Chapter 3 Housing Market Analysis & Needs Assessment

Did you know?

Washington County has approximately 7,000 subsidized housing units and 2,700 housing vouchers. Nevertheless, seven in ten extremely low-income households (incomes of $21,000 or less for a family of four in 2010) pay at least 50% of their income for housing costs. At the end of the month, over 11,000 of these families have very little money to pay for life’s other essentials, like food, clothing, transportation and health care.

I. Overview

This chapter includes the following information related to housing characteristics, needs and supply in Washington County:

Overall summary of housing conditions and needs documented in more detail in the rest of the chapter.

General information about the Washington County housing market, including the number of units and condition of existing housing stock, availability of affordable housing, and geographic concentrations of affordable units (Section II). This information provides an overall context for what the private market does and doesn’t do to meet general and specific needs of Washington County residents.

Housing needs for county residents with low and moderate incomes and for certain sub-populations, such as minority or elderly residents and households with special needs. This section compares the demand for and supply of housing for these groups, describing the extent of the unmet affordable housing need for each (Sections III and IV).

The nature and extent of homelessness in Washington County and the types of housing and other support programs available to the county’s homeless residents (Section V).

The overall focus of this chapter is to describe the supply and demand of the entire housing market, assess who is not served by the market (focusing on low income and special needs populations), determine the number of households whose housing needs are not met by the market but are being met by existing public or non-profit programs, and determine the gaps that still exist for these groups.

In discussing current housing market conditions and needs and in predicting future needs, the county is challenged by the fact that recent trends and conditions are unique, and in some respects, extreme. The last ten years have seen significant changes in poverty and vacancy rates coupled significant growth in Washington County. Due in part to the recent recession, poverty rates in Washington County have risen since 2007, however, the suburbanization of poverty is also a factor. Because the City of Portland is seeing unprecedented rates of urban revitalization, poverty has been pushed to the fringes of its borders, including Washington County. Furthermore, the entire Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has seen unprecedented rental vacancy rates, due in part to significant in-migration into the area. In 2013, the Portland MSA had the second-lowest vacancy rate (3.1%) of the 75 largest MSAs in the US. These factors combined have resulted in an incredibly tight rental market, which is especially challenging for extremely low income and special needs households. These conditions will affect the housing market in a variety of ways, some of them unpredictable, for years to come.

SUMMARY OF NEEDS Washington County faces a wide variety of housing needs, particularly for households with low incomes and special needs. Approximately one-third (33%) of households in the county have extremely low-, low- or moderate-incomes.

HUD programs use a variety of definitions for income groups. For example, the HOME program regulations define a low-income family as one whose annual income does not exceed 80% of the area median, adjusted for family size. The regulations for the CDBG program, on the other hand, define low-income households as those having an income equal to or less than 50%

of the area median, adjusted for household size. The regulations for the Consolidated Plan have slightly different definitions than either of these two programs.

For consistency, this plan will use the following conventions to refer to income groups:

TABLE ### Definition of Income Groups

Term Definition Shorthand Reference

Extremely Low Income Households

Income at or below 30% of the area median

0 - 30% AMI

Low Income Households Income above 30% and at or below 50% of the area median

31 - 50% AMI

Moderate Income Households Income above 50% and at or below 80% of the area median

51 - 80% AMI

Extremely Low/Low Income Households

Income at or below 50% of the area median

0 - 50% AMI

Low/Mod Income Households Income at or below 80% of the area median

0 - 80% AMI

SOURCE: US Department of Housing and Urban Development

A significant percentage of these households (approximately 77% of low/mod income households or 27% of all households) face some kind of housing problem, including a cost burden [i.e., spend more than 30% of monthly income on housing] (see Table ### and Table ###). Those at the lowest income levels face the most significant obstacles in obtaining affordable housing and most, particularly in the extremely low-income category, cannot afford owner-occupied housing without multiple subsidies. Based on current trends, over one-third (35%) of renters with incomes at or below 50% of median are likely to pay more than half of their incomes for housing costs in 2010. More detailed information about these statistics is found on pages #### of this report.

TABLE ### Housing Problem Estimates for Extremely low, Low and Moderation Income Households

0-30%

AMI 30-50%

AMI 50-80%

AMI 80-100%

AMI Renter 10,370 11,285 9,825 2,035 % of all households in WACO

5.3%

5.7%

5.0%

1.0%

Owner 4,335 4,355 8,530 6,085

% of all households in WACO

2.2%

2.2%

4.3%

3.1%

TOTAL 14,705 15,640 18,355 8,120

% of all 7.5% 8.0% 9.3% 4.1%

households in WACO

SOURCE: 2006-10 CHAS

Many of the county’s low- and moderate-income households are concentrated in identifiable geographic areas. In 2013, there were 99 census block groups in the county where at least 46.1% of all households have low- or moderate-incomes (the county’s current threshold for low-mod area benefit eligibility for CDBG funds).1

The demand for low-cost affordable housing far exceeds the supply. In addition to market-rate units that serve low- and moderate-income households, there were approximately 7,000 subsidized rental housing units and 2,700 households with rental housing vouchers in Washington County in 2011, based on information in the Regional Affordable Housing Inventory prepared by Metro and data related to Section 8 vouchers from the Washington County Department of Housing Services. Since some vouchers are used in subsidized units, there are an estimated 7,000 - 9,000 households living in subsidized rental housing in Washington County, which represents 3.6% - 4.6% of all housing units in the county. Based on the estimates of available housing for households with incomes below 50% of median, there is an estimated need for 14,000 - 24,000 units for households with incomes below 50% of median available through private market (unsubsidized) and subsidized housing units and/or vouchers for subsidized units. This represents approximately 7 to 11% of all households in Washington County.

Ethnic and racial minorities comprise a disproportionate percentage of lower income households and are concentrated in specific areas. For example, 38% of Latino households have extremely low- or low-incomes, in comparison to 17% of all households in the county. In addition, there are 48 block groups in the county that have some concentration of racial or ethnic minorities, i.e., the percentage of those households is 20% higher than the percentage across the whole county. This is a considerable increase from the 16 block groups with a racial/ethnic concentration in the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan. Ten Census block groups, represent a concentration of Asian residents, 38 block groups represent a concentration of Latino residents.

A significant number of households in the county also have special needs, including older adults, people with substance abuse problems, survivors of domestic violence, people with AIDS, ex-offenders, people with physical and mental disabilities, farmworkers and the homeless. Data on these populations are presented in Section IV. These needs are presented in tabular form in Table ### and summarized as follows:

Seniors. There were 54,056 older adult residents in Washington County (people 65 years of age or older) in 2012. Forty-four percent of households with older adult residents were of low- to moderate-income (0-80% MFI), while 24% were extremely low/low income (less than 50% MFI) according to HUD’s 2010 CHAS data. This compares to 17% of all households which earn less than 50%MFI. The population is continuing to age, as baby boomers started turning 60 years old in 2006. More than 32,000 residents will turn 60 between 2012 and 2016, and approximately 68,000 residents between 2012 and 2020. Forty percent of extremely low, low- and low-moderate income older adult households have pay more than 30% of their income towards housing, according to the 2010 CHAS data. This is true for approximately 85% of those households in the 0-50% MFI bracket. Only a small number of publicly assisted housing units (740) are designated for residents age 62 and older. There are approximately 4,200 to 4,400 beds in licensed long-term care facilities in the county for seniors and other adults with physical or cognitive needs requiring housing integrated with social and medical services.

People with disabilities. American Community Survey (2012) data shows that 51,218 people, or 9.6% of the county population, had at least one type of disability in 2012. It is estimated that about 22,100 households will include a person with a mobility or self-care limitation in the year 2020, based on the county’s projected growth rate estimated by OEA/PSU and an assumption of 2.70 people per household, the average household size in the county according to the 2008 - 2012 ACS. There is a very limited supply of housing units specifically designated or designed for people with disabilities, with approximately 533 units designated for people with physical, development or mental disabilities, including people with substance abuse issues.

1 It should be noted that this data serves as a reference point to determine a concentration of low/mod populations, but not to officially qualify for CDBG funding. HUD-issued LMISD are the official data that grantees are to use for CDBG eligibility.

People with substance abuse issues. In 2012, Washington County Department of Health and Human Services indicated that there are over 30,000 people in the county in need of drug or alcohol treatment. According to data from early 2014 from ODHS, the number of Washington County residents receiving treatment services from mental health programs for addiction problems in Washington County was 5,117. This represents about 17% of those in need of treatment. Several housing developments and three detoxification treatment centers provide residential and treatment options for this population. Approximately 263 units are targeted to provide housing for individuals with a dual mental health and addiction diagnosis, but they are also generally available to people with mental health disabilities. Thus, there is a significant unmet demand for housing for this population.

Offenders. The Community Corrections Department of Washington County currently supervises about 3,600 offenders on probation and parole. The Department also operates the Community Corrections Center, a 215 bed custodial work release facility that serves about 2,000 offenders a year. Many individuals currently in the community, or soon to be released from the center, need some form of special or transitional housing. Of the approximately 1,100 residents released in 2013, Washington County Community Corrections estimates that about 60% of the released offenders have housing needs. Those with substance abuse problems can usually access one of the approximately 351 alcohol and drug-free beds in the county. These beds are available primarily through Oxford Houses, but some are available through other non-profit agencies. The length of stay typically ranges from three to six months, effectively increasing the total capacity of these facilities. Although there are agencies that designate beds specifically for offenders, the large majority of the beds available through Oxford Houses are not restricted. Beds for mentally ill offenders are much more limited. Those that have OHP or SSI/SSD, are engaged with a mental health agency, and are willing and able to follow program rules have the best chance of being placed.

Survivors of Domestic Violence. The Washington County District Attorney’s office registered more than 1,179 new reported cases of domestic violence in FY 2011-2012 and 1,070 cases in FY 2012-2013. These numbers likely underestimate the number of incidences of domestic violence, given that a significant percentage of domestic violence incidents go unreported. There is only one shelter with 24 beds in the county dedicated to survivors of domestic violence and it provides only short-term, emergency shelter. In addition, some survivors of domestic violence are housed in or turned away from emergency homeless shelters. Shelter count data indicates that about 8% of homeless people who seek shelter report that they are survivors of domestic violence. In combination this data indicates that there is a substantial unmet housing need for this group.

People with HIV/AIDS. There are an estimated 513 people in Washington County known to be living with HIV or AIDS as of December 2010. This constitutes almost one-tenth of a percent of the total county population, and represents more than a doubling of cases of HIV/AIDS reported in 2002 (205 people). However, it is also notable that an estimated 50% of people living with AIDS/HIV are in danger of becoming homeless. There is an estimated supply of about 31 beds/units Washington County for people with HIV/AIDS, resulting in a relatively sizable unmet need for housing for this group.

Farmworkers. There is a significant gap between demand and supply for housing for farmworkers. As of 2013, it is estimated that there are approximately 6,700 migrant or resident seasonal farmworkers in Washington County, including those that work up to 10 months of the year in the county. These migrant and seasonal resident farmworkers make up the majority of farmworkers in the county. As of January 2014, there are only an estimated 805 beds in seasonal on-site farmworker camps, and 10 units for migrant workers in Bienestar properties. There are also 302 units of year-round permanent housing to serve farmworker households. While current immigration policies and USDA regulations appear to have resulted in a depressed demand for year-round housing at present, the demand is likely to change if policies and regulations change.

Children at risk of lead paint poisoning. Because funding for lead poisoning and prevention programs at the Oregon Department of Human Services was cut in 2013, ODHS staff is completely unable to fulfill requests for recent data on lead poisoning in Washington County. Data from the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan indicated that in 2007, 902 tests for lead levels in blood were conducted for Washington County residents. During that year, the results showed that six people (less than one percent) had blood lead levels consistent with lead poisoning, and four of those six were children under the age of six. The presence of lead-based paint is generally correlated with age of housing. These figures will likely decrease over time as newer housing is constructed and a certain percentage of older units are demolished.

Homeless. Sheltered and turned away homeless counts for January 2013 included 432 individuals as well as an additional estimated 721 people who were camping or were otherwise staying in places other than shelters. Even with the estimate of

additional unsheltered people, this number likely under-represents the homeless population as many homeless do not seek shelter within the county. Some seek services and shelter outside the county, while others do not seek them at all. This is confirmed in part by the fact that school districts in Washington County reported over 2,100 homeless school children in the 2012-2013 school year, representing 2.5% of total school enrollment. Approximately 46% of homeless individuals identified in the one-night shelter counts were single parents and children under the age of 12. There are currently emergency, transitional, permanent beds, rapid re-housing or housing units for a total of 811 individuals, a significant increase from the 499 beds reported in the 2010 - 2015 Consolidated Plan. While there appears to still be a substantial unmet need for housing for the homeless in the county, it has made significant progress in expanding the supply of such housing.

In almost all cases, the need for housing to meet special needs far outstrips the supply of units designed and designated to meet those needs. In considering the needs of these populations, it also should be recognized that many individuals have multiple needs and/or low or moderate incomes. As a result, this population competes for a limited supply of affordable housing units available to people with limited incomes. While a variety of resources and facilities are available to help address the needs of low-income and special needs households in the county, there remains a significant gap between available resources and needs.

II. General Housing Market Information

This section of the Consolidated Plan describes the general housing characteristics of the housing market in Washington County, and its local jurisdictions. The purpose of this overview is to identify what kind of housing is currently being built by the private sector and how it compares with the needs and characteristics of county residents. It includes information based on the following topics:

Geography of the county - i.e., how land and people are distributed within incorporated cities and unincorporated portions of the county

Total housing units and their distribution by location and type, including owner-occupied and rental housing

Other housing characteristics, including household size, overcrowding and housing condition

Housing costs and housing income

A general discussion of housing affordability

Projections of future housing construction based on overall projected trends in population growth for 2015-2020

As noted above, this housing market assessment paints a broad picture of housing and demographic conditions in Washington County to ascertain how the private market is generally meeting county-wide needs. It sets the stage for a more detailed discussion of how housing needs are or are not being met for certain types of households or people with lower incomes and/or other special needs.

While this analysis provides an overall projection of future housing needs and trends, it recognizes that projecting future needs at this time is a significant challenge, given recent upheavals in national and local economies and housing markets. These significant recent changes indicate that the housing market has not behaved normally in many respects. For example, significant increases in housing value, coupled with lower interest rates and relatively easy access to credit resulted in inflated demand for owner-occupied dwellings followed by apparent over-supply and a more recent stagnant market. In light of these changes and public reactions to them, changes to federal regulation of the housing market are expected. It is difficult if not impossible to anticipate exactly how the housing market and conditions will change over the next five years and further into the future.

In light of these uncertainties, this housing market analysis should be considered as a faithful summary of existing conditions and recent trends and a relatively conservative or approximate projection of future needs and production. A variety of data sources were reviewed to ensure an accurate and up-to-date summary of housing conditions, recognizing that some types of information are relatively dated. For example, some of the housing characteristics discussed here can only be described using 2010 Census data. In addition to 2010 Census data, the following data sources were used in this analysis:

2008 - 2012 American Community Survey

2006 – 2010 HUD CHAS data

HUD building permits data

PSU Population Research Center

Claritas Market Research

GEOGRAPHY Washington County includes 16 local city jurisdictions (wholly or in part) and the unincorporated parts of the county. Of these 16 jurisdictions, 11 are located entirely within Washington County. The county also includes relatively small portions of Lake Oswego, Portland, Rivergrove and Wilsonville (these portions together comprise approximately half of one percent of the county’s total housing units) and approximately 9,400 units in the city of Tualatin.

Much of the available information on housing characteristics in Washington County comes from the U.S. Census and the Census American Community Survey (ACS). Some updated information is also available from commercial data providers such as Claritas Inc.

TOTAL HOUSING UNITS There were an estimated 212,386 housing units in Washington County in the year 2012. The number of hosing units has grown approximately 19% from 2000 to 2012. (2000 figures were based on 2000 decennial Census data, 2012 figures were estimated based on 2008-12 ACS data).

TABLE ###: Total Housing Units, Washington County 2012

Name of Area Housing units % of housing units Banks 576 0.3% Beaverton 38,957 18.3% Cornelius 3,474 1.6% Durham 568 0.3% Forest Grove 7,946 3.7% Gaston 293 0.1% Hillsboro 34,639 16.3% King City 2,046 1.0% Lake Oswego (part) 0 0.0% North Plains 852 0.4% Portland (part) 778 0.4% Rivergrove (part) 15 0.0% Sherwood 6,244 2.9% Tigard 20,257 9.5% Tualatin (part) 9,465 4.5% Wilsonville (part) 297 0.1% 126,407 59.5% Unincorporated 85,979 40.5% TOTAL 212,386 100.0% SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

The largest cities in terms of number of housing units are Beaverton (18.3%), Hillsboro (16.3%) and Tigard (9.5%). Combined, the three cities contain 44.3% of all housing units in the county.

Unincorporated areas contain 40.5% of all housing units.

The remaining 15.4% of housing units are dispersed among the smaller communities.

The City of Sherwood experienced the fastest growth rate in the area, with an increase in housing units of 40% (1,788 units) between 2000 and 2012.

Hillsboro added the most absolute units, constructing an estimated 7,447 housing units between 2000 and 2012.

UNIT OCCUPANCY & VACANCY The Washington County portion of Tualatin, Hillsboro and Beaverton and had the highest vacancy rates (rental and owner-occupied units combined) in the county in 2012, at 7.7% and 6.7% respectively. In general, a vacancy rate in the range of 5% to 6% is considered healthy, reflecting a manageable turnover of apartments and for-sale homes. Most of Washington County met this standard in 2012, with the county as a whole demonstrating vacancy of 5.8%.

Of the vacant units in Washington County in 2012, roughly 35% were for rent, 22% were for sale, and 12% were rented or sold, but not currently occupied.

TABLE ###: Occupancy of Housing Units, Washington County (2012)

Name of Area Housing units Housing units: Occupied

Housing units: Vacant % Vacant

Banks 576 548 28 4.9% Beaverton 38,957 36,347 2,610 6.7% Cornelius 3,474 3,278 196 5.6% Durham 568 548 20 3.5% Forest Grove 7,946 7,423 523 6.6% Gaston 293 278 15 5.1% Hillsboro 34,639 32,321 2,318 6.7% King City 2,046 1,967 79 3.9% Lake Oswego (part) 0 0 0 0.0% North Plains 852 812 40 4.7% Portland (part) 778 778 0 0.0% Rivergrove (part) 15 11 4 26.7% Sherwood 6,244 6,095 149 2.4% Tigard 20,257 19,248 1,009 5.0% Tualatin (part) 9,465 8,735 730 7.7% Wilsonville (part) 297 297 0 0.0% Total Unincorporated 85,979 81,474 4,505 5.2% Washington County 212,386 200,160 12,226 5.8% SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

OWNERS & RENTERS Owner-occupied units accounted for 61.7% of all occupied housing units in 2012. The highest concentrations of owner-occupied units were in Sherwood (79.8%), Cornelius (78.6%) and Banks (73.9%). The lowest percentages occurred in the Washington County portion of Portland (40.6%), Beaverton (49.2%), Washington County portion of Tualatin (53.1%), and Hillsboro (55.4%)

TABLE ### Homeownership vs. Rental, Washington County (2012)

Name of Area Occupied Housing Units

Occupied Housing Units: Owner % Owner

Occupied Housing Units: Renter % Renter

Banks 548 405 73.9% 143 26.1% Beaverton 36,347 17,898 49.2% 18,449 50.8% Cornelius 3,278 2,576 78.6% 702 21.4% Durham 548 329 60.0% 219 40.0%

Since 2000, roughly three times as many single family homes have been built than multi-family units. This suggests that many more ownership units were built than rental units. This has changed the 2012 ratio presented above, by raising the ownership share to an estimated 61.7% of units. However, 2012 HUD building permit data suggests that multi-family units may start taking a larger share of future housing development. In 2012, 1,239 building permits were issued for single family homes and permits for 817 units within multi-family dwellings were issued.

Overall, less populous cities in Washington County have a larger proportion of single-family, owner-occupied households than the larger cities.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE The average household size in Washington County in 2012 according to the American Community Survey of the US Census is 2.61 people. In general, ownership households tend to be larger than renting households. Banks, (3.28 persons), Sherwood (2.95 persons), Forest Grove (2.78 persons) have the largest average household sizes.

TABLE ### Average Household Size by Renter and Owner, Washington County (2012)

Name of Area Average Household Size

Occupied Housing Units: Average Household Size – Owner Occupied

Occupied Housing Units: Average Household Size – Renter Occupied

Banks 3.26 3.34 3.02 Beaverton 2.45 2.55 2.34 Cornelius 3.57 3.51 3.8 Durham 2.25 2.56 1.8 Forest Grove 2.72 2.78 2.64 Gaston 2.53 2.53 2.51 Hillsboro 2.94 2.91 2.99 King City 1.56 1.66 1.3 Lake Oswego (part) 0 0 0 North Plains 2.53 2.62 2.27 Portland (part) 2.2 2.95 1.68 Rivergrove (part) 3.27 3.27 0 Sherwood 2.97 3.06 2.6 Tigard 2.5 2.59 2.35 Tualatin (part) 2.65 2.67 2.63 Wilsonville 1.87 0 1.87

Forest Grove 7,423 4,271 57.5% 3,152 42.5% Gaston 278 186 66.9% 92 33.1% Hillsboro 32,321 1,7897 55.4% 14,424 44.6% King City 1,967 1,415 71.9% 552 28.1% Lake Oswego (part) 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% North Plains 812 597 73.5% 215 26.5% Portland (part) 778 316 40.6% 462 59.4% Rivergrove (part) 11 11 100.0% 0 0.0% Sherwood 6,095 4,862 79.8% 1,233 20.2% Tigard 19,248 11,714 60.9% 7,534 39.1% Tualatin (part) 8,735 4,640 53.1% 4,095 46.9% Wilsonville (part) 297 0 0.0% 297 100.0% Total Unincorporated 81,474 56,325 69.1% 25,149 30.9% Washington County 200,160 123,442 61.7% 76,718 38.3% SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

Unincorporated n/a n/a n/a Washington County 2.63 2.72 2.48 SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

OVERCROWDING Generally, overcrowding is not a major concern in Washington County. In 2012, approximately 2.9% of all county households live in what the US Census defines as “overcrowded conditions,” which is more than one person per room. Cornelius is the most overcrowded city in the county, with nearly 10% of households overcrowded. The next three highest cities are Forest Grove (6.8%), Hillsboro (4.9%), and the Washington County portion of Tualatin (3.8%). Beaverton (1,092), unincorporated areas (1,330) and Hillsboro (1,586) have the most overcrowded units in absolute numbers.

TABLE ### Overcrowded Units, Persons per Room, Washington County (2012)

Name of Area % .5 or less % .51 - 1 % 1.01 - 1.5 % 1.51 - 2 % 2.01 and up

Banks 56.9% 42.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% Beaverton 69.2% 27.8% 2.7% 0.2% 0.1% Cornelius 47.4% 42.9% 7.5% 2.3% 0.0% Durham 83.9% 15.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Forest Grove 62.8% 29.7% 5.4% 1.4% 0.8% Gaston 73.4% 24.1% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% Hillsboro 61.8% 33.3% 3.6% 1.2% 0.1% King City 93.6% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Lake Oswego (part) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Plains 70.1% 26.2% 1.6% 1.7% 0.4% Portland (part) 77.0% 21.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% Rivergrove (part) 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sherwood 63.7% 33.4% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Tigard 73.3% 25.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Tualatin (part) 67.8% 28.3% 3.2% 0.5% 0.2% Wilsonville (part) 64.0% 34.7% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% Unincorporated 74.2% 24.1% 1.4% 0.2% 0.0% Washington County 69.9% 27.2% 2.3% 0.5% 0.1% SOURCE: 2008-2012

HOUSING CONDITION U.S. Census data includes two types of information on the condition of housing for the county as a whole:

Age of housing - age and condition are generally linked

Status of certain types of facilities (kitchen, plumbing, and heating)

No more recent comprehensive data on housing condition is available countywide.

The housing stock in Washington County is generally in good condition, due in large part to the fact that a significant percentage of the units were constructed within the past 35 years. As of 2000, the largest portion of the housing stock in Washington County was built in 1990s (25.4%), followed by the 1970s (20.5%). Fifty eight point six percent of the housing stock has been built since 1980.

TABLE ###: Age of Housing Units, Washington County (2012) Occupied housing units Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units

200,160 123,442 76,718 Year Structure Built

2010 or later 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

2000 to 2009 18.0% 19.4% 15.7%

1980 to 1999 40.9% 38.4% 44.9%

1960 to 1979 30.8% 30.4% 31.4%

1940 to 1959 7.1% 8.2% 5.5%

1939 or earlier 2.8% 3.2% 2.3%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

The overwhelming majority of units have complete plumbing facilities (99.6%), and complete kitchen facilities (98.9%). Fewer than 4% used an alternative heating source, such as fuel oil, wood, or solar power. Slightly more than 0.1%, or 232 housing units, had no source of heat.

TABLE### Plumbing and Kitchen Facilities, Washington County (2012)

Occupied housing

units Owner-occupied

housing units Renter-occupied

housing units

With complete plumbing facilities

99.6% 99.7% 99.5%

With complete kitchen facilities

98.9% 99.7% 97.6%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

TABLE ### Heating Fuel Source, Washington County (2012)

Occupied housing units Owner-occupied housing

units Renter-occupied housing units House Heating Fuel

Utility gas 53.0% 73.0% 20.9%

Bottled, tank, or LP gas 0.9% 1.1% 0.7%

Electricity 42.3% 21.3% 76.1%

Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 1.2% 1.6% 0.6%

Coal or coke 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

All other fuels 2.4% 3.0% 1.5%

No fuel used 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

In November 2010, the City of Beaverton published the results from a survey of its residents that included questions about housing conditions and repairs. Housing condition was assessed by respondents in terms of features such as foundation, exterior, roof, windows and doors. Respondents reported that these features were mostly in satisfactory condition. However,

there was variation among the type of structure that was surveyed, as single-family and multi-family homes were found to be in better condition than mobile homes. The survey also evaluated the condition of stairs, rails and porches. These particular features are important when considering the safety of building occupants. Safety concerns were greatest in the Central Beaverton area, however, the survey found that mobile homes were oversampled in that area, which may result in a misleading conclusion about housing conditions.

HOUSING COSTS Rental Costs: Per the 2008-12 ACS data, the median gross rent county-wide was $961. Gaston had the lowest median gross rent ($627), with Sherwood the highest ($1,212).

The median rent in Washington County grew at an estimated 2.4% per year between 2000 and 2012. This is roughly the rate of inflation during that period. Median rents are lowest in some of the smaller outlying communities (e.g., Banks, Gaston and Forest Grove) and highest in Sherwood, Tualatin and King City.

TABLE ### Median Rents, Washington County (2012) Name of Area Median Rent ($) Banks 869 Beaverton 920 Cornelius 920 Durham 844 Forest Grove 756 Gaston 627 Hillsboro 1023 King City 984 Lake Oswego (part) 0 North Plains 939 Portland (part) 684 Rivergrove (part) 0 Sherwood 1212 Tigard 920 Tualatin (part) 972 Wilsonville (part) 1195 Unincorporated n/a Washington County 961 SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

Home Ownership Costs: In 2012, median monthly costs for homeowners (with a mortgage) was $1,888 for Washington County. In 2000, the median costs were $1,358, which represents an increase of 3.2% per year. This increase outpaced inflation during that time.

TABLE ### Median Homeownership Costs, Washington County (2012)

Name of Area

Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs With A Mortgage ($)

Banks 1,765 Beaverton 1,868 Cornelius 1,654 Durham 2,184 Forest Grove 1,562

Gaston 1,769 Hillsboro 1,820 King City 1,148 Lake Oswego (part) 0 North Plains 1,629 Portland (part) 2,756 Rivergrove (part) 3,250 Sherwood 2,083 Tigard 1,948 Tualatin (part) 1,909 Wilsonville (part) 0 Unincorporated n/a Washington County 1,888 SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

In 2012, ownership costs (with a mortgage) were highest in Rivergrove (partial) at $2,076 and lowest in King City ($1,148). Similar to rental costs, owner costs were also relatively lower in several smaller outlying communities (e.g., North Plains, Gaston, Cornelius and Forest Grove).

The median owner-occupied home value in 2012 per the American Community Survey was $290,900 for Washington County. Beaverton was close to the county-wide median value with $290,800 and Hillsboro values were lower at $250,900. County-wide, home values have increased 61% since 2000, with Beaverton (56%) and Hillsboro (54%) increasing at a slightly lower rate than the county as a whole.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME In 2000 the median household income for Washington County was $53,085. 2012 estimates show a 21% increase in the median household income for the County, up to $64,375. However, adjusting for inflation2, the 2000 median household income would be $71,830 in 2012 dollars, which reflects a decline in purchasing power.

Median family income in 2000 was $61,499. In 2012, the ACS estimated median family income to be $77,351, which represents a 26% increase. As reported in the 2010 – 2015 Consolidated Plan, median family income is typically higher than median household income because families typically include more employed adults than households (Claritas Inc.).

The chart below depicts the rate of change in median income and housing costs from 2000 through 2012 for Washington County.

2 Assuming CPI 1.378

Percent Change in Income and Housing Costs 2000 - 2012

0

10

20

30

40

MedianHousehold

Income

Median FamilyIncome

HomeownerCosts

Rent

Perc

ent C

hang

e

GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF HOUSING STOCK As one would expect, the geographic concentration of housing stock generally follows population patterns, with most of the housing located in the eastern portion of the county and in the larger jurisdictions. In 2012, Beaverton represented an estimated 16.4% of the county’s housing stock, Hillsboro represented 13.2%, and Tigard, 9.5%.

Unincorporated areas of the county (both within and outside Metro’s urban growth boundary) represent an estimated 39% of the overall housing stock. Much of this is in areas such as Bethany which have been developed at a density one might expect in a city jurisdiction.

PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH (2015 AND 2020) Table ### presents the projected number of households in Washington County for 2020. This projection is based on multiple sources, including the historical growth trend and projections from the Metro regional government and Oregon Office of Economic Analysis.

Metro’s figures were based on the 2010 Census population counts and projected to 2035. From there, Washington County staff annualized the projected growth rate provided by Metro, and tailored the data to determine the final figures for 2015 and 2020 projections. Because Metro did not split the projections for portions of jurisdictions that fall into two counties, Washington County staff collected 2010 Census data from the portion of those jurisdictions in Washington County and applied the overall growth rate for the entire jurisdiction to the population found within Washington County. These jurisdictions are marked by bold, italicized font.

Growth in population is expected to grow somewhat from the recent rate of 1.65% (2005 – 2012), to an estimated 1.73% during the five year period between 2015 and 2020. This is due to current economic conditions and expectations of gradual job growth during that period, as well as the expectation of slow but steady increased housing development.

TABLE ###, Projected Household Growth through 2020, Washington County

APR 2010 Households 2015 2020

Beaverton 1.4% 37,213 39,843 42,658 Cornelius 2.5% 3,339 3,779 4,276 Durham 0.3% 545 553 561 Forest Grove 1.6% 7,385 7,979 8,621 Hillsboro 1.3% 33,289 35,597 38,066 King City 0.1% 1,735 1,742 1,748 Lake Oswego 0.8% 21 22 23

Portland 1.9% 798 877 963 Rivergrove 0.0% 6 6 6 Sherwood 0.6% 6,316 6,501 6,692 Tigard 1.4% 19,157 20,509 21,956 Tualatin 0.5% 8,770 8,991 9,218 Wilsonville 1.8% 313 342 374 Unincorporated 1.6% 70,380 76,166 82,429 SOURCE: Metro 2035 Projection

This projected growth in the number of households will call for the development of roughly 20,000 new housing units between 2015 and 2020 (this assumes the current county-wide vacancy rate of 5.8%).

If factors such as growth constraints and poor economic conditions prevent this pace of development from being achieved, the immediate expected effect will be extremely low vacancy rates and increased housing costs for both ownership and rental units, as demand continues to outpace supply.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Affordable housing typically is defined as housing which does not cost more than 30% of a given household’s total income. This rule-of-thumb has been used historically and continues to be used today by most housing analysts (e.g., in Metro’s Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, federal housing documents prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and others).

According to HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from 2010, roughly 48% of rental households had some sort of housing problem at that time, with 39% paying 30% of their income or more towards housing.

Another way to assess housing affordability is to identify what percentage of the population can afford housing in the county, assuming the 30% affordability standard. Based on data from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS), households would need to earn 117% of median household income in order to afford the monthly median costs of owning a housing unit.

The 2012 ACS data also indicated that median priced rental housing would be affordable to households earning 60% of Washington County’s 2012 median household income. This illustrates why rental housing continues to be the most viable option for many households. However, many renter households are still spending more than 30% of their income on housing as their incomes also tend to be lower than average. More detailed information about these trends is included in section III.

An additional measure of housing affordability is a comparison of the median housing value to the median income. By this measure, the median Washington County home is approximately 4.7 times the median household income. This is significantly higher than the long-term trend of for-sale home values of 2.5 to 3 times income. Much of this imbalance was greatly exacerbated during the heated real estate market of 2003 to 2007.

Rents have been steadily increasing in the Portland metropolitan area from 2010 through 2013. At a time when ownership is becoming more difficult due to economic forces, renters are facing a shorter supply, as very few rental projects were built after 2002. In addition, the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area saw the second-lowest vacancy rate in the country at 3.1%, which serves to further the demand for rental housing. While developers are now trying to meet this demand, the imbalance is expected to remain for some time.

By analyzing the 2012 ACS data, housing affordability can be generally correlated to geographic location. As noted previously, more affordable monthly gross rent is found in communities that tend to be located on the outer edge of the Portland metropolitan area and in smaller jurisdictions such as Gaston ($564), Forest Grove ($745), Banks ($839) and North Plains ($887). The only anomaly to this trend is portion of Portland in Washington County which has a median gross rent of $598. However, this same area also has the highest owner costs ($2,076) in the county as well.

III. General Housing Assistance Needs

DEMAND FOR LOW COST OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Low- and moderate-income households are those whose incomes fall below 80% of median. This report is primarily concerned about this group of households because these are the people whose housing needs are least likely to be met by the market. Typically, the lower a person’s income, the less likely they will be able to find affordable housing in the open market. Affordable housing is housing that costs 30% or less of the household income. One-third (33%) of households in Washington County have incomes below 80% of locally adjusted median family income (MFI). This section describes the housing needs of this population in general, and then the following sections describe the housing needs of significant sub-populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, older adults and people with special needs.

Eight percent of the total households earn below 30% of MFI, 9% earn between 30 and 50% of MFI, and 16% earn between 50 and 80% of MFI, according to the 2011 American Community Survey of the US Census. According to the 2012 American Community Survey of the US Census, 10.9% of Washington County residents were living below the federal poverty level in 2012, an increase from 7.4% in 2000.

Those areas where the percentage of low/mod-income households is higher than that of the county as a whole are a measure of the concentration of low-income households. An area of concentration is defined as a census tract where the percentage of low/mod-income households is at least 10% higher than for the county as a whole. Those areas are displayed in Figure 3–1.

The greatest concentrations of low- and moderate-income households in Washington County are found in the Beaverton, Aloha, Cornelius, Forest Grove and Hillsboro areas. Appendix B in Volume 2 includes a list of the percentages of low/mod-income households in every block group in the county.

Information on concentrations of low/mod-income residents is important in identifying funding priorities for a variety of housing-related programs. For example, Community Development Block Grant projects meeting the area-wide objectives are limited to service areas (defined at the Census Block Group level) in which at least 46.1%4 of the households are below 80% MHI. Use of HUD’s Exception Criteria threshold of 46.1% allows sponsors to go below the typical HUD threshold of 51% low/mod-income.

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING SUPPLY The housing needs of low- and moderate-income people are met through housing produced in the private market, housing built with public subsidies to reduce the rent that the owner needs to charge, and housing vouchers that reduce the rent that households have to pay for private market and subsidized housing. Section II, General Housing Market Information, describes the housing needs met by the private market. This section focuses on subsidized housing and Section 8 vouchers.

In March 2012, Metro released a Regional Affordable Rental Housing Inventory that presented compiled information about “regulated” housing units for each county in the Portland metropolitan region. “Regulated” units were defined as those that have been built with the some form of public subsidy. Affordability was defined by each of the participating agencies that shared its housing data with Metro, and those definitions were not included with the records in the inventory. The inventory includes 7,030 units on 256 sites in Washington County. The inventory does not include HUD Section 8 voucher units or information about the tenants.

TABLE ### Distribution of Subsidized Housing, Washington County (2011)

Jurisdiction Number of

sites Unregulated

units Regulated

units Total units Beaverton 34 11 501 512 Cornelius 10 0 10 10 Durham 1 0 210 210 Forest Grove 31 7 597 604 Hillsboro 62 4 2,196 2,200 North Plains 1 0 33 33 Sherwood 7 1 96 97 Tigard 18 10 632 642 Tualatin 3 0 604 604

Unincorp 89 7 2,096 2,118 Washington County 256 40 6,975 7,030 SOURCE: Metro Affordable Housing Inventory Report

A significant percentage of the units (almost a third) are located in Hillsboro. Tigard, Tualatin, Forest Grove and Beaverton each include nearly 500 or more units. A substantial number of units in the inventory are also located in unincorporated portions of the county. In comparing these numbers to the proportion of the population living in these areas of the county, Hillsboro, Forest Grove and Tualatin appear to have higher concentrations of units compared to their share of county population.

The Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) manages public housing units owned by the County and administers the Section 8 vouchers. HUD directly administers the Section 811 and 202 housing assistance programs.

All together, there are 7,030 subsidized housing units and 2,694 households with housing vouchers in Washington County. Some households with housing vouchers live in subsidized housing units and some live in private market units. There are about 7,000 – 9,000 households living in subsidized housing in Washington County, which represents 3.6% - 4.6% of all housing units in the county. As discussed in the following section, this supply of subsidized housing does not necessarily meet the demand for it, particularly for those in Washington County who are earning less than 30% MFI, given that there are approximately 29,000 low- and moderate-income households in Washington County that are “cost-burdened” (spend more than 30% of their income on housing).

PUBLIC HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARY The Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) owns and operates 626 units of publicly subsidized housing, of which 243 are public housing low-income units, 12 are rural development units, and 521 are affordable housing units financed by bonds and HOME. Information about the public housing units and the needs and programs of the agency are summarized in the DHS Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan, which is updated annually. A copy of the most recently approved plan appears on the DHS website at the following address: http://www.co.washington.or.us/Housing/PoliciesPlans/plans.cfm

The DHS units are generally in good condition, and the agency places a high priority on providing and maintaining safe, well-maintained housing units for tenants. The agency continually improves the quality of its housing through preventative maintenance inspections and rehabilitation when necessary. The agency is also reviewing options for acquiring perhaps 2-4 new public housing units in 2014 or 2015. DHS had disposed of 40 scattered-site public housing units in an effort to reduce administrative and maintenance costs in light of federal budget cuts.

Information about the number of families on public housing and tenant-based waiting lists, including results of the Section 504 needs assessment, is described in a following section. The Washington County Department of Housing Services reports that they distributed 2,694 Section 8 vouchers in Washington County in 2013, compared to 2,569 in 2007. More detailed information about waiting lists for both Section 8 vouchers and public housing can be found in the following section.

In addition to operating and maintaining housing for low-income and other families, the DHS implements a variety of other programs and activities to improve community quality of life and economic vitality and promote self-sufficiency and asset development of families and individuals through the following efforts, among others:

Promotes income mixing in public housing by assuring access for lower income families into higher income developments.

Voluntarily maintains its Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program enrollment limit over minimum requirements.

Provides linkage to services to help FSS families overcome barriers to self-sufficiency, by partnering with other agencies, such as the State of Oregon Adult and Family Services Division, to provide services to participating households, including case management, supportive services, and/or employment services.

Provides Section 8 Homeownership Vouchers to families who are eligible.

Providing no-cost financial education to FSS program participants and

providing access to Individual Development Accounts (IDA).

Partners with a variety of non-profit organizations to provide services to households receiving rental assistance through its Shelter Plus Care program.

Works with non-profit agencies and other governmental bodies to promote community events serving families and persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, such as Project Homeless Connect.

POTENTIAL LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Potential exists to lose units in the subsidized housing inventory when existing Section 8 contracts or other controls on a project expire. HUD monitors the HUD Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 database (http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/exp/mfhdiscl.cfm) to identify and track projects with expiring agreements. As of January 2014, HUD identified three projects totaling 135 units with agreements that will expire between January 2014 and September 2020. As of yet, HUD has not interacted with the project sponsors regarding their intentions upon initial contract expiration. The projects are Woodland Park in Hillsboro (111 units), Aloha Park Apartments (8 units), Aloha Project (10 units) and Metzger Park (6 units). However, HUD staff mentioned that agreements with these sponsors tend to be renewed. 3

Another area of concern relating to the potential loss of affordable housing is the prospect of new manufactured home park closures. As noted in the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, manufactured home parks represented a significant source of non-subsidized, market rate, low cost housing provided by private owners. Washington County was the epicenter of manufactured home park closures during the housing boom. From 2001-2007, fifteen manufactured home parks closed in the county, displacing more than 1,100 households and eliminating 20% of the county’s spaces. Washington County accounted for nearly 40% of the manufactured home park spaces lost statewide. Since 2009, however, there have been no reported manufactured home park closures in Washington County.

ESTIMATING THE UNMET NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY There are three potential ways to estimate the unmet need for affordable housing in Washington County:

Compare the supply of housing affordable at various income levels to the number of households at those income levels

Identify the number of households that have what HUD defines as “housing problems,” most of which are related to affordability or “cost burden” issues

Consider the number of people on waiting lists for Section 8 and Public Housing as an indicator of unmet housing need

None of these approaches alone completely describes the unmet need for affordable housing, but together they provide an indicator of the magnitude of the challenge.

COMPARISON OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING There is a lack of affordable housing units available to meet the need for extremely low-, low- and moderate-income renter households. Table 3-19 assesses the supply of affordable housing for households in different income ranges, according to the 2006-2010 CHAS data. This gap analysis focuses on renter households because they typically have lower incomes and lack the resources to afford down payments or other costs associated with purchasing housing. The table indicates that there is not enough affordable housing to meet the needs of renter households with extremely low- and low-incomes, while there appears to be a surplus of rental units affordable to households with moderate-incomes. There is a shortage of approximately 9,800 housing units that are affordable to renter households in the 0–30% MFI income range. In the 30–50% MFI income range, there is a shortage of almost 4,000 units. In the 50–80% MFI income range, there is an estimated surplus of over 21,000 units. The shortages in the lowest two income ranges likely indicates that households in the lowest range (0-30% MFI) are seeking out more expensive housing options, causing competition with households in the 30-50% MFI income range.

TABLE ###: Affordable Housing Units by Income Range, Washington County (2010)

3 Kristine Petrillo, Project Manager HUD, email, January 28, 2014

Units (Rental) Affordable to Households Earning Households

(Rental) Rentals Gap

30% HAMFI

11,390

1,635 9,755

50% HAMFI

12,250

8,335 3,915

80% HAMFI

17,345

39,205 (21,860)

SOURCE: 2006-10 CHAS

There are a number of caveats that accompany this analysis. It is based on median costs for housing and median incomes. It does not distinguish among households of different sizes who may find housing more or less affordable given varying income levels and housing needs. For some household income levels and sizes, the need may be overstated; for others, it may be understated. In addition, this information is based on 2006-2010 American Community Survey data. This survey has a margin of error of typically plus or minus about 5% for data in any given data grouping. The analysis assumes that the number of housing units in different cost ranges is evenly distributed within those ranges and similarly, that households are evenly distributed within different income ranges. The analysis also does not reflect the fact that many households with higher incomes choose to rent or buy housing in lower price ranges, further reducing the supply of affordable housing for households with lower incomes.

Finally, since early 2012 housing prices and rent levels have risen, and vacancy rates are reaching some of their lowest levels since the 2007-09 recession. As such, the number of units that are considered to be unaffordable for the extremely low and low income households is not a surprise. As the private sector moves to generate more units in the housing market, it is questionable if those developments will help fill the affordable housing gaps. Because mandatory inclusionary zoning is illegal in Oregon, it is likely that any future market-rate developments will not be affordable unless there are significant incentives create affordable units.

ASSESSMENT OF COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS A second way to approach the issue of unmet housing need is to look at data that estimates the number of households with housing that is severely substandard, overcrowded or unaffordable. Table ### summarizes the number of low/mod-income households in the county by income level and tenure (renters vs. homeowners). It also shows the estimated number and percentage of households in each category that have what HUD defines as a “housing problem.” Housing problems are of two kinds: “cost burdened,” defined as spending more than 30% of household income on housing related costs such as rent and utilities, and various “other housing problems”, including overcrowding or incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities. HUD distinguishes between households paying 30% or more for housing expenses and those who are paying 50% or more for housing expenses.

These categories are reflected in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provided by HUD, as indicated by Table ###. Percentages of households with housing problems are based on 2010 CHAS data and 2008-12 ACS data.

The vast majority of households with incomes less than 50% of the median have some form of housing problem. The percentage is similar for households in the 0-30% income bracket (81% have some form of housing problem) and households in the 30-50% income bracket (82%). Housing problems are more prevalent among all low- and moderate-income renters (68%) than for homeowners in the same income categories (61%). Among renters, housing problems are most common in the 30-50% income category (90%, versus 81% in the 0-30% range). A significant percentage of renters and owners in the lowest income group (70.8% and 65.1%, respectively) have more severe cost burdens, i.e., spend more than 50% of their income on housing. Homeowners in the 31-50% median income category are more likely to have severe cost burdens than renters in the same income group. Among homeowners, housing problems are most common (80%) in the 0-30% income bracket.

TABLE ### Low and Moderate Income Households with Housing Problems, Washington County (2010)

Income category

Total # of households

Percent of HH with >50% cost burden

Number of HH with >50% cost burden

Percent of HH with >30% cost burden

Number of HH with >30% cost burden

Percent of HH with other problems only

Number of HH with other problems only

Total number of HH with housing problems

Renters

0-30% 11,390 79.1% 9,005 85.2% 9,700 13.7% 1,560 11,260

30-50% 12,250 35.1% 4,305 89.8% 11,005 10.8% 1,325 12,330

50-80% 17,345 6.6% 1,140 48.9% 8,480 10.8% 1,870 10,350

Subtotal 40,985 35.3% 14,450 71.2% 29,185 11.6% 4,755 33,940

Owner

0-30% 4,585 85.5% 3,920 87.6% 4,015 8.8% 405 4,420

30-50% 6,020 50.2% 3,020 70.7% 4,255 5.6% 340 4,595

50-80% 13,830 29.9% 4,140 59.4% 8,210 5.1% 710 8,920

Subtotal 34,435 32.2% 11,080 47.9% 16,480 4.2% 1,455 17,935

Total for:

0-30% 15,975 81.0% 12,925 85.8% 13,715 12.3% 1,965 15,680

30-50% 18,270 40.1% 7,325 83.5% 15,260 9.1% 1,665 16,925

50-80% 31,180 16.9% 5,280 53.5% 16,690 8.3% 2,580 19,270

TOTAL 65,425 39.0% 25,530 69.8% 45,665 9.5% 6,210 51,875

SOURCE: 2006-10 CHAS

The CHAS data indicates that almost 40% of all low/mod income (0–80% MFI) households in Washington County pay at least half their income on housing costs. Over half (56.3%) of extremely low/low-income renters with incomes at or below 50% of median pay more than half of their incomes for rent. Housing problems are found over two-thirds (68.7%) or more of the households in the following categories:

Small related households (two to four members): Renters and owners in the 0–30% or 31–50% income ranges;

Large related households (five or more members): Renters and owners in the 0–30% or 31–50% income ranges;

Elderly households: Renters and owners in the 0–30% or 31–50% income ranges.

Overall, these figures indicate that Washington County’s low/mod-income (0–80% MFI) households have an unmet need for approximately 34,000 decent, safe and sanitary affordable rental housing units. Approximately 29,000 of these households are paying more than 30% of their income for rental expenses, and 14,500 renters are spending more than half of their income for housing. While the primary need is to increase the affordability of housing (which can be addressed either by programs to reduce the cost of existing housing or programs to produce new units that are affordable), at over 4,100 households are living in overcrowded conditions or housing that is significantly substandard. Overall, the needs of these 34,000 households are of primary concern, as renters typically have fewer resources to deal with housing challenges.

It is also important to note that there were approximately 16,400 cost-burdened low/mod-income (0–80% MFI) homeowners and at least 1,400 who were living in overcrowded or substandard homes. This is also an area of concern, as the loss of a home has far-reaching consequences for families.

WAITING LISTS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING VOUCHERS The Public Housing and Housing Voucher waiting lists provide a further indication of need. However, the Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) recently closed the waiting list for these two programs because the demand was too great. From conversations with DHS staff, it is possible that the waiting list will open sometime in 2015 after DHS staff finishes evaluating the remaining applicants, but staff was careful to point out that that was a best case scenario. 4 Regardless, data from the wait list still offers valuable insight into the demographics of the demand.

According to the 2014 PHA plan, there were a combined total of 2,077 households on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers and 2,575 households on the waiting list for public housing units. It should be noted that there is overlap between these two waiting lists. Many people are on waiting lists for both Section 8 vouchers and public housing units. Therefore the total number of people on the combined waiting lists is not the sum of the two numbers and the degree of overlap is not precisely known. However, even if there is a significant degree of overlap (e.g., 65%), the two waiting lists indicate a significant unmet need for affordable units. The number of people on the combined waiting list is several times the number of available public housing units. Tables #### and #### below provides information about characteristics of those on waiting lists for both Section 8 vouchers and public housing.

TABLE ### Section 8 Voucher Waiting List By Household, Washington County (2013)

Number Percent

Section 8

Extremely low income <=30% AMI 1,895 91.2%

Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) 182 8.7%

Low income (>50% but <80% AMI) 0 0.0%

Families with children 979 47.1%

Elderly families 175 8.4%

Families with Disabilities 445 21.4%

Race/ethnicity (White) 1,602 77.1%

Race/ethnicity (Black) 286 13.7%

Race/ethnicity (Asian/Other) 186 5.8%

Race/ethnicity (Hispanic) 422 21.6%

TOTAL 2,077 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

4 Melanie Fletcher, Interim Rental Assistance Team Leader Washington County Department of Housing Services, email, January 27, 2014

TABLE ### Section 8 Voucher Waiting List By Household, Washington County (2013)

Number Percent

Public Housing

Extremely low income <=30% AMI 2,387 92.6%

Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) 213 8.2%

Low income (>50% but <80% AMI) - 0.0%

Families with children 837 32.5%

Elderly families 483 18.7%

Families with Disabilities 769 29.8%

Race/ethnicity (White) 2,045 79.4%

Race/ethnicity (Black) 286 11.1%

Race/ethnicity (Asian/Other) 231 8.9%

Race/ethnicity (Hispanic) 424 16.4%

Characteristics by Bedroom Size (PH Only)

1 BR 1,589 61.7%

2 BR 729 28.7%

3 BR 206 8.0%

4 BR 51 1.9%

5 BR - 0.0%

5+ BR - 0.0%

TOTAL 2,575 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

Notes: 1) In this tabulation, there are only 1-4 bedrooms in Public Housing units. Past tabulations included bedroom sizes greater than 4 bedrooms.

2) The number of bedrooms is only reported for Public Housing applicants because family size and number of bedrooms are factors in the Public Housing application process and not in the Section 8 application process.

3) The total number of applicant families whose income ranges for Section 8 Vouchers and Public Housing are reported varies from the total number of applicants reported to be on the waiting lists because the data was collected a few days apart. Additional households applied during this time period.

The race, income, and family-size profile of Section 8 voucher waiting list applicants and public housing waiting list applicants are similar. Applicants are predominantly White (approximately 78% and 79% respectively), and Hispanic/Latino applicants

represent the second largest share (approximately 16 % and 22% respectively). Not surprisingly, applicants on both wait lists are overwhelmingly people with extremely low-incomes. More than half of the applicants on the public housing wait list are in need of a one-bedroom unit, and over 90% need a 2 bedroom unit or smaller.

On the Section 8 and public housing waitlist, households with persons with disabilities comprised 21% and 29% of the respective wait list, and 8% and 19% were elderly households, respectively.

Given the large number of people on the Section 8 voucher and public housing waiting lists—and the fact that the list has closed due to great demand—there is clearly a need for more of both of these resources.

The County’s Department of Housing Services (DHS) shared that they are reviewing options for acquiring perhaps 2-4 new public housing units in 2014 or 2015. The funding source for these acquisitions is the HUD Capital Fund Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) Fund Grants. The Capital Fund formula rule at 24 CFR 905.10(i) provides that a PHA may receive RHF grants for public housing units demolished or sold for a period up to five years, with an opportunity for an extension. Any new public housing units will likely be duplex- or triplex-units, which are more cost-effective. DHS’s success in finding something that is safe and decent in 2014 or 2015 will depend in large part on the availability of such housing on the market.5

In past planning efforts, research has indicated a strong need for housing units to accommodate larger households (3 or more bedrooms). While there is still a need for larger affordable housing units, the waiting list data shows that only 22% of households have expressed a need for homes with three or more bedrooms. Similarly, CHAS data indicates that approximately 21% of large related, low/mod income households are cost-burdened (spend 30% or more of their income on housing), which represents approximately 2,000 families. CHAS data also indicates that approximately 3% of county households are subject to overcrowding, defined as “a housing unit containing more than one person per room”). Although some of these households may need units with three or more bedrooms, data does not exist to quantify this unmet demand. To complicate matters further, it is possible that some of the real demand for larger units is suppressed because some residents may not report all of the household members included when occasional or permanent “doubling up” occurs.

Census data provides some indication of the existing supply of larger housing units. While there are a significant number of owner-occupied units that can accommodate large families (86% of all owner-occupied units have three or more bedrooms), the supply of larger rental units is more limited. About 28% of all rental units have three or more bedrooms. Of those units with three or more bedrooms, only 24% had rents of $1,000 per month or less, according to 2006-10 CHAS data.

COMPOSITE ESTIMATE OF UNMET NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2015 As noted previously, none of the three approaches for identifying the extent of the unmet need for affordable housing units tell a complete story. They all rely on different types of data and assumptions, and the outcomes vary as a result. However they all indicate a significant unmet need for affordable rental housing for people in Washington County with extremely low- and low-incomes. Table ### summarizes the findings of each of the approaches. In 2015, Washington County is projected to have an unmet need for approximately 14,100 – 24,000 housing units affordable to extremely low/low-income households with incomes at or below 50% MFI. The majority of this need (10,000 to 12,000 units) is for housing for extremely low-income households with incomes at or below 30% MFI. This need for lower-cost housing can be met either by constructing additional rent-restricted units or by providing programs that reduce the cost of renting existing units (such as housing vouchers), if sufficient housing units exist.

TABLE ### Composite Estimated Need for Affordable Rental Units, Washington County (2013)

MFI

2010 Gap Between Supply and Demand

2010 Households >30% Cost Burdened

2010 Households >50% Cost Burdened

2015 Estimate Low Range

2015 Estimate High Range

5 Adolph “Val” Valfre Jr., Director Washington County Department of Housing Services, email, January 27, 2014

0 - 30% 9,755

9,700

9,005

10,000

11,000

31 - 50% 3,915

11,005

4,305

4,000

12,000

51 - 80% (21,860)

8,480

1,140

100

1,000

Total 0-80% (8,190)

29,185

14,450

14,100

24,000

Total 0-50% 13,670

20,705

13,310

14,100

24,000

SOURCE: Based on 2006-2010 CHAS

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON THE HOUSING NEEDS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS This assessment identifies estimated current affordable housing needs and gaps. Community Action published a report that examines issues of poverty within Washington County which included a number of statistics in regards to housing needs for low and moderate income households. Some of the key findings are:

• The Community Action Emergency Rent Assistance program serves an average of 44 households each month, Community Action estimates to be 10% of those that seek assistance.

• 47% of families seeking emergency rent assistance to maintain their housing in 2012 were employed at the time of application to Community Action’s program.

• In 2012, an average of 67 new families sought emergency shelter each month. As noted by Community Action, the family shelter network has the capacity to serve 17 families at a time.

• Community Action estimates that 47% of all jobs in Washington County are in industries that do not pay an average wage sufficient to afford housing in Washington County.

As reported in the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, Metro and Portland State University completed a study that estimates future housing affordability in terms of the supply of different housing types, the demographics of people in different types of housing and the percentage of cost-burdened households within the Portland Metropolitan area and various geographic portions of it.6 While this study used a different tool, Metro’s Metroscope model, to predict future affordable housing needs. The report identifies the following trends: The percentage of cost-burdened households (renters and homeowners combined) is projected to increase overall in the four-county Portland Metro area (Washington, Clackamas, Multnomah and Clark Counties), with households spending more than 30% of their income on housing to increase to nearly 50% in 2035.

In Washington County, the proportion of households paying more than 30% of their income on housing is expected to increase to between 36% and 64% by 2035, varying by sub-area within the county, with the highest percentage in the Cornelius/Forest Grove area and the lowest percentages in the Tualatin and unincorporated areas.

In most sub-areas of the county, a higher percentage of renters are projected to be cost-burdened in 2035 than are homeowners or the overall population. For example, the percentage of cost-burdened renters in Beaverton and Hillsboro is expected to be 6-10% higher than the percentage of all households. The same is true as would be expected for renters of multi-family units.

In the Portland Metro area, the percentage of significantly cost-burdened renters (i.e., spending 50% or 60% of their income on housing) is expected to be between 10% and 12% in 2035. Increases in Washington County are expected to be lower than in Multnomah County or the region, on average.

A significant percentage of single-family renter households currently spend more than 30% of their income on housing in the Portland region (just over 60%). However, this percentage is not expected to change significantly over the next 20 years, except for households at the lowest income levels who spend an even higher proportion of their income on housing (50-60%).

The percentage of single-family homeowners in the region who pay more than 30% of their income on housing is expected to increase to almost 50% in 2035, with most of the increase occurring relatively early in this time period. Increases are projected to be lower in most parts of Washington County than in other parts of the region.

The percentage of owners of multi-family units (such as condos) paying more than 30% of their income on housing in the region is expected to rise to over 60% in 2020. The Beaverton, Hillsboro and Cornelius areas will be most affected by this trend.

The demographic groups expected to be most affected by cost-burden issues in 2035 are owners of multi-family units (particularly those with lower incomes) and to a lesser degree owners of single-family units.

Among renter households, “emerging singles” households, young and middle-income families, and successful middle-aged families are expected to see the most significant relative increase in the percentage of households that are cost-burdened. This is due in part to the fact that a much higher percentage of lower income households are already cost-burdened, with relatively little capacity for the percentage to increase.

The percent of lower income households that spend more than 50% of their incomes on housing is expected to be 19-33% by 2035 among low-income households. These changes are expected to be most pronounced in portions Beaverton and Hillsboro, compared to other parts of Washington County.

IV. County Sub-Populations— Characteristics and Housing Needs

This section of the plan describes the following populations and their housing needs. These groups are largely referred to as “special needs” populations that the market frequently does not serve completely.

Racial and ethnic minorities

Farmworkers

Elderly residents

People with disabilities

People with alcohol or drug addictions

Released offenders.

People with HIV/AIDS

In addition to housing information about special needs populations, this section also includes data about children with lead paint poisoning.

An analysis of disproportionate need was undertaken using data from the 2006-10 ACS. HUD regulations at 24 CFR 91.205(b)(2) state that a disproportionate need exists when the percentage of households of a particular racial or ethnic group have a housing need is at least 10% higher than the percentage of households that have that need overall in the jurisdiction. The analysis, which can be found in Appendix C-1 of Volume 2, found that the primary disparities occur in owner-occupied housing. The actions resulting from this analysis will influence the preparation of the new Fair Housing Plan, to be begun in Year 1 of the Consolidated Plan cycle.

This section also addresses the housing resources available to these populations. The size of the population in need is compared to the supply of housing resources available to determine whether there is an unmet need and to assess the scope of that need. This is commonly referred to as a “gap analysis.” There are a number of challenges common to data about these populations and available housing resources. The population sizes are usually hard to capture and under-reporting is typical. In addition, the populations and the housing units targeted to them frequently overlap. Examples of this are released offenders or those that are homeless that are also mentally ill or have drug and alcohol addiction issues – sometimes both – and seniors and elderly who also have physical or self-care disabilities. In addition, information about housing resources often lacks uniformity. Data on housing and services that receive public funding typically are better documented than private organizations that provide housing and related services.

In addition to the classification challenges described above, we want to acknowledge a deeper kind of problem that arises from trying to fit people and households into pre-determined “special needs” categories: missing the knowledge that comes from

understanding the real-life experiences of low income households and losing essential detail about housing features that they really need. “Classification” of people and housing types over-simplifies the complex lives and needs of families and individuals. But it does provide a sense of the scale of the gap between supply and demand, and this information, while lacking subtlety, is useful for policy making. In this chapter, we provide the quantitative information on special needs housing demand, supply and gap as HUD requires. Appendix A in Volume 2 contains supplementary data from in-depth interviews and focus groups with more than 50 low-income Washington County residents to develop integrative strategies intended to provide access to resources needed to change one’s life trajectory.

The main sources of information about housing needs and resources documented in this section include the following.

Metro Regional Affordable Rental Housing Inventory (2011) – created by the Regional Housing Inventory Team (including Metro, Washington County Housing Authority, Washington County Office of Community Development, City of Beaverton, City of Hillsboro, City of Tigard, Oregon Housing and Community Services, Portland Office of the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD), and the Rural Economic Development Office of the US Department of Agriculture in Portland, Oregon)

In addition, a variety of specific housing and social service agencies and advocacy groups and resources were consulted, including the following:

Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) Department

Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS)

Washington County Department of Housing Services

Washington County Department of Health and Human Services

Washington County Community Corrections Department

Washington County Department of Veterans and Aging Services

Specific service providers of housing and supportive services for people with substance abuse, mental health, disabilities and/or other special housing needs issues, including Bienestar, Cascade AIDS Project, Luke-Dorf and Sequoia Mental Health.

City of Portland Housing Bureau (PHB)

RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITY POPULATION Approximately 70% of the population of Washington County is White (alone). Approximately 12% are of Asian, African-American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander descent (not including any people of mixed descent). About 3% are of two or more races. The largest single ethnic group is Latino (16%), followed by Asian (9%). Information on race and ethnicity for the county as a whole is described in the Table ####. It is based on 2012 American Community Survey data, projected to 2015 based on overall county population growth. This table also identifies the “concentration percent” of different ethnic or minority groups. A concentration is defined as a percentage of any minority population within the block group that is 20% greater than the percentage of that minority group across the entire jurisdiction. For example, if 7% of the county’s population is Asian, a concentration could occur in any block group where 27% or more of the population is Asian.

TABLE ### Ethnic and Racial Composition of Washington County, 2012 to 2015

2012 Population

2015

Number Percent 2010 concentration

Projected Population

White Alone 371,106 69.8% n/a

388,477

Black or African American Alone 8,883 1.7% 22%

9,299

American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 2,405 0.5% 21%

2,518

Asian Alone 46,446 8.7% 29%

48,620

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 2,458 0.5% 20%

2,573

Some Other Race Alone 699 0.1% n/a

732

Two or More races 16,736 3.2% 23%

17,519

Hispanic or Latino: 83,085 15.6% 36%

86,974

Total Population 531,818 556,712

SOURCE: Concentration based on 2010 Census, population from 2008-2012 ACS

TABLE ### Ethnic and Racial Composition of Washington County and Selected Sub-Areas, 2000 to 2012

Aloha Banks Beaverton Cornelius

2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012

White Alone 74.3% 61.8% 89.5% 92.3% 73.6% 67.1% 58.2% 44.5%

Black or African American Alone

1.3% 2.8% 0.4% 0.0% 1.6% 2.0% 0.7% 0.6%

American Indian and Alaska Native Alone

0.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% 0.9%

Asian Alone 7.6% 9.6% 1.8% 0.7% 9.6% 11.7% 1.0% 1.2%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone

0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0%

Some Other Race Alone

0.2% 0.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Two or More races 2.8% 3.8% 2.3% 1.5% 3.0% 2.8% 1.7% 2.9%

Hispanic or Latino: 12.9% 21.0% 3.8% 5.6% 11.1% 15.9% 37.4% 49.9%

Durham Forest Grove Gaston Hillsboro

2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012

White Alone 85.8% 80.0% 77.2% 70.3% 83.0% 99.2% 70.3% 60.2%

Black or African American Alone

0.8% 1.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.8%

American Indian and Alaska Native Alone

0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6%

Asian Alone 1.7% 0.8% 2.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 6.5% 8.3%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone

0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.8%

Some Other Race Alone 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Two or More races 2.8% 3.4% 2.2% 3.1% 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% 3.3%

Hispanic or Latino: 7.8% 14.0% 17.3% 25.1% 14.5% 0.8% 18.9% 24.9%

King City North Plains Sherwood Tigard

Washington County

2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012

White Alone 97.9% 95.1% 87.7% 82.7% 90.1% 82.3% 80.8% 75.8% 77.8% 69.8%

Black or African American Alone

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.7%

American Indian and Alaska Native Alone

0.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

Asian Alone 0.9% 3.4% 1.9% 1.6% 2.2% 6.2% 5.5% 6.0% 6.6% 8.7%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.5%

Some Other Race Alone

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Two or More races 0.5% 0.2% 1.7% 2.7% 2.1% 2.6% 2.4% 2.8% 2.4% 3.2%

Hispanic or Latino: 0.5% 1.4% 7.1% 10.3% 4.7% 6.8% 8.9% 12.6% 11.2% 15.6%

SOURCE: 2000 US Census, 2008-2012 ACS

Racial composition has changed in the county during the last decade. Between 2000 and 2012, the proportion of White residents has decreased (from 82% to 69.8%) while most other racial groups have increased in relative size. In addition, the percentage of Latino residents has increased during this period. Latino residents are included under White alone and Two or more races in Tables #### indicating that the proportion of White, non-Latino residents has decreased by even more than the table indicates.

Information on concentrations of ethnic and racial minority groups can be valuable when making funding decisions for housing programs. HUD rules require that all Consolidated Plans identify the block groups within the jurisdiction that have a concentration of ethnic and racial minorities generally, or a concentration of any one ethnic or racial minority group. As noted

previously, a concentration is defined as a percentage of any minority population within the block group that is 20% greater than the percentage of that minority group across the entire jurisdiction.

In 2012, there were 48 block groups in the county that had some concentration of racial or ethnic minorities, according to the definition of concentration stated previously. Most of these had a concentration of Latino residents, which in many cases coincides with concentrations of “All Racial Minorities” or individuals who listed their race as “Other.” Ten of the block groups had concentrations of racial minorities without a concentration of Latino residents. These block groups had high concentrations of Asian residents. Concentrations of ethnic and racial groups are shown in Table ### and Figure 3-3. This data and the concentration data in the prior tables are based on 2012 ACS data, the most recently available data on racial and ethnic minority populations at the block group level.

TABLE ### Census Block Groups with a Concentration of Racial or Ethnic Minorities (2012)

No. Block Group

Tract Location Concentrated Groups %

1 3 324.10 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 85.0

2 1 324.09 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 79.3

3 4 310.05 Beaverton Hispanic/Latino 74.3

4 2 324.09 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 72.8

5 1 313 Beaverton Hispanic/Latino 68.7

6 2 324.10 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 65.6

7 2 326.06 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 60.5

8 3 329.02 Cornelius Hispanic/Latino 57.5

9 4 329.02 Cornelius Hispanic/Latino 55.1

10 4 320.05 Tualatin Hispanic/Latino 54.4

11 3 326.04 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 54.3

12 2 320.01 Tualatin Hispanic/Latino 50.9

13 1 329.02 Cornelius Hispanic/Latino 50.5

14 1 332 Forest Grove Hispanic/Latino 50.0

15 1 316.17 Hillsboro Asian 49.8

16 1 316.15 Aloha Hispanic/Latino 47.0

17 3 320.05 Tualatin Hispanic/Latino 46.4

18 1 312 Beaverton Hispanic/Latino 46.2

19 2 329.02 Cornelius Hispanic/Latino 46.0

20 5 317.04 Aloha Hispanic/Latino 45.5

21 4 308.01 Tigard Hispanic/Latino 45.2

22 4 326.06 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 45.1

23 2 316.13 Aloha Hispanic/Latino 44.9

24 1 311 Beaverton Hispanic/Latino 44.6

25 1 325.01 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 43.2

26 3 315.13 Bethany area Asian 43.2

27 2 326.10 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 41.8

28 3 313 Beaverton Hispanic/Latino 41.5

29 2 320.03 Tualatin Hispanic/Latino 40.3

30 2 316.09 Aloha Hispanic/Latino 39.7

31 1 315.14 Bethany area Asian 39.2

32 3 332 Forest Grove Hispanic/Latino 39.0

33 1 324.06 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 38.8

34 1 315.13 Bethany area Asian 38.5

35 3 317.05 Aloha Hispanic/Latino 38.4

36 3 324.06 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 38.1

37 2 329.01 Cornelius Hispanic/Latino 37.8

38 1 329.01 Cornelius Hispanic/Latino 37.8

39 1 326.03 Hillsboro Hispanic/Latino 37.5

40 3 333.01 Forest Grove Hispanic/Latino 37.3

41 1 331.02 Forest Grove Hispanic/Latino 37.0

42 3 304.01 Beaverton Hispanic/Latino 35.9

43 3 316.17 Hillsboro Asian 35.0

44 2 316.11 Beaverton Asian 34.0

45 2 315.13 Bethany area Asian 32.3

46 2 315.12 Oak Hills area Asian 30.9

47 2 310.06 Beaverton Asian 30.8

48 1 316.11 Beaverton Asian 30.4

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

Housing needs among the county’s minority populations are similar to their relative income levels, as shown in Table ###, in that the highest percentages of need are found in the Latino and Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander populations. The Asian, African American, American Indian/ Alaskan Native and White populations have less housing need, in terms of the percent of households in each group that have some type of housing problem. However, due to the fact that the vast majority of county

residents are White, the number of White households in need of affordable housing far exceeds the total for all other racial and ethnic groups combined.

Approximately three-quarters of the total demand for affordable housing units (72%) is accounted for by White households who are cost-burdened or live in substandard or overcrowded housing. Approximately 18% of the demand for affordable housing units is generated by Latino households. Asian households generate approximately 6% of the need and other groups each represent 3% of the need or less.

In addition, there is little discernible difference in the qualitative characteristics of housing needs among racial and ethnic groups. One notable difference is that many Latino households need access to larger housing units, with more bedrooms, due to their significantly larger average household size (4.30 persons per household, compared to 2.63 for all Washington County households based on 2012 ACS data).

TABLE ### Housing Problems by Racial and Ethnic Group by Income Status (2010)

Total Households 0-80% MFI with Housing Problems

% of 0-80% with Housing problems

% Demand for Affordable Units

White 155,915 34,688 22% 72%

Black/African American 3,008 874 29% 2%

Asian 14,539 2,877 20% 6%

American Indian/Alaska Native

2,215 253 11% 1%

Pacific Islander 654 128 20% 0%

Hispanic/Latino 18,094 8,632 48% 18%

Washington County 196,438 48,433 25% 100%

SOURCE: 2006-2010 CHAS

FARMWORKERS According to Bienestar, the primary farmworker and farmworker family housing provider in Washington County, the farmworker population in the county is comprised of migrant and resident seasonal farmworkers. “Migrant” refers to those workers that travel and follow particular crop harvests for work, and “resident” are those that live permanently in the county. Both sets of farmworkers are typically referred to as “seasonal” in that the crop harvests provide work for up to about 10 months of the year as opposed to the full year.

For Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) purposes, housing can qualify for credit if at least one household member is a farmworker seasonally or year-round; the workers can hold other non-agricultural jobs. LIHTC programs define farmworkers as people who are paid to work in the production of farm products, in the planting, cultivation, or harvesting of nursery stock or other agricultural crops, or in forestation or reforestation, but not in aquacultural production. The USDA Rural Development (RD) program defines farmworkers similarly, with the exception that it includes aquacultural production in its definition.

A study of migrant and resident seasonal farmworkers completed by Alice Larson and Larson Assistance Services in 2013 is the most current comprehensive study available related to farmworker housing and other needs in the county.7 According to that study, there were approximately 12,400 migrant and resident seasonal farmworkers and their family members in Washington County in 2013 (roughly 6,700 farmworkers and 5,700 non-farmworkers). While recent studies of local farmworker incomes are not available, a 2009 study from the National Agricultural Workers Survey estimated the national average income for a farmworker family to be between $17,500 and $20,000, which is approximately 20% of the AMI in Washington County.

According to the Oregon Employment Department and Occupational Safety and Health Division (OSHA), there were 805 beds for farmworkers in registered camps in the county as of February 2014. This may indicate a reduction in the number of available beds in on-site farmworker camps in the county.

Bienestar is the largest provider of housing for farmworkers, and currently sponsors a total of 324 units for farmworkers and families on six properties focused near the agricultural communities in western Washington County.8 Ten of these units are dedicated to migrant seasonal workers and can accommodate 40-50 workers. Overall, the units range between two and four bedrooms. Most farmworkers and their families are Latino, and the average Latino family size in Washington County has been estimated at just over 4 persons per household.

TABLE ### Housing for Farmworkers by Bienestar (2014)

Project Name Sponsor Location Number of Units

Cornelius Park Apartments Bienestar Cornelius 24

Elm Park I Apartments Bienestar Forest Grove 50

Elm Park II Apartments Bienestar Forest Grove 12

Jose Arciga Apartments Bienestar Forest Grove 50

Juniper Garden Apartments Bienestar Forest Grove 46 6

Montebello Bienestar Hillsboro 48

Reedville Apartments Bienestar Aloha 48

Willow Park Apartments Bienestar Forest Grove 46

TOTAL 324

SOURCE: Bienestar Website: bienestar-or.org

Between beds in registered farmworker camps and housing units listed in Table -###, there is housing for just over 1,100 farmworkers in the county. Given the 6,700 farmworkers enumerated in the 2013 study, this leaves an unmet need for more than 5,600 more beds or units of housing if it is assumed that all farmworkers are in need of affordable housing, as suggested by the 2009 data that found that farmworkers were earning about 20% of the AMI in Washington County. This unmet need must be met through the open market or through other housing subsidy programs.

Bienestar reports a stable demand for year-round permanent housing for farmworker families. Despite the estimated need, Bienestar reports that there are presently either short waiting lists or higher vacancy rates for farmworker permanent housing. This may be due to the fact that Bienestar’s clientele is transient, in need of housing immediately, do not have reliable contact information or are unfamiliar with waiting lists. As such, they have about 30 households on their waiting list as of January 2014, which is typical for them. 7

ELDERLY There are many different definitions and names for older adults. Regardless of whether they are called senior citizens, elders, the elderly, older adults or some other name, and regardless of whether they are defined as people age 50 and older (AARP membership age), age 55 and older, age 60 and older, age 62 and older (HUD definition of elderly) or age 65 and older, this cohort is growing faster than others in the US. The age pyramid below shows that all age groups in Washington County grew

6 Expected number after completion of addition to facility due in August 2014 7 Karen Shawcross, Executive Director Bienestar, email, January 17, 2014

from 2000 to 2010. Baby boomers started turning 65 years old in 2012. In Washington County, about 67,000 residents will turn 60 between 2012 and 2020. This plan focuses on adults ages 65 and older and refers to this group as “older adults.”

30,000 20,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-84

85+

2000

2010

FemalesMales

Approximately 10% of Washington County’s residents were age 65 and older in 2012 (52,000 individuals). More than nine in ten (91%) were White; 4% were Asian, and the remainder was another race or combination of races. Three percent of older adults were Latino, according to the US Census American Community Survey. Concentrations of older adults are found in King City, southern Tigard, northern and western Beaverton and Forest Grove.

In 2010, almost half (49%) of households with at least one resident age 62 and older were low/mod-income (0 to 80% MFI). Over half (55%) of these households with older adults were extremely low/low-income (0 to 50% MFI). The number and percent of households with older adults in each income bracket in 2010 is shown in Table ###. More current information about the distribution of older households by these HUD-defined income brackets is not available.

TABLE ###, Low and Moderate Income Households with One or More Older Adults (2010)

Income % of MFI

Number of Low and Moderate Income Households with One

or More Older Adult % of all Senior Households

0-30% 4,520 11.46%

>30-50% 6,180 15.67%

>50-80% 8,595 21.80%

TOTAL 19,295 48.93%

SOURCE: 2006-2010 CHAS

Just over seven percent (7.4%) of older adults had incomes below the poverty level, compared to 10.9% for the population overall. Households with residents age 65 and older were more likely to have Social Security income (91.8%), Supplemental Security Income (3.7%) and retirement benefits (49.8%) as sources of income than the population overall. Older adults were nearly three times as likely to be veterans (24.4%) than the civilian population ages 18 and older (8.6%), according to American Community Survey data for 2008-12.

Not surprisingly, older adults are far more likely to have a disability than the general population. Over one-third of older adults in Washington County reported having a disability in 2008-2012 (34.3%), compared to 9.3% of county residents overall. Table ### provides information about the disability status of older adults and compares this population to people age 5 to 64 years old.

TABLE ### Adults with Disabilities, Washington County (2012) Age Range Number Percent

5 To 64 Years With A Disability 30,514 6.98%

65 and Over With A Disability 18,311 34.30%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

Disability and poverty status appear to be related for older adults. From 2008-12, 10.5% of people ages 65 and older who had a disability also had incomes at or below the poverty level in Washington County. In comparison, 5.7% of older adults with no disability had incomes at or below the poverty level. The poverty rate of disabled older adults (10.5%) is lower than that of disabled people age 5 to 64 (22.5%). The one important caveat to these figures from the American Community Survey is that they represent only the non-institutionalized civilian population, and thus exclude military personnel and people living in facilities such as nursing homes.

Cost-burdened older adults in rental housing are a particularly vulnerable population in the county. In 2012, a substantially larger share of older renters were cost-burdened than Washington County renters overall. While adults age 65 and older were less likely to live in rental housing than residents in general (27.8% vs. 38.3%), nearly than two thirds (63.5%) of rental housing units with residents age 65 and older were occupied by households who were paying 30% or more on housing costs. In comparison, less than half of all rental housing units in Washington County (46.5%) were occupied by households paying 30% or more of their income for housing costs. In 2008 – 2012, approximately 6,000 rental units housing older adults were occupied by households paying 30% or more of their income for housing costs. Given the rising cost of health care, a necessity for many older adults in particular, the likely vulnerability of these 6,000 older, cost-burdened renters is particularly concerning. Affordable low-cost rental hosing represents the first area of concern. Table ### shows these figures in detail.

TABLE ### Low-Income Senior Households with Cost Burden (2010)

Cost Burdened >30%

Income Level Renter Percent Owner Percent Total

0-30% MFI 1,900 33% 1,710 31% 3,610 32%

31-50% MFI 2,375 42% 1,725 32% 4,100 37%

51-80% MFI 1,430 25% 2,015 37% 3,445 31%

TOTAL 5,705 100% 5,450 100% 11,156 100%

Cost Burdened >50%

Income Level Renter Percent Owner Percent Total

0-30% MFI 1,685 45% 1,240 41% 2,925 44%

31-50% MFI 1,395 38% 915 31% 2,310 34%

51-80% MFI 640 17% 835 28% 1,475 22%

TOTAL 3,720 100% 2,990 100% 6,711 100%

SOURCE: 2006-2010 CHAS

There are 796 units of publicly assisted housing units designated for elderly and/or disabled residents in the county. As shown in Table ###, these units are located in Beaverton, Sherwood, Aloha, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and North Plains. The units accommodate a small fraction (about one-third) of the total number of housing units needed to accommodate senior renter households in the extremely low-income bracket that have housing problems. For every housing unit listed below (796), there are approximately eight older adults (6,000 total) who are renters in need of affordable housing.

TABLE ### Housing for Seniors and Elderly (2010)

Project Name City Contact Total Units

Alma Gardens Hillsboro Northwest Housing Alternatives (NWHA) 56

Brentwood Oaks Aloha Cascade Housing Group 78

Carriage Place Sherwood Bowen Real Estate Group 24

Forest Grove Beehive Forest Grove Beehive Management Group 44

Forest Villa Apartments Forest Grove Kent Apartments Lp 84

Holly Tree Village Beaverton Housing Authority Of Washington County 140

Kaybern Terrace North Plains Washington Co. Housing Auth. 12

Kent Apts North Plains Kent Apartments Lp 33

Sherwood Park Sherwood Guardian Affordable Housing Development Llc 44

Stewart Terrace Sherwood Guardian Affordable Housing Development Llc 24

Tarkington Square Hillsboro Community Housing III, Inc 48

The Knoll at Tigard Tigard Community Partners for Affordable Housing 48

The Maples Apartments Hillsboro Washington County Council on Aging 29

The Maples II Apartments Hillsboro Community Housing III, Inc 21

Woodland Park Apartments Hillsboro Guardian Affordable Housing Development Llc 111

TOTAL 796 SOURCE: 2010 OHCS Housing Inventory, Martha McClellan NWHA

Age-segregated housing for older adults is just one housing option for this population. Many older adults prefer age-integrated housing settings and wish to age in place in their homes in traditional neighborhoods. Thus, it is difficult to isolate the gap between supply and demand for age-segregated independent housing for older adults from the need for physically accessible

affordable housing more generally. However, the prior figures about the number of cost-burdened renters who are older adults in Washington County (6,000 cost-burdened renter households with a member age 65 and older) highlight the need for affordable housing for this population. Furthermore, the information about the high proportion of older adults in the county who have one or more disabilities (over one-third have some kind of disability) underscores the need for affordable housing to be accessible or adaptable.

A second area of concern is the home repair and accessibility needs faced by low-income older adults. The Washington County Office of Community Development reports a steady demand for assistance through the Home Access and Repair for the Disabled and Elderly (HARDE) program, which provides grants of up to $3,500 for qualified home repairs and accessibility improvements to low-income elderly (age 62 and older) and disabled households. The HARDE program served 31 elderly and/or disabled households in 2012-13. While in some cases the replacement of the home might be a desirable option, the investment is limited to repairs due to restrictions imposed by federal HOME and CDBG regulations.

Washington County often partners with Community Action and Rebuilding Together Washington County to provide a range of home repairs and improvements. For example, the HARDE program might make electrical repairs to a mobile home and then Community Action performs an energy audit and installs weatherizing insulation with the result that the client’s power bills are greatly reduced. Likewise, the rehabilitation dollar goes further if Rebuilding Together or Community Action first utilizes their force of volunteers for some simple plumbing repairs and then the HARDE program takes over by replacing a worn-out furnace. In addition, referrals from the County’s Disability, Aging, and Veteran’s Services to the HARDE program ensure that clients receive a maximum of assistance. Enhanced services to HARDE clients have been the outcome of these coordinated, on-going partnerships.

A third area of concern is older adults living in manufactured home parks in Washington County. In 2012 there were approximately 5,800 manufactured homes in Washington County. While it is not known how many of these households include older residents, across the U.S. approximately one-quarter of manufactured homes are headed by a householder age 65 or older, according to the 2011 American Housing Survey. Discussions with the HARDE program coordinator at Washington County reveal that seniors who live in manufactured home parks generally need accessibility improvements, such as ramps and accessible showers. Many of these homes were built in the 1970s and earlier, and often require other repairs to roofs and electrical systems.

Older adults experience many of the same benefits and liabilities of manufactured home park living as park residents in general. But they are particularly at risk should their park close. Research suggests manufactured home parks may provide an environment conducive to aging in place without formal support services because of the informal networks and social relationships that exist among neighbors who lend a hand and keep an eye out for each other’s continuing safety. When a park closes, older adults not only lose their home, they also lose their community, their social networks, and all that is familiar. If their incomes are low, their options for new housing and services may be limited. If they had lived independently, they may be unfamiliar with navigating the network of agencies that might be able to assist them. They may also be faced with significant financial problems if they cannot move or sell their home but still have an outstanding loan to pay for it.

As they age, some older adults may reach a point where they require assistance with one or more of the activities of daily living, which HUD defines as eating, bathing, grooming, dressing and home management activities (housework, grocery shopping, laundry, getting to and from essential activities outside the home). Some older adults may be able to rely on family or pay for in-home services to assist with these activities. Others may require moving to a licensed long-term care facility. HUD defines “frail elderly” as a person age 62 or older who is unable to perform three or more of the five activities of daily living.

In 2012, Oregon Housing and Community Services estimated that there were approximately 1,600 frail elderly with unmet housing needs in the county. The following facts from the 2008-12 American Community Survey provide further detail about this population.

An estimated 19% of Washington County’s older adults (age 65 and older) not living in an institution such as a nursing home had two or more disabilities. This represents approximately 10,000 individuals. The disability types are sensory, physical, mental, self-care and go-outside-the-home disabilities.

There were approximately 1,900 older adults (age 65 and older) not living in an institution whose incomes were below the poverty level and who had one or more disabilities.

Some frail elderly adults continue to live in their homes with the assistance of family members or professional care-givers. Others live in a licensed long-term care facility. Oregon Department of Human Services recognizes four kinds of licensed long-term care facilities that provide housing integrated with social and medical services: adult foster homes, residential care facilities, assisted living facilities and nursing facilities. These facilities serve seniors as well as other adults who need help with daily activities due to illness, physical or cognitive disabilities.

Low/mod-income frail elderly face multiple layers of challenges in accessing licensed facilities. While Medicaid will pay for nursing home care for all older adults who meet income, asset and medical standards, many low/mod-income older adults who need assistance fail to meet one of these standards but cannot afford to pay for services out of their own pocket. Others do not need or want a nursing home’s level of intensive round-the-clock skilled nursing care provided in a hospital-like setting. In Oregon, there are a limited number of slots for people who qualify for Medicaid nursing home care to stay in assisted living or adult foster care settings. Although adult foster care homes and assisted living facilities are not required to accept Medicaid clients. Because Medicaid typically reimburses providers at a lower rate than what foster care homes and assisted living facilities are able to charge private individuals, some providers may elect to either limit or not accept Medicaid clients, as indicated in Table ###. Many low/mod-income older adults with service needs fall through the holes in the system. Table ### is a list of the licensed long-term care facilities available in Washington County.

TABLE ###: Licensed Long Term Care Facilities in Washington County (2013)

Type of Facility Description Number of Facilities Number of Beds

Adult Foster Homes Private Homes with family-style living that provide room, board and physical care for up to five people, 24 hours a day.

264 1,264

Residential Care Facilities

Facilities for six or more people that provide room, board, assistance with physical care needs, 24 hour supervision, medication monitoring and planned activities.

25, of which 18 accept Medicaid

1,061

Assisted Living Facilities

Facilities that include six or more private apartments with a kitchenette and private bathroom. Services include full dining room services, housekeeping, assistance with physical care needs, call systems for emergency help, medication monitoring and planned activities

22, of which 15 accept Medicaid

1,864

Nursing Facilities Facilities that provide nursing care on a 24-hour basis in a hospital-like setting. Services include skilled nursing care, rehabilitative services and end-of-life care.

9, all accept Medicaid

964

TOTAL 5,153

SOURCE: ODHS Office of Licensing and Regulatory Oversight

The challenges that older adults face in trying to piece together affordable housing and assistive services is symptomatic of a larger dysfunction in how the US organizes the provision of housing and health care. There is a lack of a common language and mission between the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Health and Human

Services. How each understands clients (patients vs. tenants), how each assesses needs, and how each approaches service delivery is vastly different from the other. These programmatic silos are reflected at the state level as well, as evidenced by a lack of integration between the publicly-assisted health-care system and the affordable housing system. As people move through their life course, their need for service-enriched housing grows. The policy, funding and program delivery systems are not organized to meet this challenge, and older adults are left to piece together their individual solutions from the fragments of the individual systems.

Despite these systemic challenges, some non-profit housing developers are already providing services (or arranging for other community partners to provide services) to residents of subsidized housing complexes. If resources were available, housing providers could experiment further with integrating affordable housing for older adults and services at the local level. For example, enhanced social and health care services could be provided to residents in subsidized senior housing. Models might include individual resident health assessments and referrals, the provision of space for on-site services (such as meals), instituting innovative partnerships with health care providers, and the development of volunteer-based service initiatives with the faith community.

In conclusion, there are four primary housing–related needs of older adults in Washington County, as follows:

More affordable rental housing for low-income older adults, and ways to make existing housing more affordable. To accommodate people as they move through their life course, the housing should be accessible or adaptable. Both age-segregated and multi-generational settings are appropriate.

The continuation of existing rehabilitation programs that provide housing repair, weatherization and accessibility improvements.

Advance planning related to the potential future closure of manufactured home parks and displacement older low-income residents.

Innovative ways to address the integrated housing and service needs for older adults.

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES The US Census identifies six types of disabilities: Hearing difficulty, Vision difficulty, Cognitive difficulty, Ambulatory difficulty, Self-care difficulty and an Independent living difficulty. People suffer from multiple disabilities (see Table ###). The 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey found approximately 8.5% of Washington County residents age 18 or above to have some form of disability. The ACS indicates that nearly 18% of these people are living below the poverty level. Over three percent of residents 18 to 64 years old had an “ambulatory disability,” compared to 20.9% of residents 65 and over. Just over one percent of residents to 64 years old had a “self-care disability,” compared to 9% of residents 65 and over. Approximately 3.5% percent of residents to 64 years old had a “cognitive disability,” compared to 10.9% of residents 65 and over. Additional data on people with disabilities is found in the following tables and is summarized below. The following tables describe the distribution of people with disabilities, by age, gender, poverty level and earnings. This information indicates the following:

TABLE ### Persons with Disabilities by Age, Washington County (2012)

With a disability Percent with a

disability Population under 5 years 482 1.3% With a hearing difficulty 381 1.0% With a vision difficulty 193 0.5% Population 5 to 17 years 4,119 4.2% With a hearing difficulty 485 0.5% With a vision difficulty 510 0.5% With a cognitive difficulty 3,152 3.2%

TABLE ### Persons with Disabilities by Age, Washington County (2012)

With a disability Percent with a

disability With an ambulatory difficulty 511 0.5% With a self-care difficulty 827 0.8% Population 18 to 64 years 26,395 7.8% With a hearing difficulty 5,492 1.6% With a vision difficulty 4,898 1.4% With a cognitive difficulty 11,808 3.5% With an ambulatory difficulty 11,515 3.4% With a self-care difficulty 3,839 1.1% With an independent living difficulty 8,448 2.5% Population 65 years and over 18,311 34.3% With a hearing difficulty 7,896 14.8% With a vision difficulty 3,270 6.1% With a cognitive difficulty 5,813 10.9% With an ambulatory difficulty 11,137 20.9% With a self-care difficulty 4,777 9.0% With an independent living difficulty 8,501 15.9% Sex

Male 22,564 8.7%

Female 26,743 10.0%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

TABLE ### Persons with Disabilities by Poverty Status, Washington County (2012)

With a

Disability Without a Disability

Population Age 16 and over for whom poverty status is determined 45,423 361,410

Below 100 percent of the poverty level 18.0% 8.9%

100 to 149 percent of the poverty level 12.9% 6.9%

At or above 150 percent of the poverty level 69.1% 84.3%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

TABLE ### Persons with Disabilities by Earnings, Washington County (2012)

Earnings (Past 12 Months in 2012 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) With a

Disability Without a Disability

TABLE ### Persons with Disabilities by Earnings, Washington County (2012)

Earnings (Past 12 Months in 2012 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) With a

Disability Without a Disability

Population Age 16 and over with earnings 16,466 277,368

$1 to $4,999 or loss 17.5% 9.5%

$5,000 to $14,999 23.8% 14.6%

$15,000 to $24,999 13.9% 13.2%

$25,000 to $34,999 14.3% 12.4%

$35,000 to $49,999 13.4% 15.0%

$50,000 to $74,999 10.0% 16.0%

$75,000 or more 7.2% 19.3%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

On average, men have a higher incidence of most types of disabilities, although women are more likely to have two or more disabilities than men.

As might be expected, older residents (65 and older) have much higher disability rates than younger residents and, in this population, women have higher incidences of almost all types of disabilities than men. The most frequently cited disabilities in older residents are physical disabilities, followed by sensory and go-outside-home disabilities.

People with disabilities are about twice as likely to be below the poverty level as those without disabilities, and the incidence of women with disabilities living below the poverty level is higher than that of men. People with mental and self-care disabilities have the highest incidences of being below the poverty level compared to people with other disabilities and those without disabilities.

People with disabilities tend to be concentrated in lower-income brackets compared to those without disabilities. For example, over 55% of people with disabilities are concentrated in the three lowest income levels (below $25,000 per year), compared to 37% of people with no disabilities.

The figures above indicate that people with disabilities tend to have multiple issues related to their need for and ability to afford housing that is accessible and close to needed services. They tend to have a greater need for such housing, but have relatively fewer resources to obtain it. These issues are particularly acute for older residents and women.

Census and ACS data does not separately call out people with chronic mental illness and their housing needs. Discretely quantifying the housing needs of those with chronic mental illness in Washington County is difficult using state and local data because mental illness often overlaps with other special needs populations addressed in this report (e.g. alcohol and drug addiction and recovery, homelessness), there are many unregistered cases of mental illness, and income information is not available for cases that are registered and receiving services. That said, data from early 2014 from ODHS shows that 9,901 Washington County residents received mental health treatment within Washington County. Again, these records are not accompanied by income or housing need information.

People with all of the types of disabilities described above face a variety of housing needs and challenges. Many people with severe developmental or mental health related disabilities are not able to live independently and require constant care from family members and/or other caregivers either in an institutional setting, assisted care facility, adult foster care home or living with family members. People with milder forms of these disabilities and many types of physical disabilities may live

independently or semi-independently but require housing units that are fully accessible to people with physical disabilities.

There are a limited number of housing facilities and units designated for those with disabilities in Washington County. For those with severe and persistent mental illness, there are twelve facilities sponsored by Luke-Dorf Inc., Sequoia Mental Health and LifeWorks NW. The twelve Mental Health Foster Homes in Washington County also provide housing options for those with severe and persistent mental illness. Five other units sponsored by Sequoia Mental Health are available to those experiencing a combination of chronic mental illness and alcohol and drug recovery or homelessness. Washington County DHS administers HUD Shelter Plus Care rental assistance that funds 90 beds for those with mental illness in the county, and administers these funds in collaboration with three non-profit mental health care providers: Lifeworks NW, Luke-Dorf, Inc., and Sequoia Mental Health Services, Inc.

In addition, Luke-Dorf, Inc. owns and operates the Graduated Independent Living facility, a treatment facility with 24 beds for clients with a dual diagnosis of chronic mental illness and drug or alcohol addiction. County Community Corrections is a partner agency in the facility and was instrumental in securing additional beds for the facility. Although the facility is not designed specifically for released offenders, many clients are likely released offenders, given the high rate of addiction and mental illness issues in that population.

TABLE ###: Housing for People with Mental Illness and Drug/Alcohol Addiction (2013)

Sponsor Number of Beds/Units

Luke-Dorf 87

Mental Health Consortium of Washington County 90

LifeWorks NW 44

Sequoia Mental Health Services 30

Mental Health Foster Homes 12

Total 263

SOURCE: Mona Knapp; Luke-Dorf Inc., Bob Loverin; Sequoia Mental Health Services, Connie Dunkel-Weyrauch; LifeWorks NW, Melanie Tong; Washington County Department of Health and Human Services

The Washington County Developmental Disabilities Program, with the Department of Health and Human Services, has record of 2,075 people with developmental disabilities currently receiving county services. However, all of these clients do not necessarily have housing needs; some may choose to live with family and friends to help with their day-to-day needs.14 At any one time there are approximately 10-15 clients with developmental disabilities that need long-term and more intensive services in settings like a group home or foster home. Staff estimates that group homes, foster homes, and other supportive living facilities (usually apartments with additional services provided by various agencies) serve about 500 clients in the county. The Department receives requests from clients for subsidized apartments so that the clients can live more independently and afford to pay rent with Social Security income or other benefits. These clients typically are living with their families.15

Nevertheless, housing identified for the developmentally disabled in the county would only provide for about 10% of those in active case management. These units are summarized in Table ###.

TABLE ### Housing for the Developmentally Disabled, Washington County (2010)

Project Name City Contact Total Units

Assorted Facilities

Aloha, Beaverton, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard Unnamed agencies/Organizations 93

12th St Group Home Cornelius Community Services, Inc. 1

187th Group Home Beaverton Community Services, Inc. 5

Merlo Station Apts I Beaverton Guardian Management 80

PLUSS Apartments Tigard Luke-Dorf 11

Spruce Street Group Home Hillsboro Community Services, Inc. 5

The Bridge Apartments Beaverton Accessible Living Inc. 14

Total Units

209 SOURCE: 2010 OHCS Housing Inventory

According to 2008-12 ACS data, about 49,300 people, over 9% of the Washington County population, were found to have a physical disability. As reported in the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, a 2007 ODHS report on seniors and people with physical disabilities estimated that at least 550 Washington County residents with physical disabilities, are under age 65, have low incomes, are in need of supportive housing and services and receive in-home care, adult foster care, or residential care or are otherwise in assisted living or nursing facilities.16 Affordable or subsidized units in the county designated for those with physical disabilities are found in Hillsboro and Forest Grove. There are also units for seniors with physical disabilities located in Sherwood, but those are addressed elsewhere in this report. If the 550 people indicated in the 2007 ODHS report are an indicator, the 44 units identified in Washington County fall significantly short of meeting the population’s housing needs.

TABLE ### Housing for the Physically Disabled, Washington County (2010)

Project Name City Contact Total Units

Harkson Court Forest Grove Accessible Living, Inc. 20

Smallwood Apartments Hillsboro Sequoia Mental Health 17

Rolling Green Apartments Hillsboro Quadriplegics United Against Dependency, Inc. 24

TOTAL 61 SOURCE: 2010 OHCS Housing Inventory

The County has not conducted a follow-up survey of accessible housing or developed a guide to such facilities since 2004. The web-based service HousingConnections.org allows users to search for fully, mostly, and partially accessible units that are currently available. A search in early January 2014 found about 6 units that were currently available, mostly or fully accessible located in Tualatin, Beaverton and Forest Grove. Rents ranged from $593 to $925 and most of the units’ managers would at least consider Section 8 rental vouchers.

Some individuals with developmental, self-care, sensory and mental health disabilities live in adult foster care homes and/or are eligible for other housing assistance programs, including social security benefits for the blind and disabled. In addition, many elderly residents with self-care limitation live in a variety of assisted and other living centers, some of which accept Medicaid payments (see section on elderly residents).

Because of limited data about the income and housing needs of those with disabilities in Washington County, it is not possible to accurately quantify the unmet need for affordable housing for this population. The best estimate is available for those with physical disabilities. However, given the much larger number of those known to have disabilities and designated housing units, there is a significant unmet need for housing and related, supportive services

PEOPLE WITH ALCOHOLISM/DRUG ADDICTION AND PEOPLE IN ALCOHOL AND DRUG RECOVERY Washington County’s Department of Health and Human Services estimates that roughly 36,000 residents in the county are in need of alcohol and drug treatment. According to a 2012 housing survey administered by ODHS, the number of people receiving treatment services from mental health programs in Washington County was 6,311. This represents less than 18% of those in need of treatment.

Three adult residential facilities in Washington County provide detoxification and other services for those in severe stages of drug and alcohol addiction and recovery, information about those facilities is summarized in Table ###.

TABLE ###: Adult Residential Facilities for People in Drug and Alcohol Recovery (2013)

Facility Number of Beds

Lifeworks NW/Mountaindale Recovery Center

11

CODA Tigard Recovery Center 12

CODA Detox Facility 6

TOTAL 29

SOURCE: Kathy Prenevost, Washington County Health and Human Services

TABLE ### Housing for People in Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery (2013)

Project Name Sponsor Jurisdiction Units/Beds

Homeward Bound Recovery Home

Sherwood 12

House of Hope Recovery Ministry

Aloha 28

Greenburg Oaks Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc.

Tigard 3

HopeSpring Scattered Site Apartments

LifeWorks NW, Lutheran Community Services, Domestic Violence Shelter and

Community Action

Aloha, Beaverton, Tigard

18

Oxford Houses*

Various Sites 159

Stepping Stones CODA Tigard 18

Total

SOURCE: Kathy Prenevost, Washington County Health and Human Services, 2010 OHCS Housing Inventory

*These are cooperatively run, “consumer directed” homes that do not receive public funding

Housing targeted to those in recovery from alcohol and drug addiction also is intended to serve those suffering from both mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction in some cases. Luke-Dorf, Inc. is the primary sponsor for housing for those with

this dual diagnosis and this housing is addressed in the report section on people with mental illness. Transitional and permanent supportive units designated more narrowly for those with addiction issues are presented in Table ###.

There are also a handful of “clean and sober homes” for released offenders in the county, and those are addressed in the next section of the report. Although not every person in treatment for or recovery from alcohol and drug addiction requires supportive housing, the amount of existing housing does not begin to compare to the large population of those in treatment or recovery and potentially in need of supportive housing.

RELEASED OFFENDERS/EX-OFFENDERS The Community Corrections Department currently supervises about 3,600 offenders on probation and parole. The Department also operates the Community Corrections Center, a 215 bed custodial work release facility that serves about 2,000 offenders a year. Many individuals currently in the community, or soon to be released from the center, need some form of special or transitional housing. The Department recognizes the importance of safe, clean and sober housing in helping offenders to live crime-free in the community and has made the creation and support of such housing a priority. It has successfully applied for grant funding to develop alcohol and drug-free housing, dedicated housing subsidy funds in its budget, and worked with local non-profit agencies to encourage the creation of supportive housing.

According to Community Correction’s 2013-2015 Biennium Plan, there are approximately 351 beds in community clean and sober housing in Washington County. However, this housing is not strictly for offenders. The 2013–2015 Biennium Plan asserts, this housing is “instrumental in increasing offenders’ involvement in treatment, participation in support groups, higher employment rates and reduction in new criminal activity.” The housing is managed primarily by Oxford Houses, a non-profit organization, but other organizations such as Homeward Bound, Bridges to Change, and House of Hope also operate clean and sober housing. Stays in this temporary housing typically range from about three to six months. Given this turnover, the 351 beds in the community can usually accommodate an offender needing clean and sober housing.

The Community Corrections Center is a custodial facility that serves as an alternative to jail, with extensive programming designed to assist offenders in their transition back to the community. Among its programs, the center offers a 90-day drug and alcohol residential treatment program, with 24 beds for men and 12 beds for women. The program provides intensive treatment and transition services, and has been treating an average of 100 people annually.

The availability of drug and alcohol-free housing in the community has been cited as one of the main reasons for the success of the treatment program. Counselors and recovery mentors help program graduates find work, take them to community-based support groups, and assist them to find clean and sober housing.

Of the 2,000 offenders a year that enter the Community Corrections Center, about 1,700 complete their sentence and transition back to the community. Of those who were unsuccessful, the majority violated Center rules and were returned to the jail. Center staff estimates that about 60% of released offenders move into “clean and sober” housing or return home, and the remaining 40% leave the center without good housing options (approximately 680 people in 2013). For those without a good option, some will end up on the street and many others will find temporary housing with family or friends who are abusing alcohol or drugs or are involved in crime.

Of its 215 beds, the Community Correction Center has set aside 12-15 as transitional housing for homeless, primarily parolees, those with mental illness, and sex offenders having difficulty finding permanent housing. These residents are not serving a sentence and voluntarily accept a bed. Transitional lodgers must be working or actively seeking work in order to qualify for this housing and are generally limited to a 30 day stay.

In general, Community Corrections staff finds the most challenging housing need to address is housing for released sex offenders. Staff estimates that there is need for at least a couple dozen beds for this population - beds that do not currently exist.

Mentally ill offenders can be another difficult population to place. There are 10 beds specifically for mentally ill homeless offenders in a facility called Safe Haven. These beds are also referred to in the section on housing needs of the homeless, which is operated by Luke-Dorf, Inc. The Community Corrections Mental Health Team estimates that there is need for at least two more similar facilities. The Mental Health Team also has identified a need for skilled foster care homes for offenders with severe mental illness or disability. Probation officers estimate that there are currently about a dozen clients in need of such

housing and services. Additionally, probation officers see the need for temporary housing for those transitioning from hospitals and prisons, with an average stay being a couple of months. The officers estimate that about a couple dozen beds would serve this need.8

SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The 2012 ODHS Domestic Violence Intervention Report show that over 8,500 women from Washington County sought help from ODHS’s Sexual and Domestic Violence Programs in 2012. The same report also shows that in Oregon, domestic violence survivors experienced 16,000 unmet requests for shelter. If these figures are applied to the comparable Washington County population, it would mean that approximately 2,355 women in Washington County sought shelter unsuccessfully. Additionally, many instances of domestic violence are not reported.

The Washington County District Attorney’s office registered more than 1,179 new reported cases of domestic violence in FY 2011-2012 and 1,070 cases in FY 2012-2013. There were additional calls during these periods requesting resources related to domestic violence, but data on the number and nature of those calls is not readily available. Regardless, the reported number of cases represents at least a 50% increase over the 400 calls related to domestic violence received by the DA’s office in 2002, as documented in the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan.

Income information is not available for survivors of domestic violence. However, physically abused women tend to be young and generally need more health services, social services, and criminal/legal services. Moreover, survivors of physical abuse face ongoing health and economic challenges after the period of abuse has ended. Many services are either unavailable or inadequate in counties throughout Oregon for survivors, perpetrators, and children involved in domestic violence. In Washington County, the Domestic Violence Resource Center, Sexual Assault Resource Center, and South Asian Women’s Empowerment and Resource Alliance (SAWERA) offer services to those with needs related to domestic violence. The three centers all receive funding from the Oregon Department of Justice Crime Victims Assistance Section (CVAS). The Domestic Violence Resource Center and Sexual Assault Resource Center are also funded by the Oregon Department of Human Services.

The Domestic Violence Resource Center offers shelter facilities to women and families who have experienced domestic violence. The shelter is called Monika’s House and is the only domestic violence shelter in Washington County. There are 24 beds in 6 units for families and 3 units for singles. Monika’s House operates a 24-hour crisis line and provides individual and group support, parenting groups, children’s groups and activities, safety planning, advocacy, and referrals in addition to emergency shelter. The crisis line receives an average of 2,100 calls annually.

Given that there is only one shelter with the capacity for 24 people in the county, it is clear that only a small fraction of those who have survived domestic violence are served. Further, this is emergency, temporary housing and does not address the need for permanent affordable housing for this population. They must compete with other low-income and special needs residents in the county for permanent housing to meet their needs.

PEOPLE WITH HIV/AIDS Cascade AIDS Project (CAP) estimates there are 513 people in Washington County known to be living with HIV or AIDS as of December 2010. This constitutes almost one-tenth of a percent of the total county population, and represents more than a doubling of cases of HIV/AIDS reported in 2002 (205 people). CAP records are a composite of data collected from county agencies, and include some demographic information but not on income or distribution within the county.

Limited demographic information is available for cases of HIV/AIDS in the Portland metropolitan region and in Washington County. Cases of HIV/AIDS in Washington County account for roughly 10% of those reported in the region. As shown in Table ###, significantly fewer people living with HIV/AIDS in the County were White when compared to the region overall, and significantly more people were Latino. There was also a notable difference in the number of males and females with HIV/AIDS; the percentage of females with HIV/AIDS in

8 Steve Berger and Karleigh Monahan, Washington County Community Corrections, email, March 17, 2014

Washington County is significantly higher than the region overall.

HUD established the Housing Opportunities for People with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) program in 1992, which is the only federal program addressing the housing needs of people with HIV/AIDS. At least one person in HOPWA-funded housing must have HIV/AIDS and the household income must be 80% or less than the MFI in order to receive HOPWA services. Portland Housing Bureau (PHB) administers the HOPWA Program for the Portland Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area (EMSA), which includes Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Yamhill, Columbia, Clark, and Skamania Counties. PHB has contracted with Cascade AIDS Project (CAP), Clark County Public Health, Central City Concern, and Outside In to provide housing and related services to people with HIV/AIDS. CAP, founded in 1983, is “the oldest and largest community-based provider of HIV services, housing, education and advocacy in Oregon and Southwest Washington.” Additionally, Portland Housing Bureau in partnership with CAP received a HOPWA Special Program of National Significance grant to better integrate employment and housing services. CAP uses flexible rent assistance to address housing needs and prioritizes people involved in the employment program called Working Choices. Through this grant, a Worksource Liaison is embedded at CAP and facilitates integration of HIV specific employment services into mainstream services.

TABLE ### Race/Ethnicity and Gender of People Living with AIDS/HIV, Washington County and Portland Metro Region (2010) Washington County Portland EMSA

Race/Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent

Hispanic 110 21.0% 432 10.2%

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0.0% 42 1.0%

Asian 9 1.7% 81 1.9%

Black/African American 40 7.6% 351 8.2%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

2 0.40% 12 0.30%

White 359 68.7% 3,297 77.5%

Multiracial 3 0.60% 36 0.80%

Unknown 0 0.0% 4 0.10%

Total 523 100.0% 4,256 100.0%

Male 442 85.0% 3,781 89.0%

Female 81 15.0% 474 11.0%

Total 523 100.0% 4,256 100.0%

SOURCE: Cascade AIDS Project

Housing services offered to those living with HIV/AIDS include:

Tenant based rent assistance, Project based rent assistance, Short term rent mortgage utility (STRMU) eviction prevention assistance; Housing case management, employment services, furniture donation assistance, tenant education, and assistance with social security disability applications.

Housing dedicated to those with HIV/AIDS in the Portland metropolitan region is concentrated in Multnomah County. Caritas Housing Initiatives and Cascade AIDS Project (CAP) partner in Washington County to provide housing. Villa Capri, between

Hillsboro and Beaverton, still provides three apartments (permanent units) subsidized for HOPWA participants. The subsidy makes up for whatever gap there may be between the rental cost and 30% of the participant’s income. CAP works with the County’s Shelter Plus Care program to provide rental assistance vouchers to approximately 31 households.

Additionally, Oregon Health Authority received two HOPWA Special Projects of National Significance and contracts with CAP to provide tenant based rent assistance and case management to people living with HIV in the Portland metro area, including Washington County. Fifty-five households receive tenant based rent assistance and case management. These two grants are to work with people that are involved in the corrections system or recently released from prison or jail or to work with people that have a mental health diagnosis that affects housing stability. Through the mental health grant, a mental health counselor employed by Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare is imbedded at CAP for onsite mental health counseling. The County’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness (2008-2018) registers five HOPWA-eligible units in the county. People with HIV/AIDS need to be homeless or at risk of homelessness to qualify for these units.

In terms of housing for those homeless with HIV/AIDS, the housing inventory completed as a part of the 2013 point-in-time homeless count, there are 449 beds for singles and families available in permanent supportive housing, sponsored by a combination of CAP, LifeWorks NW, Luke-Dorf, and Sequoia Mental Health Services and provided, in part, through Shelter Plus Care tenant-based rental assistance. CAP sponsors 30 permanent supportive housing units in Washington County and 1 Rapid Re-housing unit.

While there may be some redundancy between the different sources of housing and assistance information, it can be estimated that there is a supply of about 31 units/beds in Washington County. Because PHB estimates about half of all persons living with AIDS are in danger of becoming homeless, there is a potential demand of approximately 250 beds or units, which leaves a need of around 220 beds or units. As with other groups, low- and moderate-income people with HIV/AIDS who cannot access targeted housing assistance must compete on the open market for affordable housing units. They also face the additional challenge of finding units in close proximity to where medical and other needed services are provided.9

LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS Lead-based paint presents potential health hazards, particularly to small children. State policy requires these hazards to be removed in housing units occupied by children under 6. Homeowners and landlords face liability issues associated with these requirements and risks. Some landlords may address these issues by refusing to rent to families with small children even though this practice raises housing discrimination issues.

The Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that blood lead levels of 10 micrograms or above can cause health problems in children, including lower intelligence, behavior problems and problems with blood vessels, blood pressure, the liver and kidneys. The most common cause of high blood lead levels in children is from lead dust in the home.

Because funding for lead poisoning and prevention programs at the Oregon Department of Human Services was cut in July 2013, ODHS staff is completely unable to fulfill requests for recent data on lead poisoning in Washington County. As a result, all data pertaining to lead poisoning comes from the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan. Data from that Consolidated Plan show that from 2000 to 2007, there were 104,889 blood lead tests conducted in Oregon. Of that amount, almost 4.5%, or 4,732 tests, have been conducted on Washington County residents over that seven year period. In 2007, 902 tests were conducted. During that year, the results showed that six people (less than one percent) had blood lead levels consistent with lead poisoning, and four of those six were children under the age of six. Thirty-one people had elevated blood levels. A normal reading of the level of blood would be between 2-3 micrograms, a level as high as 10 micrograms would indicate lead poisoning and according to the Department, a reading of higher than 10 warrants some kind of action or follow-up. In general, this indicates a very low percentage of residents who tested positively for lead poisoning (approximately 0.7% of those tested).

In looking at the results of lead based paint test by age, 818 tests were conducted on children aged 0–5 years. Of that amount, four tests reflected levels at 10 micrograms and over. In general, this indicates a very low percentage of residents who tested positively for lead poisoning (approximately 0.7% of those tested).

9 Amanda Hurley, Housing Director Cascade AIDS Project, email, January 31, 2014

Lead-based paint hazards generally are correlated with the age of housing units and their condition. Typically, homes constructed before 1978 have the highest potential for lead-based paint hazards. Based on data from the 2008-2012 ACS, there are approximately 87,000 housing units that were constructed before 1978. While no data is available to determine which units still have lead-based paint hazards, data from the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan indicated that in the year 2000, an estimated 11% of all owner-occupied housing (estimated 11,795 units) and 9% of all rental housing (estimated 5,829 units) may have had lead-based paint hazards. Extremely low-, low- and moderate-income families represent about 47% percent of renters and 18% percent of homeowners. Assuming that these households are relatively evenly distributed among housing units of different ages, it is estimated that approximately 2,603 extremely low-, low- and moderate-income renter households and 2,017 extremely low- low- and moderate-income homeowner households are exposed to lead based paint hazards.

TABLE ### Blood Level Test Results, Washington County (2007)

Blood Levels in Micrograms

BLL <5 BLL 5-9 BLL 10+ TOTAL

Blood Levels by Age

0-5 Years 785 29 4 818

6+ Years 80 2 2 84

SOURCE: ODHS, Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology

TABLE ### Age of Existing Housing Stock, Washington County (2012) Number Percent

Built 2010 or later 637 0.3%

Built 2000 to 2009 38,263 18.0%

Built 1990 to 1999 53,472 25.2%

Built 1980 to 1989 32,999 15.5%

Built 1970 to 1979 44,001 20.7%

Built 1960 to 1969 21,370 10.1%

Built 1950 to 1959 10,144 4.8%

Built 1940 to 1949 5,413 2.5%

Built 1939 or earlier 6,087 2.9%

Total housing units 212,386 100.0%

SOURCE: 2008-2012 ACS

V. Homelessness

Since 2003, HUD has required continuums across the country to report the number of people who are homeless at a particular time of the year (in the last seven days of January). The annual homeless count facilitates the need for continuums to collect data and report on the number of homeless. The point-in-time homeless count for Washington County was held from January 22 – 30, 2013. The survey accounts for those who were staying in shelters, those who were camping or were otherwise staying in places other than shelters and those who were in other homeless situations, such as people who are “doubled-up.” Table #### shows the 2013 count.

TABLE ### Point-In-Time Homeless Count, Washington County (2013) Total Individuals Number Percent

Sheltered (Transitional, Emergency, Safe Haven) 200 17.3%

Literally Homeless (street, place not meant for habitation) 232 20.1%

Other Homeless Situations (i.e. doubled up) 721 62.5%

Total 1,153 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services, 2013 Point in Time Homeless Count

For the 2013 count, the vast majority of people counted were sharing housing with other people—“doubled-up.” This category is an expanded version of the federal definition of homelessness, and is defined as people sharing other persons’ housing due to loss of housing, economic hardship, personal safety, or facing impending eviction from a private dwelling unit and have not found a subsequent residence and resources needed to obtain housing. Given that the total number of homeless is inevitably underrepresented in this count – it is practically impossible to find and account for every person who is homeless – it is assumed that the number of homeless people going without shelter is even greater than the number captured in the point-in-time count. Moreover, not everyone who is homeless seeks shelter for reasons including shelter requirements and restrictions and the threat – or perceived threat – of conflict or theft among those staying in shelters.

For those who do seek shelter and housing, several types are available: emergency shelter, safe haven shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing. Emergency shelters may allow people to stay up to six weeks before requiring them to seek shelter elsewhere. Safe haven beds are established for “chronic” homeless individuals, but not for families or youth. Chronic homeless are people who have been homeless for more than one years or had four or more episodes of homelessness in the past three years. Permanent housing refers to supportive housing for those who are homeless and have special service needs.19 The number of each type of shelter and housing units available in Washington County is presented in Table ####.

TABLE ### Number of Beds Available Year Round for People Who Are Homeless, Washington County (2013) Type Beds Notes

Emergency

Individuals 3 These beds are for domestic violence survivors only

Families 93 4 beds are for children only

Subtotal 96

Safe Haven

Individuals 10 One site only

Families 0

Subtotal 10

Transitional

Individuals 107

Families 34

Subtotal 141

Permanent Supportive

Individuals 260

Families 189

Subtotal 449

Rapid Re-Housing

Individuals 20

Families 95

Subtotal 115

TOTAL 811

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

As documented in the 2013 Continuum of Care application, there are plans to increase the number of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) beds dedicated to chronically homeless through new development and bed turnovers. This includes prioritizing 32 beds in the Shelter Plus Care program to serve chronic homeless households, 30 new beds for the Housing TEAM Program using Section 8 Project-based Rent Assistance (PRA) in partnership with the Luke-Dorf, Inc., and the Housing Authority of Washington County 15 new beds through Veteran Administration Services Housing (VASH) vouchers awarded to the Housing Authority of Washington County that will be prioritized to serve chronic homeless households.

The Safe Haven beds were established in March 2007 by Luke-Dorf, Inc., and seven emergency shelter beds were also added in March 2007 for youth (14–17 years old) through the Boys and Girls Aid Society’s Safe Place Shelter program.

Transitional and permanent supportive housing provide the most significant sources of shelter and housing in the county. Although the inventory of emergency shelter beds has expanded in the last few years, there are still no emergency shelter facilities for adult individuals; facilities are dedicated solely to families, youth, and survivors of domestic violence.

Homeless families and individuals who find a shortage of shelter or housing and other services in Washington County may end up seeking these resources elsewhere. While there is no readily available data about people in this circumstance, anecdotal information indicates that the homeless in Washington County frequently use shelter and other services in Portland where more services and facilities are available. However, transit and travel between locations can discourage this. People who are homeless in Washington County also rely on other means, such as staying temporarily with friends and family or camping in their vehicles, on the streets, or in parks and other undeveloped places.

CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS The primary causes of homelessness in Washington County have to do with the ability to pay for housing. As shown in Table ###, the top two reasons for homeless are unemployment and unaffordable rent. Along with the personal issues of addiction and mental illness, which can compromise a person’s ability to work steadily or put aside money for housing, these causes account for over half of the cases of homelessness documented in the last one-night count for Washington County.

TABLE ### Causes of Homelessness, Washington County (2013) Cause TOTAL %

Couldn't Afford Rent 433 20.2%

Unemployment 397 18.5%

Drug/Alcohol Self 201 9.4%

Kicked Out by Family/Friends 197 9.2%

Criminal History 178 8.3%

Eviction 115 5.4%

Mental/Emotional Disorder 108 5.0%

DV 90 4.2%

By Choice 85 4.0%

Other Reason 81 3.8%

Drug/Alcohol at Home 74 3.4%

Medical Problem 46 2.1%

Credit 40 1.9%

Poor Rental History 26 1.2%

Child Abuse 25 1.2%

Gambling 14 0.7%

Foreclosure 14 0.7%

Pregnancy 9 0.4%

Runaway 8 0.4%

Property sold 6 0.3%

Manufactured Home Park Closure 1 0.0%

TOTAL 2,148 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services, 2013 Point in Time Homeless Count

There are typically multiple and compounding causes of homelessness. This is demonstrated in Table 3-50, as the total count of causes (2,253) is almost two times greater than the homeless population counted (1,153). As compared to the 2008 count addressed in the last Consolidated Plan, however, violence in the home is less of a leading cause of homelessness than it reportedly was during previous years.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOMELESS The One-Night Count also provides valuable demographic information about those who are experiencing homelessness. In terms of gender, more of the homeless population is male than female - about 56% male versus 43% female (the remaining is of an unknown gender). As for age, the population is almost split into two-thirds adults (66.6%) and about one-third children (31.3%); the age of about 2.1% of the homeless population counted is unknown. The 2013 count mirrors many of the trends those found in 2008, almost to a T. Table ### provides more specific information about age and gender.

TABLE ### Gender of Homeless Persons, Washington County (2013) Sheltered and Unsheltered

All Sheltered

Percent All Unsheltered

Percent Grand Total

Percent

Male 120 60.0% 522 54.8% 642 55.7%

Female 80 40.0% 413 43.3% 493 42.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% 18 1.9% 18 1.6%

Total 200 100.0% 953 100.0% 1,153 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services, 2013 Point in Time Homeless Count

TABLE ### Age of Homeless Persons, Washington County (2013) Age All

Sheltered Percent All

Unsheltered Percent Grand Total Percent

0-5 16 8.0% 52 5.5% 68 5.9%

6-11 19 9.5% 144 15.1% 163 14.1%

12-17 14 7.0% 116 12.2% 130 11.3%

18-23 24 12.0% 105 11.0% 129 11.2%

24-44 57 28.5% 124 13.0% 386 33.5%

45-54 42 21.0% 124 13.0% 166 14.4%

55-69 26 13.0% 58 6.1% 84 7.3%

70+ 2 1.0% 1 0.1% 3 0.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% 24 2.5% 24 2.1%

TOTAL 200 100.0% 953 100.0% 1,153 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services, 2013 Point in Time Homeless Count

More dramatic statistics are provided by school districts in Washington County. Data compiled by the districts show that over five times as many students were homeless as the number of school-age children identified in the 2013 one-night count. The students are concentrated in the more urban Beaverton and Hillsboro School Districts.

TABLE ### Homeless Student Enrollment, Washington County (2012-2013) 2012-2013 Student Homeless Count by District

District Homeless # Homeless % Total Student Enrollment

Banks SD 13 * * 1,128

Beaverton SD 48J 1,373 3.48% 39,488

Forest Grove SD 15 101 1.71% 5,921

Gaston SD 511J 12 2.48% 438

Hillsboro SD 1J 320 1.53% 20,903

Sherwood SD 88J 80 1.59% 5,018

Tigard-Tualatin SD 23J 202 1.60% 12,641

*Counts from 1-5 have been suppressed with an asterisk to protect student privacy

SOURCE: Oregon Department of Education

Almost two-thirds of the homeless population counted was White, which was to be expected given the predominance of the White population in the county. However, compared to percentages found in the last census, Latino, Black/African American, and Native American populations were over-represented in the homeless population.

TABLE ### Ethnicity of Homeless People, Washington County (2013) Ethnicity All

Sheltered Percent All

Unsheltered Percent Grand

Total Percent

Hispanic 10 5.0% 238 25.0% 248 21.5%

Non-Hispanic 190 95.0% 715 75.0% 905 78.5%

Total 200 100.0% 953 100.0% 1,153 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services, 2013 Point in Time Homeless Count

TABLE ### Race of Homeless People, Washington County (2013) Race All

Sheltered Percent All

Unsheltered Percent Grand

Total Percent

Am. Indian/AK Native 1 0.5% 29 3.0% 30 2.6%

Asian 2 1.0% 15 1.6% 17 1.5%

Black/AfAm 18 9.0% 24 2.5% 42 3.6%

Native HI/Other Pac Is 3 1.5% 10 1.0% 13 1.1%

White 160 80.0% 700 73.5% 860 74.6%

Mixed 8 4.0% 20 2.1% 28 2.4%

Other 5 2.5% 8 0.8% 13 1.1%

Unknown 3 1.5% 147 15.4% 150 13.0%

Total 200 100.0% 953 100.0% 1,153 100.0%

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services, 2013 Point in Time Homeless Count

UNMET HOUSING NEEDS FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES Washington County submitted its application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a “Continuum of Care” grant of $2,466,564, and in August 2013, was awarded $2,351,081. The grant funding will be used to increase the housing available for homeless individuals and families with children. The grant application included the following estimates of unmet housing needs for the homeless according to housing type and for homeless with special needs. As indicated in other parts of this report, these estimates likely represent the lower limit of the need, as it is highly challenging to get a count of the full homeless population and its needs.

TABLE ### Emergency Shelter for Homeless Persons in Washington County (2013)

Organization Name Program Name Family Beds Individual Beds

Beds for Children Only

Total Beds

Boys and Girls Aid SafePlace Youth Shelter

0 0 4 4

Community Action Hillsboro Family Shelter

20 0 0 20

Domestic Violence Resource Center (DVRC)

Monika's House 21 3 0 24

Family Bridge/Interfaith Hospitality Network

Family Bridge Shelter

12 0 0 12

Good Neighbor Center Good Neighbor Center

36 0 0 36

Total 96

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

TABLE ### Save Haven Housing for Homeless Persons in Washington County (2013)

Organization Name

Program Name Family Beds Individual Beds

Beds for Children Only

Total Beds

Luke-Dorf, Inc. Garrett Lee Smith Safe Haven House

10 0 0 10

Total 10

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

TABLE ### Transitional Housing for Homeless Persons in Washington County (2013)

Organization Name Program Name Family Beds

Individual Beds

Beds for Children

Only

Total Beds

Boys and Girls Aid Transitional Living Program 0 5 0 5

Boys and Girls Aid Transitional Living Program 4 5 0 9

Jubilee Transition Homes

Jubilee Transitional Housing 0 6 0 6

LifeWorks NW Fredrick House 0 5 0 5

Project Bloom Project Bloom Housing Program 4 3 0 7

Sequoia Mental Health Services Inc. 6th Street Interim House 0 5 0 5

The Salvation Army Veterans & Families Center 14 66 0 80

Washington County Department of Housing Services

Homeless To Work Transitional Housing Program 0 12 0 12

Washington County Department of Housing Services

Transitional Housing three single-family residential homes in Aloha 12 0 0 12

Total 141 SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

TABLE ### Permanent Supportive Housing for Homeless Persons in Washington County (2013)

Organization Name Program Name Family Beds Individual Beds

Beds for Children

Only Total Beds

Cascade AIDS Project Scattered site units 14 16 0 30

Community Action Bridges To Housing 25 0 0 25

Community Action Bridges To Housing 5 0 0 5

Community Action Scattered site units 28 4 0 32 Good Neighbor Center Scattered site units 38 0 0 38

Housing Authority of Washington County The Knoll 0 12 0 12

Housing Authority of Washington County

VASH - Veterans Affairs Permanent Supportive Housing Program 40 14 0 54

Housing Independence Scattered site units 0 4 0 4

LifeWorks NW Tom Brewer House 2 20 0 22

Luke-Dorf Inc. Hillsboro Graduated Independent Living 0 14 0 14

Luke-Dorf Inc. Housing TEAM Program 0 20 0 20 Luke-Dorf Inc. Housing TEAM Program 0 15 0 15

Open Door Counseling Center Scattered site units 2 9 0 11

Sequoia Mental Health Services Inc. Tri-Haven Room and Board 0 12 0 12

Washington County Department of Housing Services Mental Health Consortium 35 120 0 155 449 SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

TABLE ### Rapid Re-housing for Homeless Persons in Washington County (2013)

Organization Name Program Name Family Beds

Individual Beds

Beds for Children

Only

Total Beds

Cascade AIDS Project Scattered site housing 0 1 0 1

Community Action Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Rapid Re-housing Program 20 8 0 28

Community Action

Rent Assistance Program. Scattered-site floating inventory units. 7 2 0 9

Community Action

Supportive Services for Veterans Families (SSVF) Housing Program 8 9 0 17

Good Neighbor Center Housing Stabilization Program at Housing Authority properties. 24 0 0 24

Lutheran Community Services NW HopeSpring Housing Program 36 0 0 36 TOTAL 115 SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

HOMELESS NEEDS AND DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICES The homeless in Washington County can be found throughout the county. There are an unknown number of camps and temporary sleeping areas in undeveloped parts of the county. Existing emergency shelters serve families and youth, but not single adults. Some of the homeless in eastern parts of Washington County find it easier to access services and facilities in Portland and Multnomah County.

The data in Table ### suggests that there is a need for approximately 136 beds or units for the homeless in Washington County. However, this should be considered the lower limit of the need because there were homeless that were not found to be counted. Data from the Department of Housing Services suggest that emergency shelter was not found to be the greatest of the County’s housing needs for the homeless; the county was in much greater need of transitional and permanent supportive housing.

TABLE ### Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless Persons in Washington County (2013)

Housing Type Family Beds Individual Beds Children Only Beds Total

Emergency Shelter (50) 17 (1) -34

Transitional Housing 24 11 (4) 31

Permanent Supportive Housing 32 107 0 139

Total 6 135 (5) 136

SOURCE: Washington County Department of Housing Services

VI. Barriers to Affordable Housing

The following barriers to affordable housing exist in Washington County:

Tier 1 Barriers: Barriers that Washington County is Unable to Address Locally

Inadequate federal funding for affordable housing: Affordable housing is a program that only serves a portion of those eligible to receive is benefits. Thus, it is not an entitlement program like food stamps, where sufficient resources are allocated to serve all qualified households.

SDC waiver programs: If a local jurisdiction does not have the ability to backfill this program with other funds to support this program, then they are unable to participate at all.

Regulatory barriers to design and implement homebuyer programs vary based on the appetite of federal programs to do so.

Conservative investment criteria for LIHTC investors: Increasingly, LIHTC investors will only invest in projects where the General Partner has a very large asset base. This negatively affects housing developers in Washington County.

Lack of alternatives to LIHTC program: The LIHTC program has become the major source of funding for affordable housing development nationally. The lack of large-scale alternatives to this program has meant that the development of new affordable housing has been significantly affected by the first two barriers described above.

State law prohibits inclusionary zoning: Inclusionary zoning has been a powerful tool for creating affordable housing in other states. Despite efforts by housing advocates to remove the state ban on inclusionary zoning, it remains in place.

Federal programs not in alignment: The rules that govern various federal programs are not always in alignment, making it difficult to serve the complex needs of individuals and families in a holistic way. The classic example is the divide between Medicaid policies and procedures and HUD policies and programs that makes it difficult to produce housing with services for medically needy populations. Medicaid has different income and other eligibility criteria, counts “beds” and not housing units, and only provides for long term care for a limited number of nursing-home eligible residents if the state has requested a waiver from standard policy. This lack of alignment makes it difficult to develop housing with services for very vulnerable populations such as frail elders.

Tier 2 Barriers: Barriers that Washington County Could Affect Locally

Multiple reporting requirements: Affordable housing typically involves multiple funding sources, each with their own reporting requirements. Addressing the duplicative reporting and inspection requirements of these funders adds to property and asset management costs.

Vulnerability of community development corporations to financial instability in a recessionary market with high unemployment: Residents in affordable housing complexes are often among the first to lose their jobs in recessionary times. This not only destabilizes families, but also impacts their ability to pay rent. This affects the cash flow needed to keep community development corporations solvent, and it adds to the likely wear and tear on units. In addition, private and foundation resources to support the operations of non-profits decreased dramatically from 2005 to 2010, resulting in additional financial stress on local Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) and other housing providers.

Difficulty of providing service-enriched housing: The funding available to support services fluctuates on an annual basis, depending on allocations from government sources, the availability of foundation grants and the success of fundraising efforts. This affects the ability of housing providers to provide a reliable array of services to assist residents with staying housed and succeeding in their endeavors.

Multiple jurisdictions, multiple development pathways: Each city in Washington County has its own planning and permit processes and standards. This creates the need for a steep learning curve and the likelihood of incurring additional time and expense for non-profit housing providers who develop housing in more than one jurisdiction.

Affordable housing as a priority: Affordable housing advocates would like affordable housing to be a higher priority concern in Washington County and its cities.

Land cost: While the recession and housing bubble has stabilized the cost of land for a while, the relatively high cost of land, especially land in the most desirable and resource-rich areas, remains an impediment to cost-effective affordable housing development in Washington County.

Density bonus not necessarily a tool for developers because they’re already building things dense enough

Nothing to spur homeownership, such as community land trusts

Tax exemption in unincorporated WACO, Beaverton and Tigard for non-profit AH developers. Other jurisdictions do not, not widespread otherwise.

The County’s strategies to address Tier 2 barriers appear in Chapter 6, Strategic Plan