Race, Place, and Housing:

Housing Assistance Council 2004

Housing Conditions in Rural Minority Counties

December 2004

Housing Assistance Council1025 Vermont Avenue, NW | Suite 606 | Washington, DC 20005p 202-842-8600 | f 202-347-3441 | e-mail hac@ruralhome.org | www.ruralhome.org

isbn 1-58064-133-4

This report was prepared by Lance George, Jennifer Pinder, and Theresa Singleton of the Housing AssistanceCouncil (HAC). The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding underCooperative Agreement H-21396 CA with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).Ndeye Jackson served as Government Technical Representative. The substance and funding of that workare dedicated to the public. HAC is solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretationscontained in this publication and such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the UnitedStates Government.

HAC, founded in 1971, is a nonprofit corporation that supports the development of rural low-income hous-ing nationwide. HAC provides technical housing services, loans from a revolving fund, housing program andpolicy analysis, research and demonstration projects, and training and information services. HAC is an equalopportunity lender.

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................................vIntroduction .............................................................................................................................................1

Rural Minority Counties Defined .............................................................................................2About the Data .................................................................................................................................2Rural Defined ......................................................................................................................................2

Race and Ethnicity in Rural America ..........................................................................................3Rural Minority Counties ....................................................................................................................5

RMCs in Perspective ........................................................................................................................5Poverty in Rural Minority Counties..........................................................................................7

African-American Rural Minority Counties ............................................................................11Background.........................................................................................................................................11Housing in African-American Rural Minority Counties ..............................................12Addressing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................15

Native American Rural Minority Counties .............................................................................17Background.........................................................................................................................................17Housing in Native American Rural Minority Counties................................................18Addressing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................21

Hispanic Rural Minority Counties ..............................................................................................23Background........................................................................................................................................23Housing in Hispanic Rural Minority Counties.................................................................25Addressing the Challenge..........................................................................................................27

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................29Conclusions and Next Steps .........................................................................................................31References...............................................................................................................................................32Endnotes..................................................................................................................................................34Appendix A: About the Data in This Report ..........................................................................35Appendix B: Data Tables..................................................................................................................38

1

IntroductionRural America has often been the stage for the racial and ethnic dramas ofthis nation’s history (Snipp 1996). It was in the rural South that EmmettTill was brutally slain in an event that helped to spark the Civil RightsMovement. On rural farms across the South and Southwest, Hispanicfarmworkers organized to fight for better wages and working conditions. Inthe 1960s and 1970s, young Native Americans brought national attentionto the dire living conditions and discriminatory treatment that definedquality of life for many residents living on reservations. Despite these sem-inal events, the experiences of rural minorities are often overlooked giventheir relatively small populations. Moreover, it is often assumed that theconditions that led to these upheavals have been addressed (Yetman 1996).For many rural minorities, specifically those living in communities thathave significant minority populations, social and economic conditionscontinue to lag far behind their white counterparts and urban populationsoverall (HAC 2002). This harsh fact is most apparent in the housing con-ditions in which rural minorities continue to live.

Data show that housing conditions for minorities in rural areas are often worse than those forrural whites or all households in general (HAC 2002). Rural minorities are more likely to livein substandard and cost-burdened housing, and are more likely to be poor. The geographicisolation and relative segregation of rural minorities living in high minority counties adds animportant component to our understanding of the intersections between race, ethnicity,poverty, and housing.

The Housing Assistance Council’s (HAC’s) study of housing in rural minority counties(RMCs) utilizes Census and other data sources to examine housing conditions in rural coun-ties with significant minority populations. In addition to identifying rural minority countiesand providing data on housing conditions in these areas, the report provides a basis for dis-cussion on the ongoing connection between race and place, and the unique experiences ofrural minorities in these communities.

Rural Minority Counties Defined1

This analysis highlights rural areas with relatively substantial and long-term racial and ethnic minority populations. Rural minority counties arethose rural counties (defined as explained below) with a specific racial orethnic minority population of one-third or more in 1980, 1990, and 2000.For example, African-American RMCs are rural counties that have had anAfrican-American population of one-third or more for the past threedecades. Given the minority population in rural America (18 percent), theone-third/three-decade criterion is a substantial threshold to meet. Thismethodology best captures rural communities with significant long-termminority populations and their housing needs. Please note the data pre-sented in this report do not include allrural racial and ethnic minorities, onlypopulations who reside in the designatedRMCs. HAC has identified 304 RMCs.

About the Data

Most of the data in this report derive from the 2000 Census of Populationand Housing, Summary Files 1 and 3. Census 2000 was conducted by theU.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census, which collectedinformation on 281.4 million people and 115.9 million housing unitsacross the United States between March and August 2000. Most of theCensus 2000 information utilized in this report derives from one of twodata sets. The first is Summary File 1, commonly referred to as the “shortform,” on which a limited number of questions were asked about everyperson and every housing unit in the United States. Second, Summary File3, or “long form” data, provide more detailed information on populationand housing characteristics. These data came from a sample of persons(generally one in six) and housing units.

Rural Defined

Establishing a definition of rural poses many challenges. In general, rural areas share the common characteristics ofcomparatively few people living in a geographic area and limited access to large cities and market areas for work oreveryday activities. Rurality exists on a continuum, however, and varies based on proximity to a central place, com-munity size, population density, total population, and social and economic factors. Over the years, public agenciesand researchers have used combinations of these factors to define rural and to designate geographic areas as rural,including “rural” places as defined by the Census Bureau and Metropolitan Areas delineated by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB).

HAC has devised a county-based designation of urban and rural counties that incorporates both residential patterns, asfound in the Census definition, and economic connection patterns, as found in the OMB definition. HAC believes thisto be a more precise and inclusive measure of rural character than the Census or OMB definitions can provide alone.

Rural, as defined by HAC in this report, includes all counties outside metropolitan areas (i.e., counties that wouldhave been called nonmetro using OMB’s former terminology), as well as metropolitan counties that have no urbanizedpopulation as defined by the Census (i.e., metro counties with 100 percent Census-defined rural population). Likewise,urban counties are metropolitan counties with at least some urbanized population. It is extremely important tonote that this is not the same definition of rural/urban as devised by the Census Bureau or the metro/nonmetro desig-nation as identified by OMB.

3

Race and Ethnicity in Rural America Census 2000 revealed the most racially and ethnically diverse nation in our history.Rural areas, however, tend to be more homogenous than the nation as a whole.Nationwide, approximately 69 percent of the population are white and not ofHispanic origin.2 In rural counties, 82 percent of the population are white and non-Hispanic. Overall, it is important to note that the comparatively smaller rural minoritypopulations are in part a factor of 20th Century demographic trends such as the migra-tion of African Americans from the rural South to large cities and the tendency of immi-grants to settle in urban areas (HAC 1997).

Race and Ethnicity, 2000

White 69.1%Asian 3.6%

Hispanic 12.5%

Two or More Races 1.6%Native American .7%

African-American 12.0%

White 81.9%Asian .6%

Hispanic 5.3%Two or More Races 1.2%

Native American 1.6%African-American 8.5%

Legend■ White ■ Asian ■ Hispanic ■ Other ■ Native American ■ African-American

US Rural

African Americans3 are the largest minority group in rural America, comprisingapproximately 9 percent of the rural population. Rural African Americans are moreconcentrated geographically than other rural minorities overall as nine out of 10 ruralAfrican Americans live in the South. However, the rural African-American popula-tion outside of the South is growing; between 1990 and 2000 this population grewby 26 percent, a much higher rate than African-American growth in the South.

Hispanics make up approximately 5 percent of the rural population, a seemingly smallproportion. However, one of the more significant trends in rural America over the lastdecade was the explosive growth in the Hispanic population. Between 1990 and 2000the number of rural Hispanics rose by 1.3 million, a 71 percent increase. In fact, one-quarter of all rural population growth in the last decade is attributable to Hispanics.Rural Hispanic population growth was particularly high in the upper Midwest and inthe deep South, where states like Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, andTennessee all experienced Hispanic growth of over 350 percent. Still, more than half ofall rural Hispanics are concentrated in the five states of Arizona, California, Florida,New Mexico, and Texas. In fact, approximately one-quarter of all rural Hispanics livein Texas alone.

Native Americans, who include American Indians and Alaska Natives, tend to live inrural areas to a greater extent than any other rural minority group; 42 percent of allNative Americans live in rural areas. The spatial location of rural Native Americans isa legacy of historical and political actions, as over one-third of all Native Americanslive on Census-designated American Indian/Alaska Native lands. Asians comprise lessthan 1 percent of all rural persons, and are most heavily concentrated on the WestCoast and in Hawaii. The percentages of rural Native Americans and Asians would beslightly higher if respondents who listed multiple races were included (Mikesell 2002).

In 2000, the Census tallied persons of two or more races for the first time, allow-ing respondents to choose from 126 possible racial combinations. In rural areas,approximately 2 percent of the population indicated that they are of two or moreraces, compared to 2.4 percent nationwide. Most persons of two or more races indi-cated that they are white in addition to some other racial group. Multi-racial residentsin rural areas tend to be younger than the total rural population and they are morelikely to live in the West (Grieco and Cassidy 2001). Nearly one-quarter of rural peoplewho report being of two or more races are also Hispanic. About 6 percent of ruralHispanics classify themselves as being of two or more races, compared to 1 percent ofnon-Hispanics.

Housing represents an important component of community resources and fulfillsimportant needs for residents. In addition to providing physical shelter, home valuesare a vital source of wealth for the millions of Americans who own their homes. Anassessment of housing conditions in rural minority counties couched in a discussionof the historical background of each group’s experience with and in rural Americaprovides some illustration of the past, present, and future for each group.

5

Rural Minority CountiesUrban literature has shown with startling clarity the connections between place and race (Squires 1994)and the impacts of segregation on the lives and life chances of urban minorities (Massey and Denton1993). The isolation of urban ghettos and barrios has been shown to have devastating effects on resi-dent access to essential services, including educational opportunities, financial products, and decenthousing (Squires 1994). While not typically represented in the housing segregation literature, life forrural minorities in rural minority counties is comparable to the life of their segregated urban counterparts.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, housing discrimination was declared illegal. It iscommonly understood, however, that de facto practices (e.g., white flight, racial steering) have workedto maintain segregation in urban and suburban areas. Common perceptions, fostered in the segrega-tion literature, assume that segregation in the rural South, specifically, ended with the passage of thisseminal piece of legislation. However, recent acts of violence against minorities and continued segre-gation in rural areas contradict these assumptions (Wallace 2002).

Tools currently used to measure segregation (e.g., indices of dissimilarity) cannot be applied in wideopen rural areas, leading some to assume that rural minorities do not experience segregation. Thus,many have confused large spaces with integrated living patterns. HAC’s analysis of RMCs illustrates aform of rural segregation that perhaps has been hidden and is not very well understood. Similar tourban segregation, rural and small town segregation has both ethnic and class components and has sig-nificant impacts on access to important resources, including those related to housing.

RMCs in Perspective

RMCs are defined as those rural counties that have sustained aminority population of 33 percent or higher over the last threecensuses (i.e., 1980, 1990, and 2000). There are a total of 304of these traditionally rural minority counties.4 RMCs tend to beconcentrated in two specific ways: (1) racially and ethnically and(2) geographically.

The minority counties identified are:

■ African-American counties 200■ Asian-American counties 4

■ Hispanic-American counties 70■ Native American counties 29■ Combined minority county 1

The specific counties are also clustered geographically in regions closelytied to historical dynamics set by past social and economic patterns. As themap below shows, the African-American RMCs are located primarily inthe southern Black Belt counties of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Northand South Carolina, and Virginia. The remaining rural African-Americancounties are concentrated in the Lower Mississippi Delta states ofArkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Native American RMCs are pre-dominately located in counties with Native American reservations andtrust lands in the Midwest plains, the Southwest, and Alaska. Hispanicrural minority counties are predominately located along the U.S.-Mexicoborder region in Texas and New Mexico and portions of the SouthwesternUnited States.

LegendCounty Status■ Urban Counties■ Rural–Low Minority Density■ African American RMCs■ Native American RMCs■ Asian RMCs■ Hispanic RMCs■ Combined Minority RMC

Rural Minority Counties

7

The four rural minority Asian counties are all located in Hawaii.5 Due to theextremely small number of Asian RMCs and the correspondingly small number ofAsian households, this analysis will not include a section detailing social, economicand housing characteristics in these counties. Small sample sizes and outlier factorsin these counties produce methodological concerns, which may affect statistical sig-nificance and reliability.6

RMCs share integral spatial patterns that determine access to resources and affectoverall quality of life for residents. Rural minority counties tend to be more “rural”than rural counties in general. There are 9.5 persons per square mile in rural minor-ity counties as compared to 20.4 in rural counties in general and 79.6 persons persquare mile nationally. It is often difficult to provide social services in less dense areaswith smaller, more geographically dispersed populations. Greater density affords certainopportunities and represents a resource base from which decisions regarding economicdevelopment and service provision are made (HAC 2002).

It is also evident that people living in RMCs are more isolated than other rural res-idents. The Urban and Rural Continuum Codes (also known as the Beale Codes)developed by the United States Department of Agriculture provide a tool for cat-egorizing counties based on population size and adjacency to a metro area. Ananalysis of the RMCs as they relate to the Urban and Rural Continuum Codesreveals that one-quarter of all RMCs are categorized as either completely rural, lessthan 2,500 population, adjacent to a metro area or completely rural, less than2,500 population, not adjacent to a metro area. Forty RMCs fall into the mostrural category. It stands to reason that this isolation has an impact on the resourcesavailable to these places, including job opportunities and social services.

Poverty in Rural Minority Counties

Extremely high poverty rates are the most often shared characteristic among RMCgroups. Rural poverty has traditionally been higher than urban poverty (HAC 2002).According to Census 2000, the rural poverty rate was 14.3 percent as compared to11.8 percent in urban areas. In rural minority counties, poverty is more prevalent;23.4 percent of all RMC residents are in poverty. With the exception of AsianAmericans living in Asian-American RMCs, poverty among the dominant minoritygroup living in each type of rural minority county exceeds 30 percent. Povertyamong Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in these Asian counties is much high-er than the county rate, however, at 21.9 percent. In each case, the poverty rate forthe specific minority group exceeds the overall poverty rate in that type of RMCcounty by at least 5.5 percentage points, up to over 12 percentage points.

Table 1

Poverty in Rural Minority Counties

County Poverty Rate for Dominant County Type Poverty Rate Minority Group

African-American Rural Minority Counties 23.3 35.6Asian-American Rural Minority Counties 12.7 10.4Hispanic Rural Minority Counties 23.7 30.0Native American Rural Minority Counties 29.9 38.5All Rural Minority Counties 23.4 —

While the numbers above clearly illustrate the existence of povertyin rural minority counties, they do not reveal the entrenched natureof this poverty. The United States Department of Agriculture’sEconomic Research Service (ERS) defines persistent poverty countiesas those that have experienced poverty rates of 20 percent or morefrom 1960 to 2000. Over 69 percent of the identified rural minoritycounties are also persistent poverty counties. Rural minority countiescomprise over half of all persistent poverty counties.

9

Persistent Poverty in Rural Minority Counties

Legend■ States

■ Non-RMC Persistent Poverty Counties

■ RMC Persistent Poverty Counties

11

African-American Rural Minority Counties

Background

The spatial patterns of African-American residence in rural Americacan be linked directly to the institution of slavery and the agricul-tural economy it supported. The first African slaves were broughtto the shores of Virginia as early as 1619 to be sold throughout thecolonies; however, the larger percentage of slaves were sold to workin the more southern colonies (Yetman 1996). The warm climateand fertile soil of Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, andother Southern states facilitated the cultivation of rice, tobacco,sugar cane, and later cotton. The need for a cheap, large scale laborforce created and fostered the institution of slavery in the South formore than 240 years. While slavery would eventually be abolishedand the African-American population would begin a “GreatMigration” to northern cities and the West, the rural South and theexperience of African Americans are inextricably linked. More thana hundred years later, the legacy of slavery can be witnessed in thelives of those bounded by the geography of place.

When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, lessthan 8 percent of the African-American population lived in theNortheast or Midwest. Within a decade, the beginnings of the

LegendCounties■ African-American RMCs■ Urban Counties

“Great Migration” led more than 60,000 African-Americans out ofthe South into Kansas and other parts of the Midwest, including theOklahoma Indian territories (Library of Congress 2003). Fleeing vio-lence and other forms of oppression, these early African Americansleft the rural South in search of social and economic freedom.

While approximately 90 percent of all African Americans stillresided in the South in 1900, the flow of African Americans fromthe rural South to northern cities continued almost unabatedthroughout the 20th Century. Thousands of African Americans leftthe South to escape sharecropping, worsening economic conditions,and violence. They were drawn to the North by higher wages, bet-ter homes, and political rights. The demand for laborers duringWorld War I and the restriction on European immigration also con-tributed to the migration of African Americans to northern cities.Between 1940 and 1970, continued migration transformed thecountry’s African-American population from a predominatelysouthern, rural group to a northern, urban one (Library of Congress2003). During this time, approximately four million AfricanAmericans migrated to the North (Rural Migration News 2002).7

Overwhelmingly, those African Americans remaining in rural areas reside in the South; nine out of ten rural AfricanAmericans live in the southern region. It is no surprise then that the 200 African-American RECs are located primarilyin the southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, andVirginia. Most of these counties are clustered in the two regions commonly referred to as the Mississippi Delta and theBlack Belt.8

African-American RMCs experience poverty at a significantly higher rate than other rural counties and they tend to be lessdensely populated than other rural counties. The overall poverty rate in these counties is 23 percent and their African-American poverty rate is 36 percent. In African-American RMCs there are 39.9 persons per square mile compared to anational density of 79.6.

Manufactured housing9 is one of the fastest growing sources of housing in rural areas, particularly in the southeasternUnited States, where a majority of the nation’s manufactured homes are located. Most of the housing units in African-American minority counties (67 percent) are one-unit detached homes and second most common are manufacturedhomes, which make up 24 percent of the housing stock. Nationally, African-American households are less likely to live inmanufactured homes than their white counterparts; only 4 percent of African-American households occupy manufacturedhomes. The opposite is the case in African-American rural minority counties, however, where 27 percent of African-American households reside in manufactured homes compared to 21 percent of white non-Hispanic households.

Homeownership is generally considered to be a positive community and personal asset. While homeownership rates arehigh in African-American RMCs, housing value must be taken into consideration. Overall housing values in high con-centration African-American counties are somewhat lower than the rural median value. The median value of all homes inAfrican-American minority counties is $65,900; the median value of homes owned by African Americans in those coun-ties is significantly lower, however, at $49,400. The disparity between African-American and white home values in thesecounties is even greater, as the median African-American home value is only two-thirds of the median for units owned bywhite non-Hispanic households.

Housing in African-American Rural Minority Counties

There are a total of 1,584,656 occupied housing units in theAfrican-American RMCs. African-American households occupyapproximately 698,905 or 44 percent of these housing units.The overall homeownership rate in rural African-Americanminority counties is 73 percent, comparable to the national ruralhomeownership rate. The homeownership rate for African-American households in these counties is somewhat lower, 65percent. The African-American homeownership rate in theRMCs is still higher than the homeownership rate for all ruralAfrican Americans, and significantly higher than that of AfricanAmericans nationwide.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Homeownership in African-American RMCs

Legend■ All Races ■ African American

US Rural African-AmericanRMCs

Perc

ent

13

Homeownership, housing value, and asset retention are heavily dependenton access to mortgage financing. Rural areas generally have fewer conven-tional banks and financial institutions than urban centers. This is a majorfactor in the proliferation of subprime lending,10 particularly in rural areaswith high minority populations (HAC 2002). Subprime lenders are moreactive in low-income and minority communities. According to 2000Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 13.2 percent of reportedhome loans in rural areas were originated by subprime lenders. In theAfrican-American RMCs, 16.4 percent of all loans were subprime.Manufactured home lending is also significant in the rural African-American South, as 20 percent of all originated loans in that region weremade by manufactured home lenders compared to 10 percent for all ruralareas. While not all subprime loans are predatory in nature, higher feesand aggressive lending practices and terms, in general, can rob an ownerof equity and reduce the benefits of owning one’s home.

As is the case in the nation as a whole, the level of inadequate housingin the Lower Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt declined sig-nificantly in the past few decades. For example, in 1970 over 60 percentof African-American-occupied units in African-American RMCs lackedadequate plumbing. However, in the year 2000 only 2.3 percent ofAfrican-American households in these counties were without plumbing.Despite this dramatic accomplishment, housing quality is still prob-lematic among high concentration African-American counties. The rateof African-American households lacking plumbing in the RMCs is stillnearly three times as high as the overall rural rate. Approximately 16,000African-American households in these counties lack adequate plumbing,and they account for over half of all rural African-Americans lackingplumbing.

Crowding is also a problem in high concentration African-American com-munities of the Lower Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt.Approximately 4.8 percent of all households in African-American ruralminority counties are crowded, meaning they have more than one personper room. This is somewhat higher than the national rural crowding rateof 3.4 percent. Crowding is significantly more problematic for renters andminorities. At 9.6 percent, the crowding rate among African Americans inthe RMCs is nearly three times the national rural rate of 3.4 percent.Furthermore, nearly half (48 percent) of all rural African-Americancrowded households are located in the African-American RMCs.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

$120,000

Median Home Value

Legend■ US Median Value ■ Rural Median Value■ Median African-American Value in RMCs ■ Median White Value in RMCs

US Rural African-AmericanRMCs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Inadequate Plumbing, 1970–2000

Legend■ National ■ Rural ■ African Americans in RMCs

1970 1980 1990

Perc

ent

of O

ccup

ied

Uni

ts

2000

Year

Housing affordability has become the most prevalent housing concern in rural America andthis is particularly the case in the Delta and Black Belt regions. These areas have relatively highrates of housing cost burden—with cost burden defined as paying greater than 30 percent ofmonthly income for shelter costs. Twenty-six percent of all households in African-AmericanRMCs are cost-burdened.

Affordability problems are more severe for African Americans in these regions and are particularlypervasive among minority renters. Nationwide, 31 percent of rural renters are cost-burdened. Butin the African-American RMCs the cost burden rate for African-American renters is nearly 39percent. Interestingly, the cost burden rate for African-American renters in the RMCs is alsohigher than the national rent burden level. Likewise, while 18 percent of all rural owners are cost-burdened, over 30 percent of African-American owners in these minority counties pay too muchfor housing. Again, this well exceeds the national owner cost burden rate.

It is rare that rural cost burden rates exceed the national rate, and this suggests a serious gap inthe availability of affordable housing stock in these areas, which is compounded by extremelyhigh poverty rates. As noted above, more than 35 percent of African Americans living inAfrican-American RMCs are poor.

15

Addressing the Challenge

Housing conditions in the African-American RMCs of the Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt are inlarge part attributable to social, political, and economic conditions in the region. These conditions were histori-cally created, sanctioned, and nurtured on the economic exploitation and social isolation of the African-Americanpopulation (Yetman 1999). Consequently, efforts to address the housing needs of this region will require multi-level approaches that speak to the social, political, and economic infrastructure of these counties. In addition toincreased financial resources, the Delta and the southern Black Belt are in need of additional community andorganizational capacity to address the interconnected economic and housing needs that affect the region.

African Americans living in RMCs in the Mississippi Delta and the southern BlackBelt have significant needs for decent affordable housing and related infrastructure.Persistent poverty and a lack of resources make it difficult to achieve positive changesin the region. One example of efforts to meet these needs is the Delta Compact, anorganization that is seeking to address the Delta’s community and economic develop-ment needs. It is funded by USDA and is directed by a steering committee comprisedof a wide variety of Delta stakeholders. Several public and private organizations haveagreed to collaborate through the Compact to promote community and economicdevelopment in the region. These organizations have already pledged $40 million inresources and technical assistance to promote the improvement of the Delta(Campbell 2000). Some of the primary objectives of the Delta Compact include iden-tifying and procuring new resources and leveraging existing resources, advocating forchange in the Delta, sharing information and data, and creating a leadership network(Delta Compact 1998). Other efforts to improve social and housing conditions in therural Southeast include initiatives by the Delta Caucus, the Foundation for the MidSouth, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and Mid South Delta LISC.11

17

Native American Rural Minority Counties

Background

The history of Native Americans in what is now the United States can be traced back more than 30,000 years (Snipp 1996). NativeAmericans populated various parts of the continent, establishing numerous tribes that celebrated, and sometimes fought over, cultural dif-ferences. Native Americans are admired for their deep and abiding connection to the land. Yet, much of their recent history is tied to ruralexpanses that are marked by decades of poverty, neglect, and exploitation.

When Columbus first reached North America in the late 15th Century, there were between 5 and 6 million Native Americans. Approximately400 years later, the population had dwindled to 237,000. The numbers of tribes and Native American minority groups were also dramaticallyreduced, from 1,000 at the time of first European contact to fewer than 600 federally recognized tribes in 2003.12 At the height of their presencein North America, the Native Americans’ land base consisted of over 2 billion acres. By 1871, this decreased dramatically to 155 million acres andby 1997 it was merely 54 million acres (Yetman 1999). These devastating changes resulted from outside forces set into motion by the arrival ofEuropean settlers. With the colonists came diseases that Native people were not able to resist and aggression aimed directly at taking their land.These factors laid claim to the lives of millions of Native Americans, as well as much of the land that is integral to their culture.

Currently, 39 percent of all Native Americans live in rural areas. The geographic location of most Native Americans was dictated in largepart by a series of regulations and laws passed to secure the lands taken by the U.S. government and white settlers. During the 19th and20th Centuries, a series of acts and treaties established the reservation system and imposed a way of life on many Native Americans. WhileNative American reservations can be found in many states across the country, they are concentrated in Midwestern and Western states includingArizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, and Utah.

Over 40 percent of all rural Native Americans live in Native American RMCs. Not surprisingly, there is considerable overlap between NativeAmerican RMCs and the location of Native American reservations; these counties are also are clustered in the northern High Plains, the FourCorners region in the Southwest, and Alaska. Counties with a high population of Native Americans tend to be thinly settled and far from majorpopulation centers. Native American RMCs are extremely rural, with only 1.4 persons per square mile compared to the national rate of 79.6persons per square mile. Poverty among Native Americans living in RMCs is high (38.5 percent) compared to all rural residents (14.3 percent).

Native American Rural Minority Counties

LegendCounties■ Native American RMCs■ Urban Counties

Housing in Native American Rural Minority Counties

There are a total of 176,927 occupied housing units in the 29 NativeAmerican RMCs; Native Americans occupy approximately 90,339 or 51percent of them. Homeownership rates are high in Native AmericanRMCs—seven of every ten occupied housing units are owner-occupied.Native American homeownership rates in these areas are comparable at69.7 percent. This statistic may be misleading, however, due in part tothe HUD “Mutual Help” program. In essence, Mutual Help is a lease-purchase program and therefore many persons who occupy mutual helphomes do not yet have title to these units; however, the Census Bureaubelieves that many Mutual Help occupants may have identified them-selves as homeowners. If Mutual Help occupants were excluded, thehomeownership rate for Native Americans on tribal lands would likelydrop significantly (HUD and Urban Institute 1996).

Single-unit detached homes are by far the most widespread type of hous-ing structure in the country as a whole, and this is also the case for NativeAmericans across the nation. However, the use of manufactured housingunits is growing in popularity among Native Americans. Manufacturedhomes now account for 24 percent of all housing units on NativeAmerican lands, more than three times the national rate. Among NativeAmericans, 23 percent of occupied housing units in the RMCs are man-ufactured homes. Manufactured homes are often the most feasible formof housing in poor and remote areas, as is the case with many NativeAmerican lands. Manufactured homes are also convenient in situationswhere there are few contractors or developers, building supply stores aredistant, and site-built housing is prohibitively expensive (HAC 2002).

Cluster housing is one of the main forms of housing on many reserva-tions. Cluster housing is single-unit detached government-assisted rentalunits, which have for the most part been built in small clusters. Clusterhousing was first built by HUD in the 1960s and was meant to provide“modern housing and utilities in a cost-effective manner” (Spitzmillerand Rogerson 2001). Even though residents were accustomed to livingon their own pieces of land, perhaps with gardens and animals, manymoved into cluster housing to have access to better housing and modernutilities, which were far more difficult to supply outside of the centraltowns. Currently, cluster housing is often referred to as a “reservationghetto” (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001) complete with drug and crimeproblems (Kingsley 1996, 138).

One long-time resident of cluster housing on the Pine Ridge Reservationin South Dakota commented that, “Government houses just tore thefamilies apart. We talk so much about our way of life, the ‘Indian-ness’in us . . . but we don’t have that when they put us in these clusterhomes.” In research conducted by the Urban Institute, NativeAmericans on tribal lands were asked about their perceptions of therental housing available to them. The single most reported serious prob-lem was “too close to neighbors,” which was identified by 23 percent ofrespondents (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Homeownership in Native American RMCs

Legend■ All Races ■ Native American

US Rural Native AmericanRMCs

Perc

ent

Hom

eow

ners

hip

19

The lack of financing for affordable homeownership opportunities createsadditional barriers on trust lands. For decades, a plethora of legal, socioe-conomic, and cultural constraints have severely curtailed the level ofresidential financing on trust lands. This problem is highlighted in a 1998General Accounting Office (GAO) report investigating mortgage lendingon trust lands. The report found that between 1992 and 1996 a total of only92 non-governmental, conventional mortgage loans were originated on trustlands. Further, 81 of these were originated for homes for members of justtwo tribes: the Oneida of northeastern Wisconsin and the Tulalip of north-eastern Washington state (GAO 1998).

An examination of lending patterns among Native Americans revealsthat subprime and manufactured home loans are extremely prevalentand Native American borrowers experience a high rate of loan denials.Recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data show that 42.9percent of reported home loan applications in Native American RMCswere originated by subprime or manufactured home lenders, comparedto 23 percent for all rural areas.

Shannon County, S.D., home to much of the Pine Ridge Reservation,provides an example of the impact of subprime lending in high concentra-tion Native American counties. During 1999, Shannon County residentsapplied for a total of 228 mortgage loans. The vast majority of these appli-cants (177, or nearly 78 percent) applied to subprime or manufacturedhome lenders,13 while only 22 percent of all applications were processed bylenders classified as mainstream or prime (HAC 2002).

Household crowding is one of the most significant problems throughoutNative American RMCs. Nationwide, approximately 6 percent of house-holds have more than one person per room and are considered crowded.However, crowding rates among Native American households in RMCsare nearly five times the national rates with 28.9 percent of AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives households experiencing crowded conditions.

Crowding has implications far beyond the obvious lack of space and pri-vacy. A recent National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC)study links domestic crowding and the substandard housing conditionsthat often accompany it to increased incidences of tuberculosis, pneumo-nia, gastrointestinal disorders, head lice, conjunctivitis, hepatitis, and var-ious other infectious diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded spaces.Lower educational attainment among children and social problems likealcoholism, domestic violence, and child abuse and/or neglect are alsoassociated with severely crowded living conditions (NAIHC 2001).

0

10

20

30

40

50

5

15

25

35

45

Subprime Lending & Manufactured Housing Lending

Legend■ Subprime Loans ■ Manufactured Housing Loans■ Subprime Loans ■ Manufactured Housing Loans

4.1

Perc

ent

of L

oans

Mad

e by

Sub

prim

e Le

nder

s

13.5

9.8

13.2

30.3

12.6

US Rural Native AmericanRMC

Another dramatic demonstration of the housing inadequacy that existsin Native American RMCs is the prevalence of units lacking adequateplumbing. Nationwide only 0.6 percent of all households nationwide livein housing units lacking adequate plumbing. However, a staggering 20.7percent of Native American households residing in RMCs lack adequateplumbing—more than 20 times the national level. High inadequateplumbing rates are prevalent throughout most highly concentrated NativeAmerican areas, but are particularly high in Alaska and the Southwest.

In concert with, and often as a result of, the poor housing conditionsthat exist in these highly concentrated Native American areas, housingvalues there are significantly lower than national and rural median val-ues. The median value of all homes in Native American counties is$66,100, but the median value of homes owned by Native Americans inthese counties is only slightly more than half that at $36,800. The dispar-ity between Native American and white homeowners in these counties iseven greater as the median home value is $71,300 for white non-Hispanichomeowners.

Affordability is a more serious issue in some Native American countiesthan in others. Overall, 18.3 percent of Native American homeownersin high concentration Native American counties are cost-burdened,spending over 30 percent of their households’ income for housing eachmonth. Renters are far more in danger of having affordability problems,as almost one-quarter of Native American renters in the RMCs are cost-burdened. Despite generally low housing costs in Native American areas,affordability problems also co-exist with high and persistent povertyrates. For example, Ziebach County, S.D., location of the CheyenneRiver Sioux reservation, is an extremely poor county with considerablecost burden problems among its population. In this area, as in manyNative American minority counties, incomes are so low that many resi-dents cannot afford housing even though costs are much lower than thenational average. When incomes and housing prices are both depressedin communities such as these, the quality of housing is also typically low.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Crowding in Native American RMCs

Legend■ All Races ■ Native Americans

US Rural Native AmericanRMCs

Perc

ent

0

5

10

15

20

25

Units Lacking Plumbing

Legend■ US ■ Rural ■ All Native Americans■ Rural Native Americans ■ Native Americans in RMCs

US Rural Native American

Perc

ent

Residence & Race/Ethnicity

0.6 0.8

4.4

7.8

20.7

21

Addressing the Challenge

While housing problems are severe in many Native American RMCs, some progress is being made. The 1996 NativeAmerican Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) replaced several separate U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) programs with a block grant program. With the additional flexibility of theblock grant, some tribes have seen positive results using these funds to partner with other programs.

Additionally, HUD’s Section 184 program is meant to stimulate access to private financing for Native Americans.Instituted under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Section 184 provides federal government guar-antees for loans made by private lenders to Native American families, tribes, or Indian housing entities for construction,acquisition, or rehabilitation of single-family homes. Section 184 is currently the most widely used product to encourageprivate lending on restricted lands. As of August 31, 2002, $96.5 million in guaranteed Section 184 loans had been made,with 300 loans (worth $45.9 million) made in Alaska alone (NAIHC 2001).

The majority of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) housing finance efforts for Native Americans fallunder the Rural Housing Service’s Section 502 program, which provides direct homeownership loans for low-incomefamilies in rural areas. Because Native Americans tend to live in rural areas, RHS programs are often well suited to theirfinancing needs. RHS loan origination rates among Native Americans are similar to those of other agencies offeringfederally subsidized housing assistance. In fiscal year 1999, 241 Section 502 direct loans were made to Native Americanhouseholds. Of these, 38 were located on trust lands (USDA 1999). Although there is still much to be done, particularlyfor those living in the deepest poverty and in the worst housing conditions on Native American lands, the past decade hasseen changes that hold the promise of future improvements.

Like most high need rural areas, Native American RMCs are in need of additional funding for development and capacitybuilding of local grassroots organizations working to improve housing conditions. These communities also need help inbuilding tribal economies and creating an incentive to build private markets on Native American lands.

23

Hispanic Rural Minority Counties

Background

Hispanics are the largest and most rapidly growing ethnic group in the nation (HAC2002). From 1990 to 2000 the Hispanic population increased by 58 percent. Thisgrowth was fueled by both increased immigration and high birth rates. While over 90percent of the U.S. Hispanic population lives in metropolitan areas, Hispanic growthover the last decade was proportionally greater in rural areas. Hispanic residential pat-terns in rural America are inextricably linked to agriculture. As a major part of thefarmworker labor pool, rural Hispanics have made huge contributions to the econo-my of this nation and have suffered some of the most abject housing conditions.

Hispanic Rural Minority Counties

LegendCounties■ Hispanic RMCs■ Urban Counties

Hispanic is an umbrella term referring to people from a variety of nations around the world. Latinos originate from 22 differentcountries and, while most Hispanics consider themselves white, many are of other races (Larmer 1999). The largest group ofHispanics in the United States is of Mexican descent.14 Today, over 20 million people of Mexican ancestry live in the United States.The history of Mexicans in America is a long and complex one. Between the early 17th and mid 19th Centuries, Spain colonizedand Mexico owned large parts of what is now the United States. Through a series of wars and treaties the vast expanse of what isnow the Southwestern United States was ceded by Mexico (Yetman 1999).

The Mexican-American population in the United States increased through both legal and undocumented immigration. Most of this hasoccurred throughout the 20th Century and has contributed to the economic development of the Southwest by providing inexpensivelabor (Yetman 1999). The region along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, which is characterizedby extreme poverty, limited employment, and deplorable health conditions, includes thousands of poor neighborhoods known ascolonias (Effland 1996). In 2000, approximately 46 percent of the residents in the border colonias region were Hispanic (HAC 2002).15

The term colonia has its origins in the Spanish word for “neighborhood,” but recentlyit has come to define a residential development characterized by substandard living con-ditions. Generally colonias are rural, mostly unincorporated communities located inArizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas along the U.S.-Mexico border and arecharacterized by high poverty rates and substandard living conditions. In fact, coloniasare defined primarily by what they lack, such as potable drinking water, water andwastewater systems, paved streets, and standard mortgage financing (HAC 1994).While most of the residents in Hispanic RMCs do not live in designated colonias, thevast majority of the nation’s colonias are located in these counties.

Parts of the border region serve as the principal home base for workers employed inagriculture and agriculture-related businesses. The Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texasand Imperial County, Calif., are home bases for many who travel in the Texas andCalifornia migrant streams, respectively (HAC 2001). This reliance on immigrantagricultural labor adds to the stresses on available housing and infrastructure systems,forcing greater numbers of households to reside in colonia communities.

25

Housing in Hispanic Rural Minority Counties

Housing conditions among rural Hispanics in RMCs are deeply impact-ed by the demographic and economic forces along the U.S.-Mexico bor-der. There are 399,623 occupied housing units in these 70 highHispanic concentration counties. Hispanic households occupy approxi-mately 221,026, or 55 percent, of these units.

Historically, Hispanics, particularly those living in the colonias, havedemonstrated a strong homeownership ethic. Homeownership rates arehigher along the border than nationwide and are comparable to home-ownership rates for all rural areas. Overall, 74 percent of all householdsin high concentration Hispanic counties own their homes. Similarly, 72percent of Hispanic households in these areas own their homes, signifi-cantly higher than the national rural Hispanic homeownership rate of59 percent and the total U.S. homeownership rate of 67 percent.

As is the case in other RMCs, manufactured homes are a significant andgrowing part of the housing stock in Hispanic rural minority counties.Approximately 20 percent of all occupied housing units in rural Hispaniccounties are manufactured homes, compared to 8 percent nationally.Similarly, 21 percent of Hispanic households in the RMCs live in manu-factured homes. Nationally, only 6 percent of Hispanic households live inmanufactured homes. The New Mexico border area has a particularly highproportion of manufactured homes, which comprise 26 percent of thestate’s border region housing stock.

Housing and infrastructure development in the colonias is complicated bythe “contract for deed” financing mechanism used frequently in the colo-nias over the last 50 years. Many home purchasers in the colonias havepoor or no credit and lack the resources to qualify for traditional bankfinancing. In many cases, seller financing is their only alternative. Under acontract for deed arrangement, the purchaser obtains no equity in theproperty and land ownership remains with the seller until the total pur-chase price, often including a high rate of interest, is paid (Federal ReserveBank of Dallas 2002). Unlike deeds of trust, contracts for deed are rarelyrecorded with a local municipality, making it easy for the developer toreclaim the property. Thus, if the purchaser falls behind in payments, thedeveloper can repossess the land—and any improvements made by thepurchaser—without going through a foreclosure process.

Despite high homeownership rates among Hispanics in the RMCs, con-ventional homeownership financing methods are often inaccessible torural Hispanic residents. Many Hispanics, particularly those in the bordercolonias area with contracts for deed, find it difficult to secure financingto build a house or make home improvements. Because title does nottransfer to the buyer until all payments have been made on the land, anapplicant cannot use the property as collateral for a loan. Therefore, con-ventional financial institutions are reluctant to lend money to improve theproperty (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 2002).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Homeownership in Hispanic RMCs

Legend■ All Races ■ Hispanic

US Rural Hispanic RMC

Perc

ent

Hom

eow

ners

hip

Residence & Race/Ethnicity

Subprime lenders have, for better or worse, filled some of thelending gap in high concentration Hispanic communities.HMDA data from the year 2000 reveal that 17.8 percent of thereported home loans in Hispanic minority counties were orig-inated by subprime lenders, compared to 13.2 percent for allrural areas. Manufactured home lending is also significant inthese counties as 16 percent of all originated loans were madeby subprime lenders specializing in manufactured homes.Nationally, the rural share of manufactured home loan origi-nations was 10 percent.

Additionally, housing values are much lower in HispanicRMCs than elsewhere. The median housing value amongHispanics in these Hispanic counties is less than half thenational median. The median value of all homes in Hispanicminority counties is $53,800. However, the median value ofunits owned by Hispanics in these areas is even lower at$47,400. The disparity between Hispanic and white home-owners in these counties is substantial, as the median whitenon-Hispanic home value there is $81,700. As explainedabove, the comparatively low value of homes in HispanicRMCs can in large part be attributed to the issues related tothe colonias. While not all Hispanic RMCs are in the coloniaregion, the majority are home to colonias, which experiencesignificant issues related to home finance, quality, and accessto services that reduce home value.

Significant housing quality problems plague rural communities with highconcentrations of Hispanic households. In many colonia areas, Hispanicresidents tend to purchase small lots and construct their own dwellings,using available materials and adding to them when possible. Over 5,000(2.3 percent) of Hispanic occupied housing units in Hispanic RMCs lackcomplete plumbing facilities. This is nearly four times the national rate.Further, the problem of inadequate plumbing among rural Hispanics isconcentrated in these minority counties, as 41 percent of all ruralHispanics lacking adequate plumbing live in a Hispanic RMC. It mustbe noted that the level of inadequate plumbing in the border colonias andSouthwest declined somewhat in the past few decades. For example, in1970 over 40 percent of Hispanic-occupied units in these minority coun-ties lacked adequate plumbing compared to just over 2 percent today.

The housing problems experienced by Hispanics living in HispanicRMCs extend beyond the physical structure of their homes, as coloniaareas generally lack basic infrastructure. According to assessments con-ducted by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 24 percent ofhouseholds in Texas’s colonias are not connected to treated water and useuntreated water for drinking and cooking. TWDB has estimated a costof $147.9 million to provide water services to these households. Forty-four percent of the homes in the colonias have outhouses or cesspools.TWDB has estimated a cost of $80 million to provide indoor plumbingimprovements and a cost of $467.3 million to provide wastewater serv-ice to the colonias. In addition, TWDB asserts that approximately 44percent of the homes in the colonias experience flooding problems dueto lack of paved streets and drainage problems (HAC 1998).

The absence of platting, an expensive process that includes the delineationof property lines, access roads, and curbing, is a major obstacle to infra-structure improvements in the colonias and is also a factor inhibiting theirannexation by adjacent incorporated communities. The scattered natureand remote location of a number of colonias also make it difficult andexpensive to deliver services and resources comprehensively. There areinherent problems associated with small community size. Construction ofwastewater treatment plants for such small communities is generally noteconomically feasible. Similarly, the extension of water distribution andwastewater collection lines from existing treatment facilities to remote geo-graphical locations tends to be prohibitively expensive (HAC 1998).

Crowding is another problem in Hispanic RMCs. The incidence ofhousehold crowding for Hispanics in rural minority counties is morethan twice the national average; 16 percent of Hispanic households inthese high concentration Hispanic counties live in crowded units.Surprisingly, crowding rates among Hispanics in these counties aresomewhat lower than among their counterparts nationwide and in ruralareas. However, 21 percent of all crowded rural Hispanic households livein these high concentration Hispanic counties.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

$120,000

Median Home Value

Legend■ US Median Value ■ Rural Median Value ■ Median Hispanic Value in RMCs ■ Median White Value in RMCs

US Rural Hispanic RMCs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Inadequate Plumbing, 1970–2000

Legend■ National ■ Rural ■ Hispanic in Hispanic RMCs

1970 1980 1990

Perc

ent

of O

ccup

ied

Uni

ts

2000

Year

Affordability is also a concern in rural Hispanic counties. Overall, 21.7 percent of Hispanic homeowners in Hispanic counties are costburdened, meaning they are spending over 30 percent of their households’ income for housing each month. Hispanic renters have evengreater affordability problems, as fully 34.2 percent of Hispanic renters in high concentration Hispanic rural areas are cost burdened.

Hispanic RMCs

27

Addressing the Challenge

Hispanics are reshaping the demographics of rural America in manyways. With a median age of just 23, rural Hispanics are much youngerthan the rural population as a whole. Hispanics also tend to live in larg-er households and to have higher levels of poverty and lower levels ofeducation than the overall rural population (HAC 2002). Many of thesesocial issues directly impact housing for rural Hispanics. Rural Latinosin high concentration Hispanic counties are more likely to be renters,and they experience inadequate housing at significantly higher rates thanall rural households. Low incomes also exacerbate affordability prob-lems, and household crowding is a particular concern.

The complex issues that limit quality of life in colonias, including con-tract for deed financing, lack of water and sewer systems, unpaved roads,and the absence of flood control, make conditions in many border coun-ties comparable to those found in developing countries. Numerous com-munity-led efforts have sought to address the colonias’ needs. Federal,state, and local governments have been spurred by colonia advocates toimplement policies and regulations to address the colonia phenomenonand restrict their further growth. Yet these communities continue to exist.In the past ten years, the adoption of the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA) and the burgeoning debate on immigration issueshave focused increased public attention on the border region. There isrenewed commitment on the part of local nonprofits, and the public andprivate sectors, to tackle the problems along the border jointly.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Crowding in Hispanic RMCs

Legend■ All Races ■ Hispanic

US Rural

Perc

ent

Legislation in Texas has sought to curtail the inequities inherent in contracts for deed. In 1995, the Texas state legislature passed theColonias Fair Land Sales Act, requiring developers to register contracts for deed and counties to keep records of them. It also obligatesdevelopers to provide statements of available services, such as water, wastewater, and electricity, and to disclose if a property is located ina floodplain. Developers must provide each property buyer with an annual statement including the amount paid, the amount owed, thenumber of payments remaining, and the amount paid to taxing authorities on the purchaser’s behalf (Senate Bill 336).

While this legislation attempts to remedy many problems arising from contract for deed land sales, new problems have emerged for low-income colonias residents. Several aspects of the legislation have created a “Catch 22” situation where some residents have been unableto connect to services such as water and electricity until a colonia is fully approved and serviced. Fortunately, the Texas state legislaturehas committed to rectify this situation (Ward and Carew 2000).

Despite the numerous challenges in high concentration Hispanic counties, a number of organizations have taken on the formidable taskof addressing the problems faced by these communities. Local nonprofit groups, with strong grassroots support from the communities,have developed and implemented a number of innovative approaches to address the conditions in the colonias and U.S.-Mexican bor-der. Colonia experts almost universally agree that local community-based institutions are the primary vehicle needed for accomplishingthe fundamental goal of empowering colonia residents to solve their own problems (Ward and Carew 2000).

29

DiscussionWhile rural America is generally less racially and ethnically diverse than urban centers or the nation as a whole, specificregions and rural areas like the southern Black Belt and Lower Mississippi Delta, the colonias along the U.S.-Mexico bor-der, and Native American lands have significant concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities. These areas and their minor-ity populations have all experienced decades of pervasively poor economic conditions. Despite their unique histories andgeography, the rural minority counties share many of the same poor housing conditions. The commonalities that existamong rural minorities are undoubtedly linked to the troubled economic legacy of the areas in which these communitiesare located and the poverty that has been sustained there.

Homeownership in the United States symbolizes the American dream to which many house-holds aspire. Owning a home not only provides individual security and prosperity, but alsoserves as a significant source of wealth and equity for most Americans. In rural areas, as in thenation as a whole, minorities have much lower homeownership rates than whites. At the sametime, the level of homeownership for rural minorities is 14 percentage points higher than thelevel for minorities in urban areas. In rural minority counties, minority homeownership ratesare much higher than in other areas and are often above the national homeownership rate.However, many of the positive by-products of affordable homeownership do not accrue forrural minorities in minority counties. Housing values are significantly lower for minorities inthese counties than for white, non-Hispanic owners. Furthermore, many minorities have dif-ficulties selling their homes because of their locations (Joint Center 2003). These circum-stances greatly limit potential markets and subsequently the asset creation assumed to beinherent in homeownership.

An integral component of quality housing and homeownership is access to financing prod-ucts and services. Rural areas in general have fewer conventional financial institutions, result-ing in less competition and increased costs for consumers (HAC 1999). Minorities in ruralminority counties have the added constraints of racial targeting by subprime and predatorylenders. The data clearly show that subprime and chattel manufactured home lenders aremore prevalent in rural minority counties than either nationally or in rural areas. Lendingpractices among these institutions significantly increase costs and have been shown to stripequity from borrowers.

In general, housing costs tend to be lower in rural minority counties than in moreurbanized locales. Despite this fact, affordability concerns are increasingly prevalentin rural minority counties. Many households, particularly minorities and renters,find it difficult to meet basic housing expenses. Affordability is particularly prob-lematic among African-American households in the Lower Mississippi Delta andsouthern Black Belt.

In the past few decades dramatic progress has been made in improving the qualityof housing in rural America, and this is true in rural minority counties as well.Despite this progress, however, housing problems persist, particularly among racialand ethnic minorities. Minorities in rural areas are among the poorest and worsthoused groups in the entire nation, with disproportionately high levels of inade-quate housing conditions. Non-white and Hispanic rural households are three timesmore likely to live in substandard housing than non-Hispanic white rural residents.

These housing problems are even worse for rural minorities in high concentrationminority counties. While much of the discussion about housing problems hasmoved on to other issues, quality of housing is still very much the key issue forminorities in these areas. Rural minority counties are the last bastion of poor quali-ty housing conditions in this nation. The lack of affordable, quality housing in thesecounties prevents poor families from moving beyond substandard housing.

Like housing quality concerns, household crowding is an often overlooked issue butit is extremely problematic among many minority communities. This is particular-ly true for Native American and Hispanics residing in rural minority counties.Crowded living conditions are a source of stress for many families and have longbeen associated with negative social conditions such as crime and strained familyrelations. In rural areas, crowding is often an invisible form of homelessness as somerural households “double up” with friends or relatives in reaction to adverse eco-nomic or social situations, or to escape substandard housing conditions.

While these minority communities and populationsshare common housing concerns, each also has uniquehousing problems—such as contract for deed issuesamong Hispanics in the colonias, and the impact of sea-sonal housing need for farmworkers. Legal land issuescontribute to the intractable housing problems for NativeAmericans on reservations and trust lands, and housingaffordability is extremely problematic for African-American households in the Southeast. Organizationsand agencies are working to address the needs that exist;however, their efforts reveal a need for increased resourcesand organizational capacity to resolve these issues.

31

Conclusions and Next StepsIn addition to the specific conditions and factors affecting the RMCsthemselves, HAC’s analysis of housing trends in these counties identifiesseveral important conditions regarding rural housing overall. The report

■ illustrates the acute nature of housing conditions that persist inremote, isolated rural areas;

■ provides additional evidence on the connection between race andplace in this country, specifically as it relates to rural areas; and

■ gives direction to future inquiries as to the housing conditions ofthe poorest of the poor in rural areas.

Further, the report encourages additional dialogue and research on thefollowing issues.

■ Rural segregation: What is it and how can it be measured?

■ Subprime lending: What is the net impact of subprime lending inrural areas?

■ Immigration: What will be the impact of increased immigration inrural communities?

■ Community relations: How do multi-racial/ethnic communities buildcommunity and overcome tensions?

More research is needed to determine how increasing diversity willaffect rural America. It may be that as the country and rural areasbecome more diverse the disparities between racial and ethnic groupsmay disappear. It may also be shown that the increasing minority pop-ulation in rural America may settle near or in the RMCs that havebeen identified in this study. If the latter holds true, the housingoptions of these groups will be limited by the factors identified in thisreport. Continuing efforts to address housing and community devel-opment needs in these regions must take the cultural, historical, andeconomic realities of these communities into account.

ReferencesCampbell, Art. 2000. “Delta Compact Seeks Collaboration for Change.” Rural Voices. 5/2: 4-7.

Conseco. 2002. This statement was made at <http://www.conseco.com> and <http://www.consecoloans.com> as ofFebruary 2002. By June 2002, this wording no longer appeared on the company’s websites.

Delta Compact. 1998. Building Communities in the Lower Mississippi Delta. [online] Delta Compact [August 2003].Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.ruralhome.org/deltacompact>.

Effland, Anne B.W. and Kathleen Kassel. 1996. Hispanics in Rural America: The Influence of Immigration and Languageon Economic Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service.

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2002. Texas Colonias: A Thumbnail Sketch of the Conditions, Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.[online] Dallas [June 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/pubs/colonias.html>.

Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Rachel Cassidy. 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Housing Assistance Council. 1994. Taking Stock of Rural Poverty and Housing for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.

Housing Assistance Council. 1997. Housing and Welfare Reform: HAC’s 1997 Report on the State of the Nation’s RuralHousing. Washington, D.C.

Housing Assistance Council. 1998. The Border Colonias Region: Challenges and Innovative Approaches to EffectiveCommunity Development. Washington, D.C.

Housing Assistance Council. 1999. Information Sheet: Rural Credit Needs. Washington, D.C.

Housing Assistance Council. 2001. No Refuge From the Fields: Findings From a Survey of Farmworker Housing Conditionsin the United States. Washington, DC.

Housing Assistance Council. 2002. Taking Stock: Rural People, Poverty, and Housing at the Turn of the 21st Century.Washington, D.C.

Housing Assistance Council. 2004. Run While You Still Can: Subprime Demand and Predatory Lending in Rural Areas.Washington, D.C.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2003. The State of the Nation’s Housing. Cambridge, Mass.

Kingsley, Thomas G. et al. 1996. Assessment of American Indian Housing Needs: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: TheUrban Institute.

Larmer, Brook. “Latino America.” Newsweek. July 12, 1999: 48–51.

Library of Congress. 2003. African American History and Culture. [online] Washington, D.C. [cited August 2003].Available from World Wide Web: <http: // lcweb.loc.gov./rr/mss/guide/african.html>.

33

Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Mikesell, James. Senior Economist, USDA Economic Research Service. Interview by Author, October 2, 2002.

National American Indian Housing Council. 2001. Too Few Rooms: Residential Crowding in Native American Communitiesand Alaska Native Villages. Washington, D.C.

National American Indian Housing Council. 2004. Press Release. Survey Shows Devastating Effects of Substandard/CrowdedHousing on Indian Reservation Children. [online] Washington, D.C. [September 2003]. Available from World Wide Web,<http://naihc.net/NAIHC/files/ccLibraryFiles/FILENAME/000000000312/Housing_Healthconf.release.9.19.041.doc>.

Senate Bill 336, V.T.C.A., Property Code, section 5.061 et seq., section 5.091 et seq. June 1988.

Shumway, Mathew J. and Richard H. Jackson. 1995. “Native American Population Patterns,” Geographical Review.85/2:185-201.

Snipp, C. Mathew. 1996. “Understanding Race and Ethnicity in Rural America.” Rural Sociology. 61/1:125-142.

Spitzmiller, Jilann and Hank Rogerson. 2001. Homeland (video). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Extension,Center for Media and Independent Learning.

Squires, Gregory D. 1994. Capital and Communities in Black and White: The Intersections of Race, Class, and UnevenDevelopment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service. 1999. “502 Direct Loans Obligated for American Indians &Alaska Natives.” RHS Data. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. “Blacks: Migration.” Rural Migration News. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and The Urban Institute. 1996. Assessment of AmericanIndian Housing Needs and Programs: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Native American Housing: Homeownership Opportunities on Trust LandsAre Limited. Report to the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C.

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Date unknown. Housing Problems in the Lower Mississippi Delta: Report to the LowerMississippi Delta Commission.

Wallace, Barbara C. and Robert T. Carter. 2002. Understanding and Dealing with Violence: A Multicultural Approach.New York: Sage Publications.

Ward, Peter and Jeremiah Carew. 2000. “Tracking Land Ownership in Self-Help Homestead Subdivision in the UnitedStates: Case of the Texas ‘Colonias.’” Land Use Policy. 18: 166-178.

Yetman, Norman R. 1999. Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life. NeedhamHeights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Endnotes1 Because of changes in the questioning concerning two or more races, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 1990

Census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time.

2 Hispanic or Latino is an ethnic origin and not a race. Ethnic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of a personor a person’s parents or ancestors before his or her arrival in the United States. Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a group of people to eachother. Hispanics may be of any race. Hispanics are compared to racial groups in this report to illustrate the significance of major racial and ethnic groups inthe nation. Unless otherwise noted, most racial/ethnic comparisons in this section are mutually exclusive. In other words, in this section Hispanic persons arecounted separately and not included in racial groups (i.e., White, African American, Native American, Asian, and Other Race), although Hispanic persons aremembers of these groups. HAC uses the terms Hispanic and Latino interchangeably.

3 While the Census uses the terms Black or African American for people of African descent (e.g., Caribbean or African immigrants), HAC uses the term AfricanAmerican exclusively throughout this report.

4 Each of the counties meets the 33 percent criterion based on one racial or ethnic group (i.e., African American, Asian American, Native American, or Hispanic).Only one county, Mora County, N.M., has a minority population comprised of more than one group that exceeds one-third of its total population. A list of allrural minority counties is included in Appendix B.

5 The Asian population is defined as any person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent includ-ing, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes ‘‘Asian Indian,’’‘‘Chinese,’’ ‘‘Filipino,’’ ‘‘Korean,’’ ‘‘Japanese,’’ ‘‘Vietnamese,’’ and ‘‘Other Asian.’’ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander means a person having origins inany of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as ‘‘Native Hawaiian,’’ ‘‘Guamanianor Chamorro,’’ ‘‘Samoan,’’ and ‘‘Other Pacific Islander.’’

6 For longitudinal comparability, the 2000 Asian population in this report includes Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians. The data on race in Census 2000 arenot directly comparable to those collected in previous censuses. These differences affect comparability and involve the individual categories on the Census 2000questionnaire. The 1990 category ‘‘Asian and Pacific Islander’’ was separated into two categories, ‘‘Asian’’ and ‘‘Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,’’ forCensus 2000. Accordingly, on the Census 2000 questionnaire, there were seven Asian categories and four Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories.The two residual categories, ‘‘Other Asian’’ and ‘‘Other Pacific Islander,’’ replaced the 1990 single category ‘‘Other API.’’ For more information on Asians inrural America we suggest consulting the USDA Economic Research Service’s report on “Asians and Pacific Islanders in Rural and Small-Town America,” foundin Linda Swanson, Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Rural Areas: Progress and Stagnation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, No. 731(Washington, DC, August 1996).

7 Census data reveal that the 35-year trend of African-American migration from the South to the North was reversed in late 1990s as the South gained blackmigrants from all other regions in the U.S. For more analysis of African-American migration trends, see Frey, William H. 2004. The New Great Migration:Black Americans’ Return to the South, 1965–2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

8 The Black Belt refers to the region that stretches through parts of Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas,Louisiana, and Texas that have higher than average percentages of African-American residents. The Lower Mississippi Delta is defined as 219 counties andparishes in portions of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

9 The term mobile home is often used by housing researchers when referring to older manufactured units, particularly those constructed before the 1976enactment of the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. This report uses the term manufactured homes exclusively.

10 Subprime loans tend to have higher interest rates and shorter terms than more conventional “prime” loans because these lenders are assumed to make loans toborrowers who are at a higher risk of default. Additionally, a majority of subprime loans are refinancings, which generally carry higher interest rates. Somesubprime lenders have implemented “predatory” lending practices. According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, predatory loans are thosethat 1) charge more in interest and fees than covers the associated risk, 2) contain abusive terms and conditions, 3) do not take into account the borrower’sability to repay, and/or 4) target women, minorities, and communities of color. For more information on subprime and predatory lending visit,http://www.ncrc.org.

11 For more information on the Delta and ongoing collaborative activities in the region, see Housing Assistance Council, Rural Voices, Spring 2000, Volume 5, No. 2.

12 A complete list of federally recognized tribes is available on the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Native American Programs’ web-site, http://www.codetalk.fed.us/HUD_ONAP.html

13 In order to classify lenders, HAC used a list of financial institutions, maintained by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that are generallyrecognized as specializing in subprime lending and the manufactured home market.

14 Puerto Ricans and Cubans also constitute Hispanic groups with a significant presence in the United States; however, few live in rural areas and therefore theyare not included in this brief overview.

15 For this analysis, the border colonias region is defined as 66 counties within the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California that are located up to100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico Border. It is not possible to analyze Census data for individual colonias, or for the colonias as a whole, because coloniascommunities rarely correspond with Census-designated units of geography. Some colonias are only fractions of larger block groups, and others lie betweenblock groups. For example, of the 1,821 colonias identified by the Texas office of the Attorney General, 477 are located within incorporated places; 791 with-in “Census Designated Places” (CDPs); and 533 are in unincorporated “non place” territory.

35

Appendix A: About the Data in This ReportA majority of the information in this report derives from HAC tabulations of the 2000 Census of Population and Housing publicuse data sets. Census 2000 was conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census, which collected infor-mation on 281.4 million people and 115.9 million housing units across the United States between March and August 2000. Mostof the Census 2000 information utilized in this report derives from one of two data sets. The first is Summary File 1, commonlyreferred to as the “short form,” on which a limited number of questions were asked about every person and every housing unit inthe United States. Secondly, Summary File 3 or “long form” data provide more detailed information on population and housingcharacteristics. These data came from a sample (generally one in six) of persons and housing units.

For detailed information about Census 2000 data used in this report please consult the following reports produced by the Census Bureau.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2001. Technical Documentation: Summary File1, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2002. Technical Documentation: Summary File3: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. 2002. Technical Documentation: DemographicProfile 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Geographic Terms and Concepts1

Establishing a definition of rural poses many challenges. In general, rural areas share the common characteristics of comparativelyfew people living in a geographic area, and limited access to large cities and market areas for work or everyday-living activities.Rurality exists on a continuum, however, and varies based on proximity to a central place, community size, population density,total population, and social and economic factors. Over the years, public agencies and researchers have used combinations of thesefactors to define rural and to designate geographic areas as rural.

HAC is aware that data users often rely on differing definitions of “rural” and “urban.” Therefore we have provided several tradi-tionally used rural/urban designations for the state and county data in this report. These include the Office of Management andBudget’s (OMB’s) Metropolitan/Micropolitan status, Census defined urbanized population, and a special HAC designated ruraland urban counties status.

Given recent changes in the definitions of OMB metropolitan areas and Census defined urban and rural areas, HAC devised acounty based designation of urban and rural “counties” which incorporates both residential patterns, as found in the Census defi-nition, and economic connection patterns, as found in the OMB definition, to establish a more precise measure of rural character.As such, rural counties as defined by HAC in this report include all counties outside of a metropolitan area, and metropolitancounties that have no urbanized population. Likewise, urban counties are metropolitan counties with an urbanized population. Itis extremely important to note that this is not the same definition of rural/urban devised by the Census Bureau or MetropolitanAreas devised by OMB.

County (or Statistically Equivalent Entity)

The primary legal divisions of most states are termed ‘‘counties.’’ In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, whichhas no counties, the statistically equivalent entities are census areas, city and boroughs (as in Juneau City and Borough), a municipality(Anchorage), and organized boroughs. Census areas are delineated cooperatively for data presentation purposes by the state of Alaskaand the U.S. Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated placesthat are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states; these incorporated places areknown as ‘‘independent cities’’ and are treated as equivalent to counties for data presentation purposes. (In some data presentations, they

may be treated as county subdivisions and places.) The District of Columbia has no primary divisions, and the entire area is consideredequivalent to a county for data presentation purposes.

Rural Minority Counties Defined

This analysis highlights rural areas with relatively substantial and long-term racial and ethnic minority populations. Rural minori-ty counties are those rural counties (defined as explained above) with a specific racial or ethnic minority population of one-thirdor more in 1980, 1990, and 2000. For example, African-American RMCs are rural counties that have had an African Americanpopulation of one-third or more for the past three decades. Given the minority population in rural America (18 percent), the one-third/three-decade criterion is a substantial threshold to meet. This methodology best captures rural communities with significantlong-term minority populations and their housing needs. Please note the data presented in this report do not include all rural racialand ethnic minorities, only populations who reside in the designated RMCs. HAC has identified 304 RMCs.

Because of changes in the questioning of race concerning two or more races, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly com-parable with data from the 1990 Census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial com-position of the U.S. population over time.

Definitions2

Race. The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races withwhich they most closely identify. The categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific oranthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups. The racial classificationsused by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30, 1997, Federal Register Notice entitled, “Revisions to the Standards for theClassification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These standardsgovern the categories used to collect and present federal data on race and ethnicity. The OMB requires five minimum categories(White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander)for race. The race categories are described below with a sixth category, “Some other race,” added with OMB approval. In additionto the five race groups, the OMB also states that respondents should be offered the option of selecting one or more races. If anindividual could not provide a race response, the race or races of the householder or other household members were assigned bythe computer using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. For example, if race was missing for a natural-born childin the household, then either the race or races of the householder, another natural-born child, or the spouse of the householderwere assigned. If race was not reported for anyone in the household, the race or races of a householder in a previously processedhousehold were assigned.

Minority Population. Minority population in this report is defined as all population that do not classify themselves as white andnot of Hispanic origin.

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people whoindicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicatetheir race as “Black, African Am., or Negro,” or who provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan,Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (includ-ing Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. It includes people who classify themselves asdescribed below.

American Indian. Includes people who indicate their race as “American Indian,” entered the name of an Indian tribe, orreport such entries as Canadian Indian, French-American Indian, or Spanish-American Indian.

37

Alaska Native. Includes written responses of Eskimos, Aleuts, and Alaska Indians as well as entries such as Arctic Slope,Inupiat, Yupik, Alutiiq, Egegik, and Pribilovian. The Alaska tribes are the Alaskan Athabascan, Tlingit, and Haida. Theinformation for Census 2000 is derived from the American Indian Detailed Tribal Classification List for the 1990 censusand was expanded to list the individual Alaska Native Villages when provided as a written response for race.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent includ-ing, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Itincludes “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian.”

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian,” “Guamanian or Chamorro,” “Samoan,”and “Other Pacific Islander.”

Some other race. Includes all other responses not included in the “White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian andAlaska Native,” “Asian,” and the “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” race categories described above. Respondents pro-viding write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, orCuban) in the “Some other race” category are included in this category.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes,by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses. The race response cate-gories shown on the questionnaire are collapsed into the five minimum race groups identified by the OMB, plus the Census Bureau“Some other race” category. For data product purposes, “Two or more races” refers to combinations of two or more of the followingrace categories:

■ White■ Black or African American

■ American Indian and Alaska Native■ Asian■ Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

■ Some other race

Hispanic or Latino. People who identify with the terms “Hispanic” or “Latino” are those who classify themselves in one of thespecific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the questionnaire—“Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban”—as well as those whoindicate that they are “other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.” Hispanic is an ethnic origin and not a race. Ethnic origin can be viewedas the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of a person or person’s parents or ancestors before his or her arrival inthe United States. Hispanics may be of any race. Hispanics are compared to other racial groups in this report to illustrate the signif-icance of major racial and ethnic groups in the nation.

1 Excerpted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Technical Documentation: SummaryFile 3, 2000 Census of Population and Housing (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002), A-4 to A-24.

2 Excerpted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Technical Documentation: DemographicProfile 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002).

Table 1. Rural Minority African American Counties

County/State African-American Population (Percent)

Appendix B: Data Tables

County/State African-American Population (Percent)

Barbour County, Alabama 46.7Bullock County, Alabama 73.6Butler County, Alabama 41.0Chambers County, Alabama 38.3Choctaw County, Alabama 44.3Clarke County, Alabama 43.2Conecuh County, Alabama 43.8Coosa County, Alabama 34.5Dallas County, Alabama 63.6Greene County, Alabama 80.6Hale County, Alabama 59.3Lowndes County, Alabama 73.7Macon County, Alabama 85.3Marengo County, Alabama 52.0Monroe County, Alabama 40.4Perry County, Alabama 68.8Pickens County, Alabama 43.2Pike County, Alabama 37.1Sumter County, Alabama 73.5Wilcox County, Alabama 72.0Chicot County, Arkansas 54.4Columbia County, Arkansas 36.3Dallas County, Arkansas 41.2Desha County, Arkansas 46.7Lafayette County, Arkansas 36.7Lee County, Arkansas 57.5Monroe County, Arkansas 39.2Ouachita County, Arkansas 39.0Phillips County, Arkansas 59.5St. Francis County, Arkansas 49.7Gadsden County, Florida 57.7Hamilton County, Florida 38.2Jefferson County, Florida 38.8Madison County, Florida 40.7Baker County, Georgia 50.7Baldwin County, Georgia 43.7Brooks County, Georgia 39.7Burke County, Georgia 51.5Calhoun County, Georgia 60.9Clay County, Georgia 60.9Crisp County, Georgia 43.7Decatur County, Georgia 40.2Dooly County, Georgia 50.0Early County, Georgia 48.5Greene County, Georgia 44.7Hancock County, Georgia 78.1Jefferson County, Georgia 56.6Jenkins County, Georgia 40.8Lincoln County, Georgia 34.6McDuffie County, Georgia 37.8

McIntosh County, Georgia 37.1Macon County, Georgia 59.9Marion County, Georgia 34.6Meriwether County, Georgia 42.5Mitchell County, Georgia 48.2Peach County, Georgia 45.8Quitman County, Georgia 47.1Randolph County, Georgia 59.7Screven County, Georgia 45.5Stewart County, Georgia 62.0Sumter County, Georgia 49.3Talbot County, Georgia 62.1Taliaferro County, Georgia 60.8Taylor County, Georgia 42.9Terrell County, Georgia 61.1Thomas County, Georgia 39.2Turner County, Georgia 41.1Twiggs County, Georgia 44.0Warren County, Georgia 59.7Washington County, Georgia 53.4Webster County, Georgia 47.4Wilkes County, Georgia 43.4Wilkinson County, Georgia 41.0Bienville Parish, Louisiana 44.0Claiborne Parish, Louisiana 47.6Concordia Parish, Louisiana 37.9De Soto Parish, Louisiana 42.4East Carroll Parish, Louisiana 67.5East Feliciana Parish, Louisia 47.3Iberville Parish, Louisiana 49.9Lincoln Parish, Louisiana 40.1Madison Parish, Louisiana 61.0Morehouse Parish, Louisiana 43.6Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana 38.9Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiania 38.0Red River Parish, Louisiana 41.2Richland Parish, Louisiana 38.2St. Helena Parish, Louisiana 52.8St. James Parish, Louisiana 49.6St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana 45.2St. Landry Parish, Louisiana 42.4Tensas Parish, Louisiana 55.8West Feliciana Parish, Louisiania 50.7Somerset County, Maryland 41.6Adams County, Mississippi 53.1Amite County, Mississippi 42.9Attala County, Mississippi 40.2Benton County, Mississippi 37.0Bolivar County, Mississippi 65.5Carroll County, Mississippi 36.7

39

County/State African-American Population (Percent)

County/State African-American Population (Percent)

Chickasaw County, Mississippi 41.4Claiborne County, Mississippi 84.5Clarke County, Mississippi 34.9Clay County, Mississippi 56.6Coahoma County, Mississippi 69.6Copiah County, Mississippi 51.2Covington County, Mississippi 35.8Franklin County, Mississippi 36.5Grenada County, Mississippi 41.1Holmes County, Mississippi 79.1Humphreys County, Mississippi 71.7Issaquena County, Mississippi 63.1Jasper County, Mississippi 53.1Jefferson County, Mississippi 86.7Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi 57.7Kemper County, Mississippi 58.5Leake County, Mississippi 37.6Leflore County, Mississippi 68.1Lowndes County, Mississippi 41.9Marshall County, Mississippi 50.7Montgomery County, Mississippi 45.1Noxubee County, Mississippi 69.7Oktibbeha County, Mississippi 37.7Panola County, Mississippi 48.6Pike County, Mississippi 47.8Quitman County, Mississippi 69.0Scott County, Mississippi 39.2Sharkey County, Mississippi 69.7Sunflower County, Mississippi 70.1Tallahatchie County, Mississip 59.7Tunica County, Mississippi 70.7Walthall County, Mississippi 44.4Warren County, Mississippi 43.5Washington County, Mississippi 64.9Wayne County, Mississippi 38.1Wilkinson County, Mississippi 68.5Winston County, Mississippi 43.4Yalobusha County, Mississippi 38.8Yazoo County, Mississippi 54.2Anson County, North Carolina 48.9Bertie County, North Carolina 62.6Bladen County, North Carolina 38.2Caswell County, North Carolina 36.8Chowan County, North Carolina 37.8Gates County, North Carolina 39.6Granville County, North Carolina 35.3Greene County, North Carolina 41.5Halifax County, North Carolina 52.9Hertford County, North Carolina 60.0Jones County, North Carolina 36.2

Lenoir County, North Carolina 40.7Martin County, North Carolina 45.7Northampton County, North Carolina 59.8Pasquotank County, North Carolina 40.6Scotland County, North Carolina 37.8Tyrrell County, North Carolina 39.9Vance County, North Carolina 48.7Warren County, North Carolina 55.0Washington County, North Carolina 49.3Wilson County, North Carolina 39.7Allendale County, South Carolina 71.4Bamberg County, South Carolina 62.8Barnwell County, South Carolina 42.9Calhoun County, South Carolina 49.0Chester County, South Carolina 38.9Clarendon County, South Carolina 53.4Colleton County, South Carolina 42.5Dillon County, South Carolina 45.7Fairfield County, South Carolina 59.4Georgetown County, South Carolina 38.8Hampton County, South Carolina 55.9Jasper County, South Carolina 53.0Lee County, South Carolina 63.9McCormick County, South Carolina 54.2Marion County, South Carolina 56.6Marlboro County, South Carolina 51.2Orangeburg County, South Carolina 61.3Williamsburg County, South Carolina 66.6Fayette County, Tennessee 36.2Hardeman County, Tennessee 41.3Haywood County, Tennessee 51.3Brunswick County, Virginia 57.1Buckingham County, Virginia 39.5Caroline County, Virginia 34.9Charles City County, Virginia 55.6Cumberland County, Virginia 37.8Essex County, Virginia 39.5Greensville County, Virginia 59.9Halifax County, Virginia 38.3King and Queen County, Virginia 36.1Lunenburg County, Virginia 39.0Mecklenburg County, Virginia 39.3Northampton County, Virginia 43.5Nottoway County, Virginia 40.9Prince Edward County, Virginia 36.2Southampton County, Virginia 43.1Surry County, Virginia 52.1Sussex County, Virginia 62.6Emporia City, Virginia 56.4Franklin City, Virginia 52.8

Bethel Census Area, Alaska 85.2Dillingham Census Area, Alaska 75.2Nome Census Area, Alaska 78.5North Slope Borough, Alaska 73.2Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchika, Alaska 41.7Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska 94.9Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska 73.8Apache County, Arizona 78.0Navajo County, Arizona 48.7Big Horn County, Montana 61.4Glacier County, Montana 63.3Roosevelt County, Montana 57.2Thurston County, Nebraska 52.7McKinley County, New Mexico 76.7Robeson County, North Carolina 38.6

Rolette County, North Dakota 74.2Sioux County, North Dakota 85.4Adair County, Oklahoma 45.9Bennett County, South Dakota 55.6Buffalo County, South Dakota 83.0Corson County, South Dakota 61.8Dewey County, South Dakota 75.2Jackson County, South Dakota 48.7Mellette County, South Dakota 53.8Shannon County, South Dakota 95.1Todd County, South Dakota 86.8Ziebach County, South Dakota 73.1San Juan County, Utah 56.5Menominee County, Wisconsin 87.9

Table 2. Rural Minority Native American Counties

County/State Native American Population (Percent)

County/State Native American Population (Percent)

Housing Assistance Council

2004 Board of Directors

■ Gideon Anders, National Housing Law Project, California■ Harry J. Bowie, Delta Foundation, Inc., Mississippi■ Peter Carey, Self-Help Enterprises, Inc., California■ Amancio Chapa, Jr., La Joya High School, Texas■ Joe Debro, Trans Bay Engineering & Builders, California■ Cushing Dolbeare, Housing & Public Policy Consultant,

Maryland■ Sandra Ferniza, Arizona State University, Arizona ■ John Foster, E.B. Advance, P.C., Ohio■ Scott C. Fergus, Key Bridge Group, Inc., Wisconsin ■ Ninfa R. Gutierrez, Providence Medical Center, Healthy

Communities Alliance, Washington■ Lenin Juarez, Action Gypsum Supply, Texas■ Lewis Kellom, Homes in Partnership, Florida■ Richard Lincoln, Irgens Development Partners, LLC, Wisconsin■ Dave Lollis, Kentucky■ Arturo Lopez, Coalition of Florida Farmworker Organizations,

Florida■ Moises Loza, Housing Assistance Council, D.C.■ Twila Martin Kekahbah, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa,

North Dakota ■ Maria Luisa Mercado, Mercado Law Office, Texas■ Polly Nichol, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,

Vermont■ William Picotte, Oti Kaga, Inc., South Dakota■ William Powers, California■ Pedro Rodriguez, Job Services of Wisconsin, Wisconsin■ Irene E. Sikelianos, New Mexico■ Debra D. Singletary, Delmarva Rural Ministries, Inc., Delaware■ Rebecca Torres-Swanson, Nogales Housing Authority, Arizona■ Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, U.S. House of Representatives,

Mississippi■ Jose Trevino, Illinois■ Richard Tucker, D.C.■ Lauriette West-Hoff, Southern Real Estate Management &

Consultants, Inc., North Carolina■ Peggy Wright, ASU-Delta Studies Center, Arkansas

2004 Research Advisory Panel

■ Calvin Beale, USDA Economic Research Service■ Osvaldo Cardoza, University of Texas, Pan American■ Peter Carey, Self Help Enterprises■ Cushing Dolbeare, Housing & Public Policy Consultant■ Chuck Fluharty, Rural Policy Research Institute■ Bob Gray, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development■ James H. Carr, Fannie Mae Foundation■ Karen Hill, Housing and Consumer Education Consultant■ George McCarthy, Ford Foundation■ Morton J. Schussheim, Library of Congress■ Scott Loveridge, Michigan State University■ Kris Rengert, Fannie Mae Foundation■ Nicolas Retsinas, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard

University■ Michael Stegman, University of North Carolina■ Peggy Wright, ASU-Delta Studies Center■ Ann Ziebarth, University of Minnesota

HAC OfficesNational Office1025 Vermont Ave., N.W.Suite 606Washington, D.C. 20005Tel.: 202-842-8600Fax: 202-347-3441Email: hac@ruralhome.org

Western Office131 Camino AltoSuite DMill Valley, Calif. 94941Tel.: 415-381-1706Fax: 415-381-0801E-mail:susan@ruralhome.org

Midwest Office10920 Ambassador Dr.Suite 220Kansas City, MO 64153Tel.: 816-880-0400Fax: 816-880-0500E-mail:midwest@ruralhome.org

Southeast Office615 Peachtree Street, N.E.Suite 1130Atlanta, Ga. 30308Tel.: 404-892-4824Fax: 404-892-1204E-mail:southeast@ruralhome.org

Southwest Office3939 San Pedro, N.E.Suite C-7Albuquerque, N.M. 87110Tel.: 505-883-1003Fax: 505-883-1005E-mail:southwest@ruralhome.org

ISBN 1-58064-133-4