North Carolina's consolidated plan

              Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1- 11

Introduction 12- 13

Partners 14- 15

Consultations 16- 18

Public Participation 19- 20

State Profile

Demographics 21- 30

Housing Market Analysis 31- 41

Homelessness Statistics 42- 58

Special Needs Statistics 59- 62

Economy 63- 76

Barriers to Affordable Housing 77- 82

Analysis of Impediments 83- 85

Needs Assessment

Housing Needs 86- 92

Homeless Needs 93- 96

Special Needs Needs 97- 102

Community Development Needs 103- 110

Strategies

Housing Strategy 111- 137

Community Development Strategy 138- 142

Fair Housing Plan 143- 144

Anti- Poverty Strategy 145

Other Information

Institutional Structure 146- 148

Coordination 149

Monitoring Standards 150- 152

Appendices

A: Public Workshop Results 153- 170

B: Response to Public Comments 171- 174

C: Community Development 175

Partners Recommendations

D: Other Funding Opportunities 176- 185

E: Contacts 186- 2 00

F: Abbreviations 201- 202

G: Definitions 203- 211

H: Certifications 212

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

1

Executive Summary

There is no question that North Carolina is one of the most prosperous and rapidly growing states

in the country. Drawn to the state’s urban centers because of their economic promise, people

from all over the country are flocking to the state. Yet, there are people in this state that are not

benefiting from the economic boom. Housing for the poor is inadequate or not available. There

is a 10 billion dollar shortfall for water/ sewer improvements. Unemployment rates still hover

above 10% in some regions of the state. Beyond stating the “ lack of” goods and services for low

to moderate income people, the state must determine why these needs are not being met and

what the state must do to overcome these obstacles to provide adequate and affordable housing,

better neighborhoods, and employment opportunities to people who need them the most. In

order to determine those needs, the state agencies that receive federal dollars from HUD for

housing and community development purposes have developed a Five Year Consolidated Plan in

which the state’s housing and community development needs are described and strategies are

presented to help address those needs over the next five years. The following is an executive

summary of those findings and plans.

Demographics

· The population of the state was estimated to be 7.6 million as of 1999.

· Of the state’s 2.5 million households, just over one half live in the Piedmont, a third in

the East, and the remaining 15% in the West.

· In 1990 the census reported that about 75% of the state’s population was white, and 22%

of it was black, with the remaining 3% composed of Hispanic, Native American, Asians

and other races. It is believed that the percentage of Hispanics and Asians has increased

significantly since that time, but accurate numbers from the 2000 Census will not be

available for another year and a half.

· Over half of the households ( 57%) are small, consisting of one or two persons, and only a

small proportion ( 3%) have 6 or more members.

· Births by teenage mothers in North Carolina accounted for 14.3% of the total births in 1997,

ranking that the 14th highest in the nation.

· Over 554,269 domestic immigrants moved into the state between 1990 and 1999, which

ranked 5th highest in the country

· In 1990 a little less than half of the state’s population, 3,293,067 people, lived in what is

considered the rural region of the state, ranking North Carolina 6th in the nation

· The median age for North Carolinians in 1999 was 35.5 compared to 33.0 in 1990.

· 70% of people in North Carolina above the age of 25 had attained a high school degree in

1990, compared to only 55% who had attained a high school degree in 1980.

· In 1990, single parents headed approximately 15 percent of all households; in 1980, that

number was just above 9 percent.

· By 2005 the state’s total population is projected to be 8.2 million and over 9.3 million by

2025.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

2

Housing

Statistics

· There were 2,931,474 year- round housing units in North Carolina as of 1990. Of these,

888,558 ( 30%) were rental units and 1,741,749 ( 59%) were owner occupied units.

· According to building permit data statewide, a total of 761,450 housing units or 26

percent were built since 1990. Mobile homes represented 28% of the total number of

new housing units added between 1991 and 1998.

· Among the fifty states, North Carolina had the 6th highest percent increase in total

housing units for the same time period.

· North Carolina had the 13th highest percent increase in total households among the fifty

states from 1990 to 1998. Such a disparity between the ratio of new households to new

housing units can be accounted for by overbuilding and the increase in second home

purchases.

· Approximately 78% of the state’s new privately owned housing units were constructed in

MSAs in 1999.

· In 1999, North Carolina had a homeownership vacancy rate of 1.9% and a rental vacancy

rate of 10.8%

· In 1999, the homeownership rate in North Carolina was 71.1%, while the national rate

was 66.8 percent.

· In 1990, the statewide home ownership rate for white households was 72.9 percent, 66.3

percent for Native Americans, 49.6 percent among African American households, 48.1

percent for Asians and 41.7 percent for Hispanic households.

· In 2000 the fair market rent for a two- bedroom unit in North Carolina was $ 528 per

month.

· In 1999 40% of renters in the state could not afford the Fair Market Rent ( FMR) for a

two- bedroom unit. A worker earning the minimum wage ($ 5.15 per hour) has to work 79

hours per week to afford a two- bedroom unit at the FMR.

· The average cost of a home in selected housing markets in the state in 1999 was

$ 141,014.

· The average cost of a home for all market areas was 3.03 times the estimated median

family income for North Carolina in 1999.

· Lead poisoning is one of the primary environmental health hazards facing children. An

estimated 245,200 renter households, and 539,300 owner households live in housing with

lead- based paint present.

Needs

There are three dimensions to housing need measured by the Census: physical quality,

overcrowding, and affordability. Under the measures quantified by the 1990 Census, 38% of all

renters, and 20% of all owners in North Carolina suffer some degree of housing need, whether it

be the high costs of housing, overcrowding in units, structural problems, or lead based paint

problems. The percentage of households with housing problems also varies by race. The

percentage of minorities who had housing problems was considerably higher than their white

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

3

counterparts in every tenure type and income group. As for household type, large family

households had the highest percentage of housing problems compared to the elderly and small

family households.

In 1990, a relatively large 67 percent of renters in the 0- 30 percent income category paid more

than 30% of income for rent, while 63 percent of those in the 31- 50 percent income category

paid more than 30% of their income for rent. Among owners, 64 percent in the 0- 30 percent

income category paid 30 percent or more for owner costs. Any household paying more than 30

percent of its income for housing costs is considered having a cost burden.

In 1990, only about 6 percent of all renter households in the 0- 30 and 31- 50 income categories,

were overcrowded. The percentage of overcrowded owner households actually increased from

1.8 percent for the 0- 30 percent income category to 2.9 percent for the 51- 80 percent income

category, so overcrowding is not necessarily a result of lower incomes. Among the regions, the

Coastal region had the highest percentage of both renter and owner households that were

overcrowded.

Unfortunately, the measures of the physical quality of housing units available in the Census

include only whether units lack complete kitchen facilities and/ or complete plumbing facilities;

therefore, the Census is unable to provide an accurate account of the physical state of housing

units in North Carolina. A better indicator of the physical quality of housing is the age of a

housing unit; older houses tend to be more susceptible to faulty wiring, leaking roofs, and holes

in the walls. In the year 2000, 21% of the housing stock ( or 529,904 units) is estimated to be

between 40 and 60 years old. These units are likely to represent the majority of the housing in

the state that will require some rehabilitation.

Lead poisoning due to lead based products in older buildings is the leading environmentally

caused pediatric health problem today, especially among young children. 4.4% of U. S. children

are estimated to have potentially toxic levels of lead exposure ( CDC, 1997). The good news is

that lead poisoning is entirely preventable if the necessary steps are taken. One preventable

measure that relates to housing is the identification and removal of lead based products in

buildings that children could have prolonged exposure or higher exposure levels to lead, which

include the homes in which they reside or facilities that are used by them during the day ( i. e. day

care or recreation centers). Lead- safe housing is the primary means of preventing lead poisoning

among young children. The primary treatment for lead poisoning is removal from exposure to

lead which usually requires relocation of an entire family to temporary housing while abatement

is completed or to a permanent, lead- free residence when abatement is not feasible. Public

awareness and education campaigns are also needed to inform the general public about the

dangers of lead and to encourage them to contact the proper authorities if they believe a building

is contaminated so that the problem can be remedied.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

4

State Housing Priorities and Strategies to Meet those Needs

High Priority Need

· Assist Existing Home Owners 0- 30% of MFI

· Assist Families and Individuals Displaced by Disaster 0- 30% and 31- 50% of MFI

· Assist Homeless Families and Individuals

· Assist Non- Homeless Persons with Special Needs 0- 30% and 31- 50% of MFI

· Assist Renters 0- 30% and 31- 50% of MFI

Medium Priority Need

· Assist Existing Home Owners 31- 50% of MFI

· Assist Families and Individuals Displaced by Disaster 51- 80%

· Assist Non- Homeless Persons with Special Needs 51- 80% of MFI

· Assist Renters 51- 80% of MFI

Low Priority Need

· Assist Existing Home Owners 51- 80% of MFI

The primary activity that will be used to assist renters with incomes up to 50% of median family

income is new construction. New construction is the primary activity to meet the needs of

renters 0- 50% of Median Family Income because it adds units to the inventory on a long- term

basis, unlike rental assistance. In addition, rental assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation, and

providing support facilities and services are other activities that will be utilized. Rental

assistance and other operating subsidies are the best approaches to serve households of 0- 30% of

Median Family Income. Rehabilitation of rental housing ( without acquisition) is a secondary

activity; while it can be a cost- effective approach, it lacks the range of financing tools ( e. g., tax

credits) available to rental production and it presents more monitoring and compliance problems.

Renters that are 61- 80% of Median Family Income are generally assisted through market rate

rental housing and first time homebuyer programs. Helping renters become first- time

homebuyers accomplishes several public purposes. First, it directly helps the households

assisted, giving them more control over their living environment and their lives and helping them

develop equity ( wealth). Home ownership can also help people become more involved with

their community, helping to build stronger neighborhoods and communities. Finally, home

ownership indirectly benefits other low- income renters by freeing up rental units, which is

particularly helpful in high- cost rental markets and those with low vacancy rates. Also, support

services, such as homebuyer education and pre- purchase counseling, are important for first time

home buyers because it gives them the necessary skills to keep and maintain their homes.

Increasing incomes or lowering debt service and operating costs ( utilities, taxes, insurance, and

maintenance) are the potential ways to help very low- income homeowners with high cost

burdens. Currently, the main tools to address very low- income homeowners are loans and grants

for housing rehabilitation. Home improvements, particularly energy improvements, can also

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

5

lower operating costs for homeowners. Therefore, rehabilitation of appropriate homes can be a

cost- effective way to help the homeowner while maintaining the State’s supply of affordable

housing. Secondary activities include property tax relief and homeowner counseling programs,

which should address predatory lending. For the elderly, reverse mortgages can be a particularly

useful tool. Reverse mortgages can provide elderly with additional income for both regular

expenses and unexpected costs ( e. g., medical expenses).

Homeless

Statistics

· From July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999, 121 ESG- funded facilities for the homeless in 54

counties served over 43,000 persons.

· Of the over 43,000 homeless persons served, approximately 37% were adult single males

age 18 and over, 17% were adult single females age 18 and over and 29% were children

below 18 years of age.

· African- Americans comprised 57% ( 24,611) of those served and Whites comprised 35%

( 15,089) of total persons served. Almost five percent of persons served ( 1,943) were

Hispanic. Native Americans served totaled 664 ( 1.5%) and Asians served totaled 282 or

less than one percent. Other races comprised approximately 1% of those persons served.

· The 121 ESG- funded facilities reported serving 6,289 families.

· Of the 7,158 adults in these families, 88% ( 6,607) were females between the ages of 18

and 55.

· A total of 11,008 children in families were served by the 121 ESG- funded facilities.

Seventy- four percent of these children were between the ages of 1 and 12 years. Over

half of the children in ESGP- funded shelters are under the age of five.

· Homelessness is not just an urban problem, many people in North Carolina experience

homelessness and housing distress in small towns and rural areas.

· National studies comparing urban and rural homeless populations have shown that

homeless people in rural areas are more likely to be white, female, single mothers,

currently working, but homeless for the first time

· Emergency Shelter Grantees in North Carolina stated that 2,302 individuals self- reported

mental illness as the primary cause of their homelessness in 1999.

· Emergency Shelter Grantees in North Carolina stated that 8,256 individuals self- reported

either alcohol or drug abuse as the primary cause of their homelessness in 1999.

· The AIDS Care Branch of the N. C. Department of Health and Human Services has

estimated that at least 6,600 of the estimated 20,000 persons living with HIV in the State

are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

· Twenty- seven percent or over 11,000 of the persons served by 121 ESG grantees in the

state from July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999 reported domestic violence and/ or sexual assault

as the primary cause of their homelessness.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

6

Needs

Homelessness must be acknowledged if it is to be effectively addressed and eliminated.

Historically, the State of North Carolina has placed a low priority on addressing the needs of

today’s homeless population and preventing other families and individuals from becoming

homeless. Currently, there are only two programs administered by the State specific to homeless

people – the HUD- funded Emergency Shelter Grant ( ESG) Program and the Emergency Shelter

Rehabilitation ( ESR) Program funded through the NC Housing Trust Fund.

From July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999, over 43,000 homeless persons in the State were provided

shelter and services by 121 ESG funded organizations in 54 counties. Of these persons, 54%

were single individuals and 46% were in families. Of the over 6,000 families served during this

period, the overwhelming majority were headed by females. Of the 11,000 children served, 74%

were below the age of 12.

There are many causes of homelessness in North Carolina including poverty, alcohol and/ or

substance abuse, mental illness and lack of appropriate support systems, but the sole common

characteristic of homeless people is that they do not have housing. If homelessness is to end in

our state, more affordable permanent and rental housing with accompanying rental assistance

must be made available to poor and extremely low- income people. Moreover, funding for

additional emergency and transitional housing with essential supportive services is also needed

in order to move people off the streets. Finally, we must dedicate additional resources to

preventing homelessness, since it is far more cost effective to prevent homelessness rather than

helping people recover from it.

State Strategies to Meet those Needs

Development of affordable housing units, in tandem with the provision of rental assistance to

homeless individuals and families, are the primary activities that must be used to assist the

homeless. Rental assistance is emphasized because it is the quickest and most cost- effective

approach to moving people off of the streets and out of shelters into transitional or permanent

housing with supportive services. Additionally, additional resources are needed to prevent

homelessness, since it is far more cost effective to prevent homelessness rather than helping

people recover from homelessness.

Special Needs

Statistics

· The HIV/ STD and Prevention and Care Branch received a total of 19,056 NC HIV

disease reports from the early 1980’ s through December 31, 1999.

· Since the early eighties, it also has been reported that 6,276 persons have died as a result

of HIV/ AIDS, which leads most experts to believe that at least 12,780 persons are

currently living with HIV. Some experts agree that the number is grossly underestimated

and that 17,000 people are living with HIV/ AIDS in North Carolina

· The number of new HIV disease reports per year has been relatively stable since 1994.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

7

· Nationally, HIV disproportionately affects minority groups, especially African

Americans, whose the rate of the disease ( 65.1/ 100,000) is almost 10 times that of whites

( 6.8/ 100,000). The case rate for Hispanics and American Indians is almost 3 times that of

whites.

· There are approximately 57,000 adult recipients of federal Supplemental Social Security

Income who have a mental illness or mental retardation diagnosis.

· There are approximately 9,237 persons with disabilities drawing North Carolina State-

County Special Assistance, only available to adult care home residents.

· Approximately 1.76% of the population has severe and persistent mental illness. When

applied to 1998 population estimates from the Office of State Planning, 132,862 North

Carolinians are believed to have severe and persistent mental illness.

· Based on a National Institute of Health Statistics survey of people, 80,000 North

Carolinians have physical disabilities.

· The North Carolina Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and

Substance Abuse Services reports that just fewer than 4,000 developmentally disabled

persons ( 3,000 adults and 1,000 children) are in need of residential services.

· The elderly is the fastest growing age cohort in North Carolina. Today the elderly

account for 12.5% of the population in North Carolina, by 2025 they will account for

21.4%.

· There are 673 subsidized housing projects exclusively for the elderly in North Carolina.

· There are currently 373 nursing homes in North Carolina, with a total of 39,674 beds.

· There are 116 certified Adult Day Care and Adult Day Health Programs in North

Carolina, containing 3294 certified slots; and 47 Continuing Care Retirement

Communities across North Carolina.

· With 19.5 percent of North Carolina's older adults living at or below the poverty level in

1999, maintaining housing is difficult for frail older adults.

· Elderly owners and renters indicate that 11,913 homes lack complete plumbing facilities.

Needs

Housing needs for persons afflicted with AIDS/ HIV may vary by what stage of the disease a

person is in. A person who is the early stages of the disease may just need an affordable single

family residence or an apartment; whereas, persons in the last stage of the disease may have

more expansive housing needs that include home health care, personal care, placement in a

family care home, and a variety of other supportive services. Such services include health care

and mental health services, chemical dependency treatment, nutritional services, case

management, assistance with daily living, housing information and other activities.

The North Carolina Division of Mental health, Development Disabilities, and Substance Abuse

Services ( MH/ DD/ SAS) estimates that 8,400 people with mental illness are in need of housing.

The housing needs of persons with severe mental illness range on the continuum of housing

types. Transitional housing is needed to provide individuals the opportunity to develop the skills

to move from both institutional living and homelessness. Because a majority of the mentally ill

are disabled and live on modest Social Security disability incomes, a far greater number need

rental assistance subsidies. Some persons with severe and persistent mental illness may need

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

8

housing with on- site staff assistance available 24 hours per day. The services needed by persons

with mental illness include comprehensive health care, peer and family support, educational and

work opportunities, social and recreational opportunities, skill training, ongoing assistance in

daily living activities, crisis intervention, and stabilization services.

There is an increasing recognition of the need for people with developmental disabilities to

become more independent and self- sufficient; affordable independent housing is one of the

critical ways in allowing them to do that. The housing needs of people with developmental

disabilities include more Section 8 vouchers and other forms of rental assistance, opportunities

for homeownership through low interest Federal loans, down payment subsidies, etc. Funding is

also needed to rehabilitate existing buildings into safe and accessible units for persons with

developmental disabilities.

Physically disabled persons need supportive housing, particularly modifications such as ramp

construction, bathroom modifications, door widening, and other interior adaptations, which

would allow them more independence. Transitional housing closely aligned to rehabilitation

centers is also needed to assist during the period following immediate discharge from

rehabilitation centers. In addition, physically disabled persons need such basic services as

adaptive equipment, wheelchairs, and transportation modifications.

Many individuals with substance abuse problems would benefit from increased access to

affordable housing, particularly transitional housing, which would allow a person enough time to

recover from the disease, while providing them with a stable environment that is free from drugs

and alcohol. Once an individual is drug free and abstinent from substance use, long- term needs

may include employment and affordable stable housing.

An increasing number of early hospital discharges have increased the number of elderly,

functionally impaired population in communities. Therefore, the need for long term care

housing, such as nursing homes, adult care homes, and senior living apartments has increased as

well. With 19.5 percent of North Carolina's older adults living at or below the poverty level in

1999, maintaining housing is difficult for frail older adults, so rehabilitation is a major issue for

the elderly. Supportive services also are currently insufficient to adequately provide care to the

elderly in their home. In 1990, approximately 23 percent of the 187,784 persons aged 65- plus

living in the community needed assistance with at least one daily living task such as meal

preparation, shopping, paying bills, dressing, bathing, etc.

State Strategies to Meet those Needs

Rental assistance and the development of supportive housing through new construction and

property acquisition or acquisition and rehabilitation of will be the primary activities used to

assist households with special needs.

Tax changes, such as an increase in the State’s Homestead Exemption for elderly and disabled

homeowners would help lower operating expenses for cost- burdened homeowners 0- 30% of

Median Family Income. Bills were introduced in the 2000 session of the North Carolina General

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

9

Assembly to raise the exemption from $ 20,000 to $ 25,000 or $ 30,000 but no final action was

taken on the bills.

Community Development

Statistics

· In 1990 North Carolina was the most manufacturing intensive state in the nation, but by

1999 the state ranked fifth.

· Total employment among all industries rose by almost 488,000 jobs during the 1990s,

due primarily to the diversification of the state’s economic base in other employment

sectors such as service, trade, financial, and construction.

· While diversification has benefited most people in the urban areas of the state, people in

rural regions have suffered, because the manufacturing jobs they were so dependent upon

have left and have not been replaced by these new industries.

· In 1998 the Median Household Income in North Carolina was estimated to be $ 35,838,

$ 3000 below the national average and ranking it 35th in the country.

· The state’s African Americans and other minorities’ household incomes were $ 12,000

lower or 33% lower than the Whites and Asians household income.

· The Counties of Graham, Swain, Warren, Tyrrell all had at least 30% of their total

households severely below ( less than 30%) the state median income.

· Today, women workers earn $. 75 for every dollar a man earns. If single mothers earned

the equivalent as men at the same job, they would earn $ 4,459 more a year, cutting their

poverty rate in half, from 25.3 percent to 12.6 percent.

· 60.5 percent of all renters had incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income

while only 32.3 percent of owners had incomes below that limit.

· In April 2000, the unemployment rate for the state was 2.7%, far below the national

average of 3.9%.

· However, the Counties of Swain, Vance, Columbus, and Tyrrell all had employment rates

above 10%.

· From 1996 to 1998, North Carolina had an average of 12.5% of its population below the

poverty rate.

· Statewide, approximately 8.7 percent of whites were in poverty in 1989 while higher

rates of poverty were found among African Americans with 27.1%, Native Americans

with 24.4%, Hispanics with 19.2%, and Asians with 15%.

· According to the 1990 Census, the Coastal region had the highest poverty rate at 17.5

percent, while the poverty rate in the Mountain region was 13.2 percent and the Piedmont

had the lowest poverty rate at 10.1 percent.

· Single- family headed households had the largest proportion of households in poverty

with 27.8%.

· Of the more than half a million elderly households in North Carolina, 23.5 percent were

in poverty.

· In 1999 Hurricane Floyd caused unprecedented damage throughout eastern North

Carolina. Floodwaters left 51 people dead and damaged more than 56,000 homes in

eastern North Carolina. It will be years before the eastern region of the state can recover.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

10

· Between 1992 and 1997, rural land in the state was developed at a rate of 18 acres per

hour, ranking it fifth in the nation in the number of acres converted ( 781,600 acres) over

this time period.

Needs

Among the many needs in North Carolina, the following are considered the most imperative

community development needs that must be addressed within the next five years: 1) new

infrastructure and infrastructure improvements, 2) micro- enterprise development, 3) economic

self- sufficiency, 4) community capacity building, 5) education, training, and retraining 6)

comprehensive neighborhood revitalization, 7) smart growth, and 8) complete recovery from

Hurricane Floyd.

Without the means to provide safe drinking water and adequate disposal of wastewater,

communities cannot protect the health of their citizens or provide a suitable environment for

needed development. For many communities in the state’s rural counties, the need for

improvements to water and sewer systems is a matter of survival. New infrastructure and

infrastructure improvements are crucial in attracting and keeping employers that provide workers

with reasonable wages and, thus, allow communities to thrive.

With the loss of manufacturing base in many North Carolina communities, the need for a more

diverse economic base has become more critical. Some people believe that by encouraging more

diverse small businesses to develop, rather than large manufacturing plants, the state can fill the

employment gap and give more low- income people the opportunity to succeed.

The best way for low- income people to attain self- sufficiency, is acquiring the necessary

financial skills through economic literacy programs that will empower them. Counseling

programs that inform people of their economic power options, and teach economic literacy and

financial planning will allow low- income people to gather the necessary skills to become

independent working members of society.

Many rural communities have good ideas about what needs to be done to strengthen their

communities, but struggle to launch and sustain projects that will produce real returns –

financial, social, civic, educational and environmental. Improving the capacity building at the

local level through money and technical assistance is crucial to empowering local communities

to solve their problems in the best way they see fit.

The state’s Community Development Block Grant community revitalization program has been

criticized for being overly narrow and inflexible, limited mainly to housing rehabilitation, water,

sewer, and streets. The state’s design of the CDBG program needs to encourage more

comprehensive approaches within project or neighborhood areas; comprehensive approaches to

community development integrate economic, physical, environmental, and human development

in a coordinated fashion, responding to the total needs in a community.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

11

According to the 21st Century Communities Task Force, formed by Governor Hunt, five major

objectives were identified to enable the state to become more smart growth oriented: 1)

providing more transportation choices, 2) preserving farms and open space, 3) maintaining the

vitality of Main Streets and downtowns, 4) providing safe, decent, affordable housing, and 5)

building a sense of community.

The confusing eligibility rules and complex application procedures intimidate many non- profits

and inexperienced Community Development Corporations ( CDCs). State agencies need to

reexamine their policies and application procedures and offer better technical assistance.

Copious Federal and State funds have already been appropriated to help repair or replace the

homes and businesses damaged or ruined by Hurricane Floyd, but these monies are still not

enough to meet the needs. North Carolina still faces a massive shortfall. Based on conservative

estimates from both state and federal agencies, North Carolina needs $ 4.3 billion to meet all the

needs and speed the recovery.

State Strategies to Meet those Needs

The three major strategies that the state will use in the next five years are –

· Building stronger neighborhoods through the continued use of the Water and Waste

Water Infrastructure Program; emphasis on Community Capacity Building,

implementation of a Comprehensive Neighborhood Revitalization Program, and the use

of Smart Growth policies on programs.

· Job- Creation through Economic Development Grants and Loans

· Targeting Distressed Areas in the State, particularly Tier 1 and Tier 2 Counties, and State

Development Zones

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

12

Introduction

The State of North Carolina 2001- 2005 Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning

document that assessed the housing and community development needs and priorities of low to

moderate- income individuals throughout the state. Based upon this assessment, major housing

and community development needs were identified, priorities were determined, and goals and

strategies were developed to address those needs and priorities for the future. The United States

Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) requires that all state agencies that

receive federal dollars from HUD for housing and community development purposes,

collectively submit a single Consolidated Plan every five years.

Grants funded through the Consolidated Plan

The four programs funded by HUD to North Carolina are the Small Cities Community

Development Block Grants program ( CDBG), which is administered by the N. C. Division of

Community Assistance in the Department of Commerce, the HOME Investment Partnerships

Program ( HOME), which is administered by the N. C. Housing Finance Agency, the Emergency

Shelter Grants Program ( ESG), which is administered by the N. C. Office of Economic

Opportunity in the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Housing Opportunities

for Persons With AIDS Program ( HOPWA), which is administered by the HIV/ STD Prevention

and Care Branch in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Purpose of the Grants

Small Cities Community Development Block Grants ( CDBG) help local governments improve

deteriorating residential neighborhoods, support public services, install water and sewer facilities

for residential areas or to job- creating sites, and to provide loans to large and small businesses.

The HOME Investment Partnerships ( HOME) helps local governments, nonprofit organizations,

and developers build or improve affordable housing and provide rental assistance. The

Emergency Shelter Grants ( ESG) helps local governments and nonprofit organizations support

emergency shelters and transitional housing for the homeless, provide essential services, and

prevent homelessness. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS ( HOPWA) helps

nonprofit agencies devise long- term comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing and

service needs of persons living with AIDS or related diseases, and their families.

Purpose of the Consolidated Plan

When HUD originally devised the concept of the Consolidated Plan, it was seen by some as an

attempt to reduce the amount of paperwork from the various agencies applying for funding to

their department each year. The Consolidated Planning Process now serves far greater purposes.

North Carolina’s Consolidated Plan not only serves as an application for federal funds under

HUD's formula grant programs, but serves as 1) a planning document for the state and its

recipients building on a participatory process at the all levels, 2) a strategy to be followed in

carrying out programs funded by HUD, and 3) an action plan that provides a basis for measuring

and assessing performance in the future. In addition, non- entitlement cities that apply directly to

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

13

these state agencies for HUD money, housing authorities, and other affordable home providers

must then show that their use of HUD funds is “ consistent” with the adopted State Consolidated

Plan.

The State of North Carolina viewed the federal government’s requirement as a chance to extend

and strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit

and non- profit organizations, in the production and operation of affordable housing and

community development. The consolidated planning process offered an opportunity for strategic

planning and citizen participation to take place in a comprehensive context. The process brought

local governments, community organizations, state and federal agencies, service providers, and

citizens together to address the larger picture in which the programs operate. It also offered the

state an opportunity to shape the various programs into an efficient continuum of service

delivery.

All four programs covered by the Consolidated Plan have three basic goals mandated in the

Housing and Community Development Act and the National Affordable Housing Act, which

relate to the major commitments and priorities of the Agencies. These goals are designed to help

states develop viable communities by encouraging them to 1) provide decent housing, 2) provide

a suitable living environment, and 3) expand economic opportunities for low to moderate income

persons. Key to all programs, HUD monies tied to the Consolidated Plan are targeted by law to

primarily benefit low to moderate- income people.

Impact of Census 2000 Data

At the time of the preparation of the plan, the only relatively accurate data available was from

1990 Census. Although we believe that there has been significant change in the demographics of

North Carolina since that time, the 1990 data is the best available. Any current estimates

available were used where applicable. When data from the 2000 Census is obtained, the plan

will be reviewed to see if it is in accordance with the new data. Depending on the review, we

will either amend the 2001- 2005 Consolidated Plan as necessary or prepare a new 5- Year

Consolidated Plan at that time.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

14

Consolidated Plan Partners

Although the N. C. Division of Community Assistance in the Department of Commerce was

designated the lead agency for the plan, it was the collaborative effort of all the partners – the

N. C. Housing Finance Agency, the N. C. Office of Economic Opportunity under the Department

of Health and Human Services, and the HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch under the

Department of Health and Human Services, that truly made the consolidated planning process a

worthwhile endeavor. A summary of each agency and the activities they provide follows.

The Division of Community Assistance

The Division of Community Assistance ( DCA) provides aid to North Carolina's local

governments and nonprofit community organizations in the areas of community development,

growth management, economic development, and public management through the Community

Development Block Grant ( CDBG) program, the Main Street program, and through direct

technical assistance to local governments. The federally funded Community Development Block

Grant program provides funds to local governments for community and economic development

to benefit low- and moderate- income people. Typical projects may include housing

rehabilitation, new affordable housing, neighborhood infrastructure improvements such as

installation of water and sewer lines, adaptive reuse of older buildings, and small business

development. The Main Street Program helps to strengthen North Carolina's downtowns as a

focal point for community life and economic activity. Main Street staff works with communities,

local businesses and state agencies to strengthen downtown revitalization efforts. The

Community Planning Program has staff in seven regional offices to assist local governments and

community organizations with a variety of tasks, including: strategic planning, growth

management planning and ordinances, capital improvement planning, goal setting, program

development, and intergovernmental planning and coordination.

The North Carolina Housing Finance Agency

Since its creation in 1973 by the General Assembly, the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency

has financed more than 100,000 affordable homes and apartments for North Carolina citizens. Its

mission is to lead in creating affordable housing opportunities through the effective investment

of public and private capital, professionalism, and responsiveness to the needs of its partners and

the people it serves. The Agency operates federal and state housing programs including the

Mortgage Revenue Bond Program, Housing Credit Program and N. C. Housing Trust Fund.

Using these and other sources of funds, including earnings, the Agency provides a variety of

services ranging from low- cost mortgages for first- time homebuyers to helping local

governments, nonprofit organizations and private owners develop affordable homes and

apartments.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

15

The HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch

The mission of the HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch is to reduce and eventually eliminate

morbidity and mortality due to sexually transmitted diseases ( syphilis, gonorrhea and

chlamydia), Human Immunodeficiency Virus ( HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome ( AIDS), and to assure that an up- to- date continuum of care services are available to all

HIV- infected individuals residing in North Carolina. The Unit administers the following federal

programs: Ryan White HIV C. A. R. E. Program, HIV Case Management Services, Medicaid

Community Alternatives Program ( CAP- AIDS), HIV Medications Program/ AIDS Drug

Assistance Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS ( HOPWA). The AIDS

Care Unit contracts with a variety of regional and local community– based organizations,

including HIV Care Consortia, public health departments, home health agencies, hospitals,

family care homes, independent living apartments, transitional houses, housing authorities, AIDS

service organizations, and others for the provision of services through these programs.

The North Carolina HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch in general provides 1) information on

STDs, HIV and AIDS for individual citizens, the media, policy makers, service providers and

healthcare workers; 2) resources for public health professionals and community- based

organizations trained to assist in the prevention of STDs ( including HIV/ AIDS); 3) STD

treatment guidelines for health care providers; 4) information about a variety of case

management and care services available to persons living with HIV/ AIDS; 5) statistics on

Sexually Transmitted Diseases ( including HIV/ AIDS) in North Carolina; 6) a collection of

resources for public health prevention efforts directed toward reducing the number of cases of

HIV/ AIDS/ STDs in North Carolina; 7) information for use in health policy planning, evaluation

and research; and 8) presentations to special interest groups.

N. C. Office of Economic Opportunity

The Office of Economic Opportunity, formerly known as the State Economic Opportunity

Office, was established in 1966 to provide training and technical assistance to Community

Action Agencies. In 1981 the Office was assigned the responsibility of administering the federal

Community Services Block Grant ( CSBG) Program. Since that time the Office has also assumed

administrative responsibility for the Emergency Shelter Grants Program ( ESG), the Community

Action Partnership Program ( CAPP) and the Community Food and Nutrition Program ( CFNP).

The major goals of the Office are to 1) encourage local grantees to develop and administer new

and innovative projects that better address the causes, conditions and problems arising as a result

of the changing characteristics of the poverty population, 2) serve as an advocate for low- income

individuals and families on the state level, and 3) promote grant activities that will enable low-income

individuals and families to become self- sufficient.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

16

Consultations

According to the regulations regarding the North Carolina Consolidated Plan, State Agencies are

encouraged to consult with “ other public and private agencies that provide assisted housing,

health services, and social services ( including those focusing on services to children, elderly

person, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/ AIDS and their families, homeless persons)

during preparation of the plan.” As a result, the North Carolina Consolidated Plan partner

agencies coordinated consultations in different regions of the state, convening specific functional

areas.

The HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch

HIV/ STD/ AIDS

The HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch and the AIDS Care Unit work closely with several

committees and planning groups throughout the state. The North Carolina AIDS Advisory

Council ( NCAAC) and the AIDS Care Unit Advisory Committee ( ACUAC) are two existing

structures and processes convened by the State Health Director and Branch to provide guidance

on the use of HOPWA and other care and support resources, and on care- related policy issues.

The AIDS Care Unit consults with the HIV Medications Program Advisory Committee, with

their role being to help guide the State’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program ( ADAP), as well as

serving as advisors on other medical issues.

Moreover, the HIV/ STD Prevention and Care Branch and the North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction have continued to coordinate activities through the North Carolina

Comprehensive School Health Training Center. The School Health Training Center seeks to

foster the development of competent programming related to sexuality. The Branch assists with

the identification of agencies serving youth at risk and counties with high morbidity as it relates

to HIV/ STDs.

The Branch works closely with the Department of Corrections in order to support the availability

and provision of quality services for HIV- infected individuals while they are within the

correctional institutions and upon their release and return to the community.

Other Special Needs

The Independent Living Rehabilitation Program in the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

Services coordinated the information for the physically disabled. The quarterly report of the

Independent Living Advisory Committee, comprised of consumers, including representatives of

interest groups and other persons with severe disabilities, identified the needs of the physically

disabled. The Center for Accessible Housing at North Carolina State University provided

additional information.

The North Carolina Division of MH/ DD/ SAD coordinated their information through the

Division’s Cross- Disability Housing working group. The Adult Community Mental Health

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

17

Section gathered information from local area programs, epidemiological statistics, and the results

of the 1999 Adult Mental Health Wait List Survey. The Developmental Disabilities Section of

the Division collected most of the development disability information using a residential services

needs assessment and the Section's Ten Year Plan. For persons with Alcohol/ Other Drug

Addictions, the Substance Abuse Services Section of the Division coordinated the collection of

data by talking with other staff members within the Substance Abuse Services Section.

Office of Economic Opportunity

In order to obtain the most up- to- date numbers possible regarding homeless individuals and

families in the State of North Carolina, the following was done. Data on the incidence of

homelessness and available facilities was collected from various entitlement communities’

Consolidated Plans. Data on homeless individuals and families served by the 121 facilities for

the homeless that received funding from the State’s Emergency Shelter Grants Program from

July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 was analyzed. Surveys of all county managers and directors of

county departments of social services were conducted by the Office of Economic Opportunity to

determine other homeless service and housing providers not known to the State. Specific

demographic information was obtained from the following: the NC Department of Health and

Human Services, AIDS Care Branch, Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities,

and Substance Abuse Services, NC Council on Women, NC Employment Security Commission,

NC Department of Public Instruction, and National Center for Homeless Education at SERVE.

National or regional data was obtained from National Runaway Switchboard, National

Association of Social Workers, National Coalition for the Homeless, and the US Department of

Health and Human Services.

Through contacts with these providers, local and state agencies, and national organizations a

clear picture emerged. As before, homelessness continues to be predominantly a function of

poverty; lack of a support system; alcohol and substance abuse problems; and families ill-equipped

for independent living.

Division of Community Assistance

Early in 1999, at the request of the Community Development Council, the Division of

Community Assistance and local practitioners formed an independent Community Development

Partners Committee ( CDPC) to review the State’s Small Cities CDBG Program and make

recommendations for improvement on the grants and policies within the program. The

Committee met for nearly a year, often twice per month, to discuss the current CDBG Program,

analyze its shortcomings, and make suggestions for its improvement. The CDPC Committee

made extensive efforts to include input from a variety of citizens, community development

service agencies, and public interest groups. The CDPC Committee along with DCA staff went

as far as to hold five public forums at five separate locations throughout the State for public input

on the CDBG Program. ( See Appendix D for more detail on changes in the CDBG program as a

result of the Committee’s recommendations)

DCA Staff made presentations at several constituent conferences, including the NC League of

Municipalities, the NC Association of County Commissioners, the NC Community Development

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

18

Association, and the NC Chapter of the American Planning Association. DCA also holds

numerous public and technical assistance workshops for particular grants it administers

throughout the year, in which suggestions or comments about the CDBG program can be made at

any time.

North Carolina Housing Finance Agency

In addition to its regularly scheduled program application workshops, North Carolina Housing

Finance Agency conducted 6 consultations with groups around the state. The objective of the

consultations was to gather feedback on: specific housing and/ or non- housing community

economic development needs; which agency programs have been used; what housing trends and

most critical housing needs were detected; and how the agencies could work better in their areas.

This information gathered was to be incorporated into the strategic plan and the agency

programming goals where appropriate and relevant.

Consultations were held: on August 8 with the Region D ( Ashe, Alleghany, Avery, Mitchell,

Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey counties) Council of Governments in Boone; on August 14 and 16

in Raleigh with staff members and housing resource persons from regional offices of the

Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse; on August 18, in

Bryson City, with the staff members of the Region A Council of Governments ( Cherokee, Clay,

Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon and Swain counties); on August 21 with Directors and

Board Members Public Housing Authorities at the Carolinas Council Conference held in Hilton

Head, South Carolina; and on September 12, at the quarterly meeting of the Public Housing

Authority Directors in Raleigh.

The needs that were discussed varied from each region and with each group convened. The needs

ranged from housing rehabilitation, new rental and single family unit production, program

requirements and guidelines, and addressing living wage issues, to developing housing for

special needs populations earning 0- 30% of Median Family Income, training of contractors,

assisting very low to moderate income families and individuals, with and without special needs,

and developing collaboration with public housing authorities. The key recommendations were

centered around increased funding; amending programs to consider regional issues; focusing on

homeownership, housing preservation and other opportunities and for low to moderate income

families— particularly those who are elderly and with special needs.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

19

Public Participation

The state agencies believe that public participation is one of the most important aspects to the

Consolidated Plan. Who better to make comments and suggestions for improvement than those

individuals that use our programs? The state, however, realizes that receiving comments

throughout the state from low- income people would be a difficult and overwhelming process.

As such, the state decided to concentrate its efforts on those advocacy groups that work most

closely with low- income people, particularly state agencies, local governments, non- profit

community development groups, and private interest groups. As individuals who work with low

income everyday, the state feels that these groups can best represent the needs of the people

receiving our grants.

After many discussions amongst the four partners, it was decided that in an effort to reach all of

the state agencies, local governments, non- profits, private interest groups, and the general public

that use our programs, we would hold a series of public workshops throughout the state. In an

effort to have a more participatory process from the public, we hired Marie Hopper, from the

Institute of Cultural Affairs, to train us in a technique called the “ Workshop Method”, where the

agency representatives would only act as facilitators, and the participants would actually

determine the outcome of the workshop by describing the housing and community development

needs and identifying the obstacles of reaching those needs. The “ Workshop Method” is

designed to generate creativity and new energy in a short period of time, catalyze integrated

thinking both rational and intuitive, build a practical group consensus, and infuse a group with a

sense of responsibility. There are five methodical steps to the “ Workshop Method”: 1) context –

setting the stage, 2) brainstorming – generating new ideas, 3) organizing – forming new

relationships, 4) naming – discerning the consensus, and 5) reflection – confirming the resolve.

These workshops were held in the month of July in the cities of Asheville, Asheboro, and

Tarboro. We invited numerous housing and community development advocates, local

community leaders, concerned citizens, nonprofit organizations, the private sector and

representatives of state and federal agencies, to participate and voice their opinions on the needs

of the low to moderate income people they represent and the obstacles that prevented the state

from meeting those needs. Over 150 people attended, and over 500 comments were received.

We had an opening session where we addressed the audience, explained the purpose of the

workshop, and how it would be conducted. Each participant would have the choice to attend one

of the three sessions that was most applicable to their agency or they had the most interest in.

The three sessions were 1) Rehabilitation, 2) Special Needs/ Supportive Housing and Rental

Housing, 3) Home Ownership and Non- Housing Community Development Needs. The results

of the workshop are provided in Appendix A.

We then analyzed the information from the workshops, pulling out those comments that recurred

over and over, especially across geographic lines, which indicates at least to us that the state is

not meeting particular needs of its low to moderate income people regardless of geography.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

20

Reaction to the workshops was quite positive, and most felt that their voice had been heard.

Staff was so delighted by the outcome, that we recommend its use for our Annual Plan process,

by inviting those that attended the 5- Year Plan and others to a similar workshop on a yearly

basis. Instead of concentrating on Needs and Obstacles, the Annual Plan workshops will focus

on developing and evaluating Strategies and Policies that will meet those needs and overcome

the obstacles identified. The state sees the 5- Year Plan as the foundation of partner’s programs

and that the Annual Plan’s strategies and programs should correlate to the priorities and goals as

set out in the 5- Year Consolidated Plan.

A public hearing was also held on October 12, 2000 by teleconference at the following sites:

Greenville, Raleigh, Statesville, Waynesville, and Whiteville. Staff presented information on

both the Five Year Consolidated Plan and 2001 Action Plan, and then the audience was allowed

to comment or ask questions afterwards. Staff responded to questions and comments, and the

hearing was adjourned; minutes of that hearing are available upon request.

The draft of the entire Consolidated Plan and Action Plan were also available to the public on the

Internet at www. dca. commerce. state. nc. us. Hard copies were sent to those individuals who

requested them. Public comments were accepted through October 31, 2000, and summaries and

responses to those public comments are available in Appendix B.

Copies of the plans are still available by mail to the Division of Community Assistance, 4313

Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 or by phone: ( 919) 733- 2850.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

21

Demographics

Introduction

Population characteristics and trends are important ingredients in assessing a state’s needs. An

examination of past demographic trends, coupled with a forecast of future growth, is important to

the planning process and the programming of a variety of services such as housing and

community development. Failure to assess and address these needs could have a negative impact

on meeting those needs in the future.

Physical Characteristics and Regional Differences

North Carolina covers 52,669 square miles with a diverse landscape. Just as states differ in their

housing and community development needs based upon geography and other circumstances,

regions and counties within states have different needs. Because of its location in the

Appalachian Mountain Range, Western North Carolina offers an unrivaled quality of life with a

mild climate and a natural setting second to none. Yet, while its rural character is seen as asset,

living in the Mountains has its liabilities. Poor topography causes housing construction costs to

be higher than other regions in the state and makes it difficult to construct the roads and

infrastructure that would bring higher paying jobs to the area. Therefore, families, with low-incomes

due to poor wages are unable to purchase most housing in the area.

While the western part of North Carolina is the most rural and has the least population density of

the three regions, the Piedmont region in the central part of the state contains the majority of the

state's population. Most all of the state’s urban centers- Charlotte, Greensboro, Durham,

Raleigh, and Winston Salem are located there. Unlike, the Mountain Region, the Piedmont has

seen unprecedented economic growth over the past several years, but at a cost. Unbridled

suburban sprawl has become a hot issue in the central part of the state, as quality of life has

deteriorated in the name of economic prosperity. Realizing that there is little sign of the

region’s growth slowing anytime soon, the state must be prepared to not just grow but also grow

smart.

The Coastal Region of North Carolina could itself be divided into two regions – the narrow

coastline along the Atlantic Ocean and the rural counties surrounding I- 95. While growth in the

Coastal region has been concentrated along the Atlantic Ocean, agriculture continues to be a

prominent industry and the area maintains a distinctly rural character. It has incurred many of the

same problems that are plaguing the Mountain Region, particularly a lack of high- paying

industries. Another important factor is the impact Hurricane Floyd has had primarily on the

Coastal Region and the new demands for housing that it has brought.

Population

According to the U. S. Census Bureau, there were 6,628,637 persons living in North Carolina in

1990, which averaged out to 125.85 people per square mile, ranking it the 11th highest total in the

nation. In 1999 the population was estimated to be 7,650,789. That is a population gain of a more

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

22

than a million people over a nine- year period, and a growth rate of 15.4%, a rate which ranked 6th

highest in the country. In 1960 North Carolina had a population of 5,082,059 ranking it 12th highest

at the time. From that time it has surpassed the populations of Indiana and Massachusetts and only

been surpassed by the state of Georgia.

While population growth is a good barometer for the overall economic well being of a state, we as a

state need to be prepared to meet the needs of growing population. More importantly, this

population growth is also diversifying, requiring different goods and services that were traditionally

not provided in the past. The state defines diversification not just for higher concentrations of

minorities, but the increasing numbers of the elderly, single mothers, homeless, people with

AIDS/ HIV, and people with disabilities. The sections below will describe the changing face of the

people of North Carolina and give insight to the challenges that the state will face in meeting the

needs of North Carolinians well into 21st century.

Births and Deaths

From 1990 to 1999, there were 967,386 births ( 11th in the U. S.) and 586,354 deaths ( 10th in the

U. S.) in North Carolina, resulting in a net natural increase of 381,032 people. That is a .6 % natural

increase per year, ranking North Carolina 17th in the nation percentage wise. As was mentioned at

the beginning, total population increased by over a million people within the nine- year period,

meaning that natural increase accounted for more than one- third of the entire population increase.

While the birth rate is important for the state’s population numbers, one must investigate further to

notice that some of the birth statistics are quite disturbing. Births by teenage mothers in North

Carolina accounted for 14.3% of the total births in 1997, ranking that the 14th highest in the nation.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1998, the consequences of adolescent pregnancy

and childbearing are serious and numerous: 1) Teen mothers are less likely to graduate from high

school and more likely than their peers, who delay childbearing, to live in poverty and to rely on

welfare. 2) The children of teenage mothers are often born at low birth weight, experience health

and developmental problems, and are frequently poor, abused, and/ or neglected. 3) Teenage

pregnancy poses a substantial financial burden to society, estimated at $ 7 billion annually in lost

tax revenues, public assistance, child health care, foster care, and involvement with the criminal

justice system.

Migration and Mobility

The remaining two- thirds of the population increase was due to in migration of individuals from

outside the state. Over 612,385 people moved into North Carolina from 1990 through 1999.

International immigrants numbered 58,122 which ranked North Carolina 18th highest in the

country, while domestic immigrants numbered 554,268 which ranked North Carolina 5th highest

in the country. Such a statistic indicates that the mass exodus from the Northern Belt that we

have been hearing about over the past decade is now having an effect on North Carolina. In the

past states like Florida and California were the only major recipients of the Sun Belt

phenomenon; now states such as North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada have

as much appeal or even more appeal than their predecessors. What North Carolina and the

others need to be cognizant of, however, is learning from the mistakes of Florida and California,

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

23

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

24

where sprawl and the decline of quality of life have become major issues due to the tremendous

influx of people. While economic prosperity and growth are key to a state’s survival, the ability

to deal with that growth must be planned well in advance.

North Carolina Residence in 1990 as compared to 1985

for Persons 5 Years and Over

Location Population

Same House in 1985 3,350,897

Different House in U. S. in 1985:

Same County 1,456,440

Different County:

Same state 550,534

Different state:

Northeast 155,172

Midwest 112,906

South 407,600

West 73,089

Abroad in 1985: 65,663

Table 1

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990

Table 1 above describes the population migration from 1985 to 1990 not only for migration into

the state, but also within the state. Over a half a million people did not live in the same county in

North Carolina in 1990 as they did in 1985. The map on the next page shows the number of

people moving from one county in the state to another from 1985. It can be inferred from the

map that the majority of people are moving from the Northeast and Western parts of the state,

which are rural in nature to the metropolitan centers of Charlotte and Raleigh, mostly for better

job opportunities. The impact this has on the small towns in rural North Carolina is significant

because these areas are losing a considerable amount of their population as well as their tax base

( a further description of the impact that has on those communities is provided below).

Urban vs. Rural

The issue of urban vs. rural in the U. S. has been discussed by demographers since the dawn of

the Industrial Revolution. Decade after decade, America has a whole has seen the continued

movement from a rural society to an urbanized one. Although North Carolina has seen its fair

share of immigration to the larger metropolitan areas, it is still one of the most rural states in the

nation. In 1990 a little more than half of the state’s population, 3,335,570 people resided in or

around an urban area, while 3,293,067 people lived in what are considered rural regions. That

ranked North Carolina 6th in the nation in the percentage of its population still living in rural

areas.

The impact of urbanization can be divided into two categories – rural areas not located near

central cities and rural areas surrounding central cities. Today, most people that are moving to

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

25

and in North Carolina are choosing to live in suburbs outside the central city, which only decades

ago were often very rural farmlands. Unfortunately, many of these areas were not prepared to

deal with this sudden influx of people; roads and sewer are often inadequate, resulting in traffic

jams and negative impacts on the natural environment. Without any formal measures in place

to manage or direct growth, this trend toward urbanization of our rural areas and open space is

expected to continue.

As for the rural regions not located near the central cities, the impact has been different but even

more devastating. The Census reported that the percentage of residents living in a rural

environment decreased 7.0 percent between 1970 and 1990. The loss of manufacturing jobs,

which were often the only source of employment of rural communities to Mexico and other

foreign nations and downsizing due to improved technology has left the people in rural North

Carolina with few job opportunities. Thus, high unemployment rates are not uncommon, wages

are low, and poverty abounds. With little hope of improving, many of the people from these

rural communities have decided to pull up roots and move toward the central cities, which have

more abundant job opportunities. While this might be beneficial to the individual, rural

communities suffer; the investment that these communities have made in their young people

through education and job skills is never returned.

Age

The median age for North Carolinians in 1999 was

35.5 compared to 33.0 in 1990. This is trend is not

unique to North Carolina; people are simply living

longer lives than they were decades ago. Modern

medicine, better eating habits, and exercise have

developed much better immune systems in humans

and, thus, allowed them to live longer. While this is

seen as good news, we must be prepared to meet the

needs of an aging population. The elderly, particularly

the severely elderly, is the fastest growing age cohort

in North Carolina. In 1999, the 85 years and above

age cohort increased an astounding 50% from the

number that was reported in 1990. As the Baby

Boomer generation ( those born between 1946 and

1964) nears retirement, the growth of elderly North

Carolinians ( age 65 and over) is expected to increase

rapidly. Today the elderly account for 12.5% of the

population in North Carolina, by 2025 they will

account for 21.4%. Nationwide North Carolina’s

proportion of elderly residents was 31st highest in

1995; in 2025, North Carolina will have the 11th largest elderly sector.

Population by Age

1990

Age Population

0- 5 544,956

6- 13 706,339

14- 17 357,198

18- 21 456,089

22- 24 310,561

25- 34 1,152,229

35- 44 1,008,277

45- 54 705,099

55- 64 585,832

65- 74 486,119

75- 84 247,081

85 and above 68,857

Table 2

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

26

Gender

There were 3,417,212 females and 3,211,425 males in North Carolina in 1990. Just like most of

the United States, females composed over 51% of the total population. The one percent

difference probably could be directly attributable to the fact that women typically live longer

than men. Why mention gender as a component of the population statistics for the state’s

purposes of distributing federal dollars? Although women are the majority, they still are a

minority when it comes to employment and earnings. The disparities in poverty among working-age

men and women are reflected in the fact that “ women are less likely to be employed than

men, remain more likely to interrupt paid work to devote time to childrearing, and continue to

earn considerably less than men when they work at the same job.” (“ Women, Work, and Family

in America”. Suzanne M. Bianchi and Daphne Spain, 1996.)

Race

Population by Race

1990

Population Number Percent

White ( non- Hispanic) 4,971,127 75%

African American ( non-

Hispanic)

1,449,142 22%

Hispanic ( all races) 76,726 1%

Native American 80,155 1%

Asian/ Pacific Islander 52,166 0.8%

Other 31,502 0.5%

Total Population 6,628,637 100%

Table 3

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990

In 1990 whites compromised of more than 75% of the population for North Carolina with

4,971,127 people, while African Americans were second at 1,449,142, or 22% of the population.

Native Americans, Asian/ Pacific Islanders, and other races accounted for the remaining

percentage of 3% or 240,549 people.

Today, according to U. S. Census estimates, the number of African Americans in North Carolina

has increased to 1,686,000 people ranking that number 7th highest in the nation. ( See map on the

following page) From 1990 to 1999, the number of Hispanics living in this state has been

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

27

estimated to increase by 125%, up to 175,000 people. During that time frame, new job

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

28

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

29

opportunities in such industries as construction and service have brought Hispanic immigrants to

states that had little previous experience with immigrants such as Arkansas, Georgia, and North

Carolina. In fact, North Carolina ranked behind only Arkansas and Nevada in the percentage

increase in the Hispanic population from 1990 to 1999.

Although North Carolina ranked 18th in the number of Asian and Pacific Islanders in the U. S. in

1999, it was the 3rd highest in percent change from 1990 to 1999, only behind Georgia and

Nevada. Again this can be attributed to the fact that all these states have enormous amount of

job opportunities available, particularly in the technology and service industries.

Areas of minority concentration are defined as those counties in which minorities make up 35%

or more of the county population. In 1990, there were 22 counties in this category: Anson,

Bertie, Bladen, Caswell, Chowan, Durham, Edgecombe, Gates, Granville, Greene, Halifax,

Hertford, Hoke, Jones, Lenoir, McDowell, Northampton, Tyrrell, Vance, Washington, Warren

and Wilson. Most of these counties are located in the eastern portion of the state, considered to

be the poorest region in the state.

Nationally, racial and ethnic minorities now account for one- fourth of the U. S. population. By

2015, projections indicate that minorities will make up one- third of all Americans— a

phenomenon already seen among children and youth. ( 1999 United States Population Data Sheet,

by Kelvin Pollard, 1999.) Although North Carolina is more diverse than most, there are

enormous disparities in education and income between whites and minorities. It is the goal of

the state to try to narrow this gap as our state continues to diversify.

Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment for Persons 25 Years and Over

1990

Attainment Population Percentage

Less than 9th Grade 539,974 12.7%

9th to 12th, no Diploma 737,773 17.3%

High School Graduate, or Equivalency 1,232,869 30.0%

Some College, no Degree 713,713 16.8%

Associate Degree 290,117 6.8%

Bachelor’s Degree 510,003 12.0%

Graduate or Professional Degree 229,046 5.4%

Table 4

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990

In 1990, only 30% of people in North Carolina above the age of 25 had not attained a high

school degree, compared to the 45% who had not attained a high school degree in 1980. While

North Carolina has seen a great improvement in educating its young people over that time frame,

there is still a large portion of the state’s society that is being left behind. Over 41% of

minorities over the age of 25 had not attained their high school degree or equivalency;

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

30

meanwhile 73% of whites received their high school diploma. The inability of minorities to

attain their high school degrees has lead to poorer paying jobs and, thus, lower wages.

According to the US Census Bureau in its March 1998 Current Population Survey, the average

earnings in 1997 for a persons aged 18 and over with a high school degree was $ 22,895 versus

$ 40,478 for an individual with a Bachelor's Degree. Those with advanced degrees earned an

average of $ 74,445, while those who didn't finish high school earned only an average of $ 16,124

per year. The discrepancy goes beyond race, because location also plays a factor. According to

a 1997 report by the N. C. Rural Economic Development Center, 26.5% of rural adults had less

than a high school education, compared with 16.5% of urban adults.

Households

Household Type and Presence and Age of Children

1990

Household Type Number of Households

Married Couple Family:

With own Children under 18 years 652,007

No own Children under 18 years 796,149

Other Family:

Male Householder, no wife present:

With own Children under 18 years 31,588

No own Children under 18 years 42,131

Female Householder, no husband

present:

With own Children under 18 years 164,000

No own Children under 18 years 138,590

Non- family households 692,633

Table 5

Source: U. S. Census Bureau

There were a total of 2,517,098 households in the state in 1990. 1,824,465 of them were

families, while the remaining 692,633 were households whose members were related neither by

blood nor marriage. The average persons per household was 2.63 in 1990, compared to the 2.78

average in 1980. We should expect this, because smaller households have been a continuing

trend every decade since the Industrial Revolution.

Married households represented 57.5 percent of all the state's households in 1990. Married

couples without children under age 18 made up 31.6 percent of the total, while just over 25

percent were married couples with children under 18. Single parents headed approximately 15

percent of all households; in 1980, that number was just above 9 percent. What is most

disturbing is the number of women who are raising children. Nineteen percent of households

with children under 18 are headed solely by women, which is the type of household most

susceptible to poverty.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

31

Population Projections

Year Population Projections

1999 7,650,789

2000 7,777,000

2005 8,227,000

2015 8,840,000

2025 9,349,000

Table 6

Source: Office of State Planning, 2000

When the state revisits the Consolidated Plan five years from now, the population is expected to

be over 8.2 million people in 2005 – over 9.3 million by 2025. That is an average gain of over

60,000 people a year. The data presented in this section paints a picture of a state that is growing

and changing. The state is becoming more ethnic, older, mobile, and increasingly urbanized, with

growth forecasted to continue well into the next few decades.

A downside to the growth is the possibility that the growth could overwhelm the state, and threaten

the quality of life, which has made the area an attractive place to live and do business. Development

trends show that subdivision development is extending into the unzoned and rural areas. Urban

sprawl development into rural areas not only destroys the character of an area but also places

demands on public services providers who often are not equipped to handle the growth. The result

can be overcrowded roads and schools, as well as inadequate fire protection and overburdened

police services. The state is pursuing a strategy that allows growth to occur in a well- managed and

thoughtful way and at the same time maintain and preserve it’s scenic vistas, open space, and

unique character. While the quantity of the state’s future population can be projected with some

reliability, quality of life is unpredictable at this point. The quality of life for future residents will

depend on how we are able to manage our growth and accommodate the needs of a growing and

changing population.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

32

Housing Market and Inventory Conditions

General Market and Inventory

North Carolina Housing Stock Inventory

1990

Total units 0- 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms

Total year- round housing 2,931,474 257,255 1,024,510 1,649,709

Total occupied units 2,517,026 198,843 835,775 1,482,408

Renter 805,144 168,084 398,424 238,636

Owner 1,711,882 30,759 437,351 1,243,772

Total vacant units 414,448 58,412 188,735 167,301

For rent 83,414 17,988 44,251 21,175

For sale 29,867 1,234 9,417 19,216

Other 301,167 39,190 135,067 126,910

Table 7

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1990

According to the 1990 Census, there are 2,931,474 year- round housing units in North Carolina.

Of these, 888,558 ( 30%) were rental units and 1,741,749 ( 59%) were owner occupied. Based on

the issued permits for construction and demolition in North Carolina, as well as manufactured

home placements, the estimated number of housing units as of July 1, 1998 in North Carolina

was 3,366,723. This signifies a net increase of 548,650 units or 19.5 percent from 1990.

The proportion of mobile homes in the housing stock has dramatically increased. In 1990,

mobile homes comprised 15% of all housing units ( 439,721 total units) in the state. Between

1991 and 1998, there were 212,800 manufactured homes placed in North Carolina, bringing the

total estimated number of manufactured homes in North Carolina to 652,521 or 19% of the

housing stock. Manufactured homes represented 28% of the total number of new housing units

added between 1991 and 1998.

The total number of housing units added in North Carolina from 1990 to 1998 ( including

manufactured homes) was 761,450, an increase of 26 percent. In the same time, North Carolina

had an increase of 365,097 of households ( 14.5 percent).

North Carolina had the 13th highest percent increase in total households in the United States from

1990 to 1998, but had the 6th highest percent increase in total housing units for the same time

period. The disparity between the ratio of new households to new housing units and the vacancy

rate could be explained in part by overbuilding. There also may be units lost from the existing

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

33

housing inventory due to demolition or conversion that go unreported, thus inflating the net

number of additional housing units.

Another reason for the large increase in new units when compared to households is second home

development. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies special tabulations, North

Carolina has a number of counties in which, compared to the rest of the nation, second homes

make up a high share of the total homes. These counties include: Brunswick, Macon, Dare,

Avery, and Carteret. The second home share of units in 1990 ranged from 34.3% in Brunswick

County to 28.8% in Carteret County.

Table 8

Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies’ tabulations of the Census Bureau’s Construction Reports

North Carolina also has a number of Metro Areas that are among the top 20 in the United States

in adding more than 25% to their housing stock between 1990 and 1998. According to the US

Census Construction Tables, North Carolina’s 12 Metropolitan Statistical Areas ( MSAs) ( not

including Norfolk – Virginia Beach – Newport News MSA) had 68,331 new privately owned

housing units authorized in 1999. Since the state as a whole had 84,754 new privately owned

housing units authorized for the same period, approximately 78% of the state’s new privately

owned housing units were authorized in MSAs in 1999.

Metro Area Total Permits

1990- 1998

1990 Housing Stock Permits as share of

1990 stock (%)

Wilmington 30,200 94,200 32.1

Raleigh – Durham 113,800 359,300 31.7

Greenville 12,500 43,100 28.9

Charlotte 124,100 472,900 26.2

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

34

In 1990, single- family units comprised a large majority of all units ( 65.2%), but as more

people move into North Carolina, multifamily units comprise an increasing proportion of

the housing stock, especially in urban areas. Between 1991 and 1999 there were 451,570

one- unit permits issued, 9126 two- unit permits issued, 6817 three to four- unit permits

issued and 102,022 five or more- unit permits issued ( See Table 9 below). While one- unit

permits made up the majority of units authorized during this period ( 79.3%), five or

more- units increase from 10.7% of units authorized in 1991 to 22.0% of the units

authorized in 1999. The number of permits issued annually has increased steadily from

39,034 in 1991 to 84,754 in 1999.

New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized

1991- 1999

5000 15000 25000 35000 45000 55000 65000 75000 85000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Year

Number of Units

1 Unit 2 Units 3- 4 Units 5+ Units

Table 9

Source: US Census Construction Table, 1991- 1999

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

35

Housing Vacancy Status

In 1990, there were 32,070 vacant units for sale and 81,952 vacant units for rent in North

Carolina. Also, there were 98,714 units vacant for seasonal use, 88,431 units vacant for

other reasons and 1,429 units vacant used for migrant workers. The vacancy rate for

owner- occupied units was 1.8 percent and the vacancy rate for rental units was 9.2

percent.

In 1999, North Carolina had a homeownership vacancy rate of 1.9% and a rental vacancy

rate of 10.8%. ( See Table 10) In the past 14 years the national homeownership vacancy

rate has remained near 2%, and the statewide average has more or less mirrored that.

In the same period, the North Carolina rental vacancy rate has lagged behind the national

average for most of the time; however, it surpassed the average between 1995- 1996 and

continued to do so through 1999.

Vacancy Rates in NC as Compared to US

1986- 1999

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Vacancy Rate (%)

NC Homeownership Vacancy National Homeownership Vacancy

NC Rental Vacancy National Rental Vacancy

Table 10

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Housing Vacancy Survey, 1986- 1999

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

36

Home Ownership Rates

North Carolina has a higher homeownership rate than the nation as a whole ( see Table

11). Homeownership rates in North Carolina have been on an upward trend for at least

the past 15 years. In 1990, 68 percent of all occupied units were owned- occupied,

slightly higher than the national rate of 64%. In 1999, the homeownership rate in North

Carolina was 71.1%, while the national rate was 66.8 percent.

In North Carolina’s metropolitan areas, the homeownership rate was 68.4% in 1999.

Charlotte – Gastonia – Rock Hill MSA had the highest homeownership rate among

MSAs ( 72.5%), while Raleigh – Durham – Chapel Hill had the lowest homeownership

rate ( 65.1%).

Substantial differences exist in the home ownership rates among racial and ethnic groups

in the State. In 1990, the statewide home ownership rate for white households was 72.9

percent, 66.3 percent for Native Americans, 49.6 percent among African American

households, 48.1 percent for Asians and 41.7 percent for Hispanic households.

Table 11

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey

Homeownership Rates in NC as Compared to US

1984- 1999

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Year

Homeownership Rate

(%)

NC Homeownership Rate US Homeownership Rate

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

37

Median Housing Costs

In 1990, the median contract rent for the

State was $ 284. In 2000 the Fair Market

Rent for a two- bedroom unit in North

Carolina was $ 528 per month. Since Fair

Market Rents are below the median rent,

this represents a substantial increase in the

cost of housing during the 1990s. In non-metro

North Carolina, the Fair Market Rent

was $ 436 for a two- bedroom apartment. In

metro areas, the lowest fair market rent was

$ 438 per month ( Goldsboro and Rocky

Mount) and the highest was $ 755 per

Average Home Prices in Selected Areas

1999

REALTORS ® Multiple

Listing Statistics ( MLS) Units Sold in

1999

1999

Average

Cost

Area Median

Family

Income

Price: Income

Asheville 2,563 $ 157,095 $ 43,900 3.58

Carteret 1,882 $ 124,481 $ 43,400 2.87

Catawba Valley 2,017 $ 119,291 $ 44,500 2.68

Carolina ( Charlotte) 21,884 $ 168,936 $ 54,500 3.10

Fayetteville * 1,967 $ 98,743 $ 39,200 2.25

Goldsboro 592 $ 104,746 $ 40,500 2.59

Greenville 1,515 $ 109,562 $ 43,300 2.53

Haywood 579 $ 122,595 $ 36,300 3.38

Hendersonville 1,423 $ 150,388 $ 46,100 3.26

Outer Banks 1,554 $ 213,373 $ 46,500 4.59

Rocky Mount 908 $ 114,167 $ 42,200 2.71

Pinehurst 1,017 $ 173,783 $ 49,000 3.55

Triad** 8,447 $ 145,555 $ 49,300 2.95

Triangle 18,108 $ 181,124 $ 59,500 3.04

Wilmington 3,711 $ 165,847 $ 44,700 3.71

Wilson 717 $ 106,538 $ 41,800 2.55

Totals 68,884 $ 141,014

Table 12

Source: NC Association of REALTORS ® data

* Statistics were unavailable for the month of October 1999

** Statistics were unavailable for the months of January, February, and March, 1999

*** Since no estimated median family income was available for these regions, the state non-metropolitan

median family income average was used for Carteret, Haywood, and Wilson and the state

median family income was used for Hendersonville, the Outer Banks, and Pinehurst

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

38

month ( Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill).

In 1990, the median house value in the State was $ 65,800. According to data available

from the North Carolina Association of REALTORS ® , Inc., the average cost of a home

in selected housing markets in the state in 1999 was $ 141,014. The area with the highest

average home cost was the Outer Banks ($ 213,373) and the area with the lowest was

Fayetteville ($ 98,743). The data are based on 68,884 sales in 1999 in sixteen different

communities.

Housing Affordability

Affordable units are defined as " units for which a family would pay no more than 30

percent of their income for rent and no more than 2.5 times their annual income to

purchase. Overall, North Carolina is the 20th most affordable state in the U. S.

Rental housing is increasingly becoming unaffordable for many North Carolina renters.

Between 1999 and 2000, both Raleigh/ Durham/ Chapel hill and Charlotte/ Gastonia/ Rock

Hill had among the top five increases in housing wage among the nation’s MSAs ( 13.6%

and 16.9% respectively). In 2000 , 36% of renters in the state could not afford the Fair

Market Rent ( FMR) for a two- bedroom unit. A worker earning the minimum wage

($ 5.15 per hour) has to work 79 hours per week to afford a two- bedroom unit at the FMR.

The affordability gap is even greater for households receiving Social Security Income

( SSI) or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ( TANF) assistance with no other

earnings. SSI recipients can afford only $ 145 per month for rent and a three- person

TANF household could afford rent of only $ 82 per month.

FMRs for a two- bedroom unit in the State’s major metropolitan areas ranged from $ 438

in Rocky Mount and Goldsboro to $ 755 in Raleigh- Durham- Chapel Hill. Between 32%

and 47% of the renters in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas are unable to afford the fair

market rent in their community.

Number of renter households by household income category

Year built 0- 30% 31- 50% 51- 80% Total % w/ LBP

Number

w/ LBP

Pre 1940 29,288 33,101 23,826 62,389 90% 56,150

1940- 59 44,920 60,237 55,310 105,157 80% 84,126

1960- 79 65,970 103,265 135,367 169,235 62% 104,926

1980- 90 30,279 49,221 122,465 201,965 ----- -----

Total renter households estimated to live in housing with LBP present = 245,201

Table 13

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

39

The cost of homeownership is also increasing in North Carolina. Based on the data

available from the North Carolina Association of REALTORS â , Inc., the average cost of

a home in sixteen different housing markets increased from $ 125,565 in 1997 to

$ 141,014 ( a 12.3% increase). Housing price– to– income ratios ranged from 2.52 in

Fayetteville and 2.53 in Greenville to 3.58 in Asheville and 3.71 in Wilmington. The

average cost for all market areas ($ 141,014) was 3.03 times the estimated median family

income for North Carolina in 1999.

Number of owner households by household income category

Year Built

0- 30% 31- 50% 51- 80% Total % w/ LBP

Number

w/ LBP

Pre 1940 23,985 33,590 47,542 105,117 90% 94,605

1940- 59 38,504 70,693 136,747 245,944 80% 196,755

1960- 79 106,938 76,587 216,327 399,852 62% 247,908

1980- 90 86,433 47,520 97,566 231,519 ----- -----

Total owner households estimated to live in housing with LBP present = 539,269

Table 14

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

40

Lead- Based Paint Hazards

Though lead- based paint was used in homes until 1978, higher concentrations are found

in homes built prior to 1950, thus pre- 1950 housing is often used as an indicator of

housing containing lead- based paint. Rental houses are more likely to be deteriorated

than owner- occupied homes so tenure of homes is important. Houses of lower income

people are also more likely to be of poorer quality and in worse condition. Minority

children ( especially Hispanic and African American children) tend to have higher rates of

lead poisoning as well, mainly due to their generally lower economic status.

Given these conditions, there is a greater lead poisoning risk for those in eastern North

Carolina, due partly to the age of housing units, and due largely to the poorer economic

conditions. While lead poisoning has been viewed as an inner city problem, analysis

Table 15

Source: Division of Environmantal Health, NC Department of Environment and Environmantal Health

LEAD POISONING:

1 AND 2 YEAR OLDS

1998- 1999

NUMBER OF

CHILDREN

SCREENED FOR LEAD

POISONING

PERCENT OF

CHILDREN WITH

BLOOD LEAD LEVEL

GREATER THAN OR

EQUAL TO 10 m G/ DL

Total 120,011 2.9

RACE AND ETHNICITY

White 57,670 1.9

African American 37,393 4.1

Other Minorities 6,472 2.6

Hispanic 6,792 4.2

GENDER

Male 60,844 3.1

Female 58,020 2.7

INCOME

Medicaid 69,581 3.6

Non- Medicaid 50,430 1.8

CLINIC – ACCESS TO SCREENING

SERVICES

Public Health Clinic 36,618 3.9

Private Physician 83,393 2.4

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION*

URBAN/ METROPOLITAN 38,118 2.4

RURAL 81,893 3.1

EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA 46,271 3.5

PIEDMONT 60,051 2.5

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA 13,682 2.0

CALENDAR YEAR

1998 53,384 3.5

1999 66,627 2.3

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

41

suggests that there are significant problems in the State's rural areas. The data provided

in Table 15 supports these assumptions.

There are approximately 245,193 housing units occupied by very low and other low-income

renters that are estimated to contain lead- based paint. Approximately 539,268

owner- occupied households are estimated to contain lead- based paint ( LBP). These

estimations are based on age of housing unit multiplied by the percentage indicators

provided by the National Center for Lead Safe Housing for analysis and all are based on a

10 percent margin of error.

In 1998 and 1999, 120,011 one and two year olds in North Carolina were screened for

lead poisoning. Overall, 2.9% of the children tested during the two- year period had

blood lead levels at or above 10 m g/ dL. It was encouraging that the percentages of

children with elevated blood lead levels decreased from 3.5% in 1998 to 2.3% in 1999.

Although lead exposure has declined dramatically for the entire pediatric population,

there remains a significant disparity between African American households and White

households with the prevalence of elevated exposure among African Americans more

than double that of Whites in North Carolina. Other minority populations including

Hispanics and Native Americans are similarly at elevated risk although screening data is

more limited for these groups. Likewise, low- income children, those from rural

communities, and children from the East suffer disproportionately from lead poisoning

primarily as a result of greater exposure to deteriorated lead- based paint in older rental

housing. 4.1% of African American children and 4.2% of Hispanic children had elevated

blood lead levels compared to only 1.9% for White children. In rural and eastern North

Carolina, the incidence of elevated blood lead levels was also higher. Finally, poor

children ( from families receiving Medicaid) were twice as likely to have blood lead

levels at or above 10 m g/ dL than non- Medicaid children.

Public Housing Authorities

In 1999, HUD allocated $ 357,694,414 to 128 NC public housing agencies to provide

rental housing assistance and to improve the quality of life for low- income citizens

throughout the state of North Carolina. Presently, North Carolina public housing

agencies serve nearly 115,000 families through 4 housing assistance programs: Public

Housing Program, Section 8 Certificate Program, Section 8 Voucher Program, and

Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program. Of these 115,000 families, 28% ( or 29,094)

are elderly families. Thirty two percent of public housing residents and 34% of Section 8

tenants are wage earners. As a result of the disasters of 1999, over 800 public and

assisted housing units were damaged or declared inaccessible in Eastern North Carolina.

The 16 public housing agencies affected received an additional $ 15 million in emergency

funding.

Nearly half of the public housing agencies in North Carolina participate in HUD’s Family

Self Sufficiency ( FSS) Program. The purpose of this program is to promote the

development of local strategies to coordinate the use of public housing and Section 8

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

42

assistance with public and private resources to enable participating families to achieve

economic independence and self- sufficiency. There are currently 4065 FSS families in

North Carolina.

Many North Carolina public housing agencies have developed and implemented

innovative programs that empower their public housing residents to achieve self-sufficiency.

Examples of notable programs include: a Home Ownership Institute

( Charlotte), an in- home Aide Training Program ( Asheville), the “ Wadsworth Court”

development that provided home ownership opportunities by offering single family

homes to public housing residents at cost ( High Point), a Janitorial Entrepreneur Training

Program ( Rocky Mount), a downtown newsstand ( Sanford), and a four week “ On My

Own” program for youth from 10- 16 ( Wilmington).

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

43

Homelessness Statistics

Nature and Extent of Homelessness in North Carolina

James Wright and Joel Devine wrote, in a series of articles on counting homeless persons,

“ homeless persons on the street will always be severely undercounted … because

homelessness is more a phenomenon of housing instability than of houselessness. Many

people are episodically homeless – moving in and out of homelessness, occasionally

staying with friends or relatives or at a cheap hotel. Thus, on any given night many

“ homeless” individuals will not be in either shelters or on the streets.” This statement is

particularly germane to a serious discussion of the needs of North Carolina’s homeless

citizens.

According to the Stewart B. McKinney Act, a homeless person is an individual who

“ lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and an individual that has a

primary nighttime residence that is ( a) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter

designed to provide temporary living accommodations … ( b) an institution that provides

a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or ( d) a public or

private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodations

for human beings.” The McKinney Act definition is usually interpreted to include only

those persons who are literally homeless – that is, on the streets or in shelters – and

persons who face imminent eviction ( within a week) from a private dwelling or

institution and who have no subsequent residence or resources to obtain housing.

Homeless service providers in North Carolina find that this definition works well in large,

urban areas but, at times, proves to be problematic in rural areas where homeless persons

are more likely to live with relatives in overcrowded or substandard housing.

Lack of reliable data on the state’s homeless population has hampered efforts by state and

local governments to design effective housing and service programs for the population.

Although championed by the state’s Interagency Council on Coordinating Homeless

Programs ( ICCHP), a comprehensive statewide count of homeless persons in North

Carolina has never been conducted. With an inadequate and discredited count of the

state’s homeless by the 1990 U. S. Census, the only credible source of information on the

homeless comes from performance reports submitted by nonprofit organizations and units

of local government that receive Emergency Shelter Grants ( ESG) Program funding each

year, from local consolidated plans and from state agencies that serve various homeless

subpopulations.

From July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999, 121 ESG- funded facilities for the homeless in 54

counties served over 43,000 persons. Facilities funded included 24- hour emergency

shelters, day shelters, night shelters, domestic violence shelters, transitional housing

facilities, youth facilities and interfaith hospitality networks. Grantees are asked to submit

unduplicated totals on their performance reports. Though multiple grantees in one county

may cause the number for that particular county to be duplicated in some instances, the

ICCHP and the Office of Economic Opportunity ( OEO) of the NC Department of Health

and Human Services considers 43,000 to be a more realistic and reliable figure than any

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

44

other estimation of the state’s homeless population offered previously. Of the over 43,000

homeless persons served in North Carolina by the 121 ESG- funded facilities in SFY 98-

99, approximately 37% were adult single males age 18 and over, 17% were adult single

females age 18 and over and 29% were children below 18 years of age. African-

Americans comprised 57% ( 24,611) of those served and Whites comprised 35% ( 15,089)

of total persons served. Almost five percent of persons served ( 1,943) were Hispanic.

Native Americans served totaled 664 ( 1.5%) and Asians served totaled 282 or less than

one percent. Other races comprised approximately 1% of those persons served.

Homeless Families with Children

Homelessness is a devastating experience for families. It disrupts virtually every aspect

of family life, damaging the physical and emotional health of family members, interfering

with children’s education and development, and frequently resulting in the separation of

family members. Nationally, one of the fastest growing segments of the homeless

population is families with children. Requests for emergency shelter by families with

children in 30 U. S. cities, increased by an average of 15% between 1997- 1998.

Moreover, 88% of the cities surveyed expected an increase in the number of requests for

emergency shelter by families with children in 1999 ( U. S. Conference of Mayors, 1998).

The national trends are supported by the data submitted by the state’s 121 ESGP

grantees. From July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999 121 ESG- funded facilities reported serving

6,289 families. These families included 7,158 adults ages 18 and over and 11,008

children below the age of 18. Of the 7,158 adults in these families, 88% ( 6,607) were

females between the ages of 18 and 55. Adult males age 18 and over in families

numbered 551 or 8% of total adults in families served. A total of 11,008 children in

families were served by the 121 ESG- funded facilities. Seventy- four percent of these

children were between the ages of 1 and 12 years. Over half of the children in ESGP-funded

shelters are under the age of five. Children birth to 1 year of age and children ages

13 – 17 accounted for 14% and 12% respectively of those children in families served.

Providers cite poverty, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence as the principal

causes of family homelessness in North Carolina.

Homelessness severely impacts the health and well being of all family members.

Compared with housed poor children, homeless children experience worse health; more

developmental delays; more anxiety, depression and behavioral problems; and lower

educational achievement ( Shinn and Weitzman, 1996). Deep poverty and housing

instability are especially harmful during the earliest years of childhood, below the age of

five. In North Carolina, over half of the children in ESGP- funded shelters are under the

age of five.

School- age homeless children face barriers to enrolling and attending school, including

transportation problems, residency requirements, inability to obtain previous school

records, and lack of clothing and school supplies. In a 1997 report to Congress, state

Educational Agencies ( SEAs) provided estimates of the number and location of homeless

children and youth in their states. North Carolina estimated that there were a total of

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

45

3,800 homeless children enrolled in public schools in the state – 1,500 in kindergarten

through 5th grade, 800 in grades 6 - 8, and 1,500 in grades 9- 12. It should be noted that

North Carolina drew this information from data derived from 50% of the counties that

reported. In 1999, however, the state’s Education for Homeless Children and Youth

( EHCY) Program, a federal program authorized under the McKinney Act and

administered by the state’s Department of Public Instruction, provided funding to only 17

of the 115 local educational agencies ( LEAs) in the state. These 17 LEAs served a total

of 1,473 children who were either homeless or at- risk of becoming homeless.

Parents also suffer the ill effects of homelessness and poverty. One study of homeless and

low- income housed families found that both groups experienced higher rates of

depressive disorders than the overall population, and that one- third of homeless mothers

( compared to one- fourth of poor housed mothers) had made at least one suicide attempt

( Bassuk et al., 1996). In both groups, over one- third of the sample had a chronic health

condition.

Welfare caseloads have dropped sharply since the passage and implementation of welfare

reform legislation. Early findings suggest that although more families are moving from

welfare to work, many of them are faring poorly due to low wages and inadequate work

supports. Only a small fraction of welfare recipients' new jobs pay above- poverty wages;

most of the new jobs pay far below the poverty line ( Children's Defense Fund and the

National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998). As a result of loss of benefits, low wages,

and unstable employment, many families leaving welfare struggle to get medical care,

food, and housing. Subsidized housing is so limited ( in NC and nationally) that fewer

than one in four TANF families receive housing assistance.

Numbers alone do not help to identify the scope of the problems of homeless families

with children. The data is presented to point out the depth of the problem and the

disastrous effect that homelessness can have on families that despite many negative

circumstances could, would and should stay together if they had a place to live.

Geography of Homelessness

Homelessness is often assumed to be an urban phenomenon because homeless people are

more numerous, more geographically concentrated, and more visible in urban areas.

However, many people experience homelessness and housing distress in America's small

towns and rural areas. Understanding rural homelessness requires a more flexible

definition of homelessness. There are far fewer shelters in rural areas; therefore, people

experiencing homelessness are less likely to live on the street or in a shelter, and more

likely to live in a car or camper, or with relatives in overcrowded or substandard housing.

Restricting definitions of homelessness to include only those who are literally homeless -

that is, on the streets or in shelters - does not fit well with the rural reality, and also

excludes many rural communities from accessing federal dollars to address

homelessness.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

46

National studies comparing urban and rural homeless populations have shown that

homeless people in rural areas are more likely to be white, female, married, currently

working, homeless for the first time, and homeless for a shorter period of time ( U. S.

Department of Agriculture, 1996). Other research indicates that families, single mothers,

and children make up the largest group of people who are homeless in rural areas

( Vissing, 1996). Homelessness among Native Americans and migrant workers is also

largely a rural phenomenon. Findings also include higher rates of domestic violence and

lower rates of alcohol and substance abuse.

Rural homelessness, like urban homelessness, is the result of poverty and a lack of

affordable housing. Homelessness is most pronounced in rural regions that are primarily

agricultural; regions whose economies are based on declining extractive industries such

as mining, timber, or fishing; and regions experiencing economic growth -- for example,

areas with industrial plants that attract more workers than jobs available, and areas near

urban centers that attract new businesses and higher income residents, thereby driving up

taxes and living expenses ( Aron and Fitchen, 1996).

A lack of decent affordable housing underlies both rural and urban homelessness. While

housing costs are lower in rural areas, so are rural incomes, leading to a similarly high

rent burdens. Problems of housing quality also contribute to rural homelessness: in rural

areas, 23% of poor homeowners households and 27% of poor renter households live in

inadequate housing, compared to 17% and 22% in urban areas ( Aron and Fitchen, 1996).

Rural residential histories reveal that homelessness is often precipitated by a structural or

physical housing problem jeopardizing health or safety; when families relocate to safer

housing, the rent is often too much to manage and they experience homelessness again

while searching for housing that is both safe and affordable. Other trends affecting rural

homelessness include the distance between low- cost housing and employment

opportunities; lack of transportation; decline in homeownership; restrictive land- use

regulations and housing codes; rising rent burdens; and insecure tenancy resulting from

changes in the local real estate market ( for example, the displacement of trailer park

residents) ( Fitchen, 1992).

Homeless service and housing providers in rural areas note that loss of jobs, family

break- up, and lack of affordable housing units are a major force in the increase of

homelessness or the threat of homelessness in our state. Additional factors include fires

and natural disasters ( such as the recent flooding by Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd), but

also can be of a personal nature ( such as domestic violence or medical issues).

Particularly in rural areas, local elected officials, service agencies, and church and

business leaders often fail to recognize that homelessness exists in their community.

Even local government administrators are not aware of the organizations serving

homeless people in their communities. The Office of Economic Opportunity conducted a

survey of the state’s 100 county managers and each county’s Department of Social

Services to determine their knowledge of homeless people in their community and the

programs that serve them. Directors of the county Departments of Social Services were

asked how many persons were homeless based on their case files or other records.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

47

County managers were asked to identify emergency shelters and transitional housing

programs serving homeless persons. Out of the 100 counties surveyed, 44 DSS offices

and 38 county managers responded. Of these, 29 of the DSS respondents and 19 of the

responding county managers were from counties with facilities funded by the Office’s

Emergency Shelter Grants Program. The DSS respondents reported 22 facilities ( total,

all counties) serving the homeless in their county; the county managers reported 73 such

facilities. In fact, the Office of Economic Opportunity’s ESGP grantees reported these

same counties to have an aggregate total of 116 facilities. Responses from the remaining

45 counties without ESGP grantees yielded similar results: DSS respondents reported 2

facilities in these counties, and county managers reported 5. Most of the respondents

indicated that there were no homeless persons in their counties. Most of the DSS

respondents also indicated that they did not inquire as to housing status of clients served

by their programs.

The results of this survey demonstrate the disconnect between homeless persons and the

governments and social service agencies that are to serve them. The results also

emphasize that homeless housing and service providers must work harder to engage

county leadership and that of the county Department of Social Services in crafting

community responses to homelessness.

Homeless Subpopulations

Homeless Persons with Serious Mental Illness

National studies indicate that about a third of persons who are homeless have a serious

mental illness. Emergency Shelter Grantees in North Carolina report that 2,302

individuals self- reported mental illness as the primary cause of their homelessness in

1999. But persons who are homeless and mentally ill often remain outside the service

delivery system until untreated mental illness bring them into contact with emergency

psychiatric services and/ or law enforcement. North Carolina state psychiatric facilities

report 853 admissions of homeless persons in 1999. An estimated 10,400 persons in NC

state prisons or local jails are identified as mentally ill and among these individuals an

estimated 2O% in state prisons and 30% in local jails were homeless upon arrest.

Aggressive outreach to persons who are homeless and mentally ill is needed to bring

them into the service delivery system. Mental health workers in seven of North

Carolina’s most urban counties working under the Federal PATH program ( Projects for

Assistance in Transition from Homelessness) report outreach and services to 3,404

unduplicated homeless persons with serious mental illness in 1999. Once engaged, the

homeless mentally ill need a full array of psychiatric and social support services. Decent,

safe and affordable housing is a necessary prerequisite for the success of these

interventions. Homeless persons with mental illness need both structured transitional

housing to establish stability and the skills of independent living, and permanent

affordable rentals with support services to maintain themselves in the community.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

48

A 1999 consumer survey conducted by the Division indicated that 4,650 severely

mentally ill individuals are in immediate need of stable affordable housing. Since this

survey was a sampling of current adult consumers of public mental health services, the

numbers do not reflect those homeless mentally ill individuals not engaged in the public

mental health system.

Homeless Persons with Substance Use Disorders

Homelessness is not a static condition, nor are all homeless persons similar in age, race,

gender or other special characteristics. While alcohol and substance abuse have

propelled large numbers of persons into homelessness, still others have developed

patterns of substance abuse as a way of coping with street and shelter. There is

considerable field research that underscores a common sense, expected outcome – the

longer a person remains homeless, the greater the incidence of substance abuse,

psychiatric disorders, and a wide range of life- threatening episodes.

While there is no hard data to cite, untreated substance abuse may well be the primary

contributing cause of homelessness in the nation, with national estimates indicating that

nearly half of homeless persons have a substance use disorder. Emergency Shelter

Grantees in North Carolina report that 8,256 individuals self- reported either alcohol or

drug abuse as the primary cause of their homelessness in 1999. A total of 2,527 persons

receiving substance abuse treatment from local area programs in 1999 were homeless,

either living on the streets or in shelters. This is a 150% increase over the past five years.

Homeless persons with substance abuse problems need access to a full range of

comprehensive services: substance abuse treatment, transitional housing and halfway

houses for both individuals and families so that children can remain with their parents,

and affordable permanent housing with appropriate after care to assist individuals in re-establishing

themselves.

Homeless Persons with Dual Diagnosis ( Mentally Ill and Substance Use Disorders)

There is no hard data on the number of homeless individuals that have both a mental

illness and a substance abuse problem. A Report of the Federal Task Force on

Homelessness and Severe Mental illness indicates that approximately 50% of the

homeless mentally ill are also alcohol and/ or drug users/ abusers. Persons with dual

disorders are both difficult to outreach and serve because their needs are so complex.

They are often unable to conform to the rules of generic homeless shelters or mainstream

treatment programs. Neither mental health or substance abuse treatment can be

undertaken in isolation and for this reason specialized services aimed at this population

are required.

A segment of this population would be well served by a Safe Haven model that provided

access to shelter and services without high demand or initial expectations of total

sobriety. There is also a need for residential treatment programs, as well as transitional

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

49

housing, halfway houses and permanent affordable rentals with ongoing supportive

services.

Homeless Persons with HIV/ AIDS

Lack of affordable housing is a critical problem facing an ever- increasing number of

people living with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ( AIDS) or other illnesses

caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus ( HIV). Persons with HIV/ AIDS may lose

their jobs because of discrimination or because of the debilitating effects of the disease

and subsequent hospitalizations. They may also find their incomes drained by the high

cost of health care, especially medications.

Sadly, many individuals with HIV/ AIDS may die before they are able to receive housing

assistance. Efforts to build HIV/ AIDS housing often encounter chronic funding

shortfalls, bureaucratic indifference, and the stigma and fear of AIDS. Local opposition

by neighborhood or community groups can effectively prevent the development and/ or

successful operation of supportive housing appropriate for persons with HIV/ AIDS. A

National Commission on AIDS report estimates that one- third to one- half of all people

with HIV/ AIDS are either homeless, or at- risk of becoming homeless.

Some studies indicate that the prevalence of HIV among homeless persons can be as high

as 20% with some subpopulations having much higher incidences of the disease. Further,

it has been estimated that 36% of people with AIDS have been homeless since learning

that they had the disease and that up to 50% of persons living with HIV/ AIDS are

expected to need housing assistance of some kind during their lifetimes ( Robbins and

Nelson, 1996).

The AIDS Care Branch of the N. C. Department of Health and Human Services has

estimated that at least 6,600 of the estimated 20,000 persons living with HIV in the state

are homeless or at risk of homelessness. In 1999, however, only 126 housing units,

including beds in- group homes, were designated for persons living with HIV/ AIDS in the

state.

A total of 567 persons served by 121 ESG- funded facilities in SFY 98- 99 reported the

cause of their homelessness to be due to their HIV/ AIDS infection. Many of these

facilities are not staffed or equipped to assist persons with HIV/ AIDS and find the lack of

available housing for this subpopulation difficult if not impossible to locate. Many

HIV/ AIDS infected individuals are referred to shelters by hospitals as a last resort and

often reside at the shelter until they return to the hospital in the end stages of the disease.

Homeless persons with HIV/ AIDS need safe, affordable housing and supportive,

appropriate health care. Eviction/ foreclosure prevention funds should be available for

persons with HIV- related illnesses who are in danger of losing their homes, and housing

assistance ( including rent subsidies) should be available for those already on the streets.

In addition, adequate funding of targeted housing and health programs must be provided

and anti- discrimination laws must be enforced.

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

50

Homeless Victims of Domestic Violence

When a woman leaves an abusive relationship, she often has nowhere to go. This is

particularly true of women with few financial resources of their own. Lack of affordable

rental housing and long waiting lists for public housing provide few viable choices for

these women. As a result, many victims of domestic violence are forced to return to the

abuser, move in with friends or relatives creating overcrowded living situations or live on

the streets. The contribution of domestic violence to homelessness, particularly among

families with children, is undeniable.

Twenty- seven percent or over 11,000 of the persons served by 121 ESG grantees in the

state from July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999 reported domestic violence and/ or sexual assault

as the primary cause of their homelessness. According to the North Carolina Council for

Women ( CFW), 7,233 adults and 7,263 children were sheltered by the 93 domestic

violence programs in North Carolina from July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999. CFW also

reports that 516 adult and 699 child victims of domestic violence were unable to locate

shelter through a domestic violence program during the same period.

Although domestic violence shelters provide necessary and immediate shelter for the

victims of domestic violence, such shelter is temporary and in such demand that clients

are often allowed to stay no more than 30 – 60 days. Women with children who are

victims of domestic violence are often, understandably, given priority in admission to

domestic violence shelters. However, this results in battered single women being given

less priority and, thus, left even more vulnerable to homelessness or to a return to an

abusive situation.

In the last five years, domestic violence programs in the state have become increasingly

interested and involved in the construction and operation of transitional housing. Such

facilities allow victims to stay for longer periods of time and, as a result, have a better

opportunity to secure the job training, financial counseling and support they need to break

out of the cycle of persistent violence and abuse. There is a strong need for transitional

housing for the victims of domestic violence currently and this need is expected to grow

over the next five years. Additional needs of domestic violence victims include

employment counseling and training, increased follow- up services to shelter residency,

day care, mental health counseling and court advocacy.

Homeless and Runaway Youth

Homeless youth are individuals under the age of eighteen who lack parental, foster, or

institutional care. These young people are sometimes referred to as “ unaccompanied

youth”. The homeless youth population is estimated to be approximately 300,000 young

people each year ( Institute for Health Policy Studies, 1995). According to the Research

Triangle Institute, an estimated 2.8 million youth living in U. S. households reported a

runaway experience during the prior year ( U. S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 1995). According to the U. S. Conference of Mayors, unaccompanied youth

account for 3% of the urban homeless population ( U. S. Conference of Mayors, 1998).

2001- 2005 N. C. Consolidated Plan

12/ 8/ 00

51

Causes of homelessness among youth fall into three interrelated categories: family

problems, economic problems, and residential instability. Many homeless youth leave

home after years of physical and sexual abuse, strained relationships, addiction of a

family member, and parental neglect. Disruptive family conditions are the principal

reason that young people leave home. In one study, more than half of the youth

interviewed during shelter stays reported that their parents either told them to leave or

knew they were leaving and did not care ( U. S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 1997).

Some youth may become homeless when their families suffer financial crises resulting

from lack of affordable housing, limited employment opportunities, insufficient wages,

no medical insurance, or inadequate welfare benefits. These youth become homeless

with their families, but are later separated from them by shelter, transitiona