The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDN 2019-07-23 Item 4 - Discussion - Draft 2019 King County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing ChoiceKing County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019 Public. Review Draf Revised for July 12, 2019 Table of Contents Introduction and Executive Summary 2 Community Participation Process 6 Assessment of Past Fair Housing Goals 14 Fair Housing Analysis 21 Demographic Trend Summary 22 Segregation and Integration in King County 25 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) 37 Disproportionate Housing Needs 38 Disparities in Access to Opportunity 44 Education 45 Employment 50 Transportation 52 Environmental Health 55 Conclusion - Disparities in Access to Opportunity 61 Publicly Supported Housing Analysis 62 Disability and Access Analysis 66 Fair Housing Discrimination Data Analysis 69 Fair Housing Goals 71 Conclusion and Next Steps 72 This report is a draft, and will change to reflect community input. King County and partner cities welcome your feedback, and want to hear from all individuals and community organizations on what they see as the greatest barriers to fair housing choice, existing efforts to address these issues that have not been included, and what solutions would be most effective. Please attend our community meetings or contact us directly: Isaac Horwith at Isaac.Horwith@kingcounty.gov or 206-477-7813. King County staff are also available upon request to provide briefings to city councils, advisory boards and commissions, and other organizations on this process and key findings. 2 U��U��U��N�N�� ou� u "x�*�*~°~,o o�*u� ��o��* EXECUTIVE o�u� ~,w*n�"um"��uv, Introduction Everyone deserve fair access to housing. Discrimination and segregation are deeply engrained in the history of the United States, including King County. Access to housing was historically akey too[ toperpetuate segregation, and will becritical for its undoing. The Federal Fair Housing and mandates all local governments affirmatively further means King County must take meaningful actions to COrnb8t discrimination, segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict accessto opportunity. Protected Classes in King County Federal State of Washington Race Color National Origin Religion Sex Disability Familial Status ~ Creed Marital Status Veteran/Military Status Use of Service or Assistive Animal Source ofIncome This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) seeks tUunderstand the barriers tUfair housing choice and will guide policy and funding decisions tUaddress discrimination and segregation in King County. This analysis is written in the context of King County's Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan', which provides a lens through which all critical government decisions are made. The Strategic Plan creates a framework to analyze how to engage historically underserved communities in examining current conditions and defining equitable solutions. This analysis is also written in the context of the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force's Five- YearACti0n Plan and Hn8| R8pOrt2 and the Affordable Housing Committee. This 8n8|y3iS may 'https://kngcnuntv.nnv/~/media/initiative$affnrdab|ehnudnw/dncument$report/RAHRepnrtPhntFi|eUpdatpd7' 17'l9.ashx?|a~en 3 inform efforts King county and the Affordable Housing Committee will take to develop model ordinances or provide technical assistance to partner jurisdictions. The Five -Year Action Plan includes strategies that this analysis partially addresses: • Goal 4, Strategy A: Propose and support legislation and statewide policies related to tenant protection to ease implementation and provide consistency for landlords: o Prohibit discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants with arrest records, conviction records, or criminal history • Goal 4, Strategy B: Strive to more widely adopt model, expanded tenant protection ordinances countywide and provide implementation support for: o Prohibiting discrimination in housing against tenants and potential tenants with arrest records, conviction records, or criminal history • Goal 5, Strategy B: Increase investments in communities of color and low-income communities by developing programs and policies that serve individuals and families at risk of displacement o Expand requirements to affirmatively market housing programs and enhance work to align affordable housing strategies with federal requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. This analysis is conducted on behalf of the King County Consortium, which includes all of King County with the exception of the Cities of Seattle and Milton. While this analysis includes the City of Seattle, particularly for the analysis of shifting demographics and segregation throughout King County, it does not represent the City of Seattle nor reflect all of its efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. The City of Seattle and Seattle Housing Authority conducted its own Assessment of Fair Housing in 2017, which you can read here.3 This analysis is primarily based on the structure of the 2017 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Assessment of Fair Housing Local Government Assessment Tool and the data from the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool4 provided by HUD.5 More current and supplemental data sources are included when appropriate, and the structure has been modified to improve readability. 3 http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/HumanServices/CDBG/2017%20AFH%20Fina1.4.25.17V2.pdf 4 https://egis.hud.gov/affht/ 5 https://egis.hud.gov/affht/ 4 Executive Summary This report finds that systemic segregation, disproportionate housing needs, and individual -level discrimination are present and ongoing in King County. Key findings include: • King County has become significantly more diverse over recent decades. • Jurisdictions in King County can be categorized within three racial compositions: areas that are diverse, predominantly White and Asian, and predominantly White. • South Seattle and Southwest King County contain the most diverse areas of King County and face the greatest barriers in access to opportunity. • Economic segregation is a major factor to segregation patterns throughout King County and protected class status is frequently correlated with lower incomes. • Housing prices have increased dramatically in the last ten years, displacing lower -income communities of color and immigrants. • Field-testing conducted across jurisdictions in King County found evidence of individual -level housing discrimination in about half of all tests. • Blacks are half as likely as Whites to apply for a home loan and twice as likely to be denied. This report proposes an initial set of goals:, 1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing educaeuition, aslniseafisost.rthc and testing. 2. Engage underrepresented cometooti witiiiinaaa.tand increase access to opportuni 3. Provide more housing forvulnert 4. Provide more housing choices fo 5. Support efforts to increase housi 6. Preserve and increase affordable r. 7. Review zoning laws to increase housing' options and supNly in urban areas. 8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities. 9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee's efforts to promote fair housing. 10. Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress. 5 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS King County staff solicited input on community needs, priorities, and on the draft Analysis of Impediments from partner organizations, local jurisdictions, and the general public. Public outreach and engagement activities were designed to reduce barriers to participation and engage stakeholders and community groups who have been underrepresented in the past. King County staff partnered with local jurisdiction leads to help reach more communities, and planned public meetings that might be more broadly attended. Information on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the notice of the public meetings and survey were widely distributed through targeted outreach with our local partners across jurisdictions. The public review draft is available for public review and comment from June 14-July 25, and this section will be updated after this comment period closes. The Joint Recommendations Committee, which oversees the funding decisions of the King County Consortium, will review and approve this report. The King County Department of Community and Human Services plans to submit this report to the King County Council by September. The King County Council will also provide a venue for additional public comment. Stakeholders Members of the following organizations received targeted outreach King County staff distributed public meetings notices and were invited to participate in interviews to provide additional feedback. Housing Providers/Policy Advocate Housing Development Consortium Housing Justice Project King County Housing Authority • Puget Sound Sage • Renton Housing Authority • Tenant's Union (WA State and City of Kent) • WA Multifamily Housing Association • WA Realtors Nonprofit/Community Based Organizations • African Community Housing and Development • Alliance of People with disAbilities • Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Engagement (APACE) • Asian Counseling and Referral Services • Centro De La Raza 6 • Refugee Women's Alliance (ReWA) • Somali Community: Living Well Kent • Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV) • White Center CDA Regional Partners • Columbia Legal Services • Futurewise • Puget Sound Sage • Skyway Solutions • University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy & Governance King County staff conducted interviews with representatives from the following organizations: • Alliance for People with disAbilities • Asian Counseling and Referral Services • Columbia Legal Services • University of Washington: Evans School of Public Policy & Governance • King County Housing Authority • Puget Sound SAGE • Refugee Women's Alliance • Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence Themes of from these interviews were as follows:'( Community Meeting Public Drop -In Forums Three public open houses (one in each sub -region) gave a chance for citizens to provide feedback on the. draft Analysis of Impediments and share their concerns and perspectives with King County representatives. These meetings followed the federal requirements for providing public notice, providing notice in the Seattle Times newspapers, posting on the King County HCD website, posting notice at the meeting site and providing direct notification to stakeholders 14 calendar days prior to the first community meeting. These meetings took place at the following times and locations: • South —Tukwila, 6/29, Tukwila Library, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. • East — Bellevue, 6/15, Crossroads Mall, 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. • North — Shoreline, 6/22, Shoreline Library, 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Open to the General Public These community forums were held in mixed —income and low-income locations around King County that are walkable, accessible by public transit, and had free parking. The venues 7 included areas that are frequented by community members of all economic backgrounds, often in areas with subsidized and affordable housing options. These public meetings were held in publicly accessible locations, without architectural barriers which would preclude the attendance of people who have a disability. King County staff spoke with members of the public about their priorities for fair housing, affordable housing, homeless housing and services as well as community development. Meetings will be scheduled for Saturday late mornings, and busy public venues to ensure the opportunity to talk to many members of the public. Additional Meetings King County co -hosted two community meetings jointly with the Cities of Auburn and Federal Way. An additional stakeholder meeting was scheduled to provide an opportunity to discuss this work and get feedback during work hours Staff from the Downtown Emergency Services Center, Housing Development Print Media The Seattle Times printed the public notice regarding these public meetings at beginning of the Con Plan public comment period, which ran in both print and online in their Public Notices Section from 6/1/2019 to 6/7/2019. Social Media Social Media accounts were not utilized as a way to broadly publicize these meetings further. We did get feedback that this is an effective form of outreach for other organizations to share or re -post, and it was suggested this be used for the next plan update. Online Survey King County staff also distributed an online survey to collect information regarding individuals' personal experiences of barriers to housing. The survey was translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, and Somali to increase accessibility. To date, 21 participants have taken the survey Summary of Feedback [A full summary of the feedback received will be included after the comment period closes.] 8 Much of the feedback has been incorporated throughout this analysis since the first public review draft was posted on June 14, 2019. Key Themes Highlighted from Public Stakeholders: ➢ Impacts of displacement being felt across the county ➢ Available housing pricing out low-income individuals ➢ Fair Housing Enforcement needs work: relies on the injured party to report the discrimination (racism, classism, ableism etc.) ➢ Cost of housing impacts geographical choice ➢ Number of people experiencing homelessness continue to increase ➢ Immigrant and refugee communities are feeling fear of government/public entities/organizations ➢ Credit score/eviction record/criminal records being used as neutral tools to discriminate against potential tenants ➢ Inherent barriers to accessing housing for certain protected classes (e.g. Disability, National Origin etc.) Solutions Identified by Public Stakeholders: ➢ Need more accessible, affordable housing across King County o All units should be built with universal design principles o More larger units (3+ bedrooms), o TOD Development ➢ Need to further educate landlords/property managers on: o landlord/tenant laws o rights of tenants with disabilities (making a unit accessible vs. unit modification) o rights of tenants who are Domestic Violence survivors o rights of tenants with criminal records ➢ Need housing one stop resource to research different housing programs, resources and available housing units The following chart entitled Citizen Participation summarizes feedback specifically from each meeting. 9 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Summary of Summary of comments response/attendance comments received not accepted and reasons Public Meeting Broad Community On June 15, 2019 King Members of the None (Bellevue) County staff organized a community drop in opportunity in Bellevue at Crossroads Mall for community members to discuss county -wide housing needs and fair housing needs, as well as provide public comment on the Consolidated Plan and Analysis for Impediments. public expressed a need for more affordable housing options for renters and home buyers. They shared concerns of their community becoming unaffordable. Shared concerns that employees need to travel further from work to find housing. Lack of affordable housing is impacting efforts to help people out of homelessness, means people are on waitiists longer. Community workforce housingneeds:, ADUs, subsidies that provide both housing and cost of living assistance. 10 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Summary of Summary of comments response/attendance comments received not accepted and reasons Public Meeting Broad Community On June 22, 2019 King Members of the None (Shoreline/Lake Forest County staff organized a public shared the fear Park) community drop -in opportunity at the Shoreline Library for community members to discuss county -wide housing needs and fair housing needs, as well as provide public comment on the Consolidated Plan and Analysis for Impediments. immigrant communities are feeling to join public meetings, and a need for more outreach to immigrant communities. Concerned about availability of housing stock, and impact of tech companies expanding campuses. Community needs more: rental assistance to help keep housing, low income apartment stock, resources on what to do when you are experiencing discrimination and better responsiveness to reported discrimination. 11 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Summary of Summary of comments response/attendance comments received not accepted and reasons Public Meeting Broad Community On June 29, 2019 King Members of the None (Tukwila) County staff organized a community drop -in opportunity at the Tukwila Library for community members to discuss county -wide housing needs and fair housing needs, as well as provide public comment on the Consolidated Plan and Analysis for Impediments. public shared their concern regarding impact of evictions, and how it is being misused. Concerned about the growing number of homeless women and homeless vets. Additionally, how affordability is impacting ability to stay in their preferred neighborhoods. Community needs more: help with planning around credit scores, education, financial planning, and new, accessible homes at affordable prices. 12 Citizen Participation Outreach Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Summary of Summary of comments response/attendance comments received not accepted and reasons Stakeholder Partners/Stakeholders On July 9, 2019 King Partners shared their None. Meeting County staff organized a community drop -in opportunity for partners and stakeholders to discuss county -wide housing needs and fair housing needs, as well as provide public comment on the concern that there are not adequate resources for behavioral health needs, aging in place, or access to adult care homes. Additional concerns included unhealthy housing. Consolidated Plan and Analysis for Impediments. Partners shared that the county needs more long-term medical needs, more education for landlords, long-term subsidized housing, private landlord/rental repair, and more fair housing testing and enforcement. 13 ASSESSMENT OF PAST FAIR HOUSING GOALS King County participated in a regional Fair Housing and Equity Assessment lead by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in 2015. You can read the full report here.6 The following table reviews the goals set in that assessment, policies and programs implemented since 2015 that seek to further these goals, and the results or current status towards reaching each goal. King County and partner cities welcome input on other activities and results in King County that have not been included in this assessment, as well as on goals where progress has not been made since 2015. Goal Activities Results l Fair Housing Education and Information A. Work with regional funding partners and fair housing agency partners to increase the visibility of fair housing enforcement resources. • • Fair housing and tenant advocacy organizations perform outreach and education of fair housing enforcement resources: o Fair Housing Center of Washington o The Tenants Union of Washington Information and access to resources are posted on the websites of: o King County o City of Seattle o Washington State Human Rights Commission o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Education and access to enforcement resources are available. 6 https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/fairhousingequityassessment.pdf 14 Goal Activities Results B. Work with regional funding partners and fair housing agency partners to consider funding specific enforcement initiatives for rental housing in high opportunity areas and high capacity transit areas. The Fair Housing Center of Washington is certified as a private fair housing enforcement initiative program through HUD.7 Fair housing enforcement is available in King County: • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban • There is inconsistent capacity across King County for fair housing enforcement. • Dispersed and overlapping authority makes accessing resources confusing. Development (HUD) enforces federal laws.$ • The Washington State Human Rights Commission enforces state laws.9 • Local jurisdiction enforcement programs include: o City of Bellevuel° o King County Civil Rights Program (for unincorporated areas)11 o City of Seattle Office of Civil Rights12 C. Work with regional funding partners and fair housing agency partners to provide fair housing education and Information regarding fair housing is available and education has continued through the Fair Housing Center of Washington, the Tenants Union, and Solid • Elected officials, housing professionals, renters, and homebuyers, are still often https://www.hud.gov/program offices/fair housing equal opp/contact fhip 8 https://www.hud.gov/program offices/fair housing equal opp 9 https://www.hum.wa.gov/fair-housing 10 https://development.bellevuewa.gov/codes-and-guidelines/code-compliance 11 https://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice/civil-rights.aspx 1z https://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/civil-rights/fair-housing 15 Goal =°��o �k��U��U�U4�� w:�� ."~~�~°o�� training, including specific education for public and dectedofficia|s—ossess need for funding for specific educational campaigns. Ground. However, King County and partner cities did not fund specific educational campaigns. not aware 0ffair housing rights Orresponsibilities. D. Work with regional funding partners and fair housing agency partners todevelop new informational materials and publications that will increase participation in the affirmative furthering of fair housing in our region. Informational pamphlets were available and distributed 8tfair housing seminars and are available online. * Most Ofthe fair housing materials are outdated. U LaDd|ord/AoUS'ng Barriers A. Work with partners, stakeholders, and private landlords tOreduce housing screening barriers, including disparate treatment ofprotected w RC\N43.3l.6O5created the Washington State Landlord There has been significant activity inrecent years for reducing screening barriers to housing, with afocus on polices that have disproportionate impacts Onpeople Of color. Mitigation Program in2O2O.za The program provides education and, insome cases, financial support to landlords 13hupc//www.commeoemm. gov/bui|ding-inhamructure/housing/land|ord-mitiAation-proKmm/ 16 Goal Activities Results classes and criminal background barriers that have a disparate impact on persons of color. who rent to tenants receiving rental assistance. B Work with partners, stakeholders, and private landlords on initiatives and requirements that will actively promote fair housing choice and increase access to housing for protected classes, including expansion of the Landlord Liaison Project. • • The Landlord Liaison Project was reprogrammed into a larger and broader reaching organization called the Housing Connector. This is a cross collaborative effort between the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, King County, and the City of Seattle. The King County Housing Authority staffs three Owner Liaisons who build relationships with new and strengthen existing partnerships with landlords to encourage participation in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. • • The Housing Connector connects private property owners/managers to those most in need of housing. Click here to learn more. 14 Since the Owner Liaison team was created, they have helped the HCV program find homes for over 900 new families. C. Work with partners to add the coverage of source of income/rental assistance/Section 8 discrimination at the State level and at the local level • King County and other partners advocated banning source of income discrimination at the Washington State Legislature. • The Washington State Legislature banned source of income discrimination statewide in 2018. You can find more information about the bill here.15 14 https://www.housingconnector.com/ 15 https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2578&Year=2017&Initiative=false 17 Goal Activities Results for jurisdictions that do not currently include this as a protected class and that have the capacity of administer such a program and explore other opportunities to reduce barriers to the use of Section 8 and other rental assistance in housing. D. Provide technical assistance to help agencies get their questions answered by the appropriate fair housing professional. • King County and partner cities do not provide technical assistance, but refer residents to fair housing professionals that provide fair housing education, including: Solid Ground, the Housing Justice Project, and the Tenants Union of Washington State. • The Washington State Multifamily Housing Association and Washington Realtors provide references to education and enforcement resources. • Fair housing professionals continue to provide technical assistance. III. Access to Opportunity A. In coordination with funding and community partners, make strategic investments in affordable housing in regions of the Since 2015, King County government has invested over $180 million in affordable housing in high opportunity areas or areas with frequent transit service. • Significant affordable housing investments were made in affordable housing projects in high access to opportunity. 18 Goal Activities Results Consortium that have high access to opportunity. B. In coordination with funding partners and community partners, make strategic investments that will catalyze additional public and private investment in regions of the Consortium that have low access to opportunity. In 2014, Public Health — Seattle & King County began the program Communities of Opportunity (COO) in partnership with the Seattle Foundation, which seeks to empower residents and communities with low access to opportunity. One of the primary goals of COO is to increase economic opportunity. Click here for more • Supporting areas with low access to opportunity has been a priority, but significant disparities persist. information.16 C. Work across sectors on shared outcomes to increase health, well-being and the vitality of communities located in areas of low access to opportunity. • Some of the primary goals of COO are to improve health outcomes and community connections. Click • Significant disparities in health outcomes persist in low-income communities. here for more information.' • King County Community Health Needs Assessment and D. Work with partners on legislative matters, incentive programs, and • Addressing displacement and gentrification was an emerging topic during the past five year planning period. The Regional Affordable Housing Task Force • In 2019, the City of Kenmore rezoned its manufactured housing communities to 16 https://www.coopartnershipsorg/ 17 https://www.coopartnerships.org/ 19 Goal =°��o �k��U��U�U4�� w:�� ."~~�~°o�� tools that encourage responsible development in areas oflow access to opportunity and ensure that there are plans to address displacement of low-income persons, ifsuch may occur. * convened elected officials and expert stakeholders and culminated in8Final Report and Five -Year Action Plan. Goal 5ofthe Regional Affordable Housing Task Force isto"Protect existing communities ofcolor and low-income communities from displacement ingentrifying connnnunities,"and includes 8number Ofstrategies tOachieve this goal. The King County Housing Authority has prioritized acquisition and preservation Ofaffordable housing in high opportunity areas where access for low-income persons has historically been limited and inareas at high risk ofdisplacement. w ensure they were not replaced with another housing type. King[ounh/s 20I9-2020 budget included funding for 8 TOD Preservation and Acquisition Plan. The plan currently proposes preserving 582units inthe coming years. You can learn more about the plan here. zx 11hups://mkcz|eRiseaoh.kinAcountv.Aov/Leeis|utionDetaiiuspx?|D=3876610&GU|D=DD8[9E4E-56HC-4AD69876{C24E83FC68E5&Ocuions=Advanoed&3earzh= 20 FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS Understanding the impediments to fair housing choice requires many levels of analysis. This analysis includes the following sections: • Summary of King County demographics and trends • Analysis of segregation patterns and trends • Analysis of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty • Analysis of disproportionate housing needs • Analysis of disparities in access to opportunity along the following factors: - Education - Employment - Transportation Environmentally Healthy Areas • Analysis of publicly supported housing • Analysis of housing access for individuals with disabilities • Analysis of fair housing discrimination testing and housing mortgage disclosure data Each section includes an analysis of the dynamics and disparities for each issue, key contributing factors, and provides a brief overview of the existing programs and policies seeking to address these issues. This report is a draft, and will change to reflect community input. King County and partner cities welcome your feedback, and want to hear from all individuals and community organizations on what they see as the greatest barriers to fair housing choice, existing efforts to address these issues that have not been included, and what solutions would be most effective. Please attend our community meetings or contact us directly: Isaac Horwith at Isaac.Horwith@kingcounty.gov or 206-477-7813. King County staff are also available upon request to provide briefings to city councils, advisory boards and commissions, and other organizations on this process and key findings. 21 Demographic Trend Summary King County has seen significant demographic shifts since 1990 in overall population and makeup by race, ethnicity, and country of origin. King County's population has increased from 1,507,319 in 1990 to a 2018 Census estimate of 2,190,200, an increase of 45%. This was significantly faster than the overall U.S. population growth of 32% from 1990 to 2018. Please see Appendix A for a table containing key demographic data for King County as whole, each jurisdiction, and the unincorporated areas. Race/Ethnicity King County has become significantly more diverse, with the White, not Hispanic or Latinx population decreasing from 84.8% in 1990 to a 2018 Census estimate of 60%. The Asian and Latinx populations grew most rapidly in the same time period, increasing from 7.9% to 18.2% and from 2.9% to 9.7% of the overall population, respectively. The Black population grew from 5.1% in 1990 to a 2018 estimate of 6.8%. King County's racial and ethnic composition is similar to the larger Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue Metropolitan area. National Origin A major contributor to the growth in King County is immigration from other countries. In 1990, 140,600 residents had a national origin other than the U.S. The 2017 King County estimate is 516,000, an increase of 367% compared to 1990. The growth of this population accounts for 48% of the overall population growth in King County, and our foreign -born population accounts for 24% of the overall population, significantly higher than the national average of 14% and slightly higher than the Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue Metropolitan area. There is significant variation between jurisdictions for the percent of their population that is foreign -born. The cities with the highest rates are: Jurisdiction Percent Foreign -Born SeaTac 41% Tukwila 40% Redmond 40% The cities with the lowest percentages of foreign -born individuals are: Jurisdiction Percent Foreign -Born 22 Milton 5% Duvall 6% Maple Valley 6% Countries of origin with more than 15,000 residents in King County are India, China, Mexico, Vietnam, the Philippines, Korea, Canada, Ukraine, and Ethiopia. More than half of King County's foreign -born population originates from Asia. Language and Limited English Proficiency King County residents speak over 170 different languages, and more than a quarter of households in King County speak a language other than English at home. Six percent of King County households have limited English proficiency (LEP). Fifty five percent of LEP households speak Asian and Pacific Island languages, 20% speak Spanish, 16% speak Indo-European languages, and 9% speak other languages.19 The most common languages spoken by K-12 students with LEP in King County are20: Language spoken by LEP students Number of students in King County Spanish 26,260 Vietnamese 5,575 Somali 3,786 Mandarin 3,552 Russian 2,543 Cantonese 2,263 Familial Status Despite other shifting demographics, household size in King County has remained relatively unchanged. Sixty percent of King County residents live in family households, married with or without children, or single parent households. The average household size in King County is 2.5 people. These figures are similar to the United States as a whole. There is significant variation in average household size between jurisdictions within King County. The cities with the highest average household sizes are: 19 Source: 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate 20 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, 2016 estimates: https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/pop/subject/ofm pop limited english proficiency esti mates 2016.xlsx 23 Jurisdiction Average Household Size Algona 9.89 Snoqua|noie 3.1 Sarnnoarnish 3.0 Duvall 3.0 The areas with the smallest average household size are: Jurisdiction Average Household Size SkvkOnoiSh 1.4 Unincorporated King County 1.9 Seattle 2.1 The King County Office of Economic and Financial Analysis performs annual demographic trend analysis. Click here to visit their vvebp8ge.zz u hups://www.kingcountv.Roy/independent/forecustinA/0ng`/`2UCountv`/`2OEconomic`/`2U|ndica1oo/Demographics 24 Segregation and Integration in King County Understanding the nature of residential segregation patterns and trends in King County is a critical first step to understanding the barriers to fair housing choice. Geographically, residential segregation patterns in King County can be categorized as jurisdictions and neighborhoods that are predominantly White, predominantly White and Asian, or racially and ethnically diverse. South Seattle and Southwest King County experience the highest levels of racial and ethnic diversity, and are relatively integrated. Urban jurisdictions east of Seattle, such as Bellevue, Redmond, Sammamish, and Kirkland are predominantly White and contain significant Asian populations. Please see Appendix A for race and ethnicity information for each jurisdiction, King County as a whole, and the unincorporated areas of King County. Non -White residents have moved into urban areas throughout King County over recent decades, which paints an overall positive outlook for racial and ethnic integration in the future. However, as the non-White population is likely to continue to grow, the displacement and shift of the Latinx and Black community into Southwest King County does present a risk of persistent or increased segregation in the future. King County's segregation levels vary significantly by race. While Latinx and Asian populations experience similar levels of relatively low segregation, the Black population is highly segregated from the White population. The Dissimilarity Index provided by HUD measures the degree of segregation between two groups. A score of 0 would represent complete integration, while a score of 100 would represent complete segregation. Race Dissimilarity Index White/Non-White 35.81 Black/White 56.71 Hispanic/White 39.71 Asian/White 36.22 Segregation Trends since 1990 In 1990, areas with significant non-White populations were primarily in Central and South Seattle. Over time, the non-White population has expanded into Southwest King County, with the Asian population also growing significantly in the urban areas east of Seattle. The most segregated areas of King County are those that are predominantly White in the rural areas, which have experienced relatively low population and job growth compared to the urban areas 25 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 @OO 400 200 O Population Change in King County Jurisdictions, 1980-2016a Uninc.Ruro| C� N I�r m 00 00 00 vo m 0) cr) cn 0), o o CD cz o ri � ri M M M M cn m M Cr) xn M o o o CD o CD o CD � � � � ,� � � � � r-I m r* N rw r* r4 r* ry Amajor factorforvvhytheruna|area'spopu|aLionanddennogrophicshaveohangedre|atkxe|« little is the Growth Management Act of Washington State (GMA). King County established an Urban Growth Boundary in1992,inaccordance with the GK4A, and the boundary remains largely unchanged today. This boundary seeks to prevent sprawling, uncontrolled dex8|Opno8nt and targets growth primarily in the western urban areas of King County. The urban areas have accommodated King County's growth in recent decades, while the rural area's demographics remain closer to King County's 1990 demographics. Suburban cities also annexed the majority of the urban unincorporated area, which accounts for the significant decrease in population in the urban unincorporated areas. Another segregationtrendoverreoentdecadeshasbeenthatofincornesegregation.Midd|e- incorneornnixed-incornecensustractshavedecreasedfrorn57Y6inI98Oto46Y6in2Ul7. Economic segregation indexes rate this metropolitan region as about average or slightly below average compared toother metropolitan regions inthe U.5. 22Datasource:hupsvYwww.kingcountv.gov/~/media/depts/executive/performance-stmtegv 26 Since approximately 2013, dramatic increases in the cost of housing have displaced lower -income communities of color farther south in Seattle or into the more affordable areas of Southwest King County. Residents have also been displaced into Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, which have historically had more lower cost housing compared to King County. Este ated Horne Value, 2017 rAUBu L;frrr:& ai.iCi..,)r "^.7, M.7ucrcf FrFrnmfk ZOI 7, 27 Contributing Factors to Segregation Race, National Origin, and Income Understanding the strong connection between race and income is critical to understanding segregation trends in King County. Race/Ethnicity 2018 Median Household Income Percent of King County Median Household Income All King County Households $83,571 Asian $93,971 112% White $88,638 106% Two or more races $70,046 84% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander $62,500 75% Hispanic or Latinx $57,933 69% Some other race $52,070 62% American Indian and Alaska Native $45,923 55% Black or African American $42,280 51% As the preceding table shows, White and Asian households earn above, while all other races and ethnicities earn significantly below, the King County median income. Another significant income disparity that contributes to segregation trends in King County is between U.S.-born and foreign -born individuals. On average, foreign -born individuals earn $34,871, while US born individuals earn $41,983. The following table shows the median household income for households with at least one foreign -born adult by place of birth. The countries included are those with at least 5,000 King County residents. The disparities between different places of birth are stark: Place of Birth Median Household Income United Kingdom $150,511 India $137,966 Canada $124,101 Hong Kong $113,677 Germany $109,406 Taiwan $101,574 Japan $101,046 China $91,070 Philippines $90,575 28 Russia $87,468 Korea $81,777 Ukraine $75,967 Vietnam $72,978 Guatemala $65,595 Cambodia $55,034 Mexico $52,105 El Salvador $46,098 Ethiopia $39,290 Somalia $17,178 The most striking disparity is households with an adult born in Somalia, who have a median income below the federal poverty level, depending on household size.23 The preceding table also shows that while Asians as a single category earn above the King County median income, households with adults born in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia earn less than the King County median income. These income disparities are a major component to why immigrants and low- income people of color have moved into Southwest King County. Median household income by King County neighborhood,1990-2015 .O00 ®$64,999 $&5,000 $74 999 s� 7F. kiBO - $89,999 $90,000 and over Data sources: US Census Bureau, 1.490 & 2000 tenses; Arcventan Commur ty Survey (2006 2010, 2011-201S) Historical Redlining and Restrictive Covenants 2s https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines 29 Two major institutional factors that have historically contributed to segregation in King County are the practices of redlining and restrictive covenants. Redlining was a practice used by lending institutions to systematically deny financial services to residents of specific neighborhoods, either by outright denial or by raising the price for their services. Restrictive covenants explicitly excluded residents from buying houses in certain areas, typically based on race and religion. These policies restricted access to homeownership opportunities for non-White communities. Homeownership is an important tool to building future wealth, and parental homeownership significantly increases the chance that their children will buy a home.24 These policies have likely had a major impact on intergenerational wealth and contributed to the systemic disparities identified throughout this report. The federal Supreme Court ruled against racially restrictive covenants in 1948, and the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed both practices. However, their effects are still visible in King County's demographics today. The Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, based at the University of Washington, provides a wealth of information about the history of segregation in King County. You can learn more about redlining and racially restrictive covenants, including mapping of both practices, here.25 King County's Topography,, Another factor that may contribute to racial and ethnic segregation patterns in King County is its topography. Access to and views of. Puget Sound, lakes, and mountains have a strong influence on housing prices and are dispersed throughout King County. Areas with these assets tend to have a majority White with significant Asian populations. The Latinx and Black populations in King County have significantly lower median incomes and are therefore less likely to live in these areas. Because housing with views or water access can be in close geographic proximity to housing without these assets, an area can be diverse from a jurisdictional or neighborhood level of analysis, but segregated at a sub -neighborhood or block -by -block level. An example of this trend can be seen in predominantly White areas along Puget Sound within the Cities of Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal Way, which transition to neighborhoods that are less than 50% White in distances as short as half a mile. Please see the next page for a map of the racial and ethnic composition of this area. za https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99251/intergenerational homeownership 0.pdf zs https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/segregated.htm 30 Race/Ethnicity Map — Southwest King County26 HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool Data Gated: 611312019 Name: Map 1 - Pace/Ethnicity Description: Current race/ethnicity ctot density map for Judsdiction and Region with R'ECA.Ps 26 https://egis.hud.gov/affht/ Demographics 2010 1 Dot = 20 White, Non-His:panic . Black; Non -Hispanic Native American; Non - Hispanic Asiaa/Pacific !slander, Non- t';.11, His -panic Hispanic Oiher, Non -Hispanic Multi -racial, Non -Hispanic TRACT 31 Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures King County has experienced dramatic increases in the cost of housing since the recession of 2008. Even as the overall number of homes has increased in the last ten years by 88,000, the number of rental homes affordable to low and moderate income families has decreased by 36,000. 41. Change in Need for Affordable Housing Stock in King County by Income Range 2()(0 140 8(11 2() 2007 17H 13-4 200g 2009 2010 2OII 2()1•3 2014 2015 120'16 0-511% Area Median Income AMI 80% AM! This is due in large part to significant growth in higher -income households. 32 19,600 Less than 50,000 $50,000 - $124,9 G0 Data source: 2017 ACS 1-Year Estimates $•125,0G0 or More Households of color are disproportionately likely to be severely cost burdened, paying more than half of their income toward housing costs. These trends have resulted in significant displacement of communities of color from Central and South Seattle into South Seattle and Southwest King County. Location and Type of Affordable Housing Southwest King County has historically been the area of King County with the most naturally occurring affordable housing, meaning that market rate housing has been affordable to households with lower incomes. As a result, residents displaced due to rising housing costs, many of whom are people of color, have relocated to this area. Due in part to its affordability, Southwest King County has also become home to lower -income immigrant communities over recent decades. These areas have also experienced faster rates of growth in housing costs compared to the more costly Seattle and Eastside submarkets. Land use and zoning laws Zoning codes significantly limit development in a majority of the urban areas of King County. Areas that allow only lower density development, such as single-family zoning or large minimum lot size requirements, are whiter than the King County average. Limiting the type of housing allowed to 33 single-family homes, which is typically the most expensive form of housing, leads to economic segregation. This economic segregation effectively excludes the low-income communities that are highly correlated with protected class status.27 Private Discrimination and Lack of Enforcement of Existing Laws Community input and housing discrimination testing have found that private, individual -level housing discriminatory practice are still commonplace in King County and present an impediment to fair housing choice. Familial status, race, religion, disability, and national origin were all identified as having experienced housing discrimination. In addition to Federal Fair Housing laws, the State of Washington, King County, and jurisdictions within King County have implemented many policies aimed at reducing discrimination and addressing these disparities. However, funding for monitoring, education, and enforcement of these laws has been limited. Please see the Fair Housing Discrimination section for more information. Programs, Policies, and Investments to Address Segregation, Fair Housing, and Geographic Mobility Communities of Opportunity Communities of Opportunity is an initiative undertaken jointly between Public Health — Seattle and King County and the Seattle Foundation to address inequitable outcomes based on geography. Geographic communities targeted currently include: The Rainier Valley' (City of Seattle) White Cente SeaTac/Tukwila • The City of Kent • The Central District of the City of Seattle • Rural Snoqualmie Valley • The urban Native Community • The Latinx Community of Vashon Island • Transgender and gender nonconforming communities Z' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800413/ 34 There is significant overlap between these targeted communities and federal protected classes. Each community develops its own vision and priorities, which may include: • anchoring multi -cultural communities at risk of displacement, • advocating for the preservation and development of affordable housing in areas that are in close proximity to transit, jobs, and education, • Access to health, affordable food and safe places outside to be physically active, especially for youth, • Workforce development that includes local hires, support of new local businesses, and inclusion of youth, and • Increased civic participation and engagement, cultural preservation, and access to safe public spaces. The majority of these efforts seek to empower and improve outcomes for protected classes, which may ultimately lead to greater integration due to economic mobility and mixed -income communities. King County Housing Authority's Small Area Fair Market Rent Policies In 2016, KCHA expanded its two -tiered system of payment standards (which involved a regular standard and an "exception area" "standard that covered East King County) to create a ZIP code -based, multi -tiered structure with five payment standard levels. KCHA's adoption of multi -tiered payment standards recognizes the importance of closely aligned payment standards to local rental sub -markets as a means of achieving four goals: 1. Increasing access to high opportunity areas Containing program costs by "right -sizing" subsidy amounts in lower and middle cost markets Ensuring that new and existing voucher holders can secure and maintain their housing in competitive, and increasingly costly rental submarkets across the county 4. Limiting the number of households experiencing cost burden. An internal assessment completed in 2017 found that households were more likely to move to higher opportunity areas after enactment of the policy: between 2015 and 2016, the proportion of new voucher holders with children leasing in higher cost areas increased by 8.4%, movers with children relocating from lower cost to higher cost areas increased by 4%, and nearly all racial groups experienced increased access to higher cost areas. 35 Creating Moves to Opportunity The King County Housing Authority is partnering with the Seattle Housing Authority, MDRC, and a multi -disciplinary academic team that includes Raj Chetty and others from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and MIT to identify strategies to increase opportunity area access among families with young children who receive a Housing Choice Voucher. The program, Creating Moves to Opportunity (CMTO), is being run as a multi -year randomized control test study that will test a range of services aimed at reducing rental barriers to opportunity neighborhood access; the end result from CMTO will be identified best practices that are both impactful and scalable. You can learn more about this program here.28 28 http://creatingmoves.org/research/ 36 RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY Neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty contribute to negative outcomes greater than the struggles of an individual family living in poverty. Concentrations of poverty limit educational opportunities, lead to increased crime rates and poor health outcomes, hinder wealth building, reduce private -sector investment and increase prices for goods and services, and raise costs for local governments.29 It is critical to understand the needs and dynamics that have led to the creation of these areas to understand barriers to fair housing choice. HUD defines a "Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty" (R/ECAP) as a census tract that is majority non-White and has a poverty rate greater than 40%, King County is privileged to have only a few R/ECAP tracts. This is due primarily to a relative lack of concentration of poverty and few areas that are majority non-White. There is only one R/ECAP outside the City of Seattle, in the East Hill neighborhood of the City of Kent. The East Hill R/ECAP tract is 38.5% White, 16% Black, 1% Native American, 22.3% Asian, and 21.5% Latinx and scores in the bottom decile of the HUD Poverty Index. This is a significantly higher rate of people of color compared to the King County average. King County had no R/ECAP tracts outside the City of Seattle in 1990. In 2000, a census tract in the City of Kent between 1-5 and Pacific Highway South was an R/ECAP with a White population of 46.6%, Black 17%, Native American 2%, Asian 13.5%, Hispanic 19.8%. The City of Kent has historically been an area with naturally occurring affordable housing, and has seen a significant amount of growth in the non-White population since 1990. The R/ECAP tracts are near major highways, a former landfill, and industrial activities, reducing the. value of homes in this area and leading to higher rates of lower -income households. In 2018, Communities of Opportunity created the Kent Community Development Collaborative; a partnership of community -based organizations working to ensure everyone can participate and benefit from decisions that shape their neighborhood and greater community. The partnership convenes community forums focused on creating affordable, safe housing for Kent residents, as well as opportunities for living - wage jobs and access to healthy, affordable foods. 29 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/springl3/highlightl.html 37 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS Achieving fair housing means more than eliminating overt discrimination. This analysis also seeks to understand the disproportionate housing needs of protected classes. The following section analyzes the disparities in housing. There are stark disparities among households who are cost burdened and experience housing problems. The four housing problems, as measured by the US Census Bureau, are: • Incomplete kitchen facilities • Incomplete plumbing facilities • More than 1 person per room3° • Cost burden.31 Race/Ethnicity Percent of households experiencing at least one housing problem Hispanic or Latinx 56% Black 55 9% Other, Non -Hispanic 43.6% Native American 38.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 37.8% All Households 37.1% White 33.9% There are also significant racial disparities in severe cost burden32 that create a disproportionate need for affordable housing for non-White and non -Asian communities. Race/Ethnicity Percent Severely Housing Cost Burdened Black 29% Some other Race 26% Hispanic or Latinx 24% Native American 22% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 22% White 18% Asian 18% 3o This measure includes all rooms, such as kitchens and living rooms. 31 Cost burden is when a household spends more than 30% of its gross income on household costs. 32 Severe cost burden is when a household spends more than half of its gross income on household costs. 38 Geographically, South Seattle and Southwest King County experience the highest rates of cost burden and severe cost burden. Rental vs. Homeownership Housing There are significant disparities in the rates of households who rent versus own along race, ethnicity, and foreign -born status. Household Type Percent of Households who Rent Percent of Households who Own All King County Households 43% 57% Black 72% 28% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 71% 29% All other Races 71% 29% Hispanic or Latinx 66% 34% Native American 61% 39% Two or More Races 60% 40% Asian 42% 58% White 38% 62% Foreign Born 50% 50% U.S. Born 40% 60% Areas of King County with high rates of rental housing are located primarily in the urban areas along 1-5 and east of Seattle. Within these urban areas, most rentals are located in the areas zoned for higher residential densities. Neighborhoods and jurisdictions composed of single- family homes are therefore more likely to be White and Asian, while denser areas are more diverse. 39 Homeowner Cost Burden NVILL ASH0 SLANr DUVALL CARNAPON Sw FS Jf hk 'i %tfOi"riect )(nres ACS ory ALtt 40 Renter Cost Burden O©INVILLE SAQUAH CARNAT H F4 �a Int; 1"3ursd n 0 c'I=,rri.d LErl'a Srwrces_ ACS 2011-2015. Snnund Transit 214971 C+i97rniuotiryNttribu[Ms21) 7 0 2t5 5Mires 41 Familial Status In King County, single individual households are most likely to be cost burdened. This is likely due to paying for housing costs with only a single income, and because younger people are more likely to earn less as they begin their careers. However, large families are also significantly more likely to experience housing problems, due primarily to the cost of larger housing and overcrowding. There is also significant variation in average household size by country of origin, likely meaning that certain immigrant populations face additional challenges obtaining sufficient housing for their families. The following table includes countries of birth with more than 5,000 King County residents. Place of Birth Average Household Size Somalia 4.0 El Salvador 4.0 Mexico 3.9 Guatemala 3.9 Cambodia 3.5 Ukraine 3.3 Philippines 3.3 Vietnam 3.0 Ethiopia 2.8 India 2.7 Hong Kong 2.7 Russia 2.7 China 2.7 Japan 2.6 Korea 2.6 Taiwan 2.6 Germany 2.6 United Kingdom 2.4 Canada 2.4 Low-income and immigrant communities have provided consistent input that there is a significant lack of affordable large -unit homes. A review of the publicly subsidized housing inventory in King County found that 27% of units are two bedrooms and 13% of units are three bedrooms or larger. Loss of Affordable Housing 42 The stock of homes affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less has decreased since 2007, and is on a trajectory to continue decreasing. Between 2007 and 2017, the total number of rental units increased by 88,000, but the number of rental units affordable at 80% AMI and below decreased by 36,000. This is due to a combination of market pressures and the physical demolition of affordable housing. Significant growth in population and high -paying jobs in King County, particularly from 2013-2018, has increased the demand for housing, and the market has been unable to build enough new housing to accommodate this growth. Rents have increased dramatically in the last ten years, even in older, previously affordable buildings. As the urban areas of King County are already largely developed, construction of new housing can lead to a physical loss of affordable housing. Naturally affordable housing is often redeveloped as the value of the land is higher relative to the value of the structure. Naturally affordable housing can also be lost through renovations or remodels that increase the cost of housing. Language Barriers for Immigrant Households Limited English proficiency is an additional barrier some immigrant households face in their housing search. Rental postings and applications are typically not readily available in languages other than English. The need for translation services is therefore a disproportionate housing need for these households. Difficulty Transitioning from Temporary Cash Assistance for Refugees Refugees receive eight months of temporary cash assistance upon arrival.33 Advocates reported difficulty finding stable employment and obtaining affordable housing before this assistance expires. Even for refugees who are stably employed, establishing a sufficient employment and credit history over that period' of time is a significant challenge and presents a barrier to securing housing. as https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/community-services-offices/refugee-cash-assistance 43 DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Fair housing choice is not only about combating discrimination. Intergenerational effects of discrimination and segregation have had a disproportionate impact on access to opportunity for protected classes in King County. The following sections summarize disparities; propose contributing factors to these disparities; and review policies, programs, and investments that seek to address these disparities. 44 Education Equitable access to a high quality education is a critical component to addressing intergenerational poverty and providing long-term economic mobility. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics The debate over how to measure or compare school proficiency is ongoing and beyond the scope of this analysis. However, the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction's "School District Report Card" provides relevant data and shows significant disparities between school districts. The following table provides an overview of the 19 School Districts in King County. 45 Overview of School Districts in King County Percent of 8th Grade Students Meeting State Standards Race/Ethnicity Demographics Special Programs School District Language Arts Math Science Percent White Percent Asian Percent Latinx Percent Black Percent Two or More Races Percent English Learners Percent Low- Income Percent with a Disability Auburn Bellevue Enumclaw Federal Way Highline Issaquah Kent Lake Wash. Mercer Island Northshore Renton Riverview Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snoq. Valley Tahoma Tukwila Vashon Island 49.7 38.3 42.5 39.2 8.9 29.7 7.3 9.7 18.9 51.8 12 81.5 73.7 76.9 36.6 39.4 11.8 2.7 9.2 14.6 17.2 9.2 64.9 53.2 59.9 77.9 0.7 15.3 0.5 4.2 5.8 28.8 17.3 50.1 32.1 36.6 26.9 11.2 29.4 13.9 12.7 21.2 58 14.5 50.4 33.6 42.1 22 14.5 38.5 14.1 6.1 27.9 62.5 15.9 79.8 77 80.5 53 28.9 8.4 1.9 7.5 6.5 7.8 8.7 55 42.8 46.8 33.7 19.1 22.6 11.9 9.7 21.1 48.8 11.4 82.2 75 78.3 51.9 28 10.3 1.7 7.8 10.1 10.3 11 83.9 82.5 82.2 63.9 20.9 4.6 0.9 9.5 4 3.2 10 79.3 38.3 71.7 57.3 19 12.5 2 8.7 8.1 13.4 13.3 54.2 45.6 55 26.2 24.9 23.9 14.9 8.6 18 48.2 14.8 71.7 55.8 72.2 78.9 3 12.5 0.6 4.5 46 13 11.7 68.8 61.6 62.5 47.1 14.1 12.1 14.9 10.8 12.5 31.8 15.1 76 61.7 68.5 53.6 13.2 12.8 7.2 12.3 7.9 25.1 12.5 N<10 N<10 N<10 88.2 0 9.8 0 0 0 89.4 40.4 74.9 70.4 74.1 79.7 6 7.8 0.7 5.8 2.7 8.9 11.9 69.4 66.5 71.4 72.5 4.6 10.2 2.2 9.1 2.6 11.4 13.1 45.4 35.2 49.1 10.9 28.7 29.4 19.8 6.8 37.4 71.9 10.9 81.1 66.9 72.8 76.3 2.2 12 0.5 8.8 4.8 20.5 12 46 The data show that school districts in Southwest King County are more diverse, have higher rates of students living in low-income households, and have a higher percentage of students who struggle to meet state standards. The school districts with the highest percentage of students meeting state standards are generally in the areas east of Seattle, which have significantly white and Asian student populations that are less likely to live in low-income households. Notably, the demographics of the student population are significantly less White than the general population, in keeping with the trends of an increasingly diverse King County. HUD also provides a School Proficiency Index, which measures the likelihood a student in King County of a given race or ethnicity attends a proficient school. Race/Ethnicity School Proficiency Index School Proficiency Index - Households below federal poverty line White 69.9 60.3 Asian or Pacific Islander 63.9 54.4 Native American 58.6 39.5 Hispanic or Latinx 54.5 51.6 Black 41.2 35.1 This index also shows clear disparities, with the largest disparity between Whites and Blacks. This racial disparity persists among the population below the federal poverty level. Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Education Local vs. State Funding Reliance on local funding for schools puts a proportionally greater burden on residents in lower - income school districts, which frequently have more diverse student bodies. The Washington State Legislature recently complied with a State Supreme Court ruling (McLeary v. State of Washington) by increasing school investments at the state level and limiting how much funding can be collected locally and on how it can be spent.34 Boundaries of School Districts With some exceptions, school districts in King County generally contain one of the three demographic categories of King County: predominantly White, White and Asian, or racially and ethnically diverse. This leads to racial, ethnic, and economic segregation, and limits 34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCleary v. Washington 47 opportunities for lower -income and non-White students to access the same resources as students living in wealthier areas. Parent-Teacher Association Funding Another contributor to disparities between and within school districts is funding provided by Parent-Teacher/Parent-Teacher-Student Associations (PTA/PTSAs). PTA funding perpetuates disparities through intergenerational wealth, as wealthier parents can invest in their children's school orinthe specific program their child isinterested i bypassing the di t ibti investment patterns ofgovernment funding.as This funding be used for teacher salaries, supplementary equipment and materials, or other investmentsthat can have animpact Onstudent outcomes. In 2018, KUOW reported that Roosevelt High School, which is located in the Whiter and wealthier area of Northeast Seattle, has the largest PTSA and foundation funding in the Seattle School District with assets of $3.5 million and annual income of $225,586. Meanwhile, Rainier Beach, Franklin, and Chief Sealth High Schools, which are located in the historically non-White 36 and lower -income area of South Seattle, have no PTSA or foundation assets or income. Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Education King County's Best Start for Kids Levy Passed by the voters in 2015, Best Start for Kids seeks to put every child and youth in g Nttps://cdn.amehmnprogeo.orn/content/up|nads/2U17/U4/1DU749U2/ParentFundraidnx'eport'corrected.pdf " https://www.kuovvurg/stories/some'seatt|e'schoo|'ptas'can'afford'emra-teacheo'shou|d-they-spread-the' wea|th a https://beststartsb|on.mm/ 48 Race to the Top In 2012, the Puget Sound Educational Service District, Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, Seattle and Tukwila School Districts and the King County Housing Authority jointly applied for and received a $40 million federal Race to the Top grant, allowing the group to further expand its programs, which work to: Increase the number of children ready for kindergarten Raise instruction quality in math and science Help students plan for career training or college Provide early intervention for struggling student Home and Hope Project Led by Enterprise Community Partners in conjunction with elected officials, public agencies, educators, nonprofits and developers, the Home and Hope project facilitates development of affordable housing and early childhood education centers on underutilized, tax-exempt sites owned by public agencies and nonprofits in King County. You can learn more about the Home and Hope Project here.38 38 https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/where-we-work/pacific-northwest/home-hope 49 Employment The geographic distribution of employment centers can result in barriers to opportunity and have a disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color. Longer commutes can have a detrimental impact on an individual's health from increased stress and exposure to air pollution, and are associated with less physical activity and a poorer diet. Summary of Dynamics/Disparities The Labor Market Engagement Index provided by HUD measures the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract, and shows disparities by race and ethnicity in King County. Race/Ethnicity Labor Market Engagement Index Labor Market Engagement Index — Households below Federal Poverty Line White 74.6 64.8 Asian or Pacific Islander 72.5 62.0 Hispanic or Latinx 61.4 55.3 Native American 58.5 47.0 Black 56.4 47.8 Within the population below the poverty line, Whites are still significantly more likely to live in areas with low unemployment compared to Blacks. The White population is the most likely to live in an areas with low unemployment, while the Black population is the least. However, the Native American population living below the poverty line is the group least likely to live in areas with low unemployment. Based on the HUD mapping tool, there is no clear geographic disparity in access to jobs for protected class groups. The jobs index is strong in the Duwamish and Kent Industrial Valley, which is at the core of the racially and ethnically diverse Southwest King County. The jobs index is also strong in the urban areas east of Seattle. Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Employment Geographic Segregation of High -Skilled Jobs A key factor not captured by the HUD Jobs Proximity Index is the nature of the jobs in a given area. King County is privileged to have hundreds of thousands of high -skill, high -paying jobs at leading corporations in the technology, engineering, health, and maritime industries. Boeing has a major facility in Renton, which is accessible to the diverse areas of King County. However, the 50 growing tech sector, which is primarily located in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond, can be a long commute from Southwest King County. Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Employment King County Investments in Affordable Workforce Housing The 2019-2020 King County budget included more than $100 million in transit -oriented development for affordable workforce housing. These projects will produce hundreds of units that will have access to employment hubs in King County. The King County Housing Authority has also focused on acquiring housing in Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland to support the workforce in these areas and provide new opportunities for low-income households to live in areas closer to job centers. King County Employment and Education Resources King County Department of Community and Human Services!!? provides employment programming. You can learn more about these services here 39 39 https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/community-human-services/employment-and-education-resources.aspx 51 Transportation Transportation is a major concern in King County, given its topography and significant growth over recent decades. Transportation is typically the largest household cost after housing and is deeply intertwined with housing cost and access. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics The variation in the Low Transportation Cost Index provided by HUD is low, with Native Americans and Whites scoring the lowest, at 71.3 and 72.0. There are more pronounced disparities in transit use by race. Race/Ethnicity Percentage who commute via transit White 12.2 Black 14.9 Asian 15.7 Hispanic or Latinx 15.6 Two or More Races 16.0 Whites are least likely to use public transportation. Transit access is generally highest in the City of Seattle and adjacent suburbs, including those in Southwest King County. The relatively lower transit index scores and higher transportation costs for the White and Native American populations is likely due to the rural Muckleshoot reservation and the higher rates of Whites in the rural areas of King County, which have limited transit service. Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Investments Investments in transit infrastructure have a complicated effect on access to transportation and housing costs for protected classes. Lower -income households are more likely to struggle to afford transportation costs and should be given priority or strong consideration when planning long-term infrastructure investments. However, dramatically improved transit access to an area increases its desirability overall and can increase the cost of housing, creating a risk of displacing the residents the infrastructure was originally meant to serve. Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Transportation 52 Sound Transit Light Rail Expansion and Equitable TODPolicy Approved hvvoters regionally in2O1fiSound Transit 3will dramatically expand the r8giOn'S light rail network, connecting high and lower opportunity areas across King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. You can learn more about Sound Transit's plans here.10 Construction of the light rail network requires purchasing storage and stagingareasthat b8OOnoe surplus once construction is COrnp|2t8. Sound Tn]nSit'S Equitable TOD PO|icv«l OOnnrnitS to ensuring there is affordable housing in C|OS8 proximity to transit stations. In 2018 and i accordance with state law, Sound Transit adopted a plan to offer a minimum of 80 percent of its surplus property that is suitable for development of affordable housing.41 King County Metro's Orca LIFT Reduced Fare and Equity in Service Planning King County Metro was the first transit authority to introduce a reduced fare for low-income residents. The program provides up to a 50% discount in fares to ensure low-income communities are not overly burdened bythe cost transportation. You can learn more about 43 Orca LIFT here. equitable King County Metro also incorporates social equity into its long-range service planning, placing an importance on serving historically disadvantaged communities, which are more likely to contain residents who are a protected class. Today, 76% of low-income households in King County are within 1/4 mile of a bus Stop.44 PSRC Growing Transit Communities In 2010, the Puget Sound Regional Council, in collaboration with 17 community partners, applied for and received a $5 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant from the HUD Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. The grant funded the creation of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, with a work program intended to address some of the greatest barriers to implementing the central Puget Sound region's integrated plan for sustainable development and securing equitable outcomes. The strategy includes providing housing choices for low and moderate -income households near transit and to provide access to opportunity for all the region's residents. You can learn more about the Growing 4»Nnp://ooundtmnsit3.org/ovemiew mhttps//www.soundtrandtong/sites/6efault/fi|es/2O14U4Z3 RPT TOD.pdf whttps//www.soundtrandtorg/«et'to'knovv'u$new*events/news're|eases/bnard'adnpts'po|icv'promotinx' pquitab|e'deve|npment'near 43https//kingcountv.wnv/depts/transportation/metro/fares'nrca/nrca'card*/|ift.aspx 4'https://wwvv.kinncountv.nov/e|ected/executive/constantine/priorities/transportation/infonraphic/sources.aspx 53 Transit Communities Strategy here.45 Additionally, the most recent regional Fair Housing Assessment was conducted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2014. You can read the PSRC Fair Housing Equity Assessment here.46 King County Transit -Oriented Development Investments In 2016, King County began a 5-year competitive RFP process to invest approximately $87 million in transit -oriented affordable housing projects. You can read the full plan here.47 The 2019-2020 King County budget also included more than $100 million in transit -oriented development for affordable workforce housing. 45 https://www.psrc.org/growing-transit-communities 46 https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/fairhousingequityassessment.pdf 47 https://www.kingcounty.govNmedia/depts/community-human-services/housing/documents/housing- finance/tod-bond-allocation-plan-final-sm.ashx?la=en 54 Environmental � U Health u��u " uK��o~uo All households deserve access to open space, healthy foods, and toxic -free environments. However, lack of access to those amenities and exposure to environmental hazards has been a chronic issue for low-income communities. SunmmarVmfDisparitimica According tUthe HUD Environmental Health Index, which uses EPA estimates of carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins in the air,h is a significant racialdisparity inaccess tO environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Ahigher score represents greateraccess tohealthy Race/Ethnicity Environmental Health Index White 27.0 Black 10.4 Hispanic or Latinx 16.0 Asian OrPacific Islander 17.6 Native American Black residents in King County are the least likely to have access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Native Americans scored the highest, a few points above Whites, likely due to a greater percentage of Native Americans living in rural areas. King County contains the lower Duwamish waterway, a Superfund site designated in 2001. The river has been contaminated with a number of pollutants over the decades, most notably a significant amount of polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans. This makes fishing in the Duwamish, particularly for shellfish and bottom -feeding fish, unsafe. The neighborhoods along the Duwamish house many immigrants and communities of color that have fishing as a component of their way of life or identity, and there has been an ongoing challenge of communicating the risks of fishing in the 48 river to these communities. 4'http://www.seatt|eg|nba|ist.cnm/2Ol5/U5/O4/duwamish'rivepdeanup'p|an*immixmnt-fishermen'pnUution' mpprfund/96d42 55 nIpyr Port of Seattle North Terminal 115 ttotetttt. Vet tt ttttAttOttittatitttt General Electnc Aviation Dw t 44.1ttt AtAttr tttol ower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup Sites Art Brass Plating Inc Seattle Burlington Environmental LLC Georgetown Weser Die Casting C sr'Y ,114 Capital Industries Inc !hal:lad Boeing Fichd "' Georgetown Siloam Mtn Seattle Terminal 115 : 4t,nrliffk. Douglas Management Dock :1 Industrial Container Services WA LLC Boeing Plant 2 Legend 41 fio.st ciwirsir No; mmimi 4PA 4,0441.41 h Park Marin atttittatttrAttAttlt tIttitt44 tettttntttt 44 4- .4 t ttt tttt Washington State Department of Ecology Toxic Cleanup Program' Jorgensen Forge Corp Boeing Isaacson Thompson '74 8801 E Marginal Way Container Properties LLC Boeing Field Chevron 4? https:fiecology.wa.goy/Spills-Cleanup/Contamination-cleanup/Cleanup-sites/Toxic-cleanup-sites/Lower- Duwamish-Waterway 56 Five hundred thousand King County residents do not live within 1/4 mile from a publicly owned park, green space, or trail, and most of these residents live in Southwest King County.5° P SPAC pportunity Areas rftie.r bouseh icIS • (MIES m rt\ 4„uiV'ti • ce in the taettcrn third erare and top third tires due to asthma, cl atietes, and heart disease. Ell Urban Urban Area, incorporated Area Park roc "t.arkof o n space access" is defined as household �taart r mite distance from a publirty-owned and a cesr„ib h rk, Green `peLe NG CO TY SH QC, so https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/land-conservation/equity/20190319-Open-Space- Equity-Cabinet-Report.pdf 57 Lack of access to healthy food options can have negative health outcomes.51 Lower -income communities of color are also more likely to live in "food deserts", which are defined as urban areas lacking access to a supermarket within one mile or rural areas lacking access within 10 miles. Again, these areas a primarily located in Southwest King County. King County Food Deserts fl Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas.52 Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Healthy Environments Environmental Hazards Near or in Lower -Cost Housing Housing costs are lower in areas adjacent to environmental hazards, industrial zones, airports, and highways, and farther from green open space and other amenities that improve health. 51 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208018/ 52 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas/ 58 Lower cost housing is also more likely to be older, which increases the likelihood of asbestos, mold, and lead paint contamination. Because of the deep connection between race and income due to legacies of discrimination, non-White communities are more likely to live in housing with these problems. Access to Open Space and Healthy Food Options is More Expensive Housing near amenities that improve health outcomes are desirable and therefore more expensive. Again, because of the deep connection between race and income, non-White communities are less likely to have access to these areas. Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Access to Healthy Environments King County Open Space Equity Initiative King County convened 21 residents representing 12 different community -based organizations located throughout King County to develop recommendations to ensure more equity in providing access to greenspace and; open space and advise the County on how to best engage communities and cities to add open space in underserved areas. You can learn more about the Open Space Equity Cabinet and read their full report here.53 Public Health — Seattle & King County Environmental Health Services Public Health has many programs that seek to address environmental hazards and improve access to environmentally healthy areas. You can learn more about their services here.54 Environmental Justice Network in Action The Environmental Justice Network in Action (EJNA) is a partnership between the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, community -based organizations, nonprofit groups and government agencies. EJNA works to: • Identify the key environmental and health concerns of low income communities, people of color, and immigrant and refugee communities through jointly conducted needs assessments • Identify the public engagement strategies that work best for particular populations and share these s3 https://kingcounty.gov/services/environment/water-and-land/land-conservation/Equity/OpenSpace.aspx 54 https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/environmental-health.aspx 59 ° Improve the capacity ofCBOs non-profit groups and government agency partners to design, deliver and evaluate programs and services. You can learn more about the EJNA here. 55 "httpz//www.hao*astehe|porg/EnvironmentaUustice/e|na.aspx 60 Conclusion - Disparities in Access to Opportunity The previous analysis shows that immigrants and communities of color are more likely to live in areas with higher rates of poverty and environmental hazards and fewer economic and educational opportunities. High opportunity areas in Seattle and the urban areas east of Seattle are predominantly White and Asian, while Black and Latinx communities primarily live in Southwest King County, which has less access to opportunity. 61 PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOUSING ANALYSIS Fair access to and the location of publicly supported housing can have major impacts to access to opportunity for protected classes. Summary of Publicly Supported Housing Disparities/Dynamics The Seattle, Renton, and King County Housing Authorities collectively operate over 19,000 units and administer tenant -based vouchers for nearly 18,000 households. Other programs provide affordable housing, such as Low -Income Housing Tax Credits, Multifamily Housing Tax Exemptions, inclusionary housing programs, and other local funding sources provide affordable units. Publicly supported housing is distributed throughout the urban areas of King County. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN KNG C01„. 'TY P ' anat. qr „ Li< lenricral Li\ ,„ Saern,emish Filters Affordability Range *A aecee, 101 el 'I Location Cee-,e K rg exe: ,ciHg See,t e Organization Legend Affordable Housing Type Property Size (Units) Se -103 e> eel-25D Affordability Range < 3Cee eee 0 - Each shape represents an apartment property. King County 62 There are high concentrations of publicly supported housing in the downtown core of Seattle, which is zoned for greater density and has high access to opportunity. KCHA provided racial demographics of the households who utilize their programs: Housing Type Percent White Percent Black Percent Hispanic Percent Asian or Pacific Islander Percent Native American Public Housing 53.9 21 6.9 19.4 0.6 Project -Based Voucher 48.9 29.7 10.4 15.6 1.2 Tenant -Based Voucher 49.3 39.1 6.4 6.7 1.5 Black households are significantly more likely to utilize the Housing Choice Voucher Program, while Asians and Pacific Islanders are more likely to utilize public housing, relative to utilization of other housing types. Notably, Hispanic or Latinx households are underrepresented in all categories compared to their overall percentage of the King County population, despite being more likely to be housing cost burdened. Consistent with HUD policy and guidelines, KCHA seeks to provide access to all members of the community who are eligible for federal housing assistance. This includes eligible members of the immigrant and refugee community, mixed -eligibility families (where assistance is pro -rated based on the number of eligible household members), and US citizens. Contributing Factors to Publicly Supported Housing Location and Access Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods While publicly supported housing is located in most jurisdictions, many of the highest -opportunity areas of King County have lower rates of publicly supported housing. Land Use and Zoning Laws Neighborhoods and jurisdictions in King County that are zoned for single family homes are less likely to contain publicly supported housing, as the majority of public housing developments are multifamily properties. This limits publicly supported housing access in single-family zones to recipients of housing choice vouchers. 63 Programs, Policies, and Investments Addressing Disparities in Location of and Access to Publicly Supported Housing geographic Planning and policies Housing Asustebso. rAi tsi ens ot e diconsiderhKcrHacAcwn'i choice with hcaehmofdvooi gnrb Moving ol mobility oy - .Workcom a Authority and Renton fling processes. greater geographic residents neighborhoods County, m plan providing elderly . . es, and high - performing Housing -ter Pr • , and e in• servic geographic choice Kingtheir long include• bille- • to livehealth broadening ty The Seattle, part of goals T..-ity as on_ -term with dise opportunity transit, h t.hrostratergoper the °pp services, tr regarding ugh new property acquisitions, to equity as KcHA s I including residents residents have access to se goals region inc that convenient short-termthe h myriad 0 nvente des • n in Lthrough householdss andco incluratl° and t Linty. give i en is also integration in King County. The to impalming schoo 2019 Planand racialaffordable units across . directs stalloyment, Plants—__ perform employment. The economic ily sized cess to . 2012 whichhtion and makingemPotherve ern° to support creation of family-sized broad access resolution in nuding educidies, anddecisions have reflected holders have passed a .cators, inc Section 8 subsidies, and voucher Commissioners.ty area indicators, including and programmatic_aymen_ standards,obility Recent policyof small area Phut* of opportunity siting project -based changes_aii area.P,_.ing oftm KC consideration to properties, adoption an ensure ns,-- . ;,sns• doi- areas, in strong CO , new • decisions. the a unitY rnuiring matic including portOpportunity.underrepresented. ing list HA Board when acquiring new ,ion, high opportunity _ to been recent wait and pi' nsiderai _idies in Creating Moves .cally the effort to policy eo this co subs f s hist°n access. In concertedeffort to this through reflec as part e ha sure of project-basedstrategies communityt. to en made acconnectio _ug ly siting counseling nd Latinx the hasmade efforts to staff withrants and refugees issimilarly ilar co . the HisOanicaKCHA Voucherprogram organizations of immigrants and that While the housing, Housing Choice providers a large number programs, a subsidized opening for therelevant serviceKcHA servespuhlic housing oPe connect with _ result, . ers and lation• corm unity. As dVouchers and population. King https://www.kcha.orgidocuments/90.pdf 64 King County's 2019-2020 budget included funding set aside for a partnership with KCHA to implement a TOD Preservation and Acquisition Plan. The plan currently proposes preserving 582 units in the coming years. You can learn more about the plan here.57 KCHA targets the preservation of affordable housing in communities at the highest risk of displacement (including those along emerging mass transit corridors) and in high opportunity areas characterized by access to high -performing schools, jobs, and transportation. After KCHA purchases a property, rents are only increased as operating costs rise, making these properties increasingly affordable over time. 57 https://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/Legislation Detail.aspx?ID=3876610&GUID=DD8C9E4E-56BC-4AD6-9B76- C24EB3FC68E5&Options=Advanced&Search= 65 DISABILITY AND ACCESS ANALYSIS While people with disabilities may experience the same fair housing issues as individuals without disabilities, there are also distinct disability -related barriers. For example, some individuals with disabilities may need specific accessibility features or additional services in housing, transportation, education, and other programs or facilities in order to have an equal opportunity. Summary of Disparities/Dynamics People with disabilities are dispersed throughout King County, with no clear concentration or pattern of segregation. King County and Washington State have made significant strides in supporting people to live in the most independent living arrangement possible and transitioning out larger institutions over the last fifty years. The single major remaining institution for people with disabilities in King County is Fircrest Rehabilitation Center, which houses and provides programming for about 200 individuals. Disabilities take many forms, and it is important to differentiate the needs of different groups. The following table shows the percentage of King County residents with the different types of disabilities, as measured by the Census Bureau. It is important to note that this table does not include all disabilities, such as behavioral health issues. Disability Type, Percent of King County Residents Hearing Difficulty 3.1% Vision Difficulty 1.6%' Cognitive Difficulty 3.9% Ambulatory Difficulty 4.8% Self -care Difficulty 2.0% Independent Living Difficulty 3.5% Contributing Factors to Disability and Access Issues Cost of Reasonable Accommodations Increases Likelihood of Discrimination Providing reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities is more likely to carry a financial burden to a housing provider than providing housing to other protected classes. This increases the likelihood of discrimination. While not a large enough sample to be statistically significant, housing discrimination testing conducted in King County in 2019 found evidence of discrimination in eight out of seventeen tests conducted by people with a disability. 66 0sabi|ityasaBarrier toSeeking and Securing Housing A disability in and of itself can make it difficult to tour housing or submit applications in a timely manner. Income and Education Gap for People with Disabilities Nationally, people with disabilities earn 64Y68Smuch 8Speople without disabilities, and about 10Y6Ofadults with 8disability have 8bachelor's degree 0rhigher, compared tOmore than 25Y6Of working -age adults without disabilities .5» |n 20I9, individuals whose primary source of income is Social Security Disability payment can receive amaximum benefit of$2,O6I,with a national average of$I,234.These disparities contribute with disabilities being less likely to afford housing. Complex Network of Resources and Multifaceted Nature of Disability Community There are dozens of organizations and resources for people with disabilities in King County. However, most organizations either provide one type of support or target individuals who live with a certain type of disability. This can make accessing support confusing and difficult. Diadvocates requested a "one -stop shop" that provides an inventory and navigation of all of the resources available for people with each type of disability. sability r Growing Population of Older Adults Although age is not a federally protected class for fair housing, it is in King County, and is correlated with disabilities such as mobility, hearing, vision, and self -care issues. Due to a combination of increasing longevity, declining birthrate, improvements in medical technology and other factors, the population of Americans over age 65 will double over the 59 next25years. Significant investments will be necessary to meet the increasing demand httpo://www.air.org/sitegdefau|t/M|es/L ck�2Oof02OEqua|02OPay02Ofor`/`2OPeop|e�/`20with02ODisabi|itins Dec Y6Z0l4.pdf 19https//www.cdc.nov/aginx/pdf/state'anin«'health'in'america'2U1lpdf 67 Many aging and disabled individuals remain in their homes through in -home care. Caregivers may visit or live in the client's home, depending on their needs. These services are provided by dozens of providers in King County. Adult Family Homes Housing resources for disabled individuals is also provided through adult family homes, which are located throughout King County and are offered by a number of housing providers. Publicly Supported Senior Housing Publicly supported housing projects that target seniors are a large percentage of King County's public housing portfolio. Low -Income Housing Tax Credit projects also frequently build housing targeted to older adults. Housing Accessibility Modification Program King County's Housing Repair Program serves renters with disabilities who require modifications to their unit. You can learn more about this program here.fi0 Moving Toward Age Friendly Housing in King County King County, the City of Seattle, and other partners undertook an effort in 2018 to understand the needs of the aging population and make recommendation to increase access to affordable housing for older adults. Key recommendations include: Increase supply of affordable housing that meets the needs of a diverse, aging population. Create accessible housing that meets the needs of a diverse aging population You can read the full report here.61 bo https://kingcounty.gov/depts/community-human-services/housing/services/housing-repair/grants.aspx 61 http://www.agingkingcounty.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/185/2018/02/MovingTowardAgeFriendlyHousinglnKingCounty.pdf 68 FAIR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION DATA ANALYSIS Laws banning housing discrimination are insufficient if housing providers do not comply. This section reviews data regarding discrimination against protected classes. Housing Discrimination Testing Community and stakeholder input reported that despite being illegal for over 50 years, individual - level discrimination in applications for rental housing remains a systemic issue. King County and partner cities chose to conduct field-testing to collect data on the nature and extent of housing discrimination in King County. King County and partner cities contracted with the Fair Housing Center of Washington to conduct at least 65 differential treatment tests and 15 policy tests in jurisdictions across King County. Differential treatment tests are two-part, in which a member of a protected class and a control tester apply for the same housing. Policy tests ask housing providers direct questions about their policies, such as accommodation for a disabled individual or whether they rent to families with children. A "positive" result is a test that found evidence of discrimination. The Fair Housing Center of Washington tested for the following protected classes: • Race • National Origin • Religion • Disability • Familial Status The final report provided by the Fair Housing Center of Washington reported positive test results in 34 out of 66 differential treatment tests and seven positive results out of 16 policy tests. These results are troubling and indicate that protected classes continue to face barriers to fair housing choice. Because the testing was spread across five protected classes in 24jurisdictions, the data are insufficient to provide statistical significance for more granular findings. Please see Appendix B for a copy of the final testing report. Housing Mortgage Disclosure Act Data Fair access to financing for homeownership is a critical component of housing choice, and a major potential barrier. This analysis reviewed 2016 and 2017 summary data provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tracks the outcomes of applications for mortgages for primary residences in King County by race. This data set does not include applicants' income, the size of the loan applied for, or other relevant factors that influence whether a loan is approved or 69 denied, and is therefore not proof of individual -level racial discrimination on its own. There are, however, troubling disparities. Race Percent of primary residence home loan applications denied White 5.7 Asian 7.2 Black 11.6 Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders 6.5 Native American 9.8 Black households are more than twice as likely to be denied a loan as White households. Native Americans are also significantly more likely to be denied a loan than Whites. It is also notable that Black applicants accounted for 2.8% of mortgage applications, despite being 6% of the King County population, which reflects earlier analysis regarding the racial disparities for rental and homeownership rates. Further outreach and analysis is necessary to understand the dynamics contributing to these disparities. This report is a draft, and will change to reflect community input. King County and partner cities welcome your feedback, and want to hear from all individuals and community organizations on what they see as the greatest barriers to fair housing choice, existing efforts to address these issues that have not been included, and what solutions would be most effective. Please attend our community meetings or contact us directly: Isaac Horwith at Isaac.Horwith@kingcounty.gov or 206-477-7813. King County staff are also available upon request to provide briefings to city councils, advisory boards and commissions, and other organizations on this process and key findings. 70 FAIR HOUSING GOALS Informed by community input from other planning processes and the previous analysis, this section proposes a set of priority actions to achieve fair housing choice in King County. These goals are also written in the context of the programs, policies, and plans that currently seek to eliminate barriers to fair housing choice. 1. Invest in programs that provide fair housing education, enforcement, and testing. 2. Engage underrepresented communities on an ongoing basis to better understand barriers and increase access to opportunity. 3. Provide more housing for vulnerable populations. 4. Provide more housing choices for people with large families. 5. Support efforts to increase housing stability. 6. Preserve and increase affordable housing in communities at high risk of displacement. 7. Review zoning laws to increase housing options and supply in urban areas. 8. Work with communities to guide investments in historically underserved communities. 9. Support the Affordable Housing Committee's efforts to promote fair housing. 10. Report annually on Fair Housing Goals and progress. This report is a draft, and will change to reflect community input. King County and partner cities welcome your feedback, and want to hear from all individuals and community organizations on what they see as the greatest barriers to fair housing choice, existing efforts to address these issues that have not been included, and what solutions would be most effective. Please attend our community meetings or contact us directly: Isaac Horwith at Isaac.Horwith@kingcounty.gov or 206-477-7813. King County staff are also available upon request to provide briefings to city councils, advisory boards and commissions, and other organizations on this process and key findings. 71 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS This report analyzes access to fair housing choice along a number of factors, provides information on past and current efforts, and sets initial goals for future policies and investments. This report is planned to be submitted to the King County Council by the beginning of September and finalized by early November. This section will be updated as next steps are identified and the report advances through the following timeline. TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS September - December June - August This report is a draft, and will change to reflect community input. King County and partner cities welcome your feedback, and want to hear from all individuals and community organizations on what they see as the greatest barriers to fair housing choice, existing efforts to address these issues that have not been included, and what solutions would be most effective. Please attend our community meetings or contact us directly: Isaac Horwith at Isaac.Horwith@kingcounty.gov or 206-477-7813. King County staff are also available upon request to provide briefings to city councils, advisory boards and commissions, and other organizations on this process and key findings. 72 Appendix A: King County Demographics by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Total Population White Population Percent White Black Population Percent Black Native American Percent Native Population American A - n Population Percent Asian Hawaiian P, Population Percent Hawaiian/PI 0 er Races Population citycityofAlgona 3,171 2,210 F 70% 166 5 31 1% 326 1 3 City af Auburn 77,440 52,828I 68 3,732, 1,701 2 1,632 i 10%1 1,992 2 3,177 Town of Beaux Arts Village _____ 342 314 : 2 0 0% 0 0% 20 6% 0 0% 4 City of Bellevue 139,014 77,7 . 56% 3,889 3%. ---- 37 0% -- 47,056 • 34%. ---___- 414 --- ',.. 2,856 - 40378 3,785 ' 6% 8 0% 2% 156 4% 0 0% 250 City of Black Diamond City of Bothell 44,082 , 72% 1,018 2%, 236 , 1% 6,258 I 14%, 58 0% 1,951 MN .31,60 IN • City of Burien ,7 31 44 3,599 7% 610 1% 62020.12% 1% 4,970 City of Carnation Lsoa 1,674 10 1% 0 0% 6 3% 6 0% 0 City of Clyde Hill _ _ .... 3,231 ______ 2 5,03 1.... 77% 28 ........______.......... 1% ............. _ 0% .......__ __ ..... 6 17 0 ..............„..._.... ______ olg o ........................ City of Covington 19,91814,8-03 74% 1,056 5% 55 0% 2,154 11% 65 0% 506 City of Des Moines 3 , 80 18,266, 2,070 7% 154 0% 3,897 13% 922 3% 3,411 City of Duvall .-----__---- 78369L90222 ------ -------_ _-- 3%'oj0% ---- ------- 193 . 3%1 ---- ------ 0 -------- -- 5 - 1% City of Enumdaw 11 67 , , 84% 273 2% 91 138 1% 16 754 City of Federal Way . 4, 5 54,4 i 5 441 1 % 694 1 , %, 15 2, 1 2 _ 6,45 Town of Hunts Point 423 73 I 17% 0 City of Issaquah 35,62 24, 16 1 7 1, 20 ' 4 1 7 1 % 7,227 1 20 1 817 City of Kenmore 22,154 17,714 0 2 : 62 , ,603 ' 12 : 100 315 l31.•• • El City of Kent 126,561 : 65,873 : 5 14,415 1 1 1 1,673 1 1% 25,416 : 2 1 2,204 2% 9,244 1 City of Kirkland 860772t-----6 6732 7 1,036 1 2 2 12,272 14% 60 % 1,6571 Lake Forest Park city, Washington 13 27 ,4 1 10,753 I 81% 219 I i 18 I . 1,135 20 0%' 250 I - 21,031 2 , City of Maple Valley 25,375 83% % 4 1 ,41 6 34 City of Medina 3,217 I 2,352 I 73' I 20 1%1 01 0% 635 I 20 0%, 18 City of 'Mercer Island 75 7 2% 4,683 1 7 1 City of Milton ___24768165S4 7,481: 6,56 : 88%; 2 5 i 17 , 0% 21 I 1 ',.., 98 City of Newcastle 11,346 7,103 , 5 IIIIIIIM: 12 0% 3,245 2 0 107 City of Normandy Park -_-_---- 6,634 . 5,990 . 9 3 0%3 3 0% 525 : 0 0% 38 _ -- --- 6,645 5,683 6 -- --_-__ 1 --- - _-_-_-_--- , -_ - - --_-_------_-------- 0% 526 City of North Bend City of Pacific ......- 7011 , 4,791 ----- . .. 6 . 305 ... .. - 4%, . 57 , - . . 1 . 688 , 10%, 285 4% 356 City of Redmond 60 712 , 35,106 . „ a • 1, 61 0 5 , 34% 112 0% 992 City of Renton 99,592 50,57 51 10,046 1 5 7 1 22,397 22% 1,647 2% 6,961 City of Sammamish 62.877 42 06 67% 587 1% 7 0% 17,213 j 27 76 357 •Mill••••••••• City of Seatac 28,597 12,019 42% 6,666 23% 26 1% 4,507 16 706 2% 2,015 City of Seattle 688245 472,347 69% 4 , : ; 4 7 .79 1% 99728114*-, 2,675 ,155 City of Shoreline 55,431 8,5 0 ,517 1 ' 1% 7,7 ' 12 % 1,902 Town of Skykomish 101 86 85-. 0 ___________14% 4 4 City of Snoqualmie 12, 10,526 8 6 0 2 1,564 I 12% 0% 59 City of Tukwila 2 , 7,442 3 3,431 17 214 1%4, 46 1 24% 427 ,,, 1,575 City of Woodinville 11,575 1 9,705 8 120 I 14 0%1,259 1 11%1 2 '''. 57 Town of Yarrow Point 1484 92 2,M l• ••••11.• 0 King County Total 2,118,119 I 1,402,793 66% 13 ,594 1 6%1 14,276 : 1 50,616 I 17%1 16,522 73,63 Unincorporated King County 209,820-1----- 156,768-1--- 75% 2 -----5% 2,317 1% 21,94--3-1----1-1, 1,588 1% 5,960 Data Source: 2017 ACS 5 Year Population Estimate 73 Appendix A: King County Demographics by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Percent Other Races Multiracial Population Percent Multiracial Percent Hispanic or Latins Average Foreign Born Household Size Population Total Percent Foreign Households Percent Cost Burdened Percent Severe Cost Burdened Percent HHs earning <B0% City of Algona 9% 144 S 1996 3.39 789 25% 990 48% 20% 53% City of Auburn 4% 6,378 8% 11,185 1496 2.721 15,031 19% 27,280 37% 15%1 47% TownofBeiuxArtsViIIage 1% 4 1% 4 1% 2.78 32 ,, 115 37% 14% City of Bellevue 2% 6,696 ---- 5% 10,063 -- 7% 2.47: 52,871 -318, _ 0 54,215 % _ 14% 29% City of Black Diamond 6% 81 2% 446 1096 21 75; 1,665 2996 16% 4496 City of Bothell 4% 2,954 7% 4,673 11% 2.58, 8,819 20% 15,975 33% 14% 34% anmamormwommx•••••rwormiass arm.mwonomm.• timemimmamorwiNtre MXMOVINIMIEWM-M • NIMMINIMMIIM am Eimmi•••••••nw •••••1 • MM NIONNO•MME MI MMI/111 • NMI MMIN.M MI m••••• NE wmpro m romnipmmi• M.M.MMINOMINWIMIIIFIEZIM. M. MMIN. MIIIMOHNN• roam Eremvormnr-• ••••••ms MOMOIIMMMX•01•11.1•MIN City of Burieri 3,217 6% 12,342 24% 2.71 12,046 24%, 18,275 41% 19% 53% City of Carnation 0% 58 3% 280 15% 2.81 183 10% 660 35% 12% 39% City of Clyde Hill ----- 0% 131 - 4% - ----- 62 - 2% --.-..- - 2.88 -- 667 ---. 2 ''' I, agla ---- 79% -- ----- - 16% ---- 19% City of Covington 3% 1,279 6% 1,423 7% 2.84 2,290 11% 6,230 29% 12% 28% City of Des Moines 2,360 ‘°, 5,670 2.6 6,687 11,490 37 16% 50% City of Duvall 196 252 3% 517 7% 2.96' 480 6% 2,435 25% 9% 24% City of Enumclaw "" 696 ------------- 547 5% ------ 1,436 - - 12% ----------- 2.48 ------- 1,054 -------. 9%, ---------- 4,565 ---- 35% -------- - 1S% -------- 52% City of Federal Way 7% 7,153 8% 17,181 18% 2.71' 23,536 25%© 34,115 40% 19% 51% Town of Hunts Point 096 14 3% 4 1% 2.73 75 18% 7.1 49% 23% 21% City of Issaquah 2% 1,442 4% 3,043 9% 2.431 8,473 24%© 14,020 32%© 14%1 2996 City of Kenmore 1,000 596 1,687 8% 2.54i 3,838 17% 8,010, 3396 14 , City of Kent 7% 7,736 6% _ 20,152 16% 2.86: 37,600 30% 42,235 40% 17% .32% 49% City of Kirkland 296 4,733 6,108 7% FT 19,345 35,365 __ 14% 29% Lake Forest Park city, Washington ._. 8,52 - -2,002 6% . m•••••••,.....n.....m..m. 712 5% ......111.11.11•MW 2.53i ••••••••.N.VIVI/Oniii •.•11.. 1,621 •11.1.1•10.4•11i MN MM.& 12%© me..... .m..n.mormiww.• 5,205 WX0.1.1.N.M.M. 14%' MN NIVA,... NEM W.- City of Maple Valley ',,, 1,432 696 2.93 1,649 6. 8,425 7% City of Medina 1% 192 6% 96 3% 2.74: 678 21% 1,085 32% 15% 15% City of Mercer Island 1% 907 4% _ 2 3% 2.5 4,587 ____ ____ 9,585 City of Milton 287 4% 558 % 2.451 362 % 2,850 13961 3296 City of Newcastle 1% 554 5% 401 4% 2.64 3,235 2 ' 4,105 12% 20% City of Normandy Park _ --------- 1% 81 ------ 1% -_-_---- -251 -----_-__ 4% ------- 2.36: --____-- 645 - -_-_- 10% 2,635 ---- 28% 12% ----- 32% City of North Bend 8% 301 __--- 596 897 13% 2.76 7,51 11% 2,395 _-__-_- 32% _-_--_-_ 19% 3896 City of Pacific 5% 631 9% 1,417 20% 2.86: 928 13% 2,355 40% 18%, 51% -----. ------- ------ MIMMINIMIN.M.,MMINIeN•1 MN W'M.WM.M.MM.N•MMIN.141.10 IN • MI IMMMM.M.• MMIMIMMIWINWOMMOIMI =MM....NM MIMEM,HINIMMIN. NO 11•MINIEMM•1 City of Redmond 296 2,766 5% 4,568 896 2.46 24,3 , 4 23,390 25% 1196 25% City of Renton 7% 7,526 8% 13,642 4% 2.57 28,500 29% .1?.12 38% 15', 43% City of Sammamish 1% 2,506 4% 2,463 496 3.01 16,475 26% 16,200 24% 9% 13',, ismulawm neniallrilill.1.01. •i•HilliMPEMMINSEMIMINANIIM•iiiM. IMMIIMMI•lil City of Seatac 7% 2,423 8% 5,225 18% 28 11,619 41% 9,830 4396 17% 6296 City of Seattle 2% 45,657 796 44,505 6 2.11: 123,91 1 % 296,635 3596 1596 39% City of Shoreline -- 3% 2,979 ,276 1 2.4 11,26 _ 20% 21,670, 7% _ 1 41% Town of Skykomish 0% 3 „0 1.43 1 , 1096, 60 3796 1796 63% City of Snoqualrnie 096 704 596 421 % 3.1 1,518 12% 4,010 28% 3% 12% City of Tukwila 896 2,190 11... 3, 07 1.596 2.79 8,104 40% 7,310 4596 27196 60'% City of Woodinville 0% 491 4% 361 396 2.45 1,532 1 % 4,745 30% 11% 27% Town of Yarrow Point 0.,, 42 . .. 4 1 - .7 22542037 2 m 1596 King County Total % 129,688 6% 2 ,545 9% 2.49: 467, 4 A 851,077 4% 15%1 3896 Unincorporated King Counbi, 37 10,433 17,681 Tit 3 , 7 S3 111,267 3 13% _ 3196 Data Source: 2017 ACS 5 Year Population Estimate 74 Appendix B:Housing Discrimination Testing Final Report CENTER OF WASHUNGTON Final Testing Report for King County This document is a summary report of the Fair Housing Center of Washington's results of the contract. A spreadsheet with the total number of tests completed, the name, city and subregion of the test site, protected o|oaaeo tested, type of test (po|icy, differential treatment), and teat results is included in the final report packet. AsmfMay 31,2019,the Fair Housing Center mfWashington completed eighty-two (82) tests, of which forty-three (43) were negative and thirty-nine (39) were positive. The violations observed during this contract were either differential treatment based on e protected o|oso status or discriminatory policies that placed additional barriers to housing due to a penGOn'n inclusion in a protected c|oaa. For tests indicating differential treatment violations, the FHCVV n000mnnanda additional testing to determine if there is a pattern of differential treatment based on a protected class. For tests indicating one or more discriminatory p0Uniea. the FHCVV naoonnnnendn o technical letter advising the test site to correct their policies au that they adhere to fair housing |avva. For either type of fair housing violation, the FHCVV may pursue enforcement of fair housing |ovva if pattern of discrimination iodetermined. Of the thirty-nine (39) ooabva tests, thirty-two C32\ had recommendations for additional testing for differential treatment based on a protected class. Row Labels Negative Positive Grand Total Nofurther action recommended 43 0 43 Additional testing recommended 0 32 32 Technical letter recommended 0 7 7 Grand Total 43 39 82 AswfMay 31,3019,the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed sixteen (1G)policy check tests, of which seven (7) were conducted in the North/East subregion and nine (9) were conducted in the South subregion ofKing County. Subregion Negative Positive Grand Total North/East 4 3 7 South 5 4 S Grand Total 9 T 16 75 Of the sixteen (16) policy check tests, four (4) tested for willingness to grant reasonable accommodations to persons with a disability, and eleven (11) tested for willingness to accept alternative sources of income, including housing vouchers (Section 8) and maternity leave. Protected Basis Negative Positive Grand Total Reasonable Accommodations 1 3 4 Source of Income — Housing Voucher 5 4 9 Source of Income — Maternity Leave 2 0 2 Income & Reasonable Accommodation 1 0 1 Grand Total 9 7 16 As of May 31, 2019, the Fair Housing Center of Washington completed sixty-six (66) differential treatment tests, of which thirty-four (34) were conducted in the North/East subregion and thirty-two (32) were conducted in the South subregion of King County. Negative Positive Grand Total North/East 16 18 34 South 18 14 32 Grand Total 34 32 66 Of the thirty-four (34) differential treatment tests conducted in the North/East subregion, sixteen (16) were negative and eighteen (18) were positive, including: North/East Negative Positive Grand Total Disability 7 5 12 Familial Status 2 3 5 National Origin 1 2 3 Race 4 4 8 Religion 2 4 6 Grand Total 16 18 34 Of the thirty-two (32) differential treatment tests conducted in the South subregion, fourteen (14) were positive, including: South Negative Positive Grand Total Disability 1 1 Familial Status 6 3 9 National Origin 5 6 11 Race 1 3 4 Religion 5 2 7 Grand Total 18 14 32 Of the sixty-six (66) differential treatment tests conducted, fourteen (14) were conducted via email, twenty-one (21) were conducted via phone calls, and thirty-one (31) were conducted via site visits. 76 Contact Type Negative Positive Grand Total Email 7 7 14 Phone 12 9 21 Site 15 16 31 Grand Total 34 32 66 Of the thirty-one (31) site differential treatment tests, five (5) tests were conducted in Auburn, six (6) were conducted in Bellevue, one (1) was conducted in Burien, five (5) were conducted in Federal Way, five (5) were conducted in Kent, and one (1) was conducted in Renton. City Negative Positive Grand Total Auburn 2 3 5 Bellevue 3 3 6 Burien 0 1 1 Federal Way 2 .3 5 Kent 4 1 5 Renton 0 1 1 Of the five (5) site, differential treatment tests conducted in Kent, one (1) was based on disability, one (1) was based on familial status, one (1) was based on national origin, one (1) was based on race, and one (1) was based on religion. Protected Basis (Kent) Negative Positive Grand Total Disability 1 0 1 Familial Status 1 0 1 National Origin 0 1 1 Race 1 0 1 Religion 1 0 1 Grand Total 4 1 5 In sum, the Fair Housing Center of Washington observed thirty-nine (39) positive violations of Fair Housing law throughout King County during the contract period. Additional testing as well as sending of technical letters are both recommended to 1) further identify potentially systemic barriers to fair housing, 2) make violators aware of their actions and 3) bring said violators into compliance with Fair Housing law. In addition, increased fair housing education, including annual fair housing training throughout the county may help to combat instances of discrimination, for both new and seasoned property managers, leasing agents and other actors in the housing space. 77