 of the Nebraska Fair Housing Act states that the following are unlawful acts,
except as exempted by section 20-322:
1. Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate for the sale or
   rental of or otherwise make unavailable or deny, refuse to show, or refuse to receive and
   transmit an offer for a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin,
   familial status, or sex;
2. Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a
   dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith because of race,
   color, religion, national origin, familial status, or sex;
3. Make, print, publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or
   advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference,
   limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, familial
   status, or sex or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination;
4. Represent to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap,
   familial status, or sex that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when
   such dwelling is in fact so available;
5. Cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or record concerning any protected class of a
   person seeking to purchase, rent, or lease any housing;
6. Include in any transfer, sale, rental, or lease of housing any restrictive covenants or honor or
   exercise or attempt to honor or exercise any restrictive covenant pertaining to housing;
7. Discharge or demote an employee or agent or discriminate in the compensation of such
   employee or agent because of such employee's or agent's compliance with the Nebraska Fair
   Housing Act; and
8. Induce or attempt to induce, for profit, any person to sell or rent any dwelling by
   representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or
   people of a particular race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex.

Section 20-319 discusses disabled people, prohibited discriminatory practices, design and
construction standards and enforcement of the State’s Fair Housing Act, stating that except as
exempted by Section 20-322, it shall be unlawful to:
1. Discriminate in the sale or rental of or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any
   buyer or renter because of a handicap of:
    a) The buyer or renter;
    b) Any person associated with the buyer or renter; or
    c) A person residing in or intending to reside in the dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or
       made available; or


Nebraska Department of Economic Development       26
2. Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a
   dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling because of
   a handicap of:
    a) Such person;
    b) Any person associated with such person; or
    c) A person residing in or intending to reside in the dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or
       made available.
3. For purposes of this section, discrimination shall include:
    a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications
       of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person if the modifications may be
       necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the premises, except that in the case of a
       rental, the landlord may, when it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a
       modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition
       that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
    b) A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services
       when such accommodations may be necessary to afford the handicapped person equal
       opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and
    c) In connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first
       occupancy after September 1, 1991, a failure to design and construct the dwellings in
       such a manner that:
         (i) The public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to
             and usable by handicapped people;
         (ii) All the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within the
              dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped people in
              wheelchairs; and
         (iii) All premises within the dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:
    d) An accessible route into and through the dwelling;
    e) Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in
       accessible locations;
    f) Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and
    g) Kitchens and bathrooms such that a handicapped person in a wheelchair can maneuver
       about the space.
4. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American National Standards Institute
   standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically
   handicapped people, ANSI A117.1, shall satisfy the requirements of subdivision (2)(c)(iii) of
   this section.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development       27
5. a) If a political subdivision has incorporated into its laws the design and construction
       requirements set forth in subdivision (2)(c) of this section, compliance with such laws
       shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements.
    b) A political subdivision may review and approve newly constructed covered multifamily
       dwellings for the purpose of making determinations as to whether the design and
       construction requirements are met.
    c) The commission shall encourage but may not require political subdivisions to include in
       their existing procedures for the review and approval of newly constructed covered
       multifamily dwellings determinations as to whether the design and construction of the
       dwellings are consistent with the design and construction requirements and shall provide
       technical assistance to political subdivisions and other people to implement the
       requirements.
    d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the commission to review or approve
       the plans, designs, or construction of all covered multifamily dwellings to determine
       whether the design and construction of the dwellings are consistent with the design and
       construction requirements.
6. a) Nothing in subsection (4) of this section shall be construed to affect the authority and
       responsibility of the commission or a local agency certified pursuant to section 20-332 to
       receive and process complaints or otherwise engage in enforcement activities under the
       Nebraska Fair Housing Act.
    b) Determinations by the commission or a political subdivision under subdivision (4)(a) or
       (b) of this section shall not be conclusive in enforcement proceedings under the act.
7. For purposes of this section, covered multifamily dwellings shall mean:
    a) Buildings consisting of four or more units if such buildings have one or more
       elevators; and,
    b) Ground floor units in other buildings consisting of four or more units.
8. Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a political
   subdivision or other jurisdiction in which this section is effective that requires dwellings to
   be designed and constructed in a manner that affords handicapped people greater access than
   is required by this section.
9. Nothing in this section shall require that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose
   tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose
   tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.

Section 20-320 covers transactions related to residential real estate and prohibited discriminatory
practices, as follows:

1. It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in
   transactions related to residential real estate to discriminate against any person in making
   available such a transaction or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction because of
   race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development      28
2. For purposes of this section, transaction related to residential real estate shall mean any of the
   followings:
    a) The making or purchasing of loans or providing other financial assistance:
          (i) For purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling; or
           (ii) Secured by residential real estate; or
    b) The selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property.

3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person engaged in the business of furnishing appraisals
   of real property from taking into consideration factors other than race, color, religion,
   national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status.

Section 20-321 covers multiple listing services, as well as other services, organizations, or
facilities and their prohibited discriminatory practices:

It shall be unlawful to deny any person access to or membership or participation in any multiple
listing service, real estate brokers organization, or other service, organization, or facility relating
to the business of selling or renting dwellings or to discriminate against any person in the terms
or conditions or such access, membership, or participation on account of race, color, religion,
national origin, handicap, familial status, or sex.

Section 20-322 includes the exceptions to above sections, including the following:
1. Nothing in the Nebraska Fair Housing Act shall prohibit a religious organization, association,
   or society or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by
   or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society from limiting the sale,
   rental, or occupancy of a dwelling which it owns or operates for other than commercial
   purposes to people of the same religion or from giving preferences to such people unless
   membership in such religion is restricted on account of race, color, national origin, handicap,
   familial status, or sex.
2. Nothing in the act shall prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an
   incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodgings which it owns or operates for
   other than commercial purposes, from limiting the rental or occupancy of such lodging to its
   members or from giving preference to its members.
3. Nothing in the act shall prohibit or limit the right of any person or his or her authorized
   representative to refuse to rent a room or rooms in his or her own home for any reason or for
   no reason or to change tenants in his or her own home as often as desired, except that this
   exception shall not apply to any person who makes available for rental or occupancy more
   than four sleeping rooms to a person or family within his or her own home.
4. a) Nothing in the act shall limit the applicability of any reasonable local restrictions regarding
      the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling, and nothing in the act
      regarding familial status shall apply with respect to housing for older people.
    b) For purposes of this subsection, housing for older people shall mean housing:




Nebraska Department of Economic Development          29
        (i)   Provided under any state program that the commission determines is specifically
              designed and operated to assist elderly people as defined in the program;
        (ii) Intended for and solely occupied by people sixty-two years of age or older; or
        (iii) Intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person fifty-five years of age or
              older per unit. In determining whether housing qualifies as housing for older people
              under this subdivision, the commission shall develop regulations which require at
              least the following factors:
              (A) The existence of significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet
                  the physical or social needs of older people or, if the provision of such facilities
                  and services is not practicable, that such housing is necessary to provide
                  important housing opportunities for older people;
              (B) That at least eighty percent of the units are occupied by at least one person fifty-
                  five years of age or older per unit; and,
              (C) The publication of and adherence to policies and procedures which demonstrate
                  an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing for people fifty-five
                  years of age or older.
    c) Housing shall not fail to meet the requirements for housing for older people by reason of:
         (i) People residing in the housing as of September 6, 1991, who do not meet the age
             requirements of subdivision (b)(ii) or (iii) of this subsection if succeeding occupants
             of the housing meet the age requirements; or,
         (ii) Unoccupied units if the units are reserved for occupancy by people who meet the
              age requirements.

5. Nothing in the act shall prohibit conduct against a person because such person has been
   convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal manufacture or distribution of
   a controlled substance as defined in section 28-401.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development         30
Nebraska Department of Economic Development   31
Section IV. Public & Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities

The Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees, administers, and enforces
fair housing law across the nation. In Nebraska, three “substantially equivalent,” or Fair Housing
Assistance Programs (FHAPs) also carry out investigative and enforcement functions on behalf
of HUD.

Under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, private people who believed they had experienced housing
discrimination could file a complaint with HUD, and HUD could investigate and conciliate the
complaint. The Act had no mechanism for HUD to adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no
options for further enforcement if conciliation failed. The 1988 amendments to the Act increased
HUD’s enforcement responsibilities and capabilities, so that HUD’s enforcement efforts no
longer ended if conciliation was not reached. The 1988 amendments also created a deadline of
100 days for HUD’s investigation and causal determinations to take place.

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of HUD is responsible for
administration of fair housing programs and for processing fair housing complaints. The Civil
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for litigating on behalf of HUD
in select cases of fair housing violations.

The regional hub of HUD in Kansas City oversees housing, community development, and fair
housing enforcement in Nebraska, as well as in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. The HUD field
office in Omaha serves Iowa and Nebraska. The two offices can be reached at:

HUD, Region VII                                        Omaha Field Office
Gateway Tower II                                       10909 Mill Valley Road, Suite 100
400 State Avenue, Room 200                             Omaha, NE 68154
Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2406                         Phone: 402-492-3100
Phone: 913-551-6958 or 1-800-743-5323

Fair Housing Assistance Program
HUD provides Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grants on a noncompetitive, annual
basis to substantially equivalent state and local fair housing enforcement agencies. FHAP grants
are given to public, not private, entities. In Nebraska, three agencies receive FHAP funding:
   The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, which is a State agency;
   The City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, which serves only the City of Lincoln; and,
   The Omaha Human Relations Department, which serves only the City of Omaha.

At the beginning of an agency's participation in the FHAP, HUD provides a flat amount of funds for
capacity building. Following the period of capacity building, HUD provides agencies with funds for
complaint processing, administrative costs, special enforcement efforts, training, and other projects
designed to enhance the agency's administration and enforcement of fair housing law.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development       32
Substantially equivalent agencies are eligible to receive FHAP grants. Substantial equivalency
certification takes place when a state or local agency applies for certification and HUD
determines that the agency enforces a law that provides rights, procedures, remedies, and judicial
review provisions that are substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act.

The FHAP program permits HUD to use the services of substantially equivalent state and local
agencies in the enforcement of fair housing laws, and to reimburse those agencies for services
that assist HUD in carrying out the spirit and letter of the federal Fair Housing Act. Substantial
equivalency certification is thus intended to provide for State or local complaint processing,
while assuring that the substantive and procedural strength of the federal Fair Housing Act is not
compromised. The closer proximity of state and local agencies to the site of the alleged
discrimination is expected to lead to greater efficiency in case processing.

Public agencies that receive FHAP funds can become eligible for additional funding that can
be used to partner with private fair housing organizations. By drawing on the strengths of
private and public fair housing organizations, such partnerships are intended to combine
efforts to combat housing discrimination.

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission
The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) is a neutral administrative agency
created by statute in 1965 to enforce the public policy of the State against discrimination. The
principal function of the NEOC is to receive, investigate, and pass upon charges of unlawful
discrimination occurring anywhere within the State of Nebraska in the areas of employment,
housing, and public accommodations.

In addition to enforcing Nebraska’s Fair Housing Act, the NEOC is authorized to enforce the
Nebraska Fair Employment Act, the Age Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Public Accommodations
Act. In order to prevent duplicative proceedings, the NEOC also is authorized, by federal statute, to
receive and investigate – concurrently with charges filed under the listed State laws – charges
alleging violations of certain federal statutes, including the federal Fair Housing Act. The NEOC is
partially funded by HUD as a FHAP.

The NEOC consists of seven members appointed by the governor to three-year terms. The
commission, which may meet and function anywhere in the State, elects one member to serve as
chairperson of the commission. The commission appoints the NEOC executive director, who is
directly responsible to the commission.

The NEOC’s main office is in Lincoln. The organization also has offices in Omaha and
Scottsbluff, as listed below:

P.O. Box 94934                                1313 Farnam on the Mall
Lincoln, NE 68509-4934                        Omaha, NE 68102-1836
402-471-2024 or 1-800-642-6112                402-595-2028 or 1-800-382-7820

P.O. Box 1500
Scottsbluff, NE 69363-1500
308-632-1340 or 1-800-830-8633


Nebraska Department of Economic Development       33
City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights
The Lincoln Commission on Human Rights (LCHR), a FHAP, is charged with the mission of
eliminating and preventing all forms of illegal discrimination, and ensuring and fostering
equal opportunities for all citizens of the City of Lincoln.

The LCHR provides community education and technical assistance to help people know and
understand their rights and responsibilities under Title 11 of the Lincoln Municipal Code. The
Lincoln Municipal Code, as amended in 1996, makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, disability, national origin, familial status, handicap, ancestry, or
marital status.

The LCHR seeks to eliminate discrimination in housing, employment, and public
accommodations. For allegations of housing discrimination, the LCHR assists clients in filing
complaints, and then investigates those complaints. At the conclusion of the investigation, cases
are taken before the LCHR commissioners for a decision. If the commissioners find reasonable
cause, a formal charge is filed. The parties affected may then elect to decide the matter in a
public hearing.

The LCHR may be reached at:

440 South 8th Street, Suite 101
Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: 402-441-8691

Omaha Human Relations Department
The Omaha Human Relations Department (OHRD) is a FHAP that is responsible for the
investigation, elimination, and prevention of all forms of prohibited discrimination i n the City
of Omaha. The OHRD enforces the Omaha Municipal Code, which prohibits discrimination
based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or marital status in
connection with employment, housing, and public accommodation.

The OHRD conducts education and outreach about fair housing law in the City of Omaha.
The OHRD assists clients in filing charges, investigates those charges, and makes causal
findings. The OHRD also can perform complaint-based testing. When unlawful discrimination
is found, the OHRD tries to resolve the matter through conference, conciliation, or persuasion.
If those methods are unsuccessful, the OHRD initiates hearings before the Civil Rights
Hearing Board. If no unlawful discrimination is found, the OHRD director administratively
dismisses the charge.

The OHRD can be contacted at:

1819 Farnam St
Suite 502
Omaha NE 68183
Phone: 402-444-5055



Nebraska Department of Economic Development      34
Fair Housing Initiative Program
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) is HUD’s competitive grant program for nonprofit
organizations. FHIP grantees may use the funds to investigate allegations of housing
discrimination, educate the public and housing industry about housing discrimination laws, and
in other ways work to promote fair housing. In the State of Nebraska, the Fair Housing Center
and High Plains Community Development Corporation receive FHIP funding.

In 2003, the FHIP program awarded the following three types of grants across the nation:
   Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI) grants: About $10.2 million was awarded in 12 to 18-
    month grants of up to approximately $207,000 to assist private, tax-exempt fair housing
    enforcement organizations in the investigation and enforcement of alleged violations of the
    Fair Housing Act and substantially equivalent State and local fair housing laws.
   Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) grants: About $5.3 million was allocated for one-
    year grants of up to $100,000 to inform and educate the public about their rights and
    obligations under federal, state and local fair housing laws. Within that total amount, about
    $800,000 went to ten groups that focus on the needs of people with disabilities.
   Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (FHOI) grants: About $2.1 million was awarded for
    three-year grants of up to $350,000 per year for projects that serve rural and immigrant
    populations in underserved areas or where there is no existing fair housing organization.

Fair Housing Center and Family Housing Advisory Services
The Fair Housing Center (FHC) was formed in 1994 to provide fair housing services for all of
Nebraska, as well as western Iowa. FHC investigates allegations of discrimination in housing,
advises clients of their rights concerning fair housing and landlord/tenant law, conducts outreach
across the State, and conducts a fair housing testing program that includes complaint-based as
well as random tests.

The FHC is a part of Family Housing Advisory Services (FHAS), which serves Omaha and
Council Bluffs, Iowa. The mission of FHAS is to help people secure and maintain decent, safe,
and affordable housing, as well as to strengthen the community through education, counseling,
dispute resolution, and advocacy.

FHAS receives Private Enforcement Initiative grants from the FHIP program. The 2003 PEI
grant was $206,462, a decrease of just under $48,000 from the year prior. The 2003 grant was
used in partnership with the NEOC, and faith-based and grassroots community organizations
such as St. Vincent de Paul Shelter, Nebraska Aids Project, and the Creighton Law Clinic, for the
following activities:
   To expand enforcement activities to underserved populations of Nebraska and western Iowa;
   To focus on services for people with disabilities, Native Americans, the homeless, and new
    immigrant populations, especially individuals and families with limited or no English skills; and,
   To provide to residents in urban and rural regions of both Iowa and Nebraska services that
    range from testing, with 60 percent of them based on rental transactions, to investigations



Nebraska Department of Economic Development        35
    leading to HUD or equivalent agency referrals, if appropriate, and to provide on-site intake at
    homeless shelters and other facilities.

The Statewide fair housing hotline, provided by the FHC, is 1-800-NOW-FAIR (1-800-669-
3247). FHC may be reached by e-mail at fairhsg@fhasinc.org, or at their office:

2505 North 24th Street, Suite 219
Omaha, NE 68110
Phone: 402-934-6675

FHAS may be contacted at the following three offices in Nebraska:

Central Offices:
2416 Lake Street                       2505 North 24th Street, Suite 219
Omaha, NE 68111                        Omaha, NE 68110
Phone: (402) 934-1777                  Phone: (402) 934-7921

South Omaha Office:
3605 Q Street
Omaha, NE 68107
Phone: (402) 546-1013

High Plains Community Development Corporation
High Plains Community Development, a FHIP, is the only comprehensive housing organization
for western Nebraska. Because of the comprehensive nature of the organization, High Plains
receives regular inquires about fair housing and other general concerns about housing.

The communities of northwest Nebraska served by High Plains are small rural cities that are
spread far apart. The population of each community ranges from 1,800 to 7,800 people, with
large ranches and farms scattered between communities. The northern communities of Dawes
and Sheridan Counties border the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations of South Dakota, while
the Box Butte and Sioux Counties have large Hispanic and migrant labor populations.

In 2003, High Plains received a $58,652 general EOI grant from the FHIP program. High Plains
used the funds to target the above populations and to provide fair housing education and outreach
to consumers in the rental housing markets.

High Plains Community Development can be reached at:
130 East 2nd St.
Chadron, NE 69337
Phone: 308-432-4346




Nebraska Department of Economic Development              36
Prospective Changes in Nebraska Fair Housing Law
If enacted as scheduled in October 2005, Legislative Bill 625 (LB 625) would change provisions
relating to discriminatory housing complaint procedures. Under LB 625, the NEOC would be
required to do the following:
    Inform parties against whom a fair housing complaint has been filed of the right at any time,
     upon request, to obtain copies of all information derived from an investigation and copies of
     any investigative report relating to that investigation; and,
    Allow such parties to obtain copies of all information derived from an investigation and
     copies of any final investigation report relating to that investigation.

The committee amendment 0681 requires that all personal identifying information of testers shall
be deleted by the NEOC. The amendment further provides that the NEOC may collect a fee for
the actual cost of producing copies of investigative reports.

Because LB 625 changes State law pertaining to fair housing, it is under an automatic review by
HUD. HUD must determine if the NEOC, given these new enforcement procedures, remains a
substantially equivalent agency. If so, there is no anticipated change. However, if HUD finds that
the NEOC is no longer a substantially equivalent agency, then the NEOC could lose its FHAP
funds, thus altering the enforcement landscape in the State. Because LB 625 is not due to take
effect until October 2005, the bill potentially could be revised if HUD does find that the NEOC
would no longer be considered a substantially equivalent agency.

Related Studies
In November 2000, HUD released results from a study entitled, “Discrimination in Metropolitan
Housing Markets.”9 The study, HDS2000, measured the extent of housing discrimination in the
United States against people because of their race or color. It was the third nationwide effort
sponsored by HUD to measure the amount of discrimination faced by minority home seekers.

The report states that “Housing discrimination … raises the costs of the search for housing,
creates barriers to homeownership and housing choice, and contributes to the perpetuation of
racial and ethnic segregation.”10 Similar HUD-sponsored studies were conducted in 1977 and
1989, and both found significant levels of racial and ethnic discrimination in both rental and
sales markets of urban areas nationwide. The 1989 HUD report included testing conducted in
Omaha; the 2000 report did not.

HDS2000 measured discrimination in 23 metropolitan areas with populations greater than
100,000, using 4,600 tests. The study found that discrimination persists in both rental and sales
markets of large metropolitan areas nationwide, but that its incidence generally declined after
1989. The exception is for Hispanic renters, who faced essentially the same incidence of
discrimination in 2000 as they did in 1989.



9
  Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I HDS 2000, Final Report, November 2000. Complete report is
    available at http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds.html.
10
   Ibid. 1-1.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                          37
In 2002, HUD conducted a nationwide survey of the general public entitled, “How Much Do We
Know.”11 This report found that 14 percent of adults, the equivalent of more than 28 million
people, said they had experienced housing discrimination at some point in their lifetime. The
study found that “few people who believed they had been discriminated against took any action,
with most seeing little point in doing so.”12

In their 2004 Fair Housing Trends Report, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) states
that discrimination based on national origin is largely underreported, specifically by Latinos,
Asian-Americans, and Native Americans. This is due, they state, to “language barriers and other
cultural issues which could include immigration status, hesitancy to challenge authority, and a
general lack of faith in the justice system.”13

It is possible that the length of time necessary to reach complaint resolution also may deter
complainants, as pointed out in the U.S. General Accounting Office’s (GAO) 2004 report, titled
“Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement
of the Enforcement Process.” The GAO report found that, although the process improved in
recent years, between 1996 and 2003 the median number of days required to complete fair
housing complaint investigations was 259 days for HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Offices and 195 days for FHAP agencies. The report did find a higher percentage of
investigations completed within the Fair Housing Act’s 100-day mandate.14

The GAO report also identified the following trends between 1996 and 2003:
    The number of fair housing complaints filed each year showed a steady increase since 1998.
     An increasing proportion of complaints alleged discrimination based on disability, and a
     declining proportion of complaints alleged discrimination based on race. Race was still the
     most cited basis of housing discrimination over the time period;
    FHAP agencies conducted more fair housing investigations than FHEO agencies over the
     time period. The total number of investigations completed each year increased somewhat
     after declining in 1997 and 1998; and,
    Investigation outcomes changed over the period, with an increasing percentage closed
     without a finding of reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. A declining
     percentage of investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with help from
     FHEO or FHAP agencies.

“A Housing Discrimination Study of Hispanic Residents in Hastings, Nebraska” was completed
in 2003 by The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), with funding from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and assistance from Rodrigo Cantarero,
Ph.D.15 The report was based on 34 interviews of Hispanic residents over the age of 18 in
Hastings, Nebraska, a sample that made up 9 percent of the total number of Hispanic households
in Hastings. The small sample size makes the report’s findings indicative, not definitive.

11
   How Much Do We Know?, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research and Development, 2002.
    Results are available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications.
12
   Ibid, Executive Summary, x.
13
   2004 Fair Housing Trends Report, National Fair Housing Alliance, Pg. 8. Available at www.nationalfairhousing.org.
14
   Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process, United States General Accounting
    Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2004.
15
   A Housing Discrimination Study of Hispanic Residents in Hastings, Nebraska, Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, May 2003.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                        38
Based on the self-definitions provided by the participants, 31.3 percent of participants indicated
that they had experienced housing discrimination. Of those who indicated that they had
experienced discrimination, 80 percent said they “did nothing about it,” citing reasons such as
not wanting problems with immigration papers, wanting to find a place to live, being afraid of
not being taken seriously, finding another place to live, and feeling that complaining would not
do any good.

Participants who rented a house or trailer home were more likely to indicate experiences with
housing discrimination. Of those who had lived in Hastings less than five years, 80 percent
reported experiencing discriminatory treatment in housing. Of the 34 total participants, 22.6
percent said they had heard of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission.

A series of questions attempted to identify discriminatory actions, rather than relying on
participants’ self-definitions of discrimination. In regards to rental discrimination, the Housing
Discrimination Study found that 29 percent of the people interviewed had dealt with a landlord
who refused to rent to them or to a member of their family. Another 21 percent had dealt with a
landlord who had told them or a member of their family that there were no apartments available
for families with children, and 20 percent had been told their family was too large for the size of
the housing unit. Another 18 percent of participants said they had been told the housing unit they
(or a family member) wanted to see was already rented, even though it was still available.

The Hastings study also found instances of discrimination among the 67 percent of participants
who had themselves or knew of a family member who had purchased or attempted to purchase a
housing unit in Nebraska. Half of participants had been denied mortgages or knew of a family
member who had been denied a mortgage. Twenty-five percent of participants indicated that
race, color, or national origin was used to determine the appraised value of a unit or to influence
the sale of a unit. Another six percent of participants indicated they had been “steered” into
particular neighborhoods.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development      39
Section V. Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices

2004 Fair Housing Survey
During the spring of 2004, 88 telephone surveys were completed from an original list of 150
possible respondents. The survey assessed fair housing compliance and perceived impediments
to fair housing in Nebraska. Survey respondents included representatives of 10 different
employment categories involved in the provision of housing or housing-related services in the
State, as seen in Table V.1, below. The greatest numbers of respondents, 32, were State or local
government officials. Survey results provide qualitative insights into various issues pertaining to
fair housing, as related by 88 people with varying degrees of knowledge and experience relating
to fair housing issues.

                                                        TABLE V.1
                                    SURVEY RESPONDENT ORGANIZATIONS
                                        2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                                 Organization                      Respondents
                                 State/local government officials           32
                                 Housing agencies                           22
                                 Service providers                          17
                                 Engineers/surveyors                         4
                                 Attorneys                                   3
                                 Development corporations                    3
                                 Community development                       3
                                 Bank officials                              2
                                 Accountants                                 1
                                 Educators                                   1
                                 Total                                      88


Understanding of Fair Housing Law. Nebraska law states that it is illegal to make decisions
about housing in relation to color, familial status, national origin, race, religion, or sex. One goal of
the telephone survey was to assess respondents’ knowledge of State fair housing law. Participants
were asked, “Who do you think is protected by fair housing law?” Just 13 of the 88 respondents
correctly supplied the full list of protected classes, as shown in Table V.2, below. While a third of
the respondents, 30 of the 88, supplied a partial list of the protected classes, 25 respondents thought
the law covered “everyone” and 20 respondents didn’t know or gave incorrect responses.

                                                        TABLE V.2
                                   UNDERSTANDING OF FAIR HOUSING LAW
                                         2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                                  Who is protected by fair housing laws?   Number
                                  Partial list of protected classes          30
                                  Everyone                                   25
                                  Correctly listed the protected classes     13
                                  Don’t know                                 10
                                  Landlords and tenants                       6
                                  Tenants                                     4




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                      40
These results tend to support a finding in HUD’s 2002 “How Much Do We Know” study. That
study involved a nationwide survey of 1,100 adults and was intended to determine the degree of
knowledge of fair housing law among average American citizens. The survey found “relatively
widespread – although not universal – knowledge of some core fair housing law protections and
prohibitions dealing with race, religion, and ethnicity.”16

Given that the respondents to the survey were individuals who work in housing-related fields,
however, it may be inferred from the responses shown in Table V.2 that the general public has
less knowledge of fair housing than respondents to the survey. Consequently, increased
outreach and education for housing professionals as well as for the general public is desirable.

Another method used to assess respondents’ knowledge and understanding of fair housing law
involved asking where they would refer people who believed they were victims of housing
discrimination. Responses are provided in Table V.3, below. The most common responses
were that victims should be referred to HUD, the NEOC, or the Fair Housing Center, all of
which are valid resources that could help victims of housing discrimination process their fair
housing allegations.

                                                           Table V.3
                             ADVICE FOR VICTIMS OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
                                           2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                             Resource                                            Number
                             HUD                                                    20
                             NEOC                                                   13
                             Fair Housing Center                                    10
                             Don’t know                                              8
                             Local attorney                                          8
                             Local housing authority                                 6
                             State capitol                                           2
                             Local government                                        2
                             Health and Human Services                               2
                             Department of Justice                                   2
                             Dept. of Economic Development                           2
                             City clerk                                              2
                             City hall                                               2
                             City board                                              1
                             High Plains Community Development                       1
                             Housing Developers Association                          1
                             Lincoln Fair Housing                                    1
                             Lincoln Human Rights Commission                         1
                             Social services                                         1
                             State agency                                            1
                             State ombudsman                                         1
                             State senator                                           1




16
   How Much Do We Know? United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research and Development, 2002,
vii. Results available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                       41
 While it is a positive sign that primary resources such as HUD received the most referrals from
 respondents, the fact that 22 different responses were given by the 88 respondents indicates some
 confusion or lack of knowledge by many respondents. In addition, of the 18 respondents who
 listed HUD as the best resource, 12 were housing agents, meaning that few respondents from
 other employment categories gave that response. Most of the agencies that were named by
 respondents do not provide direct services to victims of fair housing violations. Referring victims
 to such agencies therefore could present a constraint or delay to access to the complaint process,
 and represents a prospective impediment to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

 Continuing to educate Nebraska citizens about the primary agencies responsible for handling fair
 housing complaints and questions, as well as adopting a more uniform system for referring
 individuals to fair housing advocacy organizations, appears appropriate.

 Fair Housing Concerns. Table V.4, below, provides responses to seven survey questions
 designed to explore issues related to fair housing law and its application in Nebraska.

                                                               TABLE V.4
                                     FAIR HOUSING CONCERNS – SUMMARY TABLE
                                                2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                                                                                                                           Don't
              Question                                                                                Yes        No        know
              Does the fair housing law serve a useful purpose?                                        88         0          0
              Do you have concerns about fair housing?                                                 43         43         2
              Are there areas in the State with fair housing problems?                                 54         0          34
              Do you know of unfair housing practices or discrimination?                               30         58         0
              Are there city, county, or State policies adversely affecting fair housing?              21         53         14
              Do you think the State needs to enhance its fair housing law?                            32         31         25
              Do you see a need for a State fair housing plan?                                         49         16         23


 All of the survey respondents overwhelmingly stated that fair housing law serves a useful
 purpose, yet nearly half of the respondents also indicated that they have concerns about fair
 housing. Among the most common concerns expressed by respondents were the following:

  Enhanced fair housing instruction and training is needed, particularly on the west side of the
   State and in rural areas. The education needs to be tailored to address local concerns and to
   serve the migrant and other minority populations;
  The application process for CDBG and HOME grants does not require enough proof of fair
   housing compliance, resulting in a missed opportunity for education of communities across
   the State and for motivating communities to enhance their fair housing efforts;
  Rental discrimination, particularly by unregulated landlords, is taking place against members
   of protected classes; 17
  Many new and older residences are not in compliance with fair housing design and
   construction standards and accessibility regulations;


  17
     Respondents used many different terms to describe landlords whose fair housing practices do not appear to be regulated by the State or other
entities. These terms, including “mom-and-pop landlords” and “private landlords,” are encompassed in the survey results by the term “unregulated
landlords.”


 Nebraska Department of Economic Development                             42
 Violations of fair housing law are occurring more frequently in small and more rural
  communities, often because housing providers, government officials, and others do not
  know that the law applies to them or because they do not understand specifically how it
  applies to them; and,
 Low-income areas are not being investigated enough to assess the full extent of substandard
  housing and living conditions. State-level partnerships may be needed to provide adequate
  oversight of the problem.

Thirty-four respondents to the survey said they did not know of specific areas in the State with
fair housing problems. Of the 54 respondents who named specific areas with fair housing
problems, responses were split between the largest cities, Lincoln and Omaha, and rural areas
scattered across the rest of the State.

Fifty-eight respondents said they did not personally know of a specific instance involving an
unfair housing practice or housing discrimination. Of the 30 respondents who did know of an
instance of discrimination, discrimination relating to a failure to rent to minorities was mentioned
16 times. Discrimination against families was mentioned seven times, and failure to
accommodate the physically or mentally disabled was mentioned by five respondents. Predatory
lending practices were a concern of eight respondents.

Fifty-three respondents indicated they did not feel that city, county, or state policies adversely
affect fair housing. Of the 21 who indicated knowledge of policies that adversely affect fair
housing, eight said discriminatory lending practices were a problem, four indicated improper
concentration of low-income projects were an issue, and two respondents mentioned
discriminatory insurance practices.

More than half of respondents, 49, favored a state fair housing plan. This may, in part, be due to
the relatively large percentage of respondents who were government officials or housing agents.
Five respondents emphasized that the plan is especially important right now because of
Nebraska’s changing demographics and fiscal difficulties. Fostering discussion and partnerships
as part of a planning process could help the State manage budget shortfalls and other changes.

Among the 16 respondents who said they did not favor a new state fair housing plan, three said
limited funds are available in the State, and those funds should be directed elsewhere. Three
respondents mentioned frustration with the previous fair housing plan and unfunded mandates
that might come from a new plan.

Education. As pointed out in HUD’s “How Much Do We Know” survey, the premise
underlying programs that promote awareness of fair housing law is that education is a necessary
step towards reducing discrimination. The HUD survey found evidence showing “some
association between awareness of the law, recognition of conduct perceived to contradict the
law, and willingness to respond to such conduct.”18 In sum, the HUD survey’s results support the
need for continued efforts to promote better public understanding of fair housing law.


18
   How Much Do We Know? United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research and Development, 2002,
x. Results available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                       43
In the 2004 Nebraska survey, 57 respondents said they did not find fair housing law difficult to
work with, understand, or follow. Despite their own sense of understanding, however, 67
respondents said that more outreach and education about fair housing still needs to be done, as
shown in Table V.5, below.

                                                           TABLE V.5
                              FAIR HOUSING UNDERSTANDING AND EDUCATION
                                            2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                                                                                                     Don't
           Question                                                                       Yes   No   know
           Is the State fair housing law difficult to work with, understand, or follow?   31    57    0
           Is there a specific training process about fair housing law?                   38    50    0
           Is there enough outreach and education about fair housing?                     16    67    5


Of the 67 respondents who indicated that there is not enough outreach and education about fair
housing, 10 suggested that more education is needed for the migrant population and low-income
people in general. Ten respondents, including several government officials, indicated that more
education is needed for government officials who currently are not receiving education or
training about fair housing law, particularly as it applies at their local level. Respondents
suggested improving educational efforts by the League of Municipalities; putting fair housing
education on the agenda at city council meetings; and approaching the Government, Military,
and Veterans Affairs Committee of the State Senate with ideas about how to improve the
education of government officials.

A difference was revealed in the level of education about fair housing law received by
respondents in urban versus rural areas and, more generally, between those on the west side of
the State as compared to those on the east side. Three respondents said that people on the west
side of the State are unable to attend fair housing training sessions because the sessions are
too far away, resulting in high travel and hotel costs as well as too much time away from their
local office. Thirteen respondents said that outreach to the western part of the State needs to
be improved.

Respondents suggested that outreach could be enhanced by improving partnerships between
agencies and increasing the number of agencies providing education in the western part of the
State. The NEOC is the primary agency responsible for such education at this time. Various
respondents suggested expanding the territory of High Plains Community Development, funding
that organization to serve a larger territory; funding the Fair Housing Center for increased
outreach and education; partnering or consulting with the National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO); and increasing the outreach done by the NEOC.

Seven respondents said that the grant application process for CDBG and HOME funds should
require stronger proof of fair housing compliance. It was suggested that applicants are simply
stating that they are in compliance when, in fact, they are not in compliance and therefore should
not be considered for funding. Respondents said that failing to investigate the fair housing plans
and other requirements of the grant applications results in applicants taking advantage of the
system, perpetuates fair housing violations, and undermines State authority.

Three respondents indicated concern about the impact of Legislative Bills 724 and 1083, which
are anticipated to close several State-run mental facilities and spread residents to communities

Nebraska Department of Economic Development                         44
across the State. It was suggested that the Nebraska Department of Economic Development or
other agencies play a role in educating rural and other communities about fair housing law and
about ways to be pro-active in anticipating these new residents, preventing NIMBYism, or a
“Not In My Back Yard” attitude, and other problems before they arise.

Seven respondents acknowledged the difficulty of educating people about fair housing when the
people seemingly do not want to be educated and do not voluntarily show up for training
sessions. Educating migrant workers is made even more difficult because of language and
cultural barriers, as well as the transient nature of their work. The language barrier was brought
up in response to several questions by a dozen respondents who indicated that the State does not
have enough translators available and does not have enough material available on the Web or on
paper for non-English speakers. These respondents felt that the language barrier posed a
significant problem for the State, particularly as the migrant population continues to expand.

Respondents said unequivocally that posting signs or handing out generic information – to the
migrant population in particular – does not work as a means of education. Targeting the
population immediately upon their arrival through nonprofits and other community-based
agencies was suggested as a more efficient method. As the migrant population grows,
respondents suggested that ensuring that a thorough plan for education and outreach to the
population is in place will be essential in preventing fair housing violations.

Nine respondents said landlords need more education about fair housing law. Dissatisfaction
with the practices of unregulated landlords was indicated by a number of respondents, who
frequently said it seemed unfair that the discriminatory actions of these unregulated landlords
were undetected and not adequately punished when discovered.

Accessibility. Sixteen respondents described a need for additional education about the nuances
and interpretations of fair housing law. In particular, the lack of understanding of various codes
relating to accessibility were said to result in violations detected after construction and
therefore after such violations could easily be remedied or prevented. These responses indicate
a need for specific, detailed educational and training efforts targeted at inspectors, contractors,
and others in the building industry, ensuring their full understanding of the State’s
interpretation of fair housing law.

Greater enforcement of fair housing compliance in architectural design plans also was suggested
by two respondents. These respondents suggested that the current lack of a thorough review of
design plans leads both to intended and unintended failure to comply with accessibility
provisions. Implementing a standard review process by a State agency or organization such as
the Assistive Technology Project could be a cost-effective means of preventing violations.

One problem mentioned by two respondents related to housing stock built soon after passage
of the State’s fair housing law. Some communities did not know the law or did not implement
its changes quickly enough, resulting in housing stock that is not in compliance with the law
regarding accessibility. These respondents suggested that additional education, along with
helping communities update the properties, would be appreciated, in addition to consideration
of “grandfathering in” some buildings or granting exceptions. The respondents said currently


Nebraska Department of Economic Development      45
they feel resentment and frustration because their sense is that they are being attacked rather
than helped.

Barriers to Fair Housing. The most frequently cited barrier to fair housing was the
aforementioned lack of education about fair housing law, which 55 respondents said has led to
unintended violations of the law. Respondents suggested that discrimination and prejudice
also are common barriers to compliance with fair housing law, and 38 respondents indicated
that NIMBYism is a problem in the State.

The fourth most common barrier mentioned by respondents related to the actions of
unregulated landlords. Respondents noted concerns with landlords who are not trained in fair
housing compliance and do not receive adequate information about fair housing law.
Respondents suggested that these unregulated landlords are violating fair housing law, often
due to their lack of awareness or knowledge of the law. The aforementioned language barrier
and a lack of enforcement of fair housing law were also common responses. The complete list
of respondents’ perceived barriers to fair housing are listed in Table V.6, below.

                                                               TABLE V.6
                                          PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING
                                                2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                                   Barriers19                                                Number
                                   Lack of education about fair housing law                     55
                                   Discrimination/Prejudice                                     45
                                   Not in My Backyard (NIMBYism)                                38
                                   Actions by unregulated landlords                             19
                                   Language barrier                                             12
                                   Lack of enforcement                                          11
                                   Don’t know                                                   11
                                   Covert discrimination                                        9
                                   Land use violations                                          3
                                   Lack of affordable housing                                   1
                                   No barriers exist                                            1
                                   Zoning ordinances                                            1


Fair Housing Testing. Fair housing tests were first developed by public and private fair
housing agencies as a method for determining the validity of fair housing complaints. 20 Testing
refers to the use of individuals who, without any real intent to rent or purchase a home,
apartment, or other dwelling, pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate for the
purpose of gathering information. The information is used to assess whether a housing provider
is complying with fair housing laws. By the early 1970s, many fair housing groups were using
fair housing testing and presenting evidence from the tests in court. Tests are now conducted
across the nation, both randomly and based on complaints.

Survey participants were asked whether Nebraska should do more or less fair housing testing.
Respondents generally favored fair housing testing. Five respondents suggested that testing
should be reduced, as shown in Table V.7, on the following page. A significant number of

19
     Multiple responses were counted separately.
20
     A National Report Card on Discrimination in America, “The Role of Testing,” by John Yinger. Available at http://www.urban.org.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                              46
respondents, however, 35, answered “don’t know” to the question, indicating that they did not
know what fair housing testing was, how much testing was currently done, and/or whether more
or less testing should be done. Some 38 respondents said that more testing should be done,
although the majority of these respondents appeared to favor testing in a fairly ambivalent,
“more testing is always good,” manner. These respondents did not say that the State’s level of
testing should be increased because of a specific lack of testing; rather, they expressed a
philosophical belief in the value of fair housing testing.

                                                              TABLE V.7
                                            NEED FOR FAIR HOUSING TESTING
                                             2004 NEBRASKA FAIR HOUSING SURVEY
                                        Response                            Number
                                        More                                    38
                                        Don’t Know                              35
                                        Same                                    10
                                        Less                                     5


Given the range of responses about the State’s need for fair housing testing, it appears
important to educate both the general public and people working in housing-related fields
about the testing process in the State. This need is especially apparent given the relatively large
number of people in the survey, 35 of 88, who admitted that they knew little if anything about
the State’s current testing process.

HUD Complaint Data
HUD maintains records of all complaints filed with the agency, including many complaints filed
jointly both with HUD and a Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) in the State. The HUD
complaint records for the State were examined for federal fiscal years 1993 through 2003. Over
the decade, HUD received 1,127 complaints, alleging 1,449 issues, or types of discrimination. 21
The number of complaints increased in recent years, including a 41.7 percent increase between
2001 and 2003. Table V.8, on the following page, illustrates the basis for each complaint.

                                                              TABLE V.8
                            HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA
                            BASIS OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003
                                                                                                                 Total      Total
                                                   Familial                                        National   Basis for Number of
Year        Race       Disability         Sex       Status       Color    Religion     Retaliation   Origin Complaints Complaints
1993           41              16          18            27          .            1               1         16           120            102
1994           48              22          25            18          .            1               5          2           121             97
1995           30              11          12            19          2            1               1          1            77             55
1996           26              11           8             8         16            .               1          9            79             73
1997           36              25          19            13          .            1               6          9           109             83
1998           29              38           7            10          .            1               6          7            98             88
1999          161              35           4            17        112            .               8         10           347            220
2000           26              45           9            20          4            1               7         10           122            105
2001           26              32           4            11          4            1              17         10           105             84
2002           36              26           7            13          2            2              17         26           129            101
2003           29              57          10            24          1            1              10         10           142            119
Total         488            318          123           180        141           10              79       110          1,449          1,127

21
  Because complainants can charge discrimination under more than one protected class, the basis for complaint total is larger than the total
number of complaints filed.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                          47
In Nebraska, race or ethnicity was the most common basis for complaints, cited in 43.3 percent
of total complaints. Disability was a basis for 28.2 percent of complaints, and familial status was
cited in 16.0 percent of the complaints. In 2003, HUD received 57 complaints alleging
discrimination based on disability, meaning disability was cited in 40.1 percent of the total issues
raised in 2003, twice the proportion seen in 2002. Meanwhile, the proportion of complaints alleging
discrimination based on race decreased 7.5 percent between 2002 and 2003.

These findings reflect national trends. Nationwide, race complaints were the most common type
of complaint in 2003, making up 39.4 percent of complaints filed by HUD or FHAPs.22
Complaints alleging discrimination based on disability were the second most common, at 39.0
percent, followed by familial status, the basis for 16.0 percent of all complaints. Nationwide, a
primary reason for the increase in complaints alleging discrimination based on disability appears to
be an increase in complaints related to reasonable accommodation.23 The General Accounting
Office found that the share of complaints alleging failure to make reasonable accommodation or
modification rose from less than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in 2003.24

Table V.9, on the following page, separates Nebraska’s 1,127 HUD complaints by outcome, or
disposition, of the complaint process. A no-cause determination was reached by HUD or a FHAP
in 482, or 42.8 percent, of the total complaints. Settlement was reached prior to a causal finding
in 322, or 28.6 percent, of the complaints. The high percentage of settlements is common
because HUD and FHAPs are required by the Fair Housing Act to try to conciliate all complaints
to the extent feasible. Another 122, or 10.8 percent, of the complaints were abandoned due to
administrative or other problems. The remaining 222 complaints, or 19.7 percent of the total
complaints received between 1993 and 2003, received cause determination and were pursued.25

Of the 222 complaints that received cause determination, dismissal or a finding of no
discrimination was the most common outcome, reached in 70.3 percent of the cases with cause
determination. In 27 of the 523 cases, discrimination was found and injunctive or other equitable
relief, damages, and/or civil penalties were awarded. Settlement was reached sometime after the
causal finding in 22 cases. The other 18 cases were open or were missing information on the
adjudication decision as of 2003.




22
    2004 Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process, United States General
Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2004.
23
   Reasonable accommodation is a term used in federal law, which states that discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of disability
includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to
afford a person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3).
24
   Ibid.
25
   HUD or FHAP investigators collect evidence in order to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing
practice has occurred or is about to occur. The director of the regional HUD office in Kansas City reviews the results of the investigations and
makes a determination of whether reasonable cause exists. With the concurrence of the relevant HUD’s regional counsel, the director issues either
a “cause” or “no-cause” determination.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                             48
                                                            TABLE V.9
                         HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA BY COUNTY
                              DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003
                                            Administrative                   Cause Determination by HUD or FHAP
                                  No Cause    Problems or            Dismissed or No                            Open or
                    Total     Determination     Complaint Settlement   Discrimination Discrimination Post-Cause Decision
    Year       Complaints           by HUD    Abandoned    Reached             Found          Found Settlement   Missing
    1993               102                41          26           23                3               9            7             .
    1994                97                44          11           32                1               9            9             .
    1995                55                21           7           24                1               2            2             .
    1996                73                55           7            9                .               2            .             .
    1997                83                50          13           18                1               1            1             .
    1998                88                38          13           33                1               2            2             1
    1999               220                41          14           32              133               .            .             .
    2000               105                43          16           38                5               1            .             2
    2001                84                39           7           24                5               1            .             8
    2002               101                54           5           35                4               .            .             3
    2003               119                56           3           54                2               .            .             4
    Total            1,127               482          122         322              156              27            21            18


        Each complaint to HUD was made because of one or more perceived issues. Table V.10, below,
        presents issues raised over the decade in the 434 complaints not specifically found by HUD to be
        of “no cause” and not dismissed during litigation. Most of the issues, 134, brought forward over
        the decade related to discrimination in terms, conditions, privileges, services, or facilities.
        Another 84 involved discriminatory refusal to rent, and 83 issues concerned non-compliance
        with design and construction requirements. Non-compliance with design and construction
        requirements, which is generally related to disability issues, showed a surge in activity in 2003
        that accounted for 47.0 percent of the total activity in that category over the decade.

                                                            TABLE V.10
                HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA: SELECTED COMPLAINTS
                                 FREQUENCY OF ISSUES: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003
Discriminatory Actions                                           1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000   2001 2002 2003        Total
Discriminatory terms/conditions/privileges/services and
facilities                                                         11   30   17    7   13 15      7    5     8         9   12        134
Discriminatory refusal to rent                                     19    8   10    3    6    7    3    6     5         8    9         84
Non-compliance with design and construction requirements
(handicap)                                                          .    .    .    .    . 12      9   14     9         .   39        83
Discriminatory terms/conditions/privileges/services and
facilities, relating to rental                                      1    .    1    .    .    .    4    5     8      2      12        33
Discriminatory financing (includes real estate transactions)        1    2    2    .    .    .    2    2     3     12       .        24
Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, etc)               1    7    3    1    1    1    1    .     1      2       5        23
Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices                  .    .    .    .    1    .    7    5     2      .       1        16
Failure to permit reasonable modification                           .    .    .    .    .    1    .    4     5      3       1        14
Other discriminatory acts                                           2    2    .    .    .    .    .    1     2      .       .         7
False denial or representation of availability - sale and rental    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    2     .      3       .         5
Discriminatory terms/conditions/privileges/services and
facilities, relating to sale                                        .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .      .        3   1          4
Steering                                                            1    .    .    .    .    .    .    .      .        2   .          3
Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use             .    .    .    .    .    1    1    .      .        .   .          2
Discriminatory refusal to sell                                      .    .    1    .    .    .    .    .      .        .   .          1
Otherwise deny or make housing available                            .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .      .        1   .          1
Total                                                        36   49    34    11    21   37    34    44     43     45      80        434




        Nebraska Department of Economic Development               49
The HUD complaint data also was separated to assess possible differences between the data in
Douglas and Lancaster counties, in which the State’s two largest cities of Omaha and Lincoln are
located, and the rest of the State. As seen in Table V.11, below, of the 1,127 total complaints,
628, or 55.7 percent, were in either Douglas or Lancaster Counties. The other 499, or 44.3
percent, of the complaints were in the rest of Nebraska. This complaint history is unbalanced,
given that the remainder of the State, excluding both Douglas and Lancaster counties, comprises
58.3 percent of the population, but only 44.3 percent of the complaints. This data implies that the
non-entitled portions of the State have been underserved.

                                                                 TABLE V.11
                    HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA BY COUNTY
                              BASIS OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003
                                                                                                              Total    Number
                                                  Familial                                          National Basis of    of
           Race        Disability     Sex          Status         Color        Religion Retaliation Origin Complaints Complaints
 Year      DL      R    DL      R    DL      R    DL         R    DL      R     DL    R   DL      R    DL      R    DL       R     DL       R
 1993       31    10      8      8     9      9    20      7       .   .         .    1     .      1     2    14     70     50      63     39
 1994       40     8     14      8    17      8    10      8       .   .         1    .     4      1     .     2     86     35      65     32
 1995       23     7      6      5     8      4    13      6       2   .         .    1     1      .     1     .     54     23      34     21
 1996       20     6      6      5     5      3     6      2       1 15          .    .     1      .     1     8     40     39      36     37
 1997       21    15     17      8    12      7     9      4       .   .         1    .     3      3     4     5     67     42      52     31
 1998       24     5     24     14     6      1     5      5       .   .         1    .     3      3     1     6     64     34      54     34
 1999       22   139     23     12     3      1     8      9       7 105         .    .     5      3     8     2     76    271      60    160
 2000       21     5     23     22     5      4     8     12       3   1         .    1     2      5     4     6     66     56      60     45
 2001       22     4     18     14     2      2     6      5       4   .         1    .    11      6     2     8     66     39      50     34
 2002       34     2     13     13     5      2     9      4       2   .         1    1    14      3    12    14     90     39      70     31
 2003       17    12     46     11     9      1    13     11       1   .         1    .     7      3     7     3    101     41      84     35
 Total   275 213 198 120          81    42 107       73    20 121                6    4    51    28     42    68    780    669    628     499
 “D” = Douglas County; “L” = Lancaster County; “R” = Rest of State


When the complaint data was reduced, excluding complaints that were found by HUD to be of
“no cause” or that were dismissed during litigation, only 189 of the resulting 489 “effective”
complaints occurred outside Douglas and Lancaster Counties.26 In other words, 38.7 percent of
all effective complaints occurred in the more rural areas of the State, even though these areas
have 58.3 percent of the population.

It appears from this data that in addition to being underserved by the complaint process, people
in areas outside Douglas and Lancaster counties have had less success in their pursuit of fair
housing complaints. This was especially true for complaints based on race, color, and disability.
These data are shown in Table V.12, on the following page.




26
  The “effective” complaints examined in Table V.12 include 322 settlements, 122 instances in which there were administrative problems or the
complaint was abandoned, 27 cases for which discrimination was found, 21 post-cause settlements, and 18 cases that received a causal finding
and are still open or are missing information about the adjudication decision. The 122 instances in which there were administrative problems or
the complaint was abandoned were assumed to be effective complaints because these complaints may have been valid and problems in the
enforcement system may in some cases have led to the abandonment or administrative problems cited.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                               50
                                                       TABLE V.12
                 HUD HOUSING COMPLAINT DATABASE FOR NEBRASKA BY COUNTY
                            BASIS OF COMPLAINTS: FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 1993 THROUGH 2003
                                                                                                         Total    Number
                                                 Familial                                      National Basis for   of
              Race       Disability    Sex        Status     Color        Religion Retaliation Origin Complaints Complaints
Year        DL     R      DL     R    DL     R   DL    R    DL    R       DL    R   DL    R    DL   R     DL    R     DL    R
1993        16       4     2     2     6     3   15    5     .        .    .    .    .     .    .   12    39   26     35   23
1994        17       4     6     5     8     4    4    6     .        .    1    .    .     .    .    1    36   20     31   21
1995        11       4     2     2     4     3    7    5     2        .    .    1    1     .    .    .    27   15     19   14
1996         5       4     2     2     1     2    3    1     .        .    .    .    1     .    1    .    13    9     11    7
1997         6       5    10     3     7     3    7    2     .        .    .    .    3     .    .    1    33   14     21   11
1998        10       2    19     7     3     1    2    3     .        .    1    .    1     2    .    4    36   19     30   19
1999         7       7     9     6     1     .    6    8     3        1    .    .    3     1    .    2    29   25     25   21
2000        12       2    17     7     1     .    3   10     2        1    .    .    .     3    1    3    36   26     33   24
2001         8       3    11     7     .     .    3    3     2        .    .    .    1     1    1    6    26   20     23   17
2002         8       1     5     8     2     2    5    1     .        .    .    .    2     .    6    8    28   20     26   17
2003         5       6    27     2     6     1    7    5     .        .    .    .    5     .    5    1    55   15     46   15
Total      105   42 110 51      39 19     62   49    9                2    2    1   17     7   14   38   358   209   300   189
Percent
          38.2 19.7 55.6 42.5 48.1 45.2 57.9 67.1 45.0           1.7 33.3 25.0 33.3 25.0 33.3 55.9       45.9 31.2   47.8 37.9
Effective


This data indicates that the Nebraska fair housing enforcement system needs to be enhanced and
made more geographically equitable in order to avoid this lack of balance in the future. This is of
particular concern given the concentration of minority populations outside of Douglas and
Lancaster Counties, and that the cities of Lincoln and Omaha have their own FHAP
organizations. Furthermore, because many rural areas have not dealt with more than a small
amount of racial and ethnic diversity in the past, recent in-migration patterns will pose new
challenges requiring that a solid and equitable fair housing enforcement system be in place.

Suits Filed By the Department of Justice
Under the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice (DOJ) may bring lawsuits in the
following instances:
   Where there is reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in what is termed a
    "pattern or practice" of discrimination, or where a denial of rights to a group of people raises
    an issue of general public importance;
   Where force or threat of force is used to deny or interfere with fair housing rights, the DOJ
    may institute criminal proceedings; and,
   Where people who believe that they have been victims of an illegal housing practice file a
    complaint with HUD, or file their own lawsuit in federal or state court. The DOJ brings suits
    on behalf of individuals based on referrals from HUD.

Recent case law demonstrates the involvement of the DOJ in Nebraska’s fair housing arena. The
following two narratives are direct quotations from the DOJ Web site:




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                      51
                                                        Exhibit 1
                             US DOJ Fair Housing Litigation Cited on the DOJ Web site

      United States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al. (D. Neb.)
      On April 30, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska approved a Consent Order in
      United States v. Savannah Pines, LLC, et al. (D. Neb.). The complaint alleges that the Defendants, owners and
      operators of the Savannah Pines Retirement Community, discriminated against people with disabilities by:
      prohibiting tenants who use motorized wheelchairs or scooters from using these devices in common areas of
      the facility, charging an additional $1000 security deposit to such people; requiring such people to obtain
      liability insurance; and restricting such people to apartments on the first floor. The complaint also alleges that
      as a result of the Defendants' enforcement of the policy, tenants who used motorized wheelchairs or scooters
      were not able to use the dining facilities and some of them missed meals for which they were charged as part
      of their monthly rental fees.

      The Consent Order requires that the defendants rescind the policies set forth above and ensures that people
      who use motorized scooters or wheelchairs at Savannah Pines will have full and equal access to the facilities
      in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. Under the Consent Order, the Defendants will pay over $87,000,
      including providing free rent for a period of time to people who were harmed by its past practices, paying civil
      penalties, compensating identified victims and providing a settlement fund for other victims. The Consent
      Order will remain in effect for three years.

      United States v. Koch (D. Neb.)
      On October 2, 2003, the United States filed a complaint (PDF 62KB) in United States v. Koch (D. Neb.), a
      Fair Housing Act pattern or practice case which alleges that the defendant, John R. Koch violated the Fair
      Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants and prospective tenants. The complaint alleges the
      defendant, the owner and/or manager of numerous rental properties in the Omaha, Nebraska area, violated the
      Fair Housing Act by sexually harassing female tenants. The complaint alleges his female tenants were
      subjected to severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment, including: unwanted verbal sexual
      advances or touching; conditioning the terms and conditions of women's tenancy on the granting of sexual
      favors; and threatening and taking steps to evict or taking other adverse action against female tenants and
      prospective female tenants when they refused or objected to his sexual advances.

      The case was initially referred to the Division by Family Housing Advisory Services, Inc. of Omaha.



Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data Analysis
Information from the HMDA database for 1993 through 2002 was collected and analyzed. This
information includes residential mortgage lending activities reported by commercial lenders in
Nebraska. The data are considered “raw” loan account records, and some individual entries may
contain errors or omissions. Additional HMDA data is available in Appendix A.

Table V.13, on the following page, presents the number of total loan applications received
between 1993 and 2002, separated by loan purpose. Of the 845,959 applications, the largest
portion, 50.0 percent, were for refinancing. Another 37.3 percent of the applications were for
home purchases.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                 52
                                                             TABLE V.13
                                          HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                                      NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                           Home             Home                               Total Loan
                             Year       Purchase      Improvement Refinance Multi-family      Applications
                             1993           20,832           8,459       33,233      165           62,689
                             1994           20,810           7,753       11,803      122           40,488
                             1995           22,503           7,700        8,833      111           39,147
                             1996           26,583           9,803       18,386      206           54,978
                             1997           32,161          11,654       26,171      210           70,196
                             1998           38,532          12,876       59,786      290          111,484
                             1999           40,397          11,990       44,748      259           97,394
                             2000           38,868          12,612       35,335      166           86,981
                             2001           36,381          11,257       80,957      281          128,876
                             2002           39,261          10,538      103,631      296          153,726
                             Total        316,328          104,642      422,883     2,106         845,959


Owner-Occupied Home Loans. Of the 316,328 loan applications for home purchases between
1993 and 2002, 294,166, or 92.3 percent, were for owner-occupied housing. As shown in Table
V.14, below, the greatest number of owner-occupied applications were processed in 2002, an
increase of 2,324 applications over the year prior.

                                                             TABLE V.14
                                          HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                                 HOME PURCHASE LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                                    NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                                Owner- Not Owner-      Not Missing           Total Loan
                                Year          Occupied  Occupied Available   Labels         Applications
                                1993              19,817         793          222    0           20,832
                                1994              19,508       1,123          179    0           20,810
                                1995              20,190       1,448          865    0           22,503
                                1996              24,814       1,319          450    0           26,583
                                1997              30,070       1,394          697    0           32,161
                                1998              35,716       1,830          986    0           38,532
                                1999              36,547       1,918        1,932    0           40,397
                                2000              36,386       1,873          608    1           38,868
                                2001              34,397       1,909           75    0           36,381
                                2002              36,721       2,405          135    0           39,261
                                Total           294,166       16,012        6,149    1          316,328


Owner-occupied home loan applications were presented to conventional lenders, FHA, VA, and
Rural Housing or Farm Service Agencies (RHS/RFS), as seen in Table V.15, on the following
page. The majority of the applications, 65.4 percent, were handled through conventional lenders.
FHA-insured lenders processed 24.2 percent of the applications, the VA managed 9.1 percent,
and RHS/RFS processed 1.2 percent of the applications.

According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), lower-income
households nationwide rely more heavily on government-backed loans than do higher-income
households.27 The low down payment requirements and the ability to finance closing costs make

27
     Information available at http://www.ffiec.gov.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                            53
FHA and VA loans particularly attractive to lower-income households and first-time
homebuyers. Government-backed loans are more common for minority, particularly black and
Hispanic, applicants.

                                                   TABLE V.15
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                      OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                           NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                                FHA                  VA     Rural Housing or
   Year            Conventional              Insured         Guaranteed Farm Service Agency      Total
   1993                   11,298                5,505               2,984                 30    19,817
   1994                   11,752                5,044               2,616                 96    19,508
   1995                   12,828                4,691               2,587                 84    20,190
   1996                   15,979                6,023               2,717                 95    24,814
   1997                   18,623                8,217               2,812                418    30,070
   1998                   24,243                7,926               3,049                498    35,716
   1999                   24,564                8,678               2,790                515    36,547
   2000                   25,157                8,168               2,496                565    36,386
   2001                   23,113                8,262               2,458                564    34,397
   2002                   24,924                8,823               2,278                696    36,721
   Total                 192,481               71,337              26,787              3,561   294,166


Table V.16, on the following page, separates the 294,166 loan applications for the purchase of
owner-occupied units into six types of actions undertaken by lenders. These actions were as
follows:
1. Loan originated: Loan was made by the lending institution;
2. Approved but not accepted: Loan was approved by the lender, but it was not accepted by
   the applicant;
3. Loan denied: Loan was denied by the lending institution;
4. Withdrawn by applicant: Applicant chose to close the application process early;
5. Closed for incompleteness: Loan application process was closed by the lending institution due
   to incomplete information; and,
6. Loan purchased by the institution: Previously originated loan was purchased on the
   secondary market.

Average loan denial rates, which were as high as 21.6 percent in 1999, declined precipitously,
falling to 12.1 percent in 2002, the lowest level seen since 1993.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development               54
                                                       TABLE V.16
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                        LOAN ACTION TAKEN ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                        NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                                                                Loan
                            Approved           Withdrawn                   Purchased                             Average
                     Loan     But Not     Loan        By        Closed for     by the                             Denial
Year            Originated  Accepted    Denied  Applicant  Incompleteness Institution                  Total        Rate
1993               11,649            225       1,441         637               59      5,806          19,817      11.0%
1994               11,551            291       1,697         840               92      5,036          19,508      12.8%
1995               12,431            588       1,890         735              107      4,439          20,190      13.2%
1996               14,795            908       2,811         917               81      5,302          24,814      16.0%
1997               15,954          1,220       3,305         976              114      8,501          30,070      17.2%
1998               19,314          1,638       4,749       1,216              253      8,546          35,716      19.7%
1999               19,266          1,519       5,302       1,426              287      8,747          36,547      21.6%
2000               19,442          1,714       4,471       1,527              276      8,956          36,386      18.7%
2001               18,387          1,404       3,119       1,328              304      9,855          34,397      14.5%
2002               20,038          1,520       2,752       1,546              395     10,470          36,721      12.1%
Total             162,827        11,027       31,537      11,148            1,968     75,658      294,166         16.2%


Denial Rates. Diagram V.1, below, shows that denial rates in Nebraska for owner-occupied
home purchase loan applications fluctuated considerably between 1993 and 2002. The rates
climbed steadily from 1993 through 1999, then fell rapidly from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, the
nationwide denial rates for conventional home purchase loans were 14 percent, higher than the
rate in Nebraska.


                                                       DIAGRAM V.1
                  OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME PURCHASE LOAN APPLICATIONS: DENIAL RATE
                                              NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002

        24.0%

        22.0%

        20.0%

        18.0%

        16.0%

        14.0%

        12.0%

        10.0%
                  1993      1994       1995     1996      1997     1998     1999    2000       2001       2002




As noted in Table V.16, 31,537 owner-occupied home purchase loan applications were denied
over the 10-year period. Lenders are not required to report the reason(s) for denials, and
therefore many of the records do not contain this data element. The available data are shown in
Table V.17, on the following page, which reveals applicant credit history to be the denial reason
cited most often over the decade. Debt-to-income ratio was also a prominent reason cited for


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                  55
denials, indicating that some people in the State are not aware enough of their ability to afford a
home, given current underwriting standards. The trend suggests that while some education exists,
additional consumer education about credit markets is necessary.

                                                                  TABLE V.17
                                           HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                       DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY DENIAL REASON
                                            NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Denial Reason                             1993     1994       1995      1996       1997     1998      1999      2000     2001    2002     Total
Missing Reason                             777       868     1,175     1,845     1,959      2,379     2,386    2,507     1,345   1,057   16,298
Credit History                             243       311       266       411       693      1,558     1,455      883       778     647    7,245
Debt-to-income Ratio                       194       245       220       283       303        312       363      328       347     349    2,944
Other                                       74        70        40        66        87        208       288      247       266     251    1,597
Credit Application Incomplete               10        12        25        28        52         41       532      215       112      61    1,088
Collateral                                  39        49        49        65       102         95       150      172       125     181    1,027
Employment History                          62        81        59        54        39         96        59       48        53      59      610
Insufficient Cash                           31        51        46        44        48         41        51       53        67      77      509
Unverifiable Information                     7         9         9        14        20         18        17       15        26      68      203
Mortgage Insurance Denied                    4         1         1         1         2          1         1        3         0       2       16
Total                                    1,441     1,697     1,890     2,811     3,305      4,749     5,302    4,471     3,119   2,752   31,537


The home loan denial rates also were reviewed by types of population and types of lender
communities. Denial rates were computed by sex and race of the primary loan applicant. Table
V.18, below, shows the denial rates by sex.28 Over the decade, the denial rate for females
consistently was higher than the rate for males, including a 3.8 percent disparity in 2002. The
greatest disparity was seen in the late 1990s, when denial rates for females were nearly 10
percentage points higher than denial rates for males. Denial rates for both males and females
declined steadily after 1999, when they reached respective highs of 16.2 percent for males and
25.8 percent for females.

                                                                  TABLE V.18
                                           HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                        DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX
                                            NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
               Sex                    1993       1994      1995    1996     1997     1998      1999     2000      2001    2002   Total
               Male                  10.1% 11.9% 12.5% 14.5% 15.4% 16.1% 16.2% 13.3% 9.8% 8.6% 13.1%
               Female                13.1% 15.4% 16.3% 21.1% 22.9% 24.4% 25.8% 19.7% 14.5% 12.4% 19.1%
               Total                 11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1% 16.2%


Table V.19, on the following page, presents home loan denial data by race during the 1993 to
2002 time period. The Asian or Pacific Islander group (hereafter termed “Asian”), which
composed just over 1 percent of the State’s population, had the lowest denial rates in all but two
of the years. Whites maintained the next-lowest denial rate, at 13.3 percent overall. The highest
overall denial rate, 34.3 percent, was experienced by American Indians/Alaskan Natives
(hereafter termed “Native Americans”), although their denial rate declined by 12.5 percent points
between 2001 and 2002, sinking below 20 percent for the first time in the decade. Hispanics and
blacks also had high denial rates over the time period. The average denial rate for Hispanics was
24.8 percent and the average denial rate for blacks was 22.5 percent. Despite the higher denial
28
     Note that the total denial rate in Table V.10 includes records where the sex of the applicant was not provided.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                                 56
rates, the actual number of originated loans to minorities in the State increased significantly over
the decade, as shown in Appendix A.

                                                       TABLE V.19
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                  DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                                       NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Race                                  1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998    1999    2000     2001        2002    Total
American Indians/Alaskan Natives     21.6%    28.2%    25.4%   46.5%     45.1%    47.5%   37.3%   29.6%    30.0%   17.5%       34.3%
Asian or Pacific Islander            12.4%     8.4%    14.3%   13.8%      8.0%     9.3%    9.2%   10.9%     9.4%    6.0%        9.9%
Black                                28.2%    23.8%    21.5%   26.5%     23.4%    23.4%   26.7%   16.5%    18.6%   18.8%       22.5%
Hispanic                             22.4%    26.4%    26.5%   27.2%     28.1%    33.1%   29.9%   21.7%    19.5%   17.6%       24.8%
White                                 9.7%    11.7%    12.2%   14.7%     16.0%    16.7%   17.3%   13.7%     9.7%    8.4%       13.3%
Other                                12.3%    13.6%    14.0%   27.1%     18.6%    23.7%   47.8%   23.7%    13.3%   10.4%       22.8%
Total                                11.0%    12.8%    13.2%   16.0%     17.2%    19.7%   21.6%   18.7%    14.5%   12.1% 16.2%


The reasons for loan denials were separated by race. As seen in Table V.20, below, reasons for
denials were missing for more than half of Native American and white applicants. Up until Jan.
1, 2003, lenders were not required to request information on applicants’ race, ethnicity, or sex
when applications were taken by telephone, which accounts for much of the missing data.
HMDA data from 2003 forward should be more complete. Of the denial reasons provided, credit
history was the primary reason for loan denials to all racial groups. Debt-to-income ratio was the
next most common reason provided. Although this data describes trends in denial rates, the large
percentage of missing denial reasons makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions.

                                                       TABLE V.20
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                DENIAL REASONS BY RACE: NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                     Native                                            Not       Not
Denial Reason                     American  Asian   Black Hispanic   White  Other Provided Available                            Total
Missing Reason                          170       93       323          919      11,821     107    2,830           35          16,298
Credit History                           55       57       368          482       4,294      66    1,893           30           7,245
Debt-to-income Ratio                     20       40       144          179       2,077      15      460            9           2,944
Other                                    11       20        51          122         971      17      395           10           1,597
Credit Application Incomplete             3        7        22           51         493      16      494            2           1,088
Collateral                                4        5        29           47         609       5      304           24           1,027
Employment History                        7        9        33           61         429       4       65            2             610
Insufficient Cash                         5       13        25           36         342       7       79            2             509
Unverifiable Information                  0        3         5           17         129       1       48            0             203
Mortgage Insurance Denied                 0        1         1            3           8       0        1            2              16
Total                                   275      248     1,001        1,917      21,173     238    6,569       116             31,537
Percent Missing Denial Reason        61.8%     37.5%     32.3%        47.9%      55.8%    45.0%    43.1%     30.2%             51.7%


Table V.21, on the following page, presents loan denial rates by race, segmented by level of
income. Denial rates for Native Americans were highest overall and for incomes from under
$15,000 through the $60,000 income level. For those earning over $60,000, blacks and Hispanics
were denied most often. In the highest income category, those earning over $75,000 per year,
Hispanics were denied 15.0 percent of the time, and the denial rate for blacks was 12.6 percent,
as compared to a 4.8 percent denial rate for whites. The extent to which racial and/or ethnic
discrimination may account for differences in denial rates cannot be determined solely from the


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                      57
HMDA data reported by lenders. However, this data suggests that income level is not the only
hurdle that the State’s minority population must overcome on their way to homeownership.

                                                                TABLE V.21
                                         HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                  DENIAL RATES BY SELECTED INCOME CATEGORIES AND BY RACE
                                                NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                               Less than $15,000- $30,000- $45,000- $60,000- More than
                                                                                                                       Total
           Race                                  $15,000 $30,000 $45,000 $60,000 $75,000       $75,000
           American Indian/Alaskan Native                65.5%       45.0%       36.9%       25.0%      6.1%    7.6%   34.3%
           Asian or Pacific Islander                     31.7%       13.6%        9.3%        7.7%      6.9%    5.3%    9.9%
           Black                                         46.8%       29.3%       21.1%       15.3%     11.6%   12.6%   22.5%
           Hispanic                                      40.8%       27.3%       23.0%       21.4%     17.8%   15.0%   24.8%
           White                                         44.1%       24.8%       13.9%        8.6%      5.8%    4.8%   13.3%
           Other                                         60.5%       39.9%       25.5%       12.3%      9.6%    5.1%   22.8%
           Total                                         46.8%       28.3%       16.9%       10.9%     7.6%    6.1%    16.2%


Loans by Lender Type. The HMDA database of loan applications was analyzed by type of
lender, with two types of lenders explicitly identified: manufactured home and subprime.
Manufactured home lenders target manufactured home buyers as their primary market, while
subprime lenders provide loans to borrowers who tend to have lower credit quality. Both subprime
and manufactured home lenders tend to take on higher-risk homebuyers, and the lenders charge the
homebuyers higher interest rates, fees, and related charges in exchange for the additional risks they
take with their borrowers. Particularly because of the higher interest rates charged by these two
types of lenders, the loans they provide are more expensive methods for entering homeownership
and accumulating equity.

Nationwide, the subprime share of loans surged from under one percent in the early 1990s to six
percent of home purchase loans and 10 percent of refinance loans in 2001, growing from a $43
billion market in 1994 to a $385 billion market in 2003.29 Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing
Studies states the following concerning the effects of subprime lending:

             Subprime borrowers are clearly more vulnerable than prime borrowers to default even
             when home prices are rising. Complicating matters, subprime lending is heavily
             concentrated in low-income, predominantly minority communities. Reminiscent of the
             late 1960s when FHA loan insurance became available in previously redlined
             communities, the rapid expansion of subprime lending has led to rising defaults in many
             of these locations. When foreclosures are geographically concentrated they can threaten
             revitalization efforts as homes that lenders want to unload quickly flood the market.30

For this report, the lenders that were neither manufactured home lenders nor subprime lenders
were classified as prime lenders. A comparison of the three lenders’ activities is presented in
Table V.22, on the following page.




29
     The State of the Nation’s Housing 2004, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
30
     Ibid., Pg. 18.


Nebraska Department of Economic Development                               58
                                                         TABLE V.22
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                       HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY LENDER TYPE
                                       NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Application Action        1993      1994       1995      1996     1997       1998      1999         2000      2001     2002     Total
                                                          Prime Lenders
Loan Originated         11,162     11,017     11,873    13,956   14,823    17,855    17,617      17,674    17,242     18,795 152,014
Application Denied       1,005      1,053        836     1,128    1,383     2,109     2,581       1,439     1,425      1,658 14,617
Denial Rate               8.3%      8.7%       6.6%      7.5%     8.5%     10.6%      12.8%         7.5%     7.6%      8.1%      8.8%
                                                        Subprime Lenders
Loan Originated             30        64         48       174      390       605           740    1,059        828     1,129    5,067
Application Denied          23        21         25        83      115       402           462      773        612       691    3,207
Denial Rate             43.4%      24.7%      34.2%     32.3%    22.8%     39.9%      38.4%      42.2%       42.5%    38.0%    38.8%
                                                  Manufactured Home Lenders
Loan Originated            457       470         510       665      741       854       909         709        317      114     5,746
Application Denied         413       623       1,029     1,600    1,807     2,238     2,259       2,259      1,082      403    13,713
Denial Rate             47.5%      57.0%      66.9%     70.6%    70.9%     72.4%      71.3%      76.1%       77.3%    77.9%    70.5%


As seen above, prime lenders were the most active over the time period, issuing over 150,000
loans and 1,553 more loans in 2002 than in 2001. Overall denial rates were highest for
manufactured home lenders, at 70.5 percent, and lowest for prime lenders, at 8.8 percent.
Subprime lenders, the least active of the three types of lenders over the 10-year time period,
originated 301 more loans in 2002 than in 2001, an increase of 36.4 percent, but subprime
lenders still denied 38.8 percent of loan applications.

The number of manufactured home loan applications fell drastically between 2000 and 2002,
while the denial rate for manufactured home loans remained above 70 percent after 1996. The
peak years for manufactured home applications were 1998 through 2000, when about 3,000
applications were acted on each year. In 2001, just 1,399 applications were processed, and in
2002, 517 applications were processed and just 114 loans were originated.

Tables V.23 through V.25 separate the three types of lenders and compare the loan denial
rates for each by race and ethnicity. Table V.23, below, shows that since 1996, prime lenders
denied whites and Asians at much lower rates than other races. Native Americans had the
highest denial rates every year after 1995, although the denial rates fell to a seven -year low in
2002. Over the decade, the denial rates for blacks and Hispanics were 18.4 and 15.5 percent,
respectively.

                                                         TABLE V.23
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                 DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                               PRIME LENDERS, NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
  Race                                 1993      1994     1995    1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001    2002    Total
  American Indian/Alaskan Native      12.5% 4.3% 8.9%            25.0%    25.4%   30.9%     23.4% 16.4% 18.5% 12.7% 18.9%
  Asian or Pacific Islander            9.8% 6.1% 9.5%            10.8%     6.6%    6.3%      6.0% 6.7% 8.3% 5.5% 7.3%
  Black                               27.7% 23.2% 19.0%          23.1%    18.4%   18.4%     18.5% 11.8% 11.4% 13.1% 18.4%
  Hispanic                            15.5% 17.7% 14.9%          14.8%    18.0%   19.5%     18.6% 10.4% 15.0% 14.0% 15.5%
  White                                7.3% 7.5% 5.5%             6.4%     7.5%    7.0%      7.4% 5.4% 6.2% 5.9% 6.6%
  Other                                6.8% 5.4% 4.5%             3.3%    12.1%   12.0%     13.8% 6.0% 7.4% 10.2% 8.8%
  Total Prime Lenders                  8.3%      8.7%    6.6%    7.5%     8.5% 10.6% 12.8%            7.5%     7.6%    8.1%    8.8%



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                       59
Table V.24, below, shows that the average denial rate for subprime lenders was 38.8 percent
over the decade. The denial rate for Native Americans was lowest, at 19.4 percent, while the
denial rate for those in the “other” category was the highest, at 64.3 percent. Because there are
far fewer loan applications in the subprime market, as compared to the prime and manufactured
lender markets, the percentage values shown below do not provide sufficient information from
which to draw firm conclusions. Further tables presenting the quantity of loans processed by
these and all other lender types are located in Appendix A.

                                                        TABLE V.24
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                 DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                             SUBPRIME LENDERS, NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
  Race                                 1993     1994    1995     1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001     2002   Total
  American Indian/Alaskan Native    100.0%       . 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%                3.2%   19.0%   50.0%   50.0%    19.4%
  Asian or Pacific Islander               . 33.3%       . 0.0% 0.0% 23.1%               25.0%   50.0%   18.2%   20.0%    27.0%
  Black                              50.0% 30.0% 71.4% 21.1% 16.7% 20.0%                48.7%   27.5%   45.2%   39.5%    34.7%
  Hispanic                                .      . 60.0% 25.0% 9.5% 39.5%               42.6%   45.5%   38.5%   38.5%    39.7%
  White                              37.5% 25.8% 26.9% 13.3% 12.5% 34.5%                29.1%   38.1%   39.4%   31.6%    32.5%
  Other                             100.0%       .      . 92.3% 80.0% 75.0%             87.8%   60.0%   23.1%    6.3%    64.3%
  Total Subprime Lenders             43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%


Table V.25, below, shows that manufactured home lenders had high denial rates for all races
and ethnicities over the decade. Overall, denial rates were highest for blacks, followed closely
by Hispanics and Native Americans. Asians and whites had the lowest denial rates over the
decade. While denial rates continue to be high, the degree to which manufactured home lenders
were utilized was considerably less in 2002 than in prior years. As noted previously, the
number of manufactured housing loan applications fell to a new low of 114 in 2002.

                                                        TABLE V.25
                                   HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                 DENIAL RATES ON HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                        MANUFACTURED HOME LENDERS, NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Race                                    1993     1994     1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000     2001     2002    Total
American Indian/Alaskan Native        75.0%     62.5%    84.6%   79.3%   86.2%   81.3%   80.0%   67.7%   100.0%    66.7%   78.6%
Asian or Pacific Islander             80.0%     60.0%    78.6%   75.0%   50.0%   61.5%   61.5%   55.6%    50.0%   100.0%   65.1%
Black                                      .   100.0%   100.0%   90.5%   81.8%   82.4%   84.4%   84.6%    66.7%   100.0%   84.8%
Hispanic                              83.3%     87.9%    76.0%   82.1%   85.6%   80.0%   73.6%   78.3%    70.7%    79.3%   79.0%
White                                 42.6%     55.6%    65.6%   69.2%   69.6%   71.3%   70.5%   71.6%    70.4%    73.4%   67.7%
Other                                 60.0%     66.7%    83.3%   75.0%   66.7%   70.0%   73.1%   68.0%    85.7%   100.0%   72.2%
Total Manufactured Home Lenders       47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%


Home Improvement Loans. Data concerning home improvement loans was used to evaluate
other prospective problems in the State’s lending markets. Table V.26, on the following page,
shows that the vast majority of the 104,642 home improvement loan applications received
between 1993 and 2002 were intended for owner-occupied housing units. The numbers of
applications for home improvement loans declined by over 2,000 between 2000 and 2002.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                      60
                                                       TABLE V.26
                                  HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                        HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                           NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                                             Owner- Not Owner-      Not  Total Loan
                                Year       Occupied  Occupied Available Applications
                                1993               7,965            170     324      8,459
                                1994               7,295            202     256      7,753
                                1995               7,287            163     250      7,700
                                1996               9,154            302     347      9,803
                                1997              11,075            373     206     11,654
                                1998              12,186            509     181     12,876
                                1999              11,458            345     187     11,990
                                2000              11,905            409     298     12,612
                                2001              10,838            405      14     11,257
                                2002              10,069            463       6     10,538
                                Total             99,232           3,341   2,069   104,642


Of the 99,232 owner-occupied home improvement loan applications in the decade, 56,691 loans
were originated, as seen in Table V.27, below. The number of loans originated in 2002 was the
lowest since 1995, and the number of loans denied in 2002 was the lowest since 1997. The
average denial rate over the decade was 32.6 percent, although the 34.0 percent rate in 2002 was
the lowest since 1997.

                                                       TABLE V.27
                                  HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
               LOAN ACTION TAKEN ON OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                      NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                       Approved                                              Loan
                 Loan    But not   Loan  Withdrawn        Closed for  Purchased            Average
  Year      Originated Accepted  Denied By Applicant Incompleteness By Institution Total Denial Rate
  1993           5,594          224       1,760             284               18              85    7,965   23.9%
  1994           5,269          367       1,316             303               34               6    7,295   20.0%
  1995           4,787          354       1,682             409                8              47    7,287   26.0%
  1996           5,516          553       2,500             430               39             116    9,154   31.2%
  1997           6,441        1,073       3,041             408               68              44   11,075   32.1%
  1998           5,988        1,503       3,920             448               84             243   12,186   39.6%
  1999           5,987        1,270       3,453             587               47             114   11,458   36.6%
  2000           6,109        1,376       3,736             469               53             162   11,905   37.9%
  2001           5,570          893       3,265             816              234              60   10,838   37.0%
  2002           5,430          989       2,800             644               93             113   10,069   34.0%
  Total         56,691        8,602     27,473             4,798             678             990   99,232   32.6%


The 56,691 home improvement loans originated in the decade were segmented by income of the
loan recipient, as seen in Table V.28, on the following page. The greatest numbers of home
improvement loans, 13,309, were provided to those in the $30,000 to $45,000 income category.
Over the 10 years, 1,887 loans were issued to households with incomes below $15,000, and
another 10,148 loans were provided to those in the $15,000 to $30,000 income bracket.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                        61
                                                     TABLE V.28
                                  HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                       OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS ORIGINATED BY INCOME
                                         NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                               Less than $15,000- $30,000- $45,000 - $60,000- More than
            Year       Missing   $15,000  $30,000  $45,000  $60,000   $75,000   $75,000           Total
            1993            108          315     1,383      1,532    1,080       521       655    5,594
            1994            103          299     1,218      1,431    1,091       537       590    5,269
            1995             98          188     1,113      1,244    1,007       549       588    4,787
            1996             70          176     1,065      1,438    1,212       673       882    5,516
            1997             81          228     1,258      1,535    1,403       826     1,110    6,441
            1998            100          177     1,008      1,376    1,302       863     1,162    5,988
            1999             92          153       839      1,283    1,291       934     1,395    5,987
            2000            110          126       804      1,247    1,207       943     1,672    6,109
            2001            110          122       711      1,130    1,200       890     1,407    5,570
            2002             87          103       749      1,093    1,115       820     1,463    5,430
            Total           959         1,887   10,148     13,309   11,908      7,556   10,924   56,691


Table V.29, below, presents the average home improvement loan amount by type of lender and
household income. Subprime lenders provided the largest average loans for all but the highest
income category. The greater average size of subprime loans is most striking at the lowest
income level, where subprime lenders provided average loans of $12,360 to households earning
under $15,000 per year. Average subprime loans for these extremely low-income households
were $5,368, or 56.6 percent larger than those provided by prime lenders.

                                                     TABLE V.29
                                  HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                          OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME IMPROVEMENT: AVERAGE LOAN AMOUNT
                                       NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
                        Income Range                     Prime      Subprime        MFG Home
                        < $15,000                         6,992        12,360           10,406
                        $15 - $30,000                     8,572        13,456           11,960
                        $30 - $45,000                    10,738        15,097           13,306
                        $45 - $60,000                    12,976        18,227           13,972
                        $60 - $75,000                    15,115        19,583           17,922
                        > $75,000                        25,865        24,028           17,203


Subprime loans to households earning between $15,000 and $30,000 were 63.7 percent larger
than prime loans to the same income category. Placing low-income homeowners in such
significant debt positions places the homeowners at greater risk of foreclosure. Additional
education for loan applicants appears necessary.

Summary
2004 Fair Housing Survey. During the spring of 2004, 88 people representing nine
employment categories involved in the provision of housing-related services were contacted by
telephone to provide qualitative insights into issues pertaining to fair housing. The survey
found that less than half of all respondents could give a partial or full list of the State’s protected
classes, and 22 different resources were suggested for victims of housing discrimination,
indicating a lack of knowledge about proper resources.



Nebraska Department of Economic Development                   62
 Respondents strongly favored increasing education and outreach about fair housing, including
 targeting the migrant population and increasing outreach to rural areas of the State. Respondents
 also favored additional education about the nuances and interpretations of fair housing law,
 particularly for government officials and those in the building and construction industry.
 Respondents’ most common concerns about fair housing included the following:
  Enhanced fair housing instruction and training is needed, particularly on the west side of the
   State and in rural areas. The education needs to be tailored to address local concerns and to
   serve the migrant and other minority populations;
  The application process for CDBG and HOME grants does not require enough proof of fair
   housing compliance, resulting in a missed opportunity for education of communities across
   the State and for motivating communities to enhance their fair housing efforts;
  Rental discrimination, particularly by unregulated landlords, is taking place against members
   of protected classes; 31
  Many new and older residences are not in compliance with fair housing design and
   construction standards and accessibility regulations;


  Violations of fair housing law are occurring more frequently in small and more rural
   communities, often because housing providers, government officials, and others do not
   know that the law applies to them or because they do not understand specifically how it
   applies to them; and,
  Low-income areas are not being investigated enough to assess the full extent of substandard
   housing and living conditions. State-level partnerships may be needed to provide adequate
   oversight of the problem.

 The most frequently cited barrier to the provision of fair housing was lack of education about fair
 housing law. Discrimination and actions by unregulated landlords were also cited as frequent
 barriers to fair housing. The survey found general support for increased fair housing testing, but
 many respondents said they did not know if more testing should be done.

 Complaint Data. Complaint data from HUD was examined for fiscal years 1993 through 2003. Of
 the 1,127 total complaints received over that time period, the greatest number, 488, related to race,
 followed by disability and familial status, respectively. In 2003, 119 complaints were received, the
 most since 1999.

 The most frequent outcome for the 1,127 complaints was a no cause determination, which occurred
 in 42.8 percent of the cases. Another 28.6 percent of the cases were settled prior to a cause
 determination, and 10.8 percent of complaints were abandoned or had administrative problems. A
 cause determination was made for 19.7 percent of the total complaints, but 70.3 percent of the
 complaints receiving cause determination were later dismissed or found not to involve
 discrimination. Most of the issues brought forward to HUD related to discrimination in terms,
 conditions, or privileges relating to rentals or refusal to rent.

  31
     Respondents used many different terms to describe landlords whose fair housing practices do not appear to be regulated by the State or other
entities. These terms, including “mom-and-pop landlords” and “private landlords,” are encompassed in the survey results by the term “unregulated
landlords.”


 Nebraska Department of Economic Development                             63
The 1,127 total complaints also were separated to assess differences between the data from Douglas
and Lancaster counties, where Lincoln and Omaha are located, and the rest of the State. The results
indicated that the non-entitled portions of the State were underserved by the enforcement process,
with 44.3 percent of the complaints coming from the non-entitled areas, which compose 58.3
percent of the population in the State.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data. Information from the HMDA database for the
years 1993 through 2002 was collected and analyzed. A total of 845,959 loan applications were
completed over the decade. Of the loan applications for home purchases, 92.3 percent were for
owner-occupied housing.

The majority of the loan applications, 65.4 percent, were handled through conventional lenders.
Average denial rates for owner-occupied home loan applications, which were as high as 21.6
percent in 1999, declined precipitously, falling to 12.1 percent in 2002. The most common
reasons cited for denial of loans was credit history, followed by debt-to-income ratio.

The denial rates for home loan applications were analyzed by types of population and types of
lender communities. Both males and females experienced declines in denial rates after 1999,
with the denial rate for females falling the most but remaining higher than the denial rate for
males. In 2002, Asians and whites had the lowest denial rates, while blacks, at 18.8 percent, had
the highest denial rates. In 2002, Hispanics and Native Americans had their loan applications
denied 17.6 and 17.5 percent of the time, respectively.

Prime lenders originated by far the greatest number of loans and had the lowest average denial rate,
which was 8.1 percent in 2002. Subprime lenders had an average denial rate of 38.0 percent in
2002, and manufactured home lenders had an average denial rate of 77.9 percent in 2002, although
just 114 loans were originated by manufactured home lenders in that year.

All three types of lenders denied most minorities at higher rates than whites, both in 2002 and
over the decade as a whole. Between 1993 and 2002, Hispanics earning over $75,000 per year
were denied 15.0 percent of the time, more than three times the rate for whites in the same
income bracket. Blacks earning over $75,000 per year were denied 12.6 percent of the time, as
compared to 4.8 percent for whites in the same income bracket.

Although higher loan denial rates for particular groups do not provide enough information to
conclude that discriminatory lending practices exist, it does appear that minorities, particularly
blacks and Hispanics, are having more difficulty than non-minorities in moving into
homeownership in the State.

Between 1993 and 2002, 104,642 home improvement loan applications were processed. During the
10-year period, 1,887 home improvement loans were issued to households with incomes less than
$15,000, with the average loan amount $12,360 by subprime lenders and $6,992 by prime lenders.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development      64
Nebraska Department of Economic Development   65
Section VI. Summary & Actions to be Implemented

Summary of Background
Population. The State’s population, particularly those between the ages of 35 to 54, is
increasing. Between 1990 and 2000, Nebraska’s population rose by 132,878 people, reaching
1,711,263 in 2000. The strongest rate of growth in the decade was 29.5 percent in the 35 to 54
age group. The percentage of males and females remained almost evenly divided from 1990 to
2000. The disabled population was 250,534 people in 2000, 14.6 percent of the total population.

Race and Ethnicity. Nebraska became significantly more racially and ethnically diverse
between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, the white population composed 89.6 percent of the total
population, down from 93.8 percent in 1990. The Hispanic population rose 155.4 percent over
the decade, the Asian population increased 76.6 percent, and the black and Native American
populations increased 19.4 and 20 percent, respectively. The minority concentrations varied
greatly by county. The incidence of fair housing impediments is likely to be higher in high
minority concentration areas.

Labor, Income, and Earnings. Nebraska’s labor force expanded by 160,716 people between
1990 and 2003, representing a 16.5 percent increase. Employment increased over the same
period by 14.9 percent, while unemployment rose to 4.0 percent in 2003, still 2.0 percent below
that of the nation. Total employment, including full- and part-time jobs, rose an average of 1.6
percent per year from 1969 to 2002.

As of 2002, total earnings in the State had increased to $39.4 billion, in real dollar terms, while
total personal income exceeded $51.2 billion. The average real earnings per job in the State
increased steadily after 1969, reaching $33,372 in 2002, but was $8,064 less than the national
average. Nebraska’s per capita income in 2003 was $30,758, an increase of 3.6 percent over
2002 figures, and just $874 less than the national average.

Low-Income and Poverty. The median household income in Nebraska was $39,250 in 2000.
Some 146,700 households, or 22.0 percent, of the State’s households earned less than $20,000
in 2000, and 15.0 percent of all households earned less than $15,000. The 2000 Census
reported that 161,269 people in the State were in poverty, a poverty rate of 9.7 percent. The
extremely low-income concentrations tended to be in the more rural areas of the State,
including many of the same areas with the highest minority concentrations.

Housing. In 2000, the median gross rent in Nebraska was $491, $111 less than the national
average. The median home value in Nebraska, at $88,000, was 26.4 percent lower than in the
nation. The State’s housing stock increased 9.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. The greatest increase
in housing stock, 46.5 percent, was in the number of dwellings with 20 or more units. The rental
vacancy rate in 2000 was 7.6 percent, down .6 percent from 1990, and the homeowner vacancy
rate was 1.8 percent, an increase of 7.8 percent.

Overcrowding. Statewide, 17,963 households in the State experienced some degree of
overcrowding in 2000. The majority of these households, 63.0 percent, were renters.
Nebraska’s overcrowding problem increased precipitously between 1990 and 2000. Severe
overcrowding rose 250.5 percent, and overcrowding increased 44.1 percent. Despite the


Nebraska Department of Economic Development      66
increases, overcrowding of both types was less severe both for renters and homeowners in
Nebraska as compared to the nation.

Public and Private Fair Housing Programs and Activities
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees, administers, and enforces
fair housing law across the nation. In Nebraska, three Fair Housing Assistance Programs
(FHAPs) are considered substantially equivalent agencies, and they carry out investigative and
enforcement actions along with HUD. The three FHAPs in Nebraska are:
   The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission, a State agency;
   The City of Lincoln Commission on Human Rights, serving the City of Lincoln; and,
   The Omaha Human Relations Department, serving the City of Omaha.

Nebraska’s fair housing enforcement system also is served by two Fair Housing Initiative
Programs (FHIPs), which are nonprofit organizations that receive FHIP funding from HUD. The
State’s two FHIPs are:
   The Fair Housing Center, a part of Family Housing Advisory Services; and,
   High Plains Community Development Corporation.

Evaluation of Enforcement and Lending Practices
2004 Fair Housing Survey. During the spring of 2004, 88 people representing nine
employment categories involved in the provision of housing or housing-related services were
contacted by telephone. Survey results provided qualitative insights into various issues
pertaining to fair housing.

The survey found that less than half of all respondents could give a partial or full list of the
State’s protected classes, and 22 different resources were suggested for victims of housing
discrimination, indicating a lack of knowledge about the proper resources for victims. This
confusion could present a constraint or delay in access to the complaint process.

Respondents strongly favored increasing education and outreach about fair housing, including
targeting in-need populations such as the migrant population and increasing outreach to rural
areas of the State. Respondents also favored additional education about the nuances and
interpretations of fair housing law, particularly for government officials and those in the building
and construction industry.

Respondents’ most common concerns about fair housing included the following:
 Enhanced fair housing instruction and training is needed, particularly on the west side of the
  State and in rural areas. The education needs to be tailored to address local concerns and to
  serve the migrant and other minority populations;
 The application process for CDBG and HOME grants does not require enough proof of fair
  housing compliance, resulting in a missed opportunity for education of communities across
  the State and for motivating communities to enhance their fair housing efforts;




Nebraska Department of Economic Development       67
  Rental discrimination, particularly by unregulated landlords, is taking place against members
   of protected classes; 32
  Many new and older residences are not in compliance with fair housing design and
   construction standards and accessibility regulations;
  Violations of fair housing law are occurring more frequently in small and more rural
   communities, often because housing providers, government officials, and others do not
   know that the law applies to them or because they do not understand specifically how it
   applies to them; and,
  Low-income areas are not being investigated enough to assess the full extent of substandard
   housing and living conditions. State-level partnerships may be needed to provide adequate
   oversight of the problem.

 The most frequently cited barrier to the provision of fair housing was lack of education about fair
 housing law. Discrimination and actions by unregulated landlords were also cited as frequent
 barriers to fair housing. The survey found general support for increased fair housing testing, but
 many respondents said they did not know if more testing should be done.

 Complaint Data. Fair housing complaint data from HUD was examined for fiscal years 1993
 through 2003. Of the 1,127 total complaints received over that time period, the greatest number,
 488, related to race, followed by disability and familial status, respectively. In 2003, 119 total
 complaints were received, the most since 1999. The number of complaints related to disability and
 familial status nearly doubled between 2002 and 2003.

 The most frequent outcome for the 1,127 complaints was a no-cause determination, which occurred
 in 42.8 percent of the cases. Another 28.6 percent of the cases were settled prior to a cause
 determination, and 10.8 percent of complaints were abandoned or had administrative problems. A
 cause determination was made for 19.7 percent of the total complaints, but 70.3 percent of these
 complaints receiving cause determination were later dismissed or found not to involve
 discrimination. Most of the issues brought forward to HUD related to discrimination in terms,
 conditions, privileges, or services and facilities. A discriminatory refusal to rent was cited next most
 often by complainants.

 The 1,127 complaints also were separated to assess differences between the data from Douglas and
 Lancaster counties, where Lincoln and Omaha are located, and the rest of the State. The results
 indicated that the non-entitled portions of the State have been underserved by the enforcement
 process, with 44.3 percent of the complaints coming from the non-entitled areas, which compose
 58.3 percent of the population in the State.

 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data. Information from the HMDA database for the
 years 1993 through 2002 was collected and analyzed. A total of 845,959 loan applications were
 completed in the State over the decade. Of the loan applications for home purchases, 92.3
 percent were for owner-occupied housing. The majority of the loan applications, 65.4 percent,
 were handled through conventional lenders.


  32
     Respondents used many different terms to describe landlords whose fair housing practices do not appear to be regulated by the State or other
entities. These terms, including “mom-and-pop landlords” and “private landlords,” are encompassed in the survey results by the term “unregulated
landlords.”


 Nebraska Department of Economic Development                             68
Average denial rates for owner-occupied home loan applications, which were as high as 21.6
percent in 1999, declined precipitously, falling to 12.1 percent in 2002. The most common
reasons cited for denial of loans was credit history, followed by debt-to-income ratio.

The denial rates for home loan applications were analyzed by types of population and types of
lender communities. Both males and females experienced declines in denial rates after 1999,
with the denial rate for females falling the most but remaining higher than the denial rate for
males. In 2002, Asians and whites had the lowest denial rates, while blacks, at 18.8 percent, had
the highest denial rates. In 2002, Hispanics and Native Americans had their loan applications
denied 17.6 and 17.5 percent of the time, respectively.

Prime lenders originated by far the greatest number of loans and had the lowest average denial rate,
which was 8.1 percent in 2002. Subprime lenders had an average denial rate of 38.0 percent in
2002, and manufactured home lenders had an average denial rate of 77.9 percent in 2002, although
just 114 loans were originated by manufactured home lenders in that year.

All three types of lenders denied most minorities at higher rates than whites, both in 2002 and
over the decade as a whole. Between 1993 and 2002, Hispanics earning over $75,000 per year
were denied 15.0 percent of the time, more than three times the rate for whites in the same
income bracket. Blacks earning over $75,000 per year were denied 12.6 percent of the time, as
compared to 4.8 percent for whites in the same income bracket.

Although higher loan denial rates for particular groups do not provide enough information to
conclude that discriminatory lending practices exist, it does appear that minorities, particularly
blacks and Hispanics, are having more difficulty than non-minorities in moving into
homeownership in the State.

Between 1993 and 2002, 104,642 home improvement loan applications were processed. During the
10-year period, 1,887 home improvement loans were issued to households with incomes less than
$15,000. The average loan amount was $12,360 by subprime lenders and $6,992 by prime lenders.

Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
This Analysis of Impediments revealed the following impediments to fair housing choice in the
State of Nebraska:
1. There is a general lack of understanding of fair housing law;
2. Violations of fair housing law do occur, particularly in rental markets;
3. Some confusion exists concerning whom to turn to when a violation of fair housing law is
   alleged to occur, as well as how to access the State’s fair housing complaint system;
4. Areas of the State, outside of Lincoln and Omaha, are underserved by the current housing
   complaint and enforcement system;
5. Design and construction standards are not adequately understood or consistently
   implemented;
6. Some minority populations appear to have unusually high home loan denial rates; and,
7. Subprime lenders are offering high home improvement loan amounts for extremely low-
   income homeowners.

Nebraska Department of Economic Development      69
Strategies to Address Impediments
The Nebraska Department of Economic Development has neither the authority to act unilaterally
nor the resources necessary to overcome these impediments to fair housing choice. However, the
DED plans to take action, addressing the State’s impediments to fair housing through three
strategies:
1. Enhance statewide understanding of fair housing law through outreach and education;
2. Enhance consumer understanding of credit markets and the importance of establishing good
   credit; and,
3. Enhance the efficiency and geographic distribution of the fair housing complaint and
   enforcement system.

Actions to be Implemented
In order to accomplish the three strategies listed above, the DED intends to implement the
following actions:
1. Refer people with allegations of fair housing violations to the Nebraska Equal Opportunity
   Commission (NEOC) in most cases, the Lincoln Human Rights Commission for people in
   Lincoln, the Fair Housing Center for people in Omaha, and, lastly, HUD;
2. Endorse complaint-based testing orchestrated by the NEOC in non-entitled areas of the State;
3. Urge the NEOC to increase enforcement activities in underserved areas of the State, with a
   focus on areas having the most rapidly growing minority populations, especially Hispanic,
   Asian, and other new and rising minority populations;
4. Enhance education and outreach activities concerning fair housing law, including education
   about the fair housing complaint system, as well as design and construction standards;
5. Urge the NEOC to use systemic testing of new construction testing for design and
   construction standards compliance;
6. Enhance understanding of credit markets through educational efforts targeted both to housing
   consumers and providers through partnering organizations including Fannie Mae Nebraska,
   the NEOC, the Lincoln Human Rights Commission, the Fair Housing Center, the Nebraska
   Housing Developers Association, the Nebraska Commission on Housing and Homelessness,
   the State’s Continuums of Care, and other partners who provide educational services in the
   areas of credit markets to housing consumers and providers; and,
7. Enhance understanding of fair housing law by expanding the role of the NEOC as an
   information clearinghouse on Nebraska law, design and construction standards, and other
   resources.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development    70
Nebraska Department of Economic Development   71
References

Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,
April 1993.

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I HDS2000,
   Final Report, November 2000. The complete HDS2000 report is available at
   http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds.html.

2004 Fair Housing Trends Report, National Fair Housing Alliance. Available at
   http://www.nationalfairhousing.org.

Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD’s Oversight and Management of the Enforcement
   Process, United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters,
   April 2004.

How Much Do We Know? United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
  of Policy Research and Development, 2002. Complete results are available at
  http://www.huduser.org/Publications.

A National Report Card on Discrimination in America, “The Role of Testing,” by John Yinger.
   Available at http://www.urban.org.

The State of the Nation’s Housing 2004, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
    Available at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu.




Nebraska Department of Economic Development    72
Nebraska Department of Economic Development   73
Appendix A: HMDA Tables

                                                     TABLE A.1
                                      HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                                           NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Race             Action Taken         1993   1994   1995 1996 1997 1998         1999 2000     2001 2002          Total
American Indian  Loan Originated        29     28     44     38     50     53     74     88     56     66          526
or               Application Denied      8     11     15     33     41     48     44     37     24     14          275
Alaskan Native Denial Rate %        21.6% 28.2% 25.4% 46.5% 45.1% 47.5% 37.3% 29.6% 30.0% 17.5%                 34.3%
Asian            Loan Originated       120    142    174    206    254    283    247    294    232    315         2267
or               Application Denied     17     13     29     33     22     29     25     36     24     20          248
Pacific Islander Denial Rate %      12.4% 8.4% 14.3% 13.8% 8.0% 9.3% 9.2% 10.9% 9.4% 6.0%                        9.9%
                 Loan Originated       242    355    314    300    311    351    374    456    377    377         3457
Black            Application Denied     95    111     86    108     95    107    136     90     86     87         1001
                 Denial Rate %      28.2% 23.8% 21.5% 26.5% 23.4% 23.4% 26.7% 16.5% 18.6% 18.8%                 22.5%
                 Loan Originated       184    195    305    447    559    622    741    969    840    943         5805
Hispanic         Application Denied     53     70    110    167    218    308    316    269    204    202         1917
                 Denial Rate %      22.4% 26.4% 26.5% 27.2% 28.1% 33.1% 29.9% 21.7% 19.5% 17.6%                 24.8%
                 Loan Originated    10,548 10,515 11,229 13,330 14,029 16,510 15,873 15,504 14,522 16,131      138,191
White            Application Denied  1,136 1,396 1,560 2,291 2,677 3,314 3,310 2,454 1,562 1,473                21,173
                 Denial Rate %       9.7% 11.7% 12.2% 14.7% 16.0% 16.7% 17.3% 13.7% 9.7% 8.4%                   13.3%
                 Loan Originated        57     57     43     62     83     87     94     90    111    121          805
Other            Application Denied      8      9      7     23     19     27     86     28     17     14          238
                 Denial Rate %      12.3% 13.6% 14.0% 27.1% 18.6% 23.7% 47.8% 23.7% 13.3% 10.4%                 22.8%
Not Provided     Loan Originated       199    251    313    402    662 1,376 1,820 1,986 2,224 1,995            11,228
by               Application Denied    109     85     74    154    230    898 1,375 1,512 1,192       940        6,569
Applicant        Denial Rate %      35.4% 25.3% 19.1% 27.7% 25.8% 39.5% 43.0% 43.2% 34.9% 32.0%                 36.9%
                 Loan Originated       270      8      9     10      6     32     43     55     25     90          548
Not Applicable Application Denied       15      2      9      2      3     18     10     45     10      2          116
                 Denial Rate %       5.3% 20.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 36.0% 18.9% 45.0% 28.6% 2.2%                  17.5%
                 Loan Originated       11,649 11,551 12,431 14,795 15,954 19,314 19,266 19,442 18,387 20,038   162,827
Total            Application Denied     1,441 1,697 1,890 2,811 3,305 4,749 5,302 4,471 3,119 2,752             31,537
                 Denial Rate %         11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1%              16.2%


                                                     TABLE A.2
                                      HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                 ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX
                                           NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Sex              Action Taken         1993  1994   1995 1996 1997 1998         1999 2000     2001 2002           Total
                 Loan Originated     9,395 9,367 10,152 11,968 12,574 14,609 13,799 13,749 12,753 14,011       122,377
Male             Application Denied  1,056 1,266 1,445 2,024 2,292 2,800 2,668 2,110 1,390 1,324                18,375
                 Denial Rate %      10.1% 11.9% 12.5% 14.5% 15.4% 16.1% 16.2% 13.3% 9.8% 8.6%                   13.1%
                 Loan Originated     1,855 2,026 2,035 2,526 2,887 3,551 3,894 4,031 3,751 4,440                30,996
Female           Application Denied    280   368    396    676    859 1,149 1,353      989    634    626         7,330
                 Denial Rate %      13.1% 15.4% 16.3% 21.1% 22.9% 24.4% 25.8% 19.7% 14.5% 12.4%                 19.1%
Not Provided     Loan Originated       125   150    233    291    489 1,145 1,551 1,651 1,871 1,542              9,048
by               Application Denied     91    61     37    109    151    783 1,257 1,326 1,086       801         5,702
Applicant        Denial Rate %      42.1% 28.9% 13.7% 27.3% 23.6% 40.6% 44.8% 44.5% 36.7% 34.2%                 38.7%
                 Loan Originated       274     8     11     10      4      9     22     11     12     45           406
Not Applicable   Application Denied     14     2     12      2      3     17     24     46      9      1           130
                 Denial Rate %       4.9% 20.0% 52.2% 16.7% 42.9% 65.4% 52.2% 80.7% 42.9% 2.2%                  24.3%
                 Loan Originated       11,649 11,551 12,431 14,795 15,954 19,314 19,266 19,442 18,387 20,038   162,827
Total            Application Denied     1,441 1,697 1,890 2,811 3,305 4,749 5,302 4,471 3,119 2,752             31,537
                 Denial Rate %         11.0% 12.8% 13.2% 16.0% 17.2% 19.7% 21.6% 18.7% 14.5% 12.1%              16.2%




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                 74
                                                               TABLE A.3
                                        HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                      DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY DENIAL REASON
                                           NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Denial Reason                  1993   1994    1995   1996    1997   1998  1999   2000   2001                                  2002       Total
Debt-to-income Ratio            194    245     220    283     303    312   363    328    347                                   349       2,944
Employment History               62     81      59     54      39     96    59     48     53                                    59         610
Credit History                  243    311     266    411     693  1,558 1,455    883    778                                   647       7,245
Collateral                       39     49      49     65     102     95   150    172    125                                   181       1,027
Insufficient Cash                31     51      46     44      48     41    51     53     67                                    77         509
Unverifiable Information          7      9       9     14      20     18    17     15     26                                    68         203
Credit Application Incomplete    10     12      25     28      52     41   532    215    112                                    61       1,088
Mortgage Insurance Denied         4      1       1      1       2      1     1      3      0                                     2          16
Other                            74     70      40     66      87    208   288    247    266                                   251       1,597
Missing                         777    868   1,175  1,845   1,959  2,379 2,386  2,507  1,345                                 1,057      16,298
Total                              1,441     1,697     1,890     2,811       3,305    4,749    5,302     4,471     3,119     2,752      31,537


                                                               TABLE A.4
                                        HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                                                   HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                             OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY LENDER TYPE
                                                 NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Application Action                  1993      1994      1995      1996   1997         1998     1999      2000      2001      2002        Total
                                                               Prime Lenders
Loan Originated                   11,162    11,017    11,873    13,956      14,823   17,855   17,617   17,674    17,242    18,795 152,014
Application Denied                 1,005     1,053       836     1,128       1,383    2,109    2,581    1,439     1,425     1,658 14,617
Denial Rate                         8.3%      8.7%      6.6%      7.5%       8.5%    10.6%    12.8%      7.5%      7.6%      8.1%        8.8%
                                                             Subprime Lenders
Loan Originated                       30        64        48       174        390      605       740     1,059       828     1,129       5,067
Application Denied                    23        21        25        83        115      402       462       773       612       691       3,207
Denial Rate                        43.4%    24.7%     34.2%     32.3%       22.8%    39.9%    38.4%     42.2%     42.5%     38.0%       38.8%
                                                       Manufactured Home Lenders
Loan Originated                      457       470       510       665         741      854      909       709       317      114        5,746
Application Denied                   413       623     1,029     1,600       1,807    2,238    2,259     2,259     1,082      403       13,713
Denial Rate                        47.5%    57.0%     66.9%     70.6%       70.9%    72.4%    71.3%     76.1%     77.3%     77.9%       70.5%



                                                               TABLE A.5
                                           MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN NEBRASKA
                                       NEW UNITS PLACED IN SERVICE AND AVERAGE PRICES
                     Units Placed in Service In Nebraska             Average Home Price, Nominal Dollars
                                   (1,000s)                   Average Nebraska                 Average U.S.
                       Single-      Double-            Single-     Double-             Single-   Double-
        Year            wide         wide      Total     wide       wide      Total     wide       wide                     Total
        1994             0.3          0.3       0.6    30,600      46,600    37,800    23,500     42,000                   32,800
        1995             0.6          0.4       1.0    32,500      44,800    36,900    25,800     44,600                   35,300
        1996             0.6          0.7       1.3    31,500      48,600    41,100    27,000     46,200                   37,200
        1997             0.6          0.8       1.4    36,300      50,700    44,400    27,900     48,100                   39,800
        1998             (S)          (S)       0.6    36,300      50,000    47,800    28,800     49,800                   41,600
        1999             0.2          0.9       1.1       (S)      53,600    49,400    29,300     51,100                   43,300
        2000             0.2          0.5       0.8    36,800      57,700    51,100    30,200     53,600                   46,400
        2001             0.2          0.4       0.6       (S)      53,900    52,200    30,400     55,200                   48,900
        2002             (S)          0.3       0.4       (S)      65,900    55,800    30,800     56,200                   51,300

        (S) = Suppressed because estimate or complementary estimate based on fewer than five responses.
           These values may not sum correctly to the total due to other types of manufactured housing units, such as two story units.




   Nebraska Department of Economic Development                         75
                                                           TABLE A.6
                                        HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                           PRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                          OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                                           NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Race               Action Taken       1993   1994  1995 1996 1997 1998     1999 2000                         2001    2002      Total
                Loan Originated               28     22      41        30      44      47      36      61      53      62       424
American Indian
or              Application Denied             4      1       4        10      15      21      11      12      12       9        99
Alaskan Native Denial Rate %              12.5%    4.3%    8.9% 25.0% 25.4% 30.9% 23.4% 16.4% 18.5% 12.7%                     18.9%
                   Loan Originated          119     138     171        199    241     268     236     279     221     311      2,183
Asian
or                 Application Denied        13       9      18         24     17      18      15      20      20      18        172
Pacific Islander   Denial Rate %          9.8%     6.1%    9.5% 10.8%        6.6%    6.3%    6.0%    6.7%    8.3%    5.5%      7.3%
                   Loan Originated          237     348     312        283    280     305     347     380     325     325      3,142
Black              Application Denied        91     105      73         85     63      69      79      51      42      49        707
                   Denial Rate %          27.7% 23.2% 19.0% 23.1% 18.4% 18.4% 18.5% 11.8% 11.4% 13.1%                         18.4%
                   Loan Originated          180     190     285        421    523     557     659     866     764     881      5,326
Hispanic           Application Denied        33      41      50         73    115     135     151     100     135     144        977
                   Denial Rate %          15.5% 17.7% 14.9% 14.8% 18.0% 19.5% 18.6% 10.4% 15.0% 14.0%                         15.5%
                   Loan Originated       10,079 10,015 10,709 12,580 13,057 15,314 14,578 14,368 13,891 15,330               129,921
White              Application Denied       792    811    625    867 1,056 1,147 1,160       819    917    961                 9,155
                   Denial Rate %          7.3%     7.5%    5.5%    6.4%      7.5%    7.0%    7.4%    5.4%    6.2%    5.9%      6.6%
                   Loan Originated            55     53      42        58      80      81      75      78     100     106       728
Other              Application Denied          4      3       2         2      11      11      12       5       8      12        70
                   Denial Rate %          6.8%     5.4%    4.5%    3.3% 12.1% 12.0% 13.8%            6.0%    7.4% 10.2%        8.8%
                   Loan Originated          194     243     304        375    593    1,253   1,646   1,588   1,864   1,690     9,750
Not Provided
by                 Application Denied        54      81      55         65    103      704   1,149     389     287     463     3,350
Applicant          Denial Rate %          21.8% 25.0% 15.3% 14.8% 14.8% 36.0% 41.1% 19.7% 13.3% 21.5%                         25.6%
                   Loan Originated          270       8       9        10       5      30      40      54      24      90       540
Not Applicable     Application Denied        14       2       9         2       3       4       4      43       4       2        87
                   Denial Rate %          4.9% 20.0% 50.0% 16.7% 37.5% 11.8%                 9.1% 44.3% 14.3%        2.2%     13.9%
                   Loan Originated       11,162 11,017 11,873 13,956 14,823 17,855 17,617 17,674 17,242 18,795               152,014
Total Prime        Application Denied     1,005    1,053    836   1,128      1,383   2,109   2,581   1,439   1,425   1,658    14,617
                   Denial Rate %          8.3%     8.7%    6.6%    7.5%      8.5% 10.6% 12.8%        7.5%    7.6%    8.1%      8.8%




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                       76
                                                         TABLE A.7
                                    HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                        SUBPRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                       OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                                         NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Race               Action Taken      1993   1994  1995 1996 1997 1998      1999 2000   2001                   2002    Total
                Loan Originated               .      .       1         2      2     .     30      17     3       3      58
American Indian
or              Application Denied            1      .       .         .      1     1      1       4     3       3      14
Alaskan Native Denial Rate %            100.0%       .    0.0%    0.0% 33.3% 100.0%      3.2% 19.0% 50.0% 50.0% 19.4%
                   Loan Originated             .     2       .         4      8    10      6      11     9       4      54
Asian
or                 Application Denied          .     1       .         .      .     3      2      11     2       1      20
Pacific Islander   Denial Rate %               . 33.3%       .    0.0%      0.0% 23.1% 25.0% 50.0% 18.2% 20.0% 27.0%
                   Loan Originated            4      7       2        15     25    40     20      74    51      52     290
Black              Application Denied         4      3       5         4      5    10     19      28    42      34     154
                   Denial Rate %        50.0% 30.0% 71.4% 21.1% 16.7% 20.0% 48.7% 27.5% 45.2% 39.5% 34.7%
                   Loan Originated             .     1       2         6     19    26     31      73    64      56     278
Hispanic           Application Denied          .     .       3         2      2    17     23      61    40      35     183
                   Denial Rate %               .     . 60.0% 25.0%          9.5% 39.5% 42.6% 45.5% 38.5% 38.5% 39.7%
                   Loan Originated            25    46      38        124    280   410    479    646    495    739    3,282
White              Application Denied         15    16      14         19     40   216    197    398    322    341    1,578
                   Denial Rate %        37.5% 25.8% 26.9% 13.3% 12.5% 34.5% 29.1% 38.1% 39.4% 31.6% 32.5%
                   Loan Originated            .      1       .         1      1     3      5       4    10      15      40
Other              Application Denied         1      .       .        12      4     9     36       6     3       1      72
                   Denial Rate %        100.0%       .       . 92.3% 80.0% 75.0% 87.8% 60.0% 23.1%            6.3% 64.3%
                   Loan Originated            1      7       5        22     54    114    166    233    196    260    1058
Not Provided
by                 Application Denied         2      1       3        46     63    132    178    263    200    276    1164
Applicant          Denial Rate %        66.7% 12.5% 37.5% 67.6% 53.8% 53.7% 51.7% 53.0% 50.5% 51.5% 52.4%
                   Loan Originated             .     .       .          .     1     2      3       1      .       .      7
Not Applicable     Application Denied          .     .       .          .     .    14      6       2      .       .     22
                   Denial Rate %               .     .       .          .   0.0% 87.5% 66.7% 66.7%        .       . 75.9%
               Loan Originated                30    64      48        174    390   605    740   1,059   828   1,129   5,067
Total Subprime Application Denied             23    21      25        83     115   402    462    773    612    691    3,207
                   Denial Rate %        43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0% 38.8%




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                      77
                                                         TABLE A.8
                                      HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                   MANUFACTURED HOME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                       OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY RACE
                                        NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Race                Action Taken    1993  1994   1995 1996 1997 1998      1999 2000   2001                          2002   Total
                Loan Originated               1     6       2          6       4       6       8      10       .      1      44
American Indian
or              Application Denied            3    10      11         23      25      26      32      21       9      2     162
Alaskan Native      Denial Rate %        75.0% 62.5% 84.6% 79.3% 86.2% 81.3% 80.0% 67.7% 100.0% 66.7% 78.6%
                    Loan Originated           1     2       3          3       5       5       5       4       2      .      30
Asian
or                  Application Denied        4     3      11          9       5       8       8       5       2      1      56
Pacific Islander    Denial Rate %        80.0% 60.0% 78.6% 75.0% 50.0% 61.5% 61.5% 55.6% 50.0% 100.0% 65.1%
                    Loan Originated           1     .       .          2       6       6       7       2       1      .      25
Black               Application Denied        .     3       8         19      27      28      38      11       2      4     140
                    Denial Rate %              . 100.0% 100.0% 90.5% 81.8% 82.4% 84.4% 84.6% 66.7% 100.0% 84.8%
                    Loan Originated            4    4      18         20      17      39      51      30      12      6     201
Hispanic            Application Denied        20   29      57         92     101     156     142     108      29     23     757
                    Denial Rate %        83.3% 87.9% 76.0% 82.1% 85.6% 80.0% 73.6% 78.3% 70.7% 79.3% 79.0%
                    Loan Originated         444    454    482      626        692     786     816     490    136     62 4,988
White               Application Denied      329    569    921    1,405      1,581   1,951   1,953   1,237    323    171 10,440
                    Denial Rate %        42.6% 55.6% 65.6% 69.2% 69.6% 71.3% 70.5% 71.6% 70.4% 73.4% 67.7%
                    Loan Originated           2     3       1          3       2       3      14       8       1      .      37
Other               Application Denied        3     6       5          9       4       7      38      17       6      1      96
                    Denial Rate %        60.0% 66.7% 83.3% 75.0% 66.7% 70.0% 73.1% 68.0% 85.7% 100.0% 72.2%
                    Loan Originated            4    1       4          5      15       9       8     165     164     45      420
Not Provided
by                  Application Denied        53    3      16         43      64      62      48     860     705    201    2,055
Applicant           Denial Rate %        93.0% 75.0% 80.0% 89.6% 81.0% 87.3% 85.7% 83.9% 81.1% 81.7% 83.0%
                    Loan Originated           .      .       .          .       .       .       .       .      1       .      1
Not Applicable      Application Denied        1      .       .          .       .       .       .       .      6       .      7
                    Denial Rate %        100.0%      .       .          .       .       .       .       . 85.7%        . 87.5%
                    Loan Originated         457    470    510         665    741     854     909     709     317    114    5,746
Total               Application Denied      413    623   1,029   1,600      1,807   2,238   2,259   2,259   1,082   403 13,713
                    Denial Rate %        47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9% 70.5%




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                      78
                                                           TABLE A.9
                                      HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                         PRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                         OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX
                                          NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Sex              Action Taken       1993   1994  1995 1996 1997 1998     1999 2000                            2001    2002      Total
                 Loan Originated        9,006      8,951   9,747 11,363 11,796 13,614 12,751 12,750 12,155 13,330             115,463
Male             Application Denied       765        793     645    836    986 1,060 1,031      791    863    888               8,658
                 Denial Rate %          7.8%       8.1%    6.2%     6.9%      7.7%    7.2%    7.5%    5.8%    6.6%    6.2%      7.0%
                 Loan Originated        1,761      1,914   1,885   2,314      2,576   3,161   3,410   3,538   3,454   4,066    28,079
Female           Application Denied       189        199     146     235        313     372     429     255     298     329     2,765
                 Denial Rate %          9.7%       9.4%    7.2%     9.2% 10.8% 10.5% 11.2%            6.7%    7.9%    7.5%      9.0%
                 Loan Originated          121       144     232         269    447    1,073   1,434   1,376   1,622   1,356     8,074
Not Provided
by               Application Denied        37        59      36          55     81      674   1,117     349     260     440     3,108
Applicant        Denial Rate %          23.4% 29.1% 13.4% 17.0% 15.3% 38.6% 43.8% 20.2% 13.8% 24.5%                            27.8%
                 Loan Originated          274         8       9         10       4       7      22      10      11      43       398
Not Applicable   Application Denied        14         2       9          2       3       3       4      44       4       1        86
                 Denial Rate %          4.9% 20.0% 50.0% 16.7% 42.9% 30.0% 15.4% 81.5% 26.7%                          2.3%     17.8%
                 Loan Originated       11,162 11,017 11,873 13,956 14,823 17,855 17,617 17,674 17,242 18,795                  152,014
Total            Application Denied     1,005      1,053    836    1,128      1,383   2,109   2,581   1,439   1,425   1,658    14,617
                 Denial Rate %          8.3%       8.7%    6.6%     7.5%      8.5% 10.6% 12.8%        7.5%    7.6%    8.1%      8.8%



                                                           TABLE A.10
                                      HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                       SUBPRIME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                         OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX
                                          NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Sex              Action Taken       1993   1994  1995 1996 1997 1998     1999 2000   2001                             2002      Total
                 Loan Originated              27     43      44         132    266     406     457     630     488     629      3,122
Male             Application Denied           18     15      20          30     58     228     235     398     308     317      1,627
                 Denial Rate %          40.0% 25.9% 31.3% 18.5% 17.9% 36.0% 34.0% 38.7% 38.7% 33.5%                            34.3%
                 Loan Originated              3      15       3         21      93     133     173     292     243     347      1,323
Female           Application Denied           4       6       5         12      21      83     110     202     162     185        790
                 Denial Rate %          57.1% 28.6% 62.5% 36.4% 18.4% 38.4% 38.9% 40.9% 40.0% 34.8%                            37.4%
                 Loan Originated              .       6       1         21      31      64     110     136      97     151       617
Not Provided
by               Application Denied           1       .       .         41      36      77      97     171     140     189       752
Applicant        Denial Rate %         100.0%      0.0%    0.0% 66.1% 53.7% 54.6% 46.9% 55.7% 59.1% 55.6%                      54.9%
                 Loan Originated               .       .       .          .       .      2       .       1       .       2         5
Not Applicable   Application Denied            .       .       .          .       .     14      20       2       2       .        38
                 Denial Rate %                 .       .       .          .       . 87.5% 100.0% 66.7% 100.0%         0.0%     88.4%
                 Loan Originated              30     64      48         174    390     605     740    1,059    828    1,129     5,067
Total            Application Denied           23     21      25         83     115     402     462     773     612     691      3,207
                 Denial Rate %          43.4% 24.7% 34.2% 32.3% 22.8% 39.9% 38.4% 42.2% 42.5% 38.0%                            38.8%




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                        79
                                                         TABLE A.11
                                      HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
               MANUFACTURED HOME LENDERS: ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS
                                         OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES BY SEX
                                          NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
Sex            Action Taken        1993    1994  1995 1996 1997 1998      1999 2000   2001 2002                 Total
               Loan Originated      362     373   361    473  512     589  591  369    110    52                3,792
Male           Application Denied   273     458   780 1,158 1,248 1,512 1,402   921    219  119                 8,090
               Denial Rate %      43.0% 55.1% 68.4% 71.0% 70.9% 72.0% 70.3% 71.4% 66.6% 69.6%                  68.1%
               Loan Originated        91     97   147    191  218     257  311  201      54   27                1,594
Female         Application Denied     87    163   245    429  525     694  814  532    174  112                 3,775
               Denial Rate %      48.9% 62.7% 62.5% 69.2% 70.7% 73.0% 72.4% 72.6% 76.3% 80.6%                  70.3%
Not Provided   Loan Originated         4      .      .     1    11      8    7  139    152    35                  357
by             Application Denied     53      2     1     13    34     32   43  806    686  172                 1,842
Applicant      Denial Rate %      93.0% 100.0% 100.0% 92.9% 75.6% 80.0% 86.0% 85.3% 81.9% 83.1%                83.8%
               Loan Originated         .      .     2      .     .      .    .     .      1    .                    3
Not Applicable Application Denied      .      .     3      .     .      .    .     .      3    .                    6
               Denial Rate %           .      . 60.0%      .     .      .    .     . 75.0%     .               66.7%
                 Loan Originated          457   470   510   665   741   854   909   709   317   114             5,746
Total            Application Denied       413   623 1,029 1,600 1,807 2,238 2,259 2,259 1,082   403            13,713
                 Denial Rate %          47.5% 57.0% 66.9% 70.6% 70.9% 72.4% 71.3% 76.1% 77.3% 77.9%            70.5%




                                                     TABLE A.12
                                  HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT DATA
                     ORIGINATED AND DENIED HOME LOAN APPLICATIONS OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES
                                        BY RACE AND SELECTED INCOME CATEGORIES
                                                NEBRASKA: 1993 THROUGH 2002
            Race             Action Taken       Missing <$15k $15-30k $30-45k $45-60k $60-75k >$75k Total
            American         Loan Originated           5    19    154     123       90      62   73    526
            Indian or        Application Denied        1    36    126       72      30       4    6    275
            Alaskan Native Denial Rate %          16.7% 65.5% 45.0% 36.9% 25.0%          6.1% 7.6% 34.3%
                             Loan Originated          42    43    444     689     469     243   337 2,267
            Asian or         Application Denied       11    20     70       71      39      18   19    248
            Pacific Islander Denial Rate %        20.8% 31.7% 13.6%      9.3%    7.7%    6.9% 5.3%   9.9%
                             Loan Originated          33   116    967     923     682     349   387 3,457
            Black            Application Denied       27   102    400     247     123       46   56 1,001
                             Denial Rate %        45.0% 46.8% 29.3% 21.1% 15.3% 11.6% 12.6% 22.5%
                             Loan Originated          64   168 2,390 1,909        762     263   249 5,805
            Hispanic         Application Denied       27   116    897     569     207       57   44 1,917
                             Denial Rate %        29.7% 40.8% 27.3% 23.0% 21.4% 17.8% 15.0% 24.8%
                             Loan Originated       1,709 2,229 23,760 37,398 30,787 18,090 24,218 138,191
            White            Application Denied      327 1,755 7,816 6,029 2,893        1,120 1,233 21,173
                             Denial Rate %        16.1% 44.1% 24.8% 13.9%        8.6%    5.8% 4.8% 13.3%
                             Loan Originated          17    15    125     199     178     104   167    805
            Other            Application Denied       19    23     83       68      25      11    9    238
                             Denial Rate %        52.8% 60.5% 39.9% 25.5% 12.3%          9.6% 5.1% 22.8%
            Not Provided Loan Originated             229   231 1,463 2,522 2,448        1,711 2,624 11,228
            by               Application Denied      212   426 2,182 1,808 1,015          459   467 6,569
            Applicant        Denial Rate %        48.1% 64.8% 59.9% 41.8% 29.3% 21.2% 15.1% 36.9%
                             Loan Originated         290     4     31       67      62      39   55    548
            Not Applicable Application Denied         31    11     25       22      16       8    3    116
                             Denial Rate %         9.7% 73.3% 44.6% 24.7% 20.5% 17.0% 5.2% 17.5%
                           Loan Originated       2,389    2,825 29,334 43,830 35,478   20,861 28,110 162,827
            Total          Application Denied      655    2,489 11,599 8,886 4,348      1,723 1,837 31,537
                           Denial Rate %        21.5%    46.8% 28.3% 16.9% 10.9%        7.6% 6.1% 16.2%




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                   80
Nebraska Department of Economic Development   81
Appendix B: Demographic Data


                                                   TABLE B.1
                                     POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
                                          NEBRASKA BY COUNTY, 2000 CENSUS
                                            American               Native
                                            Indian or         Hawaiian &              Two or
                                              Alaska         Other Pacific     Some    More              Hispanic
COUNTY                   White       Black     Native  Asian     Islander Other Race Races       Total   or Latino
Adams                   29,451         200        112    498           11         620    259    31,151       1,428
Antelope                 7,364           4         23      4             0         21     36     7,452          52
Arthur                     428           0          1      3             1          4      7       444           6
Banner                     785           1          2      1             0         25      5       819          46
Blaine                     577           0          3      0             0          0      3       583           1
Boone                    6,212           3          3      2             2         19     18     6,259          56
Box Butte               11,044          45        333     65             1        432    238    12,158         930
Boyd                     2,411           0         14      4             0          0      9     2,438           2
Brown                    3,477           1          7      9             1          8     22     3,525          29
Buffalo                 40,221         232        140    289           13         929    435    42,259       1,970
Burt                     7,606          14         83     15             2         17     54     7,791          98
Butler                   8,625           9         11     11             5         71     35     8,767         145
Cass                    23,821          43         72     85             4         86    223    24,334         355
Cedar                    9,526          10         19      4             1         17     38     9,615          41
Chase                    3,979           7          4      7             1         60     10     4,068         139
Cherry                   5,791           4        200     26             1         20    106     6,148          57
Cheyenne                 9,470          14         64     39             3        144     96     9,830         438
Clay                     6,868          12         22     21             0         87     29     7,039         245
Colfax                   8,533           7         20     21           15       1,664    181    10,441       2,732
Cuming                   9,783          13         29     20             3        268     87    10,203         559
Custer                  11,631           8         48     18             0         23     65    11,793         108
Dakota                  15,968         126        377    624           12       2,615    531    20,253       4,581
Dawes                    8,457          73        261     28             5         93    143     9,060         220
Dawson                  20,058          76        164    161             3      3,530    373    24,365       6,178
Deuel                    2,042           1          8      8             0         24     15     2,098          57
Dixon                    5,999           2         31     17             0        240     50     6,339         348
Dodge                   34,678         156        107    183           31         745    260    36,160       1,421
Douglas                375,317      53,330      2,809  7,944          250     15,760   8,175   463,585      30,928
Dundy                    2,222           1         18     11             1         20     19     2,292          74
Fillmore                 6,485          14         29      4             1         55     46     6,634         110
Franklin                 3,547           0         10      2             0          3     12     3,574          23
Frontier                 3,046           3          8      8             0         12     22     3,099          30
Furnas                   5,229           4         22     12             0         17     40     5,324          61
Gage                    22,463          73        133     65             7         59    193    22,993         196
Garden                   2,254           3          6      6             0         12     11     2,292          33
Garfield                 1,879           0          4      1             1          7     10     1,902          19
Gosper                   2,117           0          3      5             0          9      9     2,143          27
Grant                      738           0          1      2             0          6      0       747          10
Greeley                  2,658          18          2      2             0         21     13     2,714          23
Hall                    47,467         195        164    586           73       4,384    665    53,534       7,497
Hamilton                 9,255          17         11     21             0         46     53     9,403         107
Harlan                   3,743           5          4      3             1          6     24     3,786          29
Hayes                    1,038           2          0      3             0         19      6     1,068          27
Hitchcock                3,060           3          9      4             0          9     26     3,111          44
Holt                    11,419           4         33     21             6         27     41    11,551          82
Hooker                     773           0          3      1             0          1      5       783           8
Howard                   6,481          20         16      6             2         21     21     6,567          66
Jefferson                8,201           6         32     14             3         42     35     8,333         109
Johnson                  4,198           5         18    120             1         88     58     4,488         129
Kearney                  6,732          11         14     16             1         68     40     6,882         161




Nebraska Department of Economic Development               82
                                               TABLE B.1 (Cont.)
                                     POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
                                          NEBRASKA BY COUNTY, 2000 CENSUS
                                            American                Native
                                            Indian or          Hawaiian &                Two or
                                              Alaska          Other Pacific     Some       More                Hispanic
COUNTY                   White       Black     Native   Asian     Islander Other Race     Races        Total   or Latino
Keith                    8,587           7         63      15             0        132        71       8,875         375
Keya Paha                  977           0          2       0             0          0         4         983          38
Kimball                  3,966           9         27       4             1         27        55       4,089         136
Knox                     8,589           8        667      15             4         32        59       9,374          85
Lancaster              225,426       7,052      1,599   7,162          149       4,225     4,678     250,291       8,437
Lincoln                 32,795         188        175     129             8        918       419      34,632       1,880
Logan                      763           1          8       0             0          0         2         774           7
Loup                       704           0          2       1             0          3         2         712          12
McPherson                  522           0          0       2             0          9         0         533           8
Madison                 32,179         330        419     142           11       1,783       362      35,226       3,042
Merrick                  8,066          18          8      17             1         55        39       8,204         168
Morrill                  5,096           4         39      12             0        224        65       5,440         549
Nance                    3,973           0         15       2             0         18        30       4,038          46
Nemaha                   7,394          27         23      45             3         28        56       7,576          76
Nuckolls                 5,002           1          3       8             0         27        16       5,057          51
Otoe                    14,999          44         34      38             5        176       100      15,396         377
Pawnee                   3,052           0          6       8             0          1        20       3,087          21
Perkins                  3,126           1          9       7             0         43        14       3,200          74
Phelps                   9,532          11         27      27             0         77        73       9,747         220
Pierce                   7,751           6         28      16             2         18        36       7,857          56
Platte                  29,854         111         90     127           10       1,105       365      31,662       2,072
Polk                     5,578           1         16       5             0         16        23       5,639          61
Red Willow              11,167          18         44      19             2        106        92      11,448         281
Richardson               9,116          18        221      14             0         21       141       9,531         100
Rock                     1,739           0          8       3             0          1         5       1,756           9
Saline                  12,872          50         52     236             4        470       159      13,843         911
Sarpy                  109,335       5,340        515   2,331          108       2,275     2,691     122,595       5,358
Saunders                19,530          21         57      43             1         69       109      19,830         205
Scotts Bluff            32,363          98        694     212           15       2,965       604      36,951       6,352
Seward                  16,174          47         34      48             8         66       119      16,496         179
Sheridan                 5,461           5        572       9             1         21       129       6,198          91
Sherman                  3,268           2          7       8             1         14        18       3,318          34
Sioux                    1,440           0          2       3             0         17        13       1,475          34
Stanton                  6,243          27         31       8             0         89        57       6,455         149
Thayer                   5,976           1         17       7             0         20        34       6,055          61
Thomas                     725           0          2       0             0          0         2         729           6
Thurston                 3,282          11      3,731       4             0         55        88       7,171         174
Valley                   4,561           7         15       5             3         37        19       4,647          75
Washington              18,427          63         38      55           21          57       119      18,780         202
Wayne                    9,534          93         34      34             1         84        71       9,851         146
Webster                  3,984           6         11      19             3          9        29       4,061          22
Wheeler                    878           0          2       0             0          5         1         886           5
York                    14,128         140         42      71           12          93       112      14,598         205
Nebraska             1,533,261      68,541    14,896   21,931          836     47,845    23,953    1,711,263      94,425




Nebraska Department of Economic Development                 83

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:11
posted:4/13/2011
language:English
pages:89