Race, Place, and Housing:

Housing Conditions in Rural Minority Counties

Housing Assistance Council 2004

December 2004

Housing Assistance Council

1025 Vermont Avenue, NW | Suite 606 | Washington, DC 20005
p 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 Assistance
Council (HAC). The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under
Cooperative 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 work
are dedicated to the public. HAC is solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations
contained in this publication and such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the United
States 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 and
policy analysis, research and demonstration projects, and training and information services. HAC is an equal
opportunity lender.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................v
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1
Rural Minority Counties Defined .............................................................................................2
About the Data .................................................................................................................................2
Rural Defined ......................................................................................................................................2
Race and Ethnicity in Rural America ..........................................................................................3
Rural Minority Counties ....................................................................................................................5
RMCs in Perspective ........................................................................................................................5
Poverty in Rural Minority Counties..........................................................................................7
African-American Rural Minority Counties ............................................................................11
Background .........................................................................................................................................11
Housing in African-American Rural Minority Counties ..............................................12
Addressing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................15
Native American Rural Minority Counties .............................................................................17
Background.........................................................................................................................................17
Housing in Native American Rural Minority Counties................................................18
Addressing the Challenge ..........................................................................................................21
Hispanic Rural Minority Counties ..............................................................................................23
Background........................................................................................................................................23
Housing in Hispanic Rural Minority Counties.................................................................25
Addressing the Challenge..........................................................................................................27
Discussion .............................................................................................................................................29
Conclusions and Next Steps .........................................................................................................31
References...............................................................................................................................................32
Endnotes..................................................................................................................................................34
Appendix A: About the Data in This Report ..........................................................................35
Appendix B: Data Tables..................................................................................................................38
Introduction
Rural America has often been the stage for the racial and ethnic dramas of
this nation’s history (Snipp 1996). It was in the rural South that Emmett
Till was brutally slain in an event that helped to spark the Civil Rights
Movement. On rural farms across the South and Southwest, Hispanic
farmworkers organized to fight for better wages and working conditions. In
the 1960s and 1970s, young Native Americans brought national attention
to the dire living conditions and discriminatory treatment that defined
quality of life for many residents living on reservations. Despite these sem-
inal events, the experiences of rural minorities are often overlooked given
their relatively small populations. Moreover, it is often assumed that the
conditions that led to these upheavals have been addressed (Yetman 1996).
For many rural minorities, specifically those living in communities that
have significant minority populations, social and economic conditions
continue to lag far behind their white counterparts and urban populations
overall (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 for
rural whites or all households in general (HAC 2002). Rural minorities are more likely to live
in substandard and cost-burdened housing, and are more likely to be poor. The geographic
isolation and relative segregation of rural minorities living in high minority counties adds an
important 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 counties
and providing data on housing conditions in these areas, the report provides a basis for dis-

1
cussion on the ongoing connection between race and place, and the unique experiences of
rural minorities in these communities.
Rural Minority Counties Defined 1
This analysis highlights rural areas with relatively substantial and long-
term racial and ethnic minority populations. Rural minority counties are
those rural counties (defined as explained below) with a specific racial or
ethnic minority population of one-third or more in 1980, 1990, and 2000.
For example, African-American RMCs are rural counties that have had an
African-American population 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 significant long-term
minority populations and their housing needs. Please note the data pre-
sented in this report do not include all
rural racial and ethnic minorities, only
About the Data
populations who reside in the designated
RMCs. HAC has identified 304 RMCs. Most of the data in this report derive from the 2000 Census of Population
and Housing, Summary Files 1 and 3. Census 2000 was conducted by the
U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census, which collected
information on 281.4 million people and 115.9 million housing units
across the United States between March and August 2000. Most of the
Census 2000 information utilized in this report derives from one of two
data sets. The first is Summary File 1, commonly referred to as the “short
form,” on which a limited number of questions were asked about every
person and every housing unit in the United States. Second, Summary File
3, or “long form” data, provide more detailed information on population
and 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 of
comparatively few people living in a geographic area and limited access to large cities and market areas for work or
everyday 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 agencies
and 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 of
Management and Budget (OMB).

HAC has devised a county-based designation of urban and rural counties that incorporates both residential patterns, as
found in the Census definition, and economic connection patterns, as found in the OMB definition. HAC believes this
to 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 would
have been called nonmetro using OMB’s former terminology), as well as metropolitan counties that have no urbanized
population 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 to
note 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.
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 of
Hispanic 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 minority
populations 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

US Rural
Asian 3.6% Asian .6%
White 69.1% White 81.9% Hispanic 5.3%
Hispanic 12.5% Two or More Races 1.2%
Native American 1.6%
African-American 8.5%
Two or More Races 1.6%
Native American .7%
African-American 12.0%

3
Legend
■ White ■ Asian ■ Hispanic ■ Other
■ Native American ■ African-American
African Americans3 are the largest minority group in rural America, comprising
approximately 9 percent of the rural population. Rural African Americans are more
concentrated geographically than other rural minorities overall as nine out of 10 rural
African Americans live in the South. However, the rural African-American popula-
tion outside of the South is growing; between 1990 and 2000 this population grew
by 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 small

proportion. However, one of the more significant trends in rural America over the last
decade was the explosive growth in the Hispanic population. Between 1990 and 2000
the 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 in
the deep South, where states like Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and
Tennessee all experienced Hispanic growth of over 350 percent. Still, more than half of
all 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 live
in Texas alone.

Native Americans, who include American Indians and Alaska Natives, tend to live in
rural areas to a greater extent than any other rural minority group; 42 percent of all
Native Americans live in rural areas. The spatial location of rural Native Americans is
a legacy of historical and political actions, as over one-third of all Native Americans
live on Census-designated American Indian/Alaska Native lands. Asians comprise less
than 1 percent of all rural persons, and are most heavily concentrated on the West
Coast and in Hawaii. The percentages of rural Native Americans and Asians would be
slightly 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 more
races, 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 residents
in rural areas tend to be younger than the total rural population and they are more
likely to live in the West (Grieco and Cassidy 2001). Nearly one-quarter of rural people
who report being of two or more races are also Hispanic. About 6 percent of rural
Hispanics classify themselves as being of two or more races, compared to 1 percent of
non-Hispanics.

Housing represents an important component of community resources and fulfills

important needs for residents. In addition to providing physical shelter, home values
are a vital source of wealth for the millions of Americans who own their homes. An
assessment of housing conditions in rural minority counties couched in a discussion
of the historical background of each group’s experience with and in rural America
provides some illustration of the past, present, and future for each group.
Rural Minority Counties
Urban 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 Denton
1993). 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 decent
housing (Squires 1994). While not typically represented in the housing segregation literature, life for
rural 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 is
commonly understood, however, that de facto practices (e.g., white flight, racial steering) have worked
to 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 this
seminal 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 wide
open 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 a
form of rural segregation that perhaps has been hidden and is not very well understood. Similar to
urban 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 a
minority population of 33 percent or higher over the last three
censuses (i.e., 1980, 1990, and 2000). There are a total of 304
of these traditionally rural minority counties.4 RMCs tend to be

5
concentrated 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 closely
tied to historical dynamics set by past social and economic patterns. As the
map below shows, the African-American RMCs are located primarily in
the southern Black Belt counties of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North
and South Carolina, and Virginia. The remaining rural African-American
counties are concentrated in the Lower Mississippi Delta states of
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Native American RMCs are pre-
dominately located in counties with Native American reservations and
trust lands in the Midwest plains, the Southwest, and Alaska. Hispanic
rural minority counties are predominately located along the U.S.-Mexico
border region in Texas and New Mexico and portions of the Southwestern
United States.

Rural Minority Counties

Legend
County Status
■ Urban Counties
■ Rural–Low Minority Density
■ African American RMCs
■ Native American RMCs
■ Asian RMCs
■ Hispanic RMCs
■ Combined Minority RMC
The four rural minority Asian counties are all located in Hawaii.5 Due to the
extremely small number of Asian RMCs and the correspondingly small number of
Asian households, this analysis will not include a section detailing social, economic
and housing characteristics in these counties. Small sample sizes and outlier factors
in 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 affect
overall 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 per
square mile nationally. It is often difficult to provide social services in less dense areas
with smaller, more geographically dispersed populations. Greater density affords certain
opportunities and represents a resource base from which decisions regarding economic
development 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. An
analysis of the RMCs as they relate to the Urban and Rural Continuum Codes
reveals that one-quarter of all RMCs are categorized as either completely rural, less
than 2,500 population, adjacent to a metro area or completely rural, less than
2,500 population, not adjacent to a metro area. Forty RMCs fall into the most
rural category. It stands to reason that this isolation has an impact on the resources
available 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 RMC

7
groups. 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 to
11.8 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 Asian
Americans living in Asian-American RMCs, poverty among the dominant minority
group living in each type of rural minority county exceeds 30 percent. Poverty
among 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 for
the specific minority group exceeds the overall poverty rate in that type of RMC
county 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 35.6

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

While the numbers above clearly illustrate the existence of poverty

in rural minority counties, they do not reveal the entrenched nature
of this poverty. The United States Department of Agriculture’s
Economic Research Service (ERS) defines persistent poverty counties
as those that have experienced poverty rates of 20 percent or more
from 1960 to 2000. Over 69 percent of the identified rural minority
counties are also persistent poverty counties. Rural minority counties
comprise over half of all persistent poverty counties.
Persistent Poverty in Rural Minority Counties

Legend
■ States
■ Non-RMC Persistent
Poverty Counties
■ RMC Persistent
Poverty Counties

9
African-American Rural Minority Counties
Background
The spatial patterns of African-American residence in rural America
can be linked directly to the institution of slavery and the agricul-
tural economy it supported. The first African slaves were brought
to the shores of Virginia as early as 1619 to be sold throughout the
colonies; however, the larger percentage of slaves were sold to work
in the more southern colonies (Yetman 1996). The warm climate
and fertile soil of Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and
other Southern states facilitated the cultivation of rice, tobacco,
sugar cane, and later cotton. The need for a cheap, large scale labor
force created and fostered the institution of slavery in the South for
more than 240 years. While slavery would eventually be abolished
and the African-American population would begin a “Great
Migration” to northern cities and the West, the rural South and the
experience of African Americans are inextricably linked. More than
a hundred years later, the legacy of slavery can be witnessed in the
lives of those bounded by the geography of place.
When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, less
than 8 percent of the African-American population lived in the
Northeast or Midwest. Within a decade, the beginnings of the
Legend
Counties
■ African-American RMCs
■ Urban Counties
“Great Migration” led more than 60,000 African-Americans out of
the South into Kansas and other parts of the Midwest, including the
Oklahoma Indian territories (Library of Congress 2003). Fleeing vio-
lence and other forms of oppression, these early African Americans
left the rural South in search of social and economic freedom.
While approximately 90 percent of all African Americans still
11
resided in the South in 1900, the flow of African Americans from
the rural South to northern cities continued almost unabated
throughout the 20th Century. Thousands of African Americans left
the 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 during
World 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 the
country’s African-American population from a predominately
southern, rural group to a northern, urban one (Library of Congress
2003). During this time, approximately four million African
Americans 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 African
Americans live in the southern region. It is no surprise then that the 200 African-American RECs are located primarily
in the southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Virginia. Most of these counties are clustered in the two regions commonly referred to as the Mississippi Delta and the
Black Belt.8

African-American RMCs experience poverty at a significantly higher rate than other rural counties and they tend to be less
densely 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 a
national density of 79.6.

Housing in African-American Homeownership in African-American RMCs

Rural Minority Counties 80
There are a total of 1,584,656 occupied housing units in the
70
African-American RMCs. African-American households occupy
approximately 698,905 or 44 percent of these housing units. 60
The overall homeownership rate in rural African-American
minority counties is 73 percent, comparable to the national rural 50
Percent

homeownership rate. The homeownership rate for African-

40
American households in these counties is somewhat lower, 65
percent. The African-American homeownership rate in the 30
RMCs is still higher than the homeownership rate for all rural
20
African Americans, and significantly higher than that of African
Americans nationwide. 10

0
US Rural African-American
RMCs
Legend
■ All Races ■ African American

Manufactured housing9 is one of the fastest growing sources of housing in rural areas, particularly in the southeastern
United 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 manufactured
homes, which make up 24 percent of the housing stock. Nationally, African-American households are less likely to live in
manufactured homes than their white counterparts; only 4 percent of African-American households occupy manufactured
homes. 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 are
high 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 in
African-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 these
counties is even greater, as the median African-American home value is only two-thirds of the median for units owned by
white non-Hispanic households.
Homeownership, housing value, and asset retention are heavily dependent Median Home Value
on access to mortgage financing. Rural areas generally have fewer conven-
$120,000
tional banks and financial institutions than urban centers. This is a major
factor in the proliferation of subprime lending,10 particularly in rural areas
100,000
with high minority populations (HAC 2002). Subprime lenders are more
active in low-income and minority communities. According to 2000
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 13.2 percent of reported 80,000

home loans in rural areas were originated by subprime lenders. In the

African-American RMCs, 16.4 percent of all loans were subprime. 60,000
Manufactured home lending is also significant in the rural African-
American South, as 20 percent of all originated loans in that region were 40,000
made by manufactured home lenders compared to 10 percent for all rural
areas. While not all subprime loans are predatory in nature, higher fees 20,000
and aggressive lending practices and terms, in general, can rob an owner
of equity and reduce the benefits of owning one’s home. 0
US Rural African-American
As is the case in the nation as a whole, the level of inadequate housing RMCs
Legend
in the Lower Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt declined sig- ■ US Median Value ■ Rural Median Value
nificantly in the past few decades. For example, in 1970 over 60 percent ■ Median African-American Value in RMCs
of African-American-occupied units in African-American RMCs lacked ■ Median White Value in RMCs
adequate plumbing. However, in the year 2000 only 2.3 percent of
African-American households in these counties were without plumbing. Inadequate Plumbing, 1970–2000
Despite this dramatic accomplishment, housing quality is still prob- 70
lematic among high concentration African-American counties. The rate
of African-American households lacking plumbing in the RMCs is still 60
Percent of Occupied Units

nearly three times as high as the overall rural rate. Approximately 16,000
50
African-American households in these counties lack adequate plumbing,
and they account for over half of all rural African-Americans lacking
40
plumbing.

13
30
Crowding is also a problem in high concentration African-American com-
munities of the Lower Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt. 20
Approximately 4.8 percent of all households in African-American rural
minority counties are crowded, meaning they have more than one person 10
per room. This is somewhat higher than the national rural crowding rate
0
of 3.4 percent. Crowding is significantly more problematic for renters and 1970 1980 1990 2000
minorities. At 9.6 percent, the crowding rate among African Americans in Year
the RMCs is nearly three times the national rural rate of 3.4 percent. Legend
Furthermore, nearly half (48 percent) of all rural African-American ■ National ■ Rural
■ African Americans in RMCs
crowded households are located in the African-American RMCs.
Housing affordability has become the most prevalent housing concern in rural America and
this is particularly the case in the Delta and Black Belt regions. These areas have relatively high
rates of housing cost burden—with cost burden defined as paying greater than 30 percent of
monthly income for shelter costs. Twenty-six percent of all households in African-American
RMCs are cost-burdened.

Affordability problems are more severe for African Americans in these regions and are particularly
pervasive among minority renters. Nationwide, 31 percent of rural renters are cost-burdened. But
in the African-American RMCs the cost burden rate for African-American renters is nearly 39
percent. Interestingly, the cost burden rate for African-American renters in the RMCs is also
higher 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 much
for 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 in
the availability of affordable housing stock in these areas, which is compounded by extremely
high poverty rates. As noted above, more than 35 percent of African Americans living in
African-American RMCs are poor.
Addressing the Challenge
Housing conditions in the African-American RMCs of the Mississippi Delta and the southern Black Belt are in
large 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-American
population (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 to
increased financial resources, the Delta and the southern Black Belt are in need of additional community and
organizational 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 Black
Belt have significant needs for decent affordable housing and related infrastructure.
Persistent poverty and a lack of resources make it difficult to achieve positive changes
in the region. One example of efforts to meet these needs is the Delta Compact, an
organization 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 comprised
of a wide variety of Delta stakeholders. Several public and private organizations have
agreed to collaborate through the Compact to promote community and economic
development in the region. These organizations have already pledged $40 million in
resources 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 for

15
change in the Delta, sharing information and data, and creating a leadership network
(Delta Compact 1998). Other efforts to improve social and housing conditions in the
rural Southeast include initiatives by the Delta Caucus, the Foundation for the Mid
South, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, and Mid South Delta LISC.11
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). Native
Americans 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 rural
expanses that are marked by decades of poverty, neglect, and exploitation.

Native American Rural Minority Counties

Legend
Counties
■ Native American RMCs
■ Urban Counties

When Columbus first reached North America in the late 15th Century, there were between 5 and 6 million Native Americans. Approximately
400 years later, the population had dwindled to 237,000. The numbers of tribes and Native American minority groups were also dramatically
reduced, 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 presence
in North America, the Native Americans’ land base consisted of over 2 billion acres. By 1871, this decreased dramatically to 155 million acres and
by 1997 it was merely 54 million acres (Yetman 1999). These devastating changes resulted from outside forces set into motion by the arrival of
European settlers. With the colonists came diseases that Native people were not able to resist and aggression aimed directly at taking their land.

17
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 large
part by a series of regulations and laws passed to secure the lands taken by the U.S. government and white settlers. During the 19th and
20th Centuries, a series of acts and treaties established the reservation system and imposed a way of life on many Native Americans. While
Native American reservations can be found in many states across the country, they are concentrated in Midwestern and Western states including
Arizona, 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 Native
American RMCs and the location of Native American reservations; these counties are also are clustered in the northern High Plains, the Four
Corners region in the Southwest, and Alaska. Counties with a high population of Native Americans tend to be thinly settled and far from major
population centers. Native American RMCs are extremely rural, with only 1.4 persons per square mile compared to the national rate of 79.6
persons per square mile. Poverty among Native Americans living in RMCs is high (38.5 percent) compared to all rural residents (14.3 percent).
 Housing in Native American Rural Minority Counties
There are a total of 176,927 occupied housing units in the 29 Native
American RMCs; Native Americans occupy approximately 90,339 or 51
percent of them. Homeownership rates are high in Native American
RMCs—seven of every ten occupied housing units are owner-occupied.
Native American homeownership rates in these areas are comparable at
69.7 percent. This statistic may be misleading, however, due in part to
the HUD “Mutual Help” program. In essence, Mutual Help is a lease-
purchase program and therefore many persons who occupy mutual help
homes do not yet have title to these units; however, the Census Bureau
believes that many Mutual Help occupants may have identified them-
selves as homeowners. If Mutual Help occupants were excluded, the
homeownership rate for Native Americans on tribal lands would likely
drop significantly (HUD and Urban Institute 1996).

Homeownership in Native American RMCs 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 Native
80
Americans across the nation. However, the use of manufactured housing
70 units is growing in popularity among Native Americans. Manufactured
homes now account for 24 percent of all housing units on Native
Percent Homeownership

60
American lands, more than three times the national rate. Among Native
50 Americans, 23 percent of occupied housing units in the RMCs are man-
ufactured homes. Manufactured homes are often the most feasible form
40 of housing in poor and remote areas, as is the case with many Native
American lands. Manufactured homes are also convenient in situations
30
where there are few contractors or developers, building supply stores are
20 distant, and site-built housing is prohibitively expensive (HAC 2002).

10 Cluster housing is one of the main forms of housing on many reserva-

tions. Cluster housing is single-unit detached government-assisted rental
0
US Rural Native American units, which have for the most part been built in small clusters. Cluster
RMCs housing was first built by HUD in the 1960s and was meant to provide
Legend
■ All Races ■ Native American
“modern housing and utilities in a cost-effective manner” (Spitzmiller
and Rogerson 2001). Even though residents were accustomed to living
on their own pieces of land, perhaps with gardens and animals, many
moved into cluster housing to have access to better housing and modern
utilities, which were far more difficult to supply outside of the central
towns. Currently, cluster housing is often referred to as a “reservation
ghetto” (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001) complete with drug and crime
problems (Kingsley 1996, 138).

One long-time resident of cluster housing on the Pine Ridge Reservation

in South Dakota commented that, “Government houses just tore the
families 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 cluster
homes.” In research conducted by the Urban Institute, Native
Americans on tribal lands were asked about their perceptions of the
rental housing available to them. The single most reported serious prob-
lem was “too close to neighbors,” which was identified by 23 percent of
respondents (Spitzmiller and Rogerson 2001).
The lack of financing for affordable homeownership opportunities creates
additional barriers on trust lands. For decades, a plethora of legal, socioe-
conomic, and cultural constraints have severely curtailed the level of
residential financing on trust lands. This problem is highlighted in a 1998
General Accounting Office (GAO) report investigating mortgage lending
on trust lands. The report found that between 1992 and 1996 a total of only
92 non-governmental, conventional mortgage loans were originated on trust
lands. Further, 81 of these were originated for homes for members of just
two tribes: the Oneida of northeastern Wisconsin and the Tulalip of north-
eastern Washington state (GAO 1998).

An examination of lending patterns among Native Americans reveals

that subprime and manufactured home loans are extremely prevalent Subprime Lending
and Native American borrowers experience a high rate of loan denials. & Manufactured Housing Lending
Recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data show that 42.9
percent of reported home loan applications in Native American RMCs 50

Percent of Loans Made by Subprime Lenders

were originated by subprime or manufactured home lenders, compared 45
to 23 percent for all rural areas.
40

Shannon County, S.D., home to much of the Pine Ridge Reservation, 35

provides an example of the impact of subprime lending in high concentra- 30
tion Native American counties. During 1999, Shannon County residents 30.3
25
applied for a total of 228 mortgage loans. The vast majority of these appli-
cants (177, or nearly 78 percent) applied to subprime or manufactured 20
9.8
home lenders,13 while only 22 percent of all applications were processed by 15 4.1
lenders classified as mainstream or prime (HAC 2002).
10
13.5 13.2
Household crowding is one of the most significant problems throughout 5 12.6
Native American RMCs. Nationwide, approximately 6 percent of house- 0
holds have more than one person per room and are considered crowded. US Rural Native American
RMC
However, crowding rates among Native American households in RMCs Legend
are nearly five times the national rates with 28.9 percent of American ■ Subprime Loans ■ Manufactured Housing Loans
Indians and Alaska Natives households experiencing crowded conditions. ■ Subprime Loans ■ Manufactured Housing Loans

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 conditions

19
that 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 like
alcoholism, domestic violence, and child abuse and/or neglect are also
associated with severely crowded living conditions (NAIHC 2001).
Another dramatic demonstration of the housing inadequacy that exists Crowding in Native American RMCs
in Native American RMCs is the prevalence of units lacking adequate 30
plumbing. Nationwide only 0.6 percent of all households nationwide live
in housing units lacking adequate plumbing. However, a staggering 20.7 25
percent of Native American households residing in RMCs lack adequate
plumbing—more than 20 times the national level. High inadequate 20
plumbing rates are prevalent throughout most highly concentrated Native

Percent
American areas, but are particularly high in Alaska and the Southwest. 15

In concert with, and often as a result of, the poor housing conditions
that exist in these highly concentrated Native American areas, housing 10

values there are significantly lower than national and rural median val-
ues. The median value of all homes in Native American counties is 5
$66,100, but the median value of homes owned by Native Americans in
these counties is only slightly more than half that at $36,800. The dispar- 0
US Rural Native American
ity between Native American and white homeowners in these counties is
RMCs
even greater as the median home value is $71,300 for white non-Hispanic
Legend
homeowners. ■ All Races ■ Native Americans

Affordability is a more serious issue in some Native American counties

than in others. Overall, 18.3 percent of Native American homeowners
in high concentration Native American counties are cost-burdened,
spending over 30 percent of their households’ income for housing each
month. Renters are far more in danger of having affordability problems, Units Lacking Plumbing
as almost one-quarter of Native American renters in the RMCs are cost- 25
burdened. Despite generally low housing costs in Native American areas,
affordability problems also co-exist with high and persistent poverty
20 20.7
rates. For example, Ziebach County, S.D., location of the Cheyenne
River Sioux reservation, is an extremely poor county with considerable
cost burden problems among its population. In this area, as in many 15
Percent

Native American minority counties, incomes are so low that many resi-
dents cannot afford housing even though costs are much lower than the
10
national average. When incomes and housing prices are both depressed
in communities such as these, the quality of housing is also typically low.
7.8
5
4.4
0.6 0.8
0
US Rural Native American
Residence & Race/Ethnicity
Legend
■ US ■ Rural ■ All Native Americans
■ Rural Native Americans
■ Native Americans in RMCs
Addressing the Challenge
While housing problems are severe in many Native American RMCs, some progress is being made. The 1996 Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) replaced several separate U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs with a block grant program. With the additional flexibility of the
block 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 encourage
private 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 fall
under the Rural Housing Service’s Section 502 program, which provides direct homeownership loans for low-income
families in rural areas. Because Native Americans tend to live in rural areas, RHS programs are often well suited to their
financing needs. RHS loan origination rates among Native Americans are similar to those of other agencies offering
federally subsidized housing assistance. In fiscal year 1999, 241 Section 502 direct loans were made to Native American
households. Of these, 38 were located on trust lands (USDA 1999). Although there is still much to be done, particularly
for those living in the deepest poverty and in the worst housing conditions on Native American lands, the past decade has
seen 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 capacity
building of local grassroots organizations working to improve housing conditions. These communities also need help in
building tribal economies and creating an incentive to build private markets on Native American lands.

21
Hispanic Rural Minority Counties
Background
Hispanics are the largest and most rapidly growing ethnic group in the nation (HAC
2002). From 1990 to 2000 the Hispanic population increased by 58 percent. This
growth was fueled by both increased immigration and high birth rates. While over 90
percent of the U.S. Hispanic population lives in metropolitan areas, Hispanic growth
over 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 the
farmworker 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

Legend

23
Counties
■ Hispanic RMCs
■ Urban Counties
Hispanic is an umbrella term referring to people from a variety of nations around the world. Latinos originate from 22 different
countries and, while most Hispanics consider themselves white, many are of other races (Larmer 1999). The largest group of
Hispanics 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 colonized
and Mexico owned large parts of what is now the United States. Through a series of wars and treaties the vast expanse of what is
now 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 has
occurred throughout the 20th Century and has contributed to the economic development of the Southwest by providing inexpensive
labor (Yetman 1999). The region along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, which is characterized
by extreme poverty, limited employment, and deplorable health conditions, includes thousands of poor neighborhoods known as
colonias (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 recently
it has come to define a residential development characterized by substandard living con-
ditions. Generally colonias are rural, mostly unincorporated communities located in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas along the U.S.-Mexico border and are
characterized by high poverty rates and substandard living conditions. In fact, colonias
are defined primarily by what they lack, such as potable drinking water, water and
wastewater systems, paved streets, and standard mortgage financing (HAC 1994).
While most of the residents in Hispanic RMCs do not live in designated colonias, the
vast 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 in
agriculture and agriculture-related businesses. The Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas
and Imperial County, Calif., are home bases for many who travel in the Texas and
California migrant streams, respectively (HAC 2001). This reliance on immigrant
agricultural labor adds to the stresses on available housing and infrastructure systems,
forcing greater numbers of households to reside in colonia communities.
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 high
Hispanic concentration counties. Hispanic households occupy approxi-
mately 221,026, or 55 percent, of these units.
Historically, Hispanics, particularly those living in the colonias, have
demonstrated a strong homeownership ethic. Homeownership rates are
higher along the border than nationwide and are comparable to home-
ownership rates for all rural areas. Overall, 74 percent of all households
in high concentration Hispanic counties own their homes. Similarly, 72
percent of Hispanic households in these areas own their homes, signifi-
cantly higher than the national rural Hispanic homeownership rate of
59 percent and the total U.S. homeownership rate of 67 percent.
As is the case in other RMCs, manufactured homes are a significant and
growing part of the housing stock in Hispanic rural minority counties.
Approximately 20 percent of all occupied housing units in rural Hispanic
counties 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 in
manufactured homes. The New Mexico border area has a particularly high
proportion of manufactured homes, which comprise 26 percent of the
state’s border region housing stock.
Housing and infrastructure development in the colonias is complicated by
the “contract for deed” financing mechanism used frequently in the colo-
nias over the last 50 years. Many home purchasers in the colonias have
poor or no credit and lack the resources to qualify for traditional bank
financing. In many cases, seller financing is their only alternative. Under a
contract for deed arrangement, the purchaser obtains no equity in the
property and land ownership remains with the seller until the total pur-
chase price, often including a high rate of interest, is paid (Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas 2002). Unlike deeds of trust, contracts for deed are rarely
recorded with a local municipality, making it easy for the developer to
reclaim the property. Thus, if the purchaser falls behind in payments, the
developer can repossess the land—and any improvements made by the
purchaser—without going through a foreclosure process.
Despite high homeownership rates among Hispanics in the RMCs, con-
ventional homeownership financing methods are often inaccessible to
rural Hispanic residents. Many Hispanics, particularly those in the border
colonias area with contracts for deed, find it difficult to secure financing
to build a house or make home improvements. Because title does not
transfer to the buyer until all payments have been made on the land, an
applicant cannot use the property as collateral for a loan. Therefore, con-
ventional financial institutions are reluctant to lend money to improve the
property (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 2002).
Homeownership in Hispanic RMCs
80
70
Percent Homeownership
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
US Rural Hispanic RMC
Residence & Race/Ethnicity
Legend
■ All Races ■ Hispanic
Subprime lenders have, for better or worse, filled some of the
lending gap in high concentration Hispanic communities.
HMDA data from the year 2000 reveal that 17.8 percent of the
reported home loans in Hispanic minority counties were orig-
inated by subprime lenders, compared to 13.2 percent for all
rural areas. Manufactured home lending is also significant in
these counties as 16 percent of all originated loans were made
by 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 Hispanic
RMCs than elsewhere. The median housing value among
Hispanics in these Hispanic counties is less than half the
25
national median. The median value of all homes in Hispanic
minority counties is $53,800. However, the median value of
units 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 white
non-Hispanic home value there is $81,700. As explained
above, the comparatively low value of homes in Hispanic
RMCs can in large part be attributed to the issues related to
the colonias. While not all Hispanic RMCs are in the colonia
region, the majority are home to colonias, which experience
significant issues related to home finance, quality, and access
to services that reduce home value.
Significant housing quality problems plague rural communities with high Median Home Value
concentrations of Hispanic households. In many colonia areas, Hispanic
$120,000
residents tend to purchase small lots and construct their own dwellings,
using available materials and adding to them when possible. Over 5,000
100,000
(2.3 percent) of Hispanic occupied housing units in Hispanic RMCs lack
complete plumbing facilities. This is nearly four times the national rate.
Further, the problem of inadequate plumbing among rural Hispanics is 80,000

concentrated in these minority counties, as 41 percent of all rural

Hispanics lacking adequate plumbing live in a Hispanic RMC. It must 60,000
be noted that the level of inadequate plumbing in the border colonias and
Southwest declined somewhat in the past few decades. For example, in 40,000
1970 over 40 percent of Hispanic-occupied units in these minority coun-
ties lacked adequate plumbing compared to just over 2 percent today. 20,000

The housing problems experienced by Hispanics living in Hispanic

0
RMCs extend beyond the physical structure of their homes, as colonia US Rural Hispanic RMCs
areas generally lack basic infrastructure. According to assessments con-
Legend
ducted by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 24 percent of
■ US Median Value ■ Rural Median Value
households in Texas’s colonias are not connected to treated water and use ■ Median Hispanic Value in RMCs
untreated water for drinking and cooking. TWDB has estimated a cost ■ Median White Value in RMCs
of $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 plumbing Inadequate Plumbing, 1970–2000
improvements and a cost of $467.3 million to provide wastewater serv-
30
ice to the colonias. In addition, TWDB asserts that approximately 44
percent of the homes in the colonias experience flooding problems due
to lack of paved streets and drainage problems (HAC 1998). 25

The absence of platting, an expensive process that includes the delineation

Percent of Occupied Units

20
of property lines, access roads, and curbing, is a major obstacle to infra-
structure improvements in the colonias and is also a factor inhibiting their
annexation by adjacent incorporated communities. The scattered nature 15
and remote location of a number of colonias also make it difficult and
expensive to deliver services and resources comprehensively. There are 10
inherent problems associated with small community size. Construction of
wastewater treatment plants for such small communities is generally not
5
economically feasible. Similarly, the extension of water distribution and
wastewater collection lines from existing treatment facilities to remote geo-
graphical locations tends to be prohibitively expensive (HAC 1998). 0
1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Crowding is another problem in Hispanic RMCs. The incidence of
Legend
household crowding for Hispanics in rural minority counties is more ■ National ■ Rural
than twice the national average; 16 percent of Hispanic households in ■ Hispanic in Hispanic RMCs
these high concentration Hispanic counties live in crowded units.
Surprisingly, crowding rates among Hispanics in these counties are
somewhat lower than among their counterparts nationwide and in rural
areas. However, 21 percent of all crowded rural Hispanic households live
in these high concentration Hispanic counties.

Affordability is also a concern in rural Hispanic counties. Overall, 21.7 percent of Hispanic homeowners in Hispanic counties are cost
burdened, meaning they are spending over 30 percent of their households’ income for housing each month. Hispanic renters have even
greater affordability problems, as fully 34.2 percent of Hispanic renters in high concentration Hispanic rural areas are cost burdened.
Addressing the Challenge Crowding in Hispanic RMCs
30
Hispanics are reshaping the demographics of rural America in many
ways. With a median age of just 23, rural Hispanics are much younger
than the rural population as a whole. Hispanics also tend to live in larg- 25

er households and to have higher levels of poverty and lower levels of

education than the overall rural population (HAC 2002). Many of these 20
Percent

social issues directly impact housing for rural Hispanics. Rural Latinos
in high concentration Hispanic counties are more likely to be renters, 15
and they experience inadequate housing at significantly higher rates than
all rural households. Low incomes also exacerbate affordability prob- 10
lems, and household crowding is a particular concern.
5
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- 0
US Rural Hispanic
ties comparable to those found in developing countries. Numerous com- RMCs
munity-led efforts have sought to address the colonias’ needs. Federal, Legend
state, and local governments have been spurred by colonia advocates to ■ All Races ■ Hispanic
implement policies and regulations to address the colonia phenomenon
and restrict their further growth. Yet these communities continue to exist.

27
In the past ten years, the adoption of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the burgeoning debate on immigration issues
have focused increased public attention on the border region. There is
renewed commitment on the part of local nonprofits, and the public and
private sectors, to tackle the problems along the border jointly.
Legislation in Texas has sought to curtail the inequities inherent in contracts for deed. In 1995, the Texas state legislature passed the
Colonias Fair Land Sales Act, requiring developers to register contracts for deed and counties to keep records of them. It also obligates
developers to provide statements of available services, such as water, wastewater, and electricity, and to disclose if a property is located in
a floodplain. Developers must provide each property buyer with an annual statement including the amount paid, the amount owed, the
number 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 unable
to connect to services such as water and electricity until a colonia is fully approved and serviced. Fortunately, the Texas state legislature
has 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 task
of 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 accomplishing
the fundamental goal of empowering colonia residents to solve their own problems (Ward and Carew 2000).
Discussion
While rural America is generally less racially and ethnically diverse than urban centers or the nation as a whole, specific
regions 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 and
geography, the rural minority counties share many of the same poor housing conditions. The commonalities that exist
among rural minorities are undoubtedly linked to the troubled economic legacy of the areas in which these communities
are 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 also
serves as a significant source of wealth and equity for most Americans. In rural areas, as in the
nation as a whole, minorities have much lower homeownership rates than whites. At the same
time, the level of homeownership for rural minorities is 14 percentage points higher than the
level for minorities in urban areas. In rural minority counties, minority homeownership rates
are 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 for
rural minorities in minority counties. Housing values are significantly lower for minorities in
these 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-

29
stances greatly limit potential markets and subsequently the asset creation assumed to be
inherent 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 rural
minority counties have the added constraints of racial targeting by subprime and predatory
lenders. The data clearly show that subprime and chattel manufactured home lenders are
more prevalent in rural minority counties than either nationally or in rural areas. Lending
practices among these institutions significantly increase costs and have been shown to strip
equity from borrowers.
In general, housing costs tend to be lower in rural minority counties than in more
urbanized locales. Despite this fact, affordability concerns are increasingly prevalent
in 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 and
southern Black Belt.

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

These housing problems are even worse for rural minorities in high concentration
minority counties. While much of the discussion about housing problems has
moved on to other issues, quality of housing is still very much the key issue for
minorities 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 these
counties prevents poor families from moving beyond substandard housing.

Like housing quality concerns, household crowding is an often overlooked issue but
it 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 long
been associated with negative social conditions such as crime and strained family
relations. In rural areas, crowding is often an invisible form of homelessness as some
rural 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 populations
share common housing concerns, each also has unique
housing problems—such as contract for deed issues
among Hispanics in the colonias, and the impact of sea-
sonal housing need for farmworkers. Legal land issues
contribute to the intractable housing problems for Native
Americans on reservations and trust lands, and housing
affordability is extremely problematic for African-
American households in the Southeast. Organizations
and agencies are working to address the needs that exist;
however, their efforts reveal a need for increased resources
and organizational capacity to resolve these issues.
Conclusions and Next Steps
In addition to the specific conditions and factors affecting the RMCs
themselves, HAC’s analysis of housing trends in these counties identifies
several important conditions regarding rural housing overall. The report

■ illustratesthe acute nature of housing conditions that persist in

remote, isolated rural areas;

■ provides additional evidence on the connection between race and

place in this country, specifically as it relates to rural areas; and

■ givesdirection to future inquiries as to the housing conditions of

the poorest of the poor in rural areas.

Further, the report encourages additional dialogue and research on the

following issues.

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

■ Subprime lending: What is the net impact of subprime lending in

rural areas?

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

■ Community relations: How do multi-racial/ethnic communities build

community and overcome tensions?

More research is needed to determine how increasing diversity will

affect rural America. It may be that as the country and rural areas
become more diverse the disparities between racial and ethnic groups
may disappear. It may also be shown that the increasing minority pop-

31
ulation in rural America may settle near or in the RMCs that have
been identified in this study. If the latter holds true, the housing
options of these groups will be limited by the factors identified in this
report. Continuing efforts to address housing and community devel-
opment needs in these regions must take the cultural, historical, and
economic realities of these communities into account.
References
Campbell, 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 of

February 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 Language
on 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 Rural
Housing. Washington, D.C.

Housing Assistance Council. 1998. The Border Colonias Region: Challenges and Innovative Approaches to Effective
Community 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 Conditions
in 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.: The
Urban 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>.
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 Communities
and Alaska Native Villages. Washington, D.C.

National American Indian Housing Council. 2004. Press Release. Survey Shows Devastating Effects of Substandard/Crowded
Housing 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 Uneven
Development. 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 American
Indian Housing Needs and Programs: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Native American Housing: Homeownership Opportunities on Trust Lands
Are 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 Lower
Mississippi Delta Commission.

33
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 United
States: 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. Needham
Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
Endnotes
1 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 person
or 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 each
other. 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 in
the nation. Unless otherwise noted, most racial/ethnic comparisons in this section are mutually exclusive. In other words, in this section Hispanic persons are
counted separately and not included in racial groups (i.e., White, African American, Native American, Asian, and Other Race), although Hispanic persons are
members 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 African
American 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 all
rural 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 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.’’
6 For longitudinal comparability, the 2000 Asian population in this report includes Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians. The data on race in Census 2000 are
not directly comparable to those collected in previous censuses. These differences affect comparability and involve the individual categories on the Census 2000
questionnaire. The 1990 category ‘‘Asian and Pacific Islander’’ was separated into two categories, ‘‘Asian’’ and ‘‘Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,’’ for
Census 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 in
rural America we suggest consulting the USDA Economic Research Service’s report on “Asians and Pacific Islanders in Rural and Small-Town America,” found
in 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 black
migrants 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 and
parishes 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 1976
enactment 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 to
borrowers who are at a higher risk of default. Additionally, a majority of subprime loans are refinancings, which generally carry higher interest rates. Some
subprime lenders have implemented “predatory” lending practices. According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, predatory loans are those
that 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’s
ability 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 generally
recognized 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 they
are 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 to
100 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 colonias
communities rarely correspond with Census-designated units of geography. Some colonias are only fractions of larger block groups, and others lie between
block 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.
Appendix A: About the Data in This Report
A majority of the information in this report derives from HAC tabulations of the 2000 Census of Population and Housing public
use 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. Most
of the Census 2000 information utilized in this report derives from one of two data sets. The first is Summary File 1, commonly
referred to as the “short form,” on which a limited number of questions were asked about every person and every housing unit in
the United States. Secondly, Summary File 3 or “long form” data provide more detailed information on population and housing
characteristics. 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 File
1, 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 File
3: 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: Demographic
Profile 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Geographic Terms and Concepts 1

Establishing a definition of rural poses many challenges. In general, rural areas share the common characteristics of comparatively
few 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 these
factors 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 and
Budget’s (OMB’s) Metropolitan/Micropolitan status, Census defined urbanized population, and a special HAC designated rural
and urban counties status.

Given recent changes in the definitions of OMB metropolitan areas and Census defined urban and rural areas, HAC devised a
county based designation of urban and rural “counties” which incorporates both residential patterns, as found in the Census defi-

35
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 metropolitan
counties that have no urbanized population. Likewise, urban counties are metropolitan counties with an urbanized population. It
is extremely important to note that this is not the same definition of rural/urban devised by the Census Bureau or Metropolitan
Areas 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, which
has 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 Alaska
and the U.S. Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places
that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states; these incorporated places are
known 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 considered
equivalent 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-third
or more in 1980, 1990, and 2000. For example, African-American RMCs are rural counties that have had an African American
population 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 significant
long-term minority populations and their housing needs. Please note the data presented in this report do not include all rural racial
and 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.

Definitions 2
Race. The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with
which they most closely identify. The categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or
anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups. The racial classifications
used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30, 1997, Federal Register Notice entitled, “Revisions to the Standards for the
Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These standards
govern 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 addition
to the five race groups, the OMB also states that respondents should be offered the option of selecting one or more races. If an
individual could not provide a race response, the race or races of the householder or other household members were assigned by
the computer using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. For example, if race was missing for a natural-born child
in the household, then either the race or races of the householder, another natural-born child, or the spouse of the householder
were assigned. If race was not reported for anyone in the household, the race or races of a householder in a previously processed
household were assigned.

Minority Population. Minority population in this report is defined as all population that do not classify themselves as white and
not 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 who
indicate 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 indicate
their 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 as
described below.

American Indian. Includes people who indicate their race as “American Indian,” entered the name of an Indian tribe, or
report such entries as Canadian Indian, French-American Indian, or Spanish-American Indian.
 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. The
information for Census 2000 is derived from the American Indian Detailed Tribal Classification List for the 1990 census
and 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. It
includes “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 and
Alaska 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, or
Cuban) 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 following
race categories:

■ White
■ Black or African American
■ American Indian and Alaska Native
■ Asian
■ NativeHawaiian 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 the
specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the questionnaire—“Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban”—as well as those who
indicate that they are “other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.” Hispanic 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 person or person’s parents or ancestors before his or her arrival in

37
the 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: Summary
File 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: Demographic
Profile 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002).
Appendix B: Data Tables

Table 1. Rural Minority African American Counties

County/State African-American Population County/State African-American Population
(Percent) (Percent)

Barbour County, Alabama 46.7 McIntosh County, Georgia 37.1

Bullock County, Alabama 73.6 Macon County, Georgia 59.9
Butler County, Alabama 41.0 Marion County, Georgia 34.6
Chambers County, Alabama 38.3 Meriwether County, Georgia 42.5
Choctaw County, Alabama 44.3 Mitchell County, Georgia 48.2
Clarke County, Alabama 43.2 Peach County, Georgia 45.8
Conecuh County, Alabama 43.8 Quitman County, Georgia 47.1
Coosa County, Alabama 34.5 Randolph County, Georgia 59.7
Dallas County, Alabama 63.6 Screven County, Georgia 45.5
Greene County, Alabama 80.6 Stewart County, Georgia 62.0
Hale County, Alabama 59.3 Sumter County, Georgia 49.3
Lowndes County, Alabama 73.7 Talbot County, Georgia 62.1
Macon County, Alabama 85.3 Taliaferro County, Georgia 60.8
Marengo County, Alabama 52.0 Taylor County, Georgia 42.9
Monroe County, Alabama 40.4 Terrell County, Georgia 61.1
Perry County, Alabama 68.8 Thomas County, Georgia 39.2
Pickens County, Alabama 43.2 Turner County, Georgia 41.1
Pike County, Alabama 37.1 Twiggs County, Georgia 44.0
Sumter County, Alabama 73.5 Warren County, Georgia 59.7
Wilcox County, Alabama 72.0 Washington County, Georgia 53.4
Chicot County, Arkansas 54.4 Webster County, Georgia 47.4
Columbia County, Arkansas 36.3 Wilkes County, Georgia 43.4
Dallas County, Arkansas 41.2 Wilkinson County, Georgia 41.0
Desha County, Arkansas 46.7 Bienville Parish, Louisiana 44.0
Lafayette County, Arkansas 36.7 Claiborne Parish, Louisiana 47.6
Lee County, Arkansas 57.5 Concordia Parish, Louisiana 37.9
Monroe County, Arkansas 39.2 De Soto Parish, Louisiana 42.4
Ouachita County, Arkansas 39.0 East Carroll Parish, Louisiana 67.5
Phillips County, Arkansas 59.5 East Feliciana Parish, Louisia 47.3
St. Francis County, Arkansas 49.7 Iberville Parish, Louisiana 49.9
Gadsden County, Florida 57.7 Lincoln Parish, Louisiana 40.1
Hamilton County, Florida 38.2 Madison Parish, Louisiana 61.0
Jefferson County, Florida 38.8 Morehouse Parish, Louisiana 43.6
Madison County, Florida 40.7 Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana 38.9
Baker County, Georgia 50.7 Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiania 38.0
Baldwin County, Georgia 43.7 Red River Parish, Louisiana 41.2
Brooks County, Georgia 39.7 Richland Parish, Louisiana 38.2
Burke County, Georgia 51.5 St. Helena Parish, Louisiana 52.8
Calhoun County, Georgia 60.9 St. James Parish, Louisiana 49.6
Clay County, Georgia 60.9 St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana 45.2
Crisp County, Georgia 43.7 St. Landry Parish, Louisiana 42.4
Decatur County, Georgia 40.2 Tensas Parish, Louisiana 55.8
Dooly County, Georgia 50.0 West Feliciana Parish, Louisiania 50.7
Early County, Georgia 48.5 Somerset County, Maryland 41.6
Greene County, Georgia 44.7 Adams County, Mississippi 53.1
Hancock County, Georgia 78.1 Amite County, Mississippi 42.9
Jefferson County, Georgia 56.6 Attala County, Mississippi 40.2
Jenkins County, Georgia 40.8 Benton County, Mississippi 37.0
Lincoln County, Georgia 34.6 Bolivar County, Mississippi 65.5
McDuffie County, Georgia 37.8 Carroll County, Mississippi 36.7
County/State African-American Population County/State African-American Population
(Percent) (Percent)
Chickasaw County, Mississippi 41.4 Lenoir County, North Carolina 40.7
Claiborne County, Mississippi 84.5 Martin County, North Carolina 45.7
Clarke County, Mississippi 34.9 Northampton County, North Carolina 59.8
Clay County, Mississippi 56.6 Pasquotank County, North Carolina 40.6
Coahoma County, Mississippi 69.6 Scotland County, North Carolina 37.8
Copiah County, Mississippi 51.2 Tyrrell County, North Carolina 39.9
Covington County, Mississippi 35.8 Vance County, North Carolina 48.7
Franklin County, Mississippi 36.5 Warren County, North Carolina 55.0
Grenada County, Mississippi 41.1 Washington County, North Carolina 49.3
Holmes County, Mississippi 79.1 Wilson County, North Carolina 39.7
Humphreys County, Mississippi 71.7 Allendale County, South Carolina 71.4
Issaquena County, Mississippi 63.1 Bamberg County, South Carolina 62.8
Jasper County, Mississippi 53.1 Barnwell County, South Carolina 42.9
Jefferson County, Mississippi 86.7 Calhoun County, South Carolina 49.0
Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi 57.7 Chester County, South Carolina 38.9
Kemper County, Mississippi 58.5 Clarendon County, South Carolina 53.4
Leake County, Mississippi 37.6 Colleton County, South Carolina 42.5
Leflore County, Mississippi 68.1 Dillon County, South Carolina 45.7
Lowndes County, Mississippi 41.9 Fairfield County, South Carolina 59.4
Marshall County, Mississippi 50.7 Georgetown County, South Carolina 38.8
Montgomery County, Mississippi 45.1 Hampton County, South Carolina 55.9
Noxubee County, Mississippi 69.7 Jasper County, South Carolina 53.0
Oktibbeha County, Mississippi 37.7 Lee County, South Carolina 63.9
Panola County, Mississippi 48.6 McCormick County, South Carolina 54.2
Pike County, Mississippi 47.8 Marion County, South Carolina 56.6
Quitman County, Mississippi 69.0 Marlboro County, South Carolina 51.2
Scott County, Mississippi 39.2 Orangeburg County, South Carolina 61.3
Sharkey County, Mississippi 69.7 Williamsburg County, South Carolina 66.6
Sunflower County, Mississippi 70.1 Fayette County, Tennessee 36.2
Tallahatchie County, Mississip 59.7 Hardeman County, Tennessee 41.3
Tunica County, Mississippi 70.7 Haywood County, Tennessee 51.3
Walthall County, Mississippi 44.4 Brunswick County, Virginia 57.1

39
Warren County, Mississippi 43.5 Buckingham County, Virginia 39.5
Washington County, Mississippi 64.9 Caroline County, Virginia 34.9
Wayne County, Mississippi 38.1 Charles City County, Virginia 55.6
Wilkinson County, Mississippi 68.5 Cumberland County, Virginia 37.8
Winston County, Mississippi 43.4 Essex County, Virginia 39.5
Yalobusha County, Mississippi 38.8 Greensville County, Virginia 59.9
Yazoo County, Mississippi 54.2 Halifax County, Virginia 38.3
Anson County, North Carolina 48.9 King and Queen County, Virginia 36.1
Bertie County, North Carolina 62.6 Lunenburg County, Virginia 39.0
Bladen County, North Carolina 38.2 Mecklenburg County, Virginia 39.3
Caswell County, North Carolina 36.8 Northampton County, Virginia 43.5
Chowan County, North Carolina 37.8 Nottoway County, Virginia 40.9
Gates County, North Carolina 39.6 Prince Edward County, Virginia 36.2
Granville County, North Carolina 35.3 Southampton County, Virginia 43.1
Greene County, North Carolina 41.5 Surry County, Virginia 52.1
Halifax County, North Carolina 52.9 Sussex County, Virginia 62.6
Hertford County, North Carolina 60.0 Emporia City, Virginia 56.4
Jones County, North Carolina 36.2 Franklin City, Virginia 52.8
Table 2. Rural Minority Native American Counties
County/State Native American Population County/State Native American Population
(Percent) (Percent)
Bethel Census Area, Alaska 85.2 Rolette County, North Dakota 74.2
Dillingham Census Area, Alaska 75.2 Sioux County, North Dakota 85.4
Nome Census Area, Alaska 78.5 Adair County, Oklahoma 45.9
North Slope Borough, Alaska 73.2 Bennett County, South Dakota 55.6
Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchika, Alaska 41.7 Buffalo County, South Dakota 83.0
Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska 94.9 Corson County, South Dakota 61.8
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska 73.8 Dewey County, South Dakota 75.2
Apache County, Arizona 78.0 Jackson County, South Dakota 48.7
Navajo County, Arizona 48.7 Mellette County, South Dakota 53.8
Big Horn County, Montana 61.4 Shannon County, South Dakota 95.1
Glacier County, Montana 63.3 Todd County, South Dakota 86.8
Roosevelt County, Montana 57.2 Ziebach County, South Dakota 73.1
Thurston County, Nebraska 52.7 San Juan County, Utah 56.5
McKinley County, New Mexico 76.7 Menominee County, Wisconsin 87.9
Robeson County, North Carolina 38.6
Housing Assistance Council
2004 Board of Directors 2004 Research Advisory Panel
■ Gideon Anders, National Housing Law Project, California ■ Calvin Beale, USDA Economic Research Service
■ Harry J. Bowie, Delta Foundation, Inc., Mississippi ■ Osvaldo Cardoza, University of Texas, Pan American
■ Peter Carey, Self-Help Enterprises, Inc., California ■ Peter Carey, Self Help Enterprises
■ Amancio Chapa, Jr., La Joya High School, Texas ■ Cushing Dolbeare, Housing & Public Policy Consultant
■ Joe Debro, Trans Bay Engineering & Builders, California ■ Chuck Fluharty, Rural Policy Research Institute
■ Cushing Dolbeare, Housing & Public Policy Consultant, ■ Bob Gray, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Maryland Development
■ Sandra Ferniza, Arizona State University, Arizona ■ James H. Carr, Fannie Mae Foundation
■ John Foster, E.B. Advance, P.C., Ohio ■ Karen Hill, Housing and Consumer Education Consultant
■ Scott C. Fergus, Key Bridge Group, Inc., Wisconsin ■ George McCarthy, Ford Foundation
■ Ninfa R. Gutierrez, Providence Medical Center, Healthy ■ Morton J. Schussheim, Library of Congress
Communities Alliance, Washington ■ Scott Loveridge, Michigan State University
■ Lenin Juarez, Action Gypsum Supply, Texas ■ Kris Rengert, Fannie Mae Foundation
■ Lewis Kellom, Homes in Partnership, Florida ■ Nicolas Retsinas, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard
■ Richard Lincoln, Irgens Development Partners, LLC, Wisconsin University
■ Dave Lollis, Kentucky ■ Michael Stegman, University of North Carolina
■ Arturo Lopez, Coalition of Florida Farmworker Organizations, ■ Peggy Wright, ASU-Delta Studies Center
Florida ■ Ann Ziebarth, University of Minnesota
■ 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
HAC Offices
National Office
1025 Vermont Ave., N.W.
Suite 606
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel.: 202-842-8600
Fax: 202-347-3441
Email: hac@ruralhome.org
Western Office
131 Camino Alto
Suite D
Mill Valley, Calif. 94941
Tel.: 415-381-1706
Fax: 415-381-0801
E-mail:susan@ruralhome.org
Midwest Office
10920 Ambassador Dr.
Suite 220
Kansas City, MO 64153
Tel.: 816-880-0400
Fax: 816-880-0500
E-mail:midwest@ruralhome.org
Southeast Office
615 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 1130
Atlanta, Ga. 30308
Tel.: 404-892-4824
Fax: 404-892-1204
E-mail:southeast@ruralhome.org
Southwest Office
3939 San Pedro, N.E.
Suite C-7
Albuquerque, N.M. 87110
Tel.: 505-883-1003
Fax: 505-883-1005
E-mail:southwest@ruralhome.org
ISBN 1-58064-133-4