Tarrant County in north central Texas has a predominantly white, middle-class population. However, this urban county contains 37 distinct communities with varying demographic profiles. Some communities have predominantly African-American and Hispanic populations, and some have a high proportion of individuals with low-incomes or in poverty. Although the county attempts to provide a comprehensive, unified approach to community development, it must tailor its strategies to the individual communities included in its jurisdiction.
The Consolidated Plan for Tarrant County has a total budget of $5.7 million, of which $4.1 million comes from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, $1.1 million from HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds (with a match of $206,063), and $136,000 in Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds (with a match of $136,000).
Tarrant County's Community Development Division works with an urban-county consortium composed of 26 member cities. The mayors of these cities make up the Tarrant County Mayors' Council, which serves as an advisory body to the County Commissioners Court on community development issues.
Citizen participation was encouraged through three public hearings advertised in the local media. Flyers were mailed to all public officials of the consortium's member cities; to representatives of social services and housing agencies and nonprofit organizations; to area Chambers of Commerce, public housing officials, and private housing developers and management companies; and to senior citizen centers.
With a growth rate of 6.1 percent in 1990, Tarrant County's population has outstripped that of Fort Worth, the county's largest city. In 1990 whites made up 90 percent of the total population, Hispanics 6 percent, Asians more than 5 percent, and African Americans more than 4 percent. However, recent demographic trends indicate that ethnic diversity and disparity of income levels are growing, particularly in the suburbs closest to Fort Worth. Between 1980 and 1990, minority populations in Tarrant County increased at three times the rate of the general population.
Stagnant income levels and slow job growth have reduced the relative standard of living of low- and moderate-income families in many suburban communities. Numerous pockets of poverty where there is a greater need for public services are located throughout the county. For example, high proportions of senior citizen and frail elderly populations are located in particular areas of Tarrant County, although in comparison with Fort Worth, Tarrant County as a whole may have a lower percentage of these special needs populations.
The smaller cities in Tarrant County had wide variations in population characteristics. Sansom Park, River Oaks, and Haltom City had approximately 50 percent low- and moderate-income populations while Forest Hill, Everman, and Blue Mound had minority population concentrations of more than 30 percent. Nearly 20 percent of the River Oaks and Richland Hills population are senior citizens. Development patterns in many of the area's fastest-growing communities, such as Grapevine, Southlake, and Mansfield, have left pockets of poverty in rural areas, where trailer park communities and poor quality infrastructure are commonplace. In 1990 median incomes ranged from $58,999 in the rapidly growing city of Southlake to $22,835 in the older village of Sansom Park. The countywide median family income (MFI) was $32,335 in 1990. Throughout the county low- and moderate-income residents accounted for 31 percent of the total population.
Development patterns during the last 30 years have resulted in steady population growth in Tarrant County's suburban communities. Moderate- and low-income families are concentrated in older suburbs, such as Haltom City, Watauga, River Oaks, White Settlement, Kennedale, Sansom Park, Forest Hill, Everman, and Westworth Village, all of which are close to Forth Worth.
Cities whose primary growth occurred 30 and 40 years ago are now experiencing deteriorating infrastructure and the need for neighborhood revitalization. These areas include both smaller, rural communities in outlying areas of the county and large, older suburbs closer to Fort Worth. More densely concentrated populations and stricter health and safety requirements make it necessary to replace many deteriorated and undersized sewer and water lines. Years of wear and tear on neighborhood streets and a regional floodplain that has grown in response to increased development make street repairs and drainage improvements high priorities in many communities.
Tarrant County's housing market has gone through significant changes. A building boom in apartments and single-family homes throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s ended with the recession of the late 1980s. In the 1990s the county has experienced a stagnant housing market, with declining prices for single-family homes, declining rents, a complete halt in new construction, and a foreclosure rate that is far higher than the national average. Although much of the county's housing stock was built within the past 35 years and is generally in good condition, a significant proportion of renter- and owner-occupied housing units are not affordable to low-income households. However, there is an adequate supply of affordable housing for moderate-income households with stable incomes.
Of the 192,807 housing units in the county in 1994, 60 percent were owner-occupied, and 31.9 percent were renter-occupied. In 1994 the average cost of a house in Tarrant County was $75,500, and there was a vacancy rate of 7.7 percent.
Older neighborhoods, where there are concentrations of low-income households, are in need of rehabilitation. Communities such as River Oaks, White Settlement, Haltom City, Kennedale, Azle, Lake Worth, Westworth Village, and Sansom Park have significant percentages of older, deteriorating housing. Even in areas of more recent growth, such as Watauga, North Richland Hills, Hurst, Euless, Bedford, Crowley, Forest Hill, and Saginaw, the uncertain quality of some rapidly constructed housing developments of the 1970s indicates that housing rehabilitation services are a growing need. The rapidly growing wealthier suburbs of Grapevine, Keller, Southlake, and Mansfield present a combination of lower income rural and upper income suburban characteristics that are interrupted by pockets of poverty.
Analysis of the most recently available data indicates that as many as 37,611 households in Tarrant County need affordable housing or some other form of housing assistance. By the year 2000, it is projected that this number will increase to nearly 40,000. Housing problems are particularly severe for large families, small single-parent families, the elderly, and other special needs populations. With rents increasing by 6 percent in 1995 and mortgage interest rates rising as well, housing affordability will remain an issue.
Nearly 75 percent of very low-income households throughout the county paid in excess of 30 percent of their incomes for housing in 1990. Among low- and moderate-income households (earning 50-95 percent of MFI), between 19 and 34 percent lived in housing that was not affordable based on their income level.
In Tarrant County overcrowding rates in 1990 were relatively small, affecting more than 34 percent of large family renters, 6 percent of all renters, and 2 percent of owners. However, a high percentage of very low-income minority renters (83 percent) reported housing problems compared with 66 percent of other low-income renters. Nearly 90 percent of low- and moderate-income homeowners in the county were nonminorities.
The Tarrant County Community Development Division, a member of the Tarrant County Homeless Coalition, worked closely with the coalition throughout 1994 and 1995 to develop a comprehensive needs assessment of the homeless in the county. They identified 1,733 homeless persons throughout the county with an additional 461 formerly homeless persons residing in transitional housing arrangements. Almost half of the homeless population had mental illnesses, and an additional 12.5 percent suffered from mental illness combined with substance abuse.
Tarrant County's homeless population was disproportionately minority, nearly 50 percent African American or Hispanic. Homelessness among families, women, and children, as well as chronic homelessness, increased significantly in the past few years.
Tarrant County's continuum of care for its homeless population includes the following priorities:
The three providers of public housing in Tarrant County -- the Tarrant County Housing Assistance office, the Grapevine Housing Authority, and the Haltom City Housing Authority -- administered 250 public housing units and 762 Section 8 certificates and vouchers.
Although the Tarrant County Housing Office had no public housing units, it administered 732 Section 8 certificates and vouchers, of which 714 were used. In particular, 100 Section 8 certificates and vouchers were provided to disabled tenants. The Grapevine Housing Authority operated 98 public housing units and 30 Section 8 certificates and vouchers, and the Haltom City Housing Authority administered 150 public housing units but no Section 8 certificates and vouchers. As of November 1994, there were 688 county residents on the waiting list for public housing.
The Consolidated Plan for Tarrant County identified the following barriers Infrastructure repair/replacementto affordable housing:
In 1994, according to the City-County Health Department, 2,048 persons with HIV/AIDS (and almost 1,900 family members) were served by the AIDS Outreach Center, a nonprofit social service agency which offered a wide variety of assistance, including counseling, emergency housing, financial assistance, and a food pantry. In addition, Samaritan Housing, a 32-bed living facility for persons with AIDS, was located in Fort Worth.
A 1990 census identified 34,156 persons over age 65 and 30,564 disabled adults in Tarrant County. According to Housing Options for Seniors, four residential facilities for frail elderly persons in the county provided only 53 beds. Other facilities, including Our Sweet Home in Richland Hills, Sheridan Oaks Retirement Home in Kennedale, Silver Creek Home in Azle, and Townleigh Village in Colleyville, were located throughout the county and an additional three facilities were located in Fort Worth. The county had few retirement communities designed specifically for senior housing because of the lack of public transportation in outlying areas.
Tarrant County estimated that there were 3,340 persons with severe mental illness and 9,215 developmentally disabled persons residing within its jurisdiction. Since the majority of social and health services were located in Fort Worth, the lack of transportation hindered care for disabled persons residing elsewhere in the county. Both transitional and supportive housing for these populations were severely limited throughout the county. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation operated a housing services program for clients with mental illness, and there were only 2 additional homes with 32 beds for this population. The Grapevine Housing Authority and the Haltom City Housing Authority had modified some units to meet Section 504 requirements to serve disabled residents.
Community development needs in Tarrant County included such services as:
The Consolidated Plan for Tarrant County identified the following housing priorities:
The Consolidated Plan for Tarrant County identified the following community development priorities:
The Tarrant County Commissioners Court established an antipoverty strategy that focuses on economic development to support local communities to attract and retain employers. The county supports a number of programs for those in poverty, such as the Tarrant County Women's Center, which assists single mothers and disadvantaged women in the community to attain self-sufficiency and employment.
In addition to the Federal resources noted above, Tarrant County has access to a variety of local and private funding sources. The county's CDBG consortium members, for instance, have committed themselves to matching CDBG funds to improve infrastructure in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Funding will be used for the following purposes:
The Tarrant County Housing Finance Corporation (TCHFC) initiated a single-family revenue bond program to provide loans for low- and moderate-income homebuyers within the urban county jurisdiction. Approximately $12.2 million of the initial issue remains to be used during the next 2 years. In addition, TCHFC provides direct funding to support an innovative local transitional housing program.
Using HOME funds, Tarrant County sponsors a first-time homebuyer downpayment and closing cost assistance program for moderate-income households. Through the nonprofit Tarrant County Housing Partnership, the county proposes to support two additional homebuyer assistance programs. One targeting low-income families is projected to leverage nearly $1.5 million in private lender funds. The other, which will provide closing cost assistance and rehabilitation funds, will leverage an estimated $1 million during the next 18 months.
Through a nonprofit subrecipient, proposed activities for 1995-1996 will include the purchase and rehabilitation of about 300 units of multifamily rental housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and special needs populations. County HOME funds are anticipated to leverage some $3.6 million in private lender funds.
As the lead agency, the Tarrant County Community Development Division works in collaboration with various agencies and organizations, including: the County Department of Human Services, the Tarrant County Housing Finance Corporation, the Section 8 Housing Assistance Office, and the Employment and Training Division, to implement the Consolidated Plan. Three entities, the Grapevine Housing Authority, the Haltom City Housing Authority, and the Tarrant County Housing Assistance office as well as local nonprofit agencies, administer all subsidized housing.
The Consolidated Plan for Tarrant County identified the following key projects:
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas. MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP 6 is a map, sectioned by neighborhood, which depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP 7 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within one of the four neighborhoods indicated in MAP 6.
MAP 8 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within another of the four neighborhoods indicated in MAP 6.
MAP 9 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded project(s) from a street level vantage point; in addition, a table provides information about the project(s) depicted in MAP 9.
