Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
23. 2016 Community Investment Budget - Questions and Responses with Addenda
�S°UT$B ��° •� Department of U C a' Community Investment 1865 Memorandum Monday, September 28, 2015 TO: South Bend Common Council Members FROM: Scott Ford SUBJECT: Response to Council Inquiries on the Proposed 2016 DCI Budget Questions have been grouped according to common theme /content and responses are included below in italicized font. I. Overall Community Investment Budget 1. What are the metrics used for measuring success in addressing challenges currently and in 2016 for each of the programs listed on Slide # 72 and what are the specific goals for each of these programs in 2016ddressing: • Planning • Neighborhood Engagement • Administration & Finance • Business Development • Economic Resources The Departments' organization reflects the inherently interdisciplinary nature of urban development - that is, that progress in terms of job creation, neighborhood stabilization, housing and other efforts are approached in context with one another rather than separately. Our top -line metrics reflect the coordination between various teams in the department. Job creation, growing the City' assessed value through new private investment and addressing the excessive blight were three top goals shared by the Administration and Council. Consequently our key performance indicators have been: 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574- 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV • Announced jobs from approved projects: The annual target for job creation is 450 which equates to roughly 1 percent of the labor force. In 2014, the total number announced was 1364 and thus far in 2015 the figure is 619. • Commercial private investment from approved projects: The annual target is $100M which is slightly more than 2 percent of the City's total assessed value. In 2014, $180M of private investment was announced and thus far in 2015 the figure is $99.9M. • Properties addressed as part of the 1000 parcels/ 1000 days: This was a project - specific figure that tracked the progress towards the goal. The 1000th property was surpassed in September and the current figure is at 1116. Within any public private partnership or request for incentives, DCI tracks the return on investment for the City, the leverage of each public dollar committed to a project and the years to payback for the total revenues the project will generate for the community. Specific programs track the number of graduates from the workforce development programs, trainees placed in employment, and number of households that receive counseling from the Department's housing counselors. These programs totals are tabulated in the Department's Annual Report, with the 2014 Report attached with this submission. The Department continues to research linkages between direct outputs from the programs and projects and the downstream impact on the overall economy. As was noted in the Budget presentation, the unemployment rate for South Bend has dropped from nearly 12 percent in 2011 to 5.8 percent currently. The City's population has increased very slightly, but still represents a reversal of a forty -year trend. In terms of private investment, per the permit data published by the City /County Building Department, Commercial investment has increased in 2013, 2014 and 2015, with the current $140M of investment made thus far in the City this year nearly eclipsing the combined figure for City /County in 2013. Moreover, there are several data sets that are available at the Metropolitan Statistical Area as well, that give a sense of our regional's economic performance in terms of productivity, employment ratio, median household income, per capita personal income and gross regional GDP and poverty rate. As a region Greater South Bend's MSA exhibits lower productivity (12% lower) and per capita personal income (4.5% lower) but a slightly higher labor force participation rate than the State averages. Increasing productivity through more innovation within current industrial base as well as advancing the skills of the workforce will help to close the gap. 2 2. What are the budget requests for proactively addressing: • Housing concerns • Poverty concerns • Workforce development And how do these requests compare to 2015 amounts highlighting current strengths /weaknesses and proposed changes to effectuate greater success? The neighborhood budget (below in further detail) spells out several activities that are aimed to proactively address housing concerns. Specifically, the items such as the homeowner rehab grant, and the vacant to value grant, provide different paths to stabilizing a property. Programs such as legal assistance can help those interested to purchase a vacant property that is currently tied up in the County's tax sale process. Similarly the workforce development programs are spelled out below. Efforts in late 2015 and 2016 in workforce are going to be geared to matching growing occupational clusters and employers in industries beyond manufacturing, such as health care. In terms of Poverty, the City is in the midst of partnering with Bridges out Poverty to provide a matching grant with their Employee Resource Network program. Via the Emergency Solutions Grants, funded via fund 212, there is support to those agencies that directly serve the homeless. Notably in terms of workforce development has been the extension of thinking about workforce to an earlier stage in career development. Through the RDC, the City matched the South Bend Public School Corporations investment in Project Lead the Way, to introduce a STEM base curriculum in all of the schools within the City limits. This will help to prepare students at an earlier age with the skills necessary to compete in tomorrow's workplace. 3. List by fund name & fund #, the amount of monies proposed to be earmarked from the proposed $51 million budget for • Job growth: - 404 COIT: $350,000 West Side Main Streets Program: Ambassador Program and Faqade Grants for businesses - up to 8 faqade grants if maximum match ($25,000 / 50% of a $50,000 or larger project) is sought for each grant) - 408 EDIT: $530,000 for SJ Chamber of Commerce, DTSB and for title /appraisal work on development projects - 324 -RWDA/ 429 REDA / 430: $14,281,015 for the creation of at least 450 new jobs • Workforce training: - 404 COIT: $165,000 for SMART and Recruitment Skills and Training, goal is to train at least 40 students in SMART. 3 454 UEZ: $50,000 workforce reserve for eligible project • "Placemaking efforts" with a summary of the goals /objective for each, matrix to be used to measure success Please see below in the comments on the Near -West Side /Cemetery Plan, SE Area Plan, and West Side Main Streets initiatives. 4. Provide details of each of the proposed listed items: $8.3 M in Neighborhood Revitalization; $215,000 Workforce Development; and $14.6M Continued Job Growth and Investment including but not limited to goals /objectives; timetable for implementation; matrix to measure success; collaborative partners with such initiatives & comparison of the amount of monies dedicated to such programs in 2015 compared to monies proposed for each in 2016 See answers both above and below for detailed responses. 5. Neighborhoods: Describe current programs /goals and proposed programs /goals for 2016 including matrix used to measure success for residential neighborhoods. What is the current amount of monies earmarked this year, and what is the proposed amount of monies to be earmarked for residential neighborhoods in 2016? Please see the table below: $3,800,000: 212: Federal Program Grants (CDBG, ESG, Shelter + Care, etc.) supporting programs such as Single- family Housing Rehabilitation /Renovation Programs, Public Safety, In -fill New Construction, Emergency Homeless Shelters and Housing Activities, to name a few. Federal Grants are typically made available in 31d Quarter of the calendar year and are allocated locally on the bases of a RFP process in August - October of the prior calendar year. $4.1M was budgeted in 212 in 2015. $1,027,791: Funds 404, 408, Property Maintenance and acquisition of vacant properties from the County. The existing protocol for the maintenance of BPW owned - parcels is to have Parks maintain them when the Parks crews have the additional capacity. Often this means that BPW parcels may become overgrown /unkempt. In order to address that concern, DCI has proposed a new protocol whereby the property maintenance for 402 BPW properties would be combined with 392 parcels owned by the RDC /RDA, and collectively bid for a maintenance contract that would allow for more accountability and transparency into the maintenance schedule. A significant issue with property maintenance in the neighborhoods is the status of vacant parcels owned by an intendant landlord. In those instances where vacant parcels have not been picked up during the County Commissioner and Tax Sale 4 process, the County has been willing to transfer select parcels to the City for only the cost of transaction. Once within ownership, the City can then ensure property maintenance. $266,250 Fund 408: Vacant to Value Programs: Several programs geared toward addressing both the future use of those parcels that have been cleared as well as to help support those who may be challenged financial circumstances maintain their home. The tool libraries are still being developed but are a nationally recognized best practice to enable neighbors to help spot maintenance on those parcels that are vacant and may have an unresponsive owner. Similarly, grant assistance for side -lot programs, homeowner rehabilitation, and continuation of the vacant to value grant. Further, a pilot program is being sought to help cover legal assistance to those who are seeking to purchase a vacant house through the tax sale process. $500,000: COIT: Vacant and Abandoned Properties - funding for some selected demolitions in 2016. Code Department does not have independent funding for demolitions and thus, in those instances when a vacant and abandoned property needs to be demolished, these funds can be used. Funds could coverer several commercial buildings or up to 10 residential properties. - $1,500,000 Fund 324 RWDA: SE Plan: http:/ /www.ci. south - bend.in.us /government/ content /southeast- neighborhood- master -plan The City of South Bend, in conjunction with consultant MGLM Architects and non - profit 466 Works, is in the process of developing a Southeast Neighborhood Master Plan. The purpose of the Master Plan is to develop strategies for the revitalization of the Southeast Neighborhood (bound by Sample St. to the north, Miami St. to the east, Ewing Ave. to the south, and Michigan St. to the west). The TIF funds will be used for streetscape work at the intersection of Fellows and Dubail to support new civic and commercial amenities. $1,350,000 Fund 324 RWDA, 404, EDIT: West Side Main Streets: Continuation of the Ambassador program along the key commercial nodes of Lincolnway West and Western Avenue. Continued support for the fapade grant program as well as funding for property maintenance to support streetscape improvements. Streetscape and lighting improvements for a node along Lincolnway West. 5 2. Slide # 83: It was mentioned that $2.3 million is proposed to be reduced from EDIT and COIT in 2016. List the projects currently being funded by such monies & how they will be addressed in 2016. See table below 0 Art /Culture Studebaker Museum COIT 255,938 263,240 Workforce Recruitment, Retention & Skills Training COIT 95,000 95,000 Workforce SMART COIT 70,000 70,000 Corridors Facade Grants COIT 100,000 200,000 Corridors Property Maintenance COIT 103,500 55,000 Corridors Ambassador Program COIT 110,000 150,000 Neighborhood Commissioner's Tax Sale property transfers COIT 46,500 95,000 Neighborhood Bus Shelters COIT 100,000 180,000 Corridors Tactical Urbanism Support COIT 10,000 0 V &A Various programs COIT 1,950,000 0 Regional Econ. Dev. DTSB EDIT 315,000 315,000 Regional Econ. Dev. St. Joseph County Chamber of Commerce EDIT 115,000 115,000 Regional Econ. Dev. Department Administrative Support EDIT 1,967,638 1,967,638 V &A Resident Tax /Comm Cert Sale Legal Assistance EDIT 0 66,250 Neighborhood Neighborhood Resources Connection EDIT 0 12,500 Neighborhood NNRO Support EDIT 75,000 75,000 V &A Side Lot Grants EDIT 0 50,000 V &A Targeted Homeowner Rehab EDIT 0 50,000 V &A Tool Libraries EDIT 0 20,000 V &A Vacant Lot Competition EDIT 0 50,000 V &A Vacant to Value Repair Grant EDIT 0 30,000 Neighborhood Historic Preservation EDIT 25,000 25,000 V &A Property Maintenance /Holding Costs EDIT 0 125,000 V &A Property Acquisition EDIT 0 197,500 Neighborhood Property Maintenance EDIT 580,000 960,490 V &A Demolition EDIT 0 500,000 Regional Econ. Dev. Diversity Skills Training EDIT 50,000 0 Neighborhood Marketing Materials EDIT 25,000 0 Remediation Ignition Park Soils Loss Recovery 0 350,000 V &A Various programs Loss Recovery 1,050,000 0 Corridors Alley Improvements Major Moves 30,000 0 Corridors LWW & MLK Roundabout Engineering Major Moves 350,000 0 Smart Streets Main & Michigan Signals /Striping Major Moves 250,000 0 Smart Streets Michigan Street Extension Major Moves 100,000 0 Smart Streets St. Joseph & Western Roundabout Major Moves 400,000 0 Smart Streets St. Joseph Street ReStriping & Signals Major Moves 200,000 0 8,373,576 6,017,618 7 II. Redevelopment- Commission Controlled Funds The Common Council recognizes that the Redevelopment Commission has final authority over the funds summarized in the 60 -page handout dated August 31, 2015. However in the interest of transparency and collaboration, updates to the following would be appreciated - page 6: In 2015, $195,154 is budgeted for Legal; $766,884 is budgeted for Engineering; and $5,031,782 is budgeted for "Other Prof Services ". What services are included in the last category? These funds are set aside for a myriad of projects, the largest of which are delineated: $4,380,000 or 87% of the $5,031,782 is for remediation for the Renaissance District project; $262,716 (5.2 %) is for Project Lead the Way with the SBCSC; $61,904 (1.2 %) is for Memorial Hospital Campus design work; $43,344 (0.8 %) is for engineering services from BPW; $37,500 (0.7 %) is for the Southeast Master Plan; $35,540 (1.7 %) is for Ignition Park Signage; $27,419 (0.5 %) and $27,419 (0.5 %) for contracted services with Ann Kolata. That leaves about 3.78% for use on smaller items like appraisals, design services, re- plattings, etc. across a wide spectrum of other projects within the River West TIF. III. Property Maintenance 1. Property Maintenance: What is the current number of properties maintained by Cl; what are the conditions of such properties; how long has Cl had control over each property; what are all of the funding sources being utilized by dollar amount and type in 2015 and proposed in 2016? [Provide greater details of topic addressed on Slide # 86] Property management was an ongoing City concern in 2015. DCI requested to pick up maintenance of all BPW properties in 2016 along with maintaining all RDC properties. The bulk of the 2016 budget will be used for tree maintenance and mowing. This increase in scope and budget is an attempt to assert quality control over the maintenance of municipal properties by seeking private sector assurances through competitive contracting 2015 Budget: $580,000 /Source COIT / RDC 392 properties 1. DTSB Beatification 2. Commission Properties Mowed 3. Commission properties Snow Removal 4. Commission Property Utilities and repairs 5. Title work/ property appraisals 8 2016 Budget $1,027,791 / Sources: COIT & EDIT: RDC & BPW 800 properties 1. DTSB Beatification 2. Commission Properties Mowed 3. Commission properties Snow Removal 4. Commission Property Utilities and repairs 5. Title Work/ property appraisals 6. Downtown / Corridor Tree Care 7. Furniture/ Misc. Repair 2. Slide # 73: Provide a listing by name and address of the $230 million of private investment mentioned taking place in the first half of 2015 and a listing by street address of the 59 properties disposed of by the City this year During the last three (3) years, the City of South Bend has disposed of fifty -nine (59) properties. The Building Department publicizes each month a report that includes the entity seeking the permit and project name, the contractor and the amount of investment. The 2016 reports can be found at the following site: http:/ /www.stiosephcouniyindiana.com/ departments /Building/index.htm A print out of the most recent valuation report, for the month of August, has been printed and is included following the response. A total of thirty -nine (39) of these properties generated $3,780,923.30 in sales revenue to the City, which resulted in an assessed value of $8,347,926.00 and generates $298,412.98 additional annual property taxes. Nine (9) of these properties have not yet been assessed, which when assessed will generate additional tax revenue within the next year. Eleven (11) tax exempt properties were donated to not - for - profit organizations, such as Ivy Tech Community College of South Bend and Career Academy of South Bend, Inc., for development and land improvement. IV. Vacant and Abandoned 1. Vacant and Abandoned: Provide the most recent map of all V & A properties. What is proposed in 2016 for in -fill housing including but not limited to the amount of $ proposed [identified by Fund # and type of fund] to address this need? Please see attached Map showing all V &A properties We will be working with the St. Joseph County Housing Consortium for specific in -fill housing projects and anticipate they will fund construction of 2 new homes. This is not part of the City budget. Our fund 212 programs do not allow new construction, We N are also aware of a proposed low income housing tax credit project on Portage Avenue which will renovate on old distribution facility into apartments. 2. Fapade Grants for Residential Properties: What fapade grants for residential properties are available this year and what has been their success? What improvements are proposed to increase the fapade grants for residential properties in 2016? In 2016, what is the amount of monies proposed for such fapade grants [list fund # and fund name]; criteria; priorities; matrixto measure success? What residential neighborhoods are or should be under consideration and what outreach is planned by CI with the SBCC this year on developing fapade grant programs for residential properties? There are no residential fapade grants available at this time however such a program is being proposed for 2016. Grants that are available currently include those for homeowner rehab through the South Bend Home Improvement Program which focuses primarily on safety issues and those items that keep a house in good working order: roofs /furnaces etc.; and the V &A Repair grant program for applicants that gain ownership of a V &A home. The V &A Repair grant can cover both interior and exterior repairs. In 2016 the homeowner rehabilitation /fapade grant program is proposed at approximately $50,000 for 2016. Guidelines to include an application and timeframe are being drafted. 3. Properties by Schools: Provide a listing of V & A properties addressed by the name of each school. What is proposed in 2016 to address these properties including but not limited to the amount of $ proposed [identified by Fund # and type of fund]? What discussions have taken place this year with anyone from the SBCSC and what are their suggestions /recommendations /goals? What are the goals of Cl in 2016 to encourage SBCSC be a team player on addressing community goals for development? Please see the attached list which was generated on the basis of a 300 ft radius from school properties. Discussions with the SBCSC have not taken place in terms of planned infill adjacent to the schools. DCI is currently evaluating the entire geography of areas most directly impacted by vacant and abandoned to identify specific recommendations for infill housing. Furthermore, the NNN has noted interest and pursued properties across from Muessel for future development - but with no noted timeframe. 10 4. Under - Employed and Homeless: What programs are proposed by CI in 2016 to incorporate V & A properties and /or other properties into a proactive program to assist under - employed and /or homeless individuals /families? What collaboration is currently going on addressing this topic; with whom; especially in light of the local poverty rate? What outreach programs are currently in place and what improvements are being made for such programs in 2016? How many homeless are coming from out of county this year? DCI is currently leading no such initiatives but taking the lead from Council sponsors with the current youth maintenance program being proposed. DCI staff have been working on a collaborative effort with SBHF, Oaklawn, the United Way, Indiana Health Center and Memorial- Beacon to pursue the development of FUSE housing that would be a residential facility for the chronically homeless with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The complex will have 24 -36 units and is anticipated to be submitted to the State as part of a LIHTC project in November 2015. 5. Under - Employed and Homeless Veterans: What programs are currently in place; how much is currently budgeted by fund #, fund name and amount this year and what is proposed in 2016? What collaboration has taken place this year with Kevin Kelsheimer, St. Joseph County Veterans Service Office and the Robert L. Miller Sr. Veteran's Center specifically addressing under - employed and homeless veterans and what is planned to enhance such collaboration with them and other organizations in 2016? DCI involvement on the topic of Homeless Veterans occurs within the framework of the Continuum of Care (CoC) where the City has supported the Center for the Homeless. Vacant and abandoned properties have not been a part of recent discussions. The Center for the Homeless will be opening the Miller Center for Homeless Veterans this fall. Moreover, Deputy Chief of Staff Brian Pawlowski is leading the effort for City Participation on the program Veterans Care Connections which focuses on reintegration and referral services for veterans in our community. Lastly the City is working with Mishawaka, TRANSPO, and the Veterans Administration to ensure ready access to the facility once it is developed. 6. What data does Cl have on the "need for rental units" which were mentioned? What is the current occupancy rate of rentals city -wide; what are the numbers regarding waiting lists city -wide for current apartment complexes? The link to the full housing study commissioned in late 2013 can be found at; 11 http:/ /south bendin.gov /sites /default /files /files /CI DowntownSouth Bend Residentia I Ma rketPotentia 10. pdf In addition to the recent announcement that Notre Dame will be demolishing two of three Graduate student housing dorms the following snippets from the study may sufficiently address the question; Based on projected market capture rates, a total of 500 dwelling units developed within the Downtown, in a mix of 322 rental apartments, 69 condominiums, and 109 townhouses, could be absorbed in less than five years. As development in the Downtown is planned and actual unit yield determined, the appropriate proportions of housing types should be maintained as closely as possible. Nearly 77 percent of South Bend's estimated 46,055 housing units are single - family detached houses; just 2.4 percent are single - family attached (rowhouses or townhouses); 3.3 percent are in two -unit buildings; nearly 11 percent are located in buildings of three to 19 units; and 6.3 percent are in buildings containing 20 or more units. Just under 40 percent of the city's households are renters; just over 60 percent own their units, a share that is higher than in most American cities. Eleven market -rate and income - restricted properties located in or near Downtown South Bend or near the University of Notre Dame have been included in the rental survey. (See also Table 6 at the end of this section.) Only three of the properties - Marmain, Northside Terrace, and Robertson's Apartments —are leasing studio units (efficiencies). Three of the properties are leasing just one- and two- bedroom apartments; the remainder include a mix of one- to three - bedroom flats and townhouses. The highest rent values currently being achieved in the South Bend market area are at the Foundry Lofts, the residential rental component of Eddy Street Commons, a mixed -use development located directly across from the University, rents range between $1,585 to $3,450 per month for one- to three - bedroom apartments containing between 625 and 1,528 square feet ($1.55 to $2.98 per square foot). In addition to the extensive retail located on the ground floor of the buildings, community amenities include a business center, fitness center, a rooftop deck, and a concierge. Rents at the Irish Row Student Apartments are also high, both on a combined and a per - person basis, and include furniture. One- bedroom apartments, ranging in size between 615 and 825 square feet, lease for $895 to $995 per month based on single - occupancy. Two - bedroom apartments, also containing 815 square feet, lease for $758 per student, or $1,516 per month for two students. Three - bedroom /three -bath apartments, with over 1,000 square feet of living space, rent for $749 per person, or $2,247 per month. There are also four - bedroom /four- and -a -half bath townho uses, ranging in size from 1,020 to 1,200 square feet, that lease for $862 per person, or $3,448 per month. Community amenities include a fitness center, student lounge, and tanning beds. At the nine remaining properties covered in the survey, 12 rents for studios currently range from $415 to $500 a month for units containing from 400 to 575 square feet. Nearly all of the rental properties included in the survey are at or above functional full occupancy (less than five percent vacant units). 7. Department of Community Investment Budget Pages 35 -6: Was the "$216,000 donation from Urban Enterprise Association for the City's Vacant and Abandoned Initiative" a one -time occurrence or are there any other donations for other projects? Provide more details on the "public art" project noted in this same notation and proposed locations for such displays. The UEA made a 3 year commitment, if needed, towards the demolition costs of V &A properties in the Zone and /or close to its boundaries. The first year was $150,000 and the 2nd year is the $216,000. Public Art refers to opportunity to beautify South Bend and celebrate the community's heritage and support tourism through the addition of art installations exhibited in prominent locations, some of the sites will be created through the upcoming streetscape projects. The locations have not been finalized, nor have the artworks been selected, rather this budget line item is being created to provide an opportunity to receive the external grant funds or donations that may be received in support of the project once the details are finalized and shared with the public. DCI staff are working on an NEA grant as one means to attract funding for the effort. V. Parking Garages: 1. Downtown Street Parkin: What is the current number of central business district parking spaces? In light of ongoing safety concerns, what would the number of parking spaces be if selected areas were changed to diagonal parking? What is the time line for such needed changes? Central Business District Parking: 6,397 total parking spaces: • 2,942 Public • 3,455 Private There are 773 on street spaces available downtown. On Michigan Street between Colfax and Western there are 134 parking spaces. If those perpendicular spaces were converted to diagonal, the number of available spaces would be reduced by 42 spaces. Given the significant loss in spaces, the plan is to remain with the existing perpendicular configuration for the time - being. 2. Slide # 88 Parking Garages: It was mentioned that Major Moves $ is being used /loaned. What is the loan payback term, amount of interest and amount of each 13 loan? Are the amounts of 232,695 and 17,305 on Slide # 100 the only outstanding loans from Major Moves for parking garages? Yes, this is the only loan outstanding to major moves from the parking garage fund. The repayment term is 6 yrs. 3. Parking Garages - 601 Budget page 91: The footnote states in part that another downtown parking study is being conducted. What is the timeline for its completion? What is its cost and how is it being funded? What criteria are being used to determine whether a garage parking rate increase will be needed? Parking study public meetings should begin in October/ November of 2015. The study cost the City $41,000. 4. Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 95: Daily Parking - Main Street revenue has decreased from 2013 amounts and no increase is projected from current 2015 amount? Explain. Daily parking revenues will naturally drop as more of the garage spaces are leased on a monthly basis. Since rates are not projected to increase and spaces will not increase no increase in revenue is expected for this line item. Furthermore, we budget conservatively and base the figures off of a three year average. 5. Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 95: Monthly Parking - Main Street revenue is proposed to decrease from 2015 amount of 187,564 to 2016 projected to be 172,164? Explain. When the 2015 budget was put together, we had intended to move forward with a parking garage rate increase so had increased proposed revenues. Those increases did not proceed and we have not yet determined that a rate increase for 2016 would be appropriate. Furthermore, 2015 projections were forecasted on an earlier timeline for the LaSalle Hotel redevelopment. It was anticipated that most of the LaSalle Hotel lot parkers would transition to the Main Street Garage. This not materialize and some of the parkers substituted other lots in lieu of the Main Street Garage. Moreover, the City has relocated several staff parking spaces from the Garage to other City owned surface lots to create more available spaces for the private market. 6. Parkin Garages - 601 Budget Page 95: Special Event - Main Street revenue has decreased from 2013 amounts and no increase is projected from current 2015 14 amount? In light of the increase in special event activities taking place, why is there not a projected increase in 2016? This is likely due to the fact that special events take place after business hours parking garages are free to parking from 6 pm to 6 am. Garages are free on nights and weekends, but in the Main Street Garage during special events at the Morris. While special events throughout the City are increasing, these are not necessarily the types of events that call for paid parking in the garages. Historically special event parking rates are only enacted during shows at the Morris PAC. 2013 was a particularly successful year for special event parking, primarily due to the 2 week run of Wicked at the Morris PAC. Revenue projections for 2015 are based on a 3 year average. 7. 16. Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 96: Daily Parking - Leighton Plaza revenue has decreased from 2014 amounts and no increase is projected from current 2015 amount? Explain. Daily parking revenues will naturally drop as more of the garage spaces are leased on a monthly basis. Since rates are not projected to increase and spaces will not increase no increase in revenue is expected for this line item. The Leighton Garage is nearly entirely occupied by monthly parkers, leaving little room for daily parkers. Also, for items that vary sporadically, we tend to budget conservatively - basing the new number off of a 3 year average. There will be no price increase for daily parking either. 8. 17. Parkin Garages - 601 Budget Pa e 96: Leighton Plaza: Why is there no special event revenue projected in 2016 and why has the Key Card income decrease from 2013 levels? Leighton has not had any special event revenue in 2014 nor thus far in 2015 so we do not anticipate any in 2016 either. The Leighton Garage is only staffed for special events on rare occasions, perhaps when there are back to back shows at the Morris (an early and a late show, that overlap with traffic flow). It is rare that this garage would see any consistent special event revenue. Key Cards should seldom be realized as revenue. This is essentially a deposit made when someone signs up for a new account and gains an access card. They're given this deposit back when they turn their card back in after unsubscribe. The garage is essentially full, so we expect this number to remain fairly low. 9. Enforcement - Budget Page 97: Why is "handicap parkin" projected to be "0" in 2016 when year to date for 2015 is "1,385 "? Under the ADA, shouldn't this be listed as "disabled parking "? 15 The amount is not necessarily an amount we feel comfortable counting on. We can always receive more money without problem, but if we budget too high and do not receive the income, it could cause shortfalls. We will look at the possibility to change the name of this line item. 10.Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 97 : Why are Fines and Fees projected to be $114,900 - the identical amount as 2015? Who does parking enforcement in each of the parking garages? Are all such fines and fees paid through the Ordinance Violations Bureau (OVB)? We do not necessarily expect to see increase in fines and fees on an annual basis as it is not set up to be a revenue generator, but rather an incentive to find more suitable long -term parking options. It is difficult for the administrators to estimate revenue since once they write the ticket, they have no further responsibility for collection, etc. That responsibility rests with the City Legal Department. 11.Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 98: Wayne Street Why is "Daily Parking" proposed at the exact amount as 2015? Why is "Monthly Parking" being reduced from the 2015 original budget of 250,248 to 2016 proposed budget 229,248? Daily parking revenues will naturally drop as more of the garage spaces are leased on a monthly basis. Since rates are not projected to increase and spaces will not increase no increase in revenue is expected for this line item. When the 2015 budget was put together, we had intended to move forward with a parking garage rate increase so had increased proposed revenues. Those increases did not proceed and we have not yet determined that a rate increase for 2016 would be appropriate. 12.Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 99: Eddy Street Commons Why is the 2016 proposed budget identical to 2015 of 15,900? Who establishes the parking spot fees of $50/$250 and RV spot $120 for UND football parking and what amount /% of that revenue is shared with the city? Who does parking enforcement at this garage? All revenue from the on- street parking fines comes to the City. Kite can submit claims against the revenue as long as they have documentation of the costs. However, their claim cannot exceed the revenues generated. We believe the parking spot fees of $50/$250 or $120 for RV spots you describe are set by the University of Notre Dame because they are on their property. Kite does enforcement of the garage and that is not reflected here. 16 13. Parking Garages - 601 Budget Page 101: Main Street How is the "other professional services" amount determined year to year for this garage at 143,118 projected in 2016; for Leighton Plaza on page 102 projected to be 243,745 in 2016; and for Wayne Street on page 104 projected to be 127,156 in 2016? These line items reflect the cost of running the various garages. This is the amount charged by DTSB based on the time and expenses of each garage. This line item reflects the entire operating budget for each garage, including utility costs, general repairs and maintenance, cleaning, security, elevator operations, snow plowing, equipment, bookkeeping and account management, insurance, permits, labor, and management fees. 14. Parking Enforcement: Why do the street level parking enforcers check in with Ordinance Violations Bureau in the am and pm? Is this part of a check and balance system, and if so what documentation is produced to reflect such efficiencies? Is there a more effective use of the time for each of those individuals for the time it takes to check in and out with OVB each day? This is a recognized inconvenience by the DTSB Ambassadors but appears to be necessary. The hand -held computers used by the enforcement ambassadors need to be uploaded into the City's collections database at the end of each day. After the Clerk's Office has transferred the data into their system, their office plugs the machines into a charge overnight. The ambassadors then come to retrieve them the following morning. VI. Workforce 1. Provide additional information on the proposed Workforce Fair being considered addressing: when, who are the entities being collaborated with [unions, trades, chambers, MBE /WBE, SBCC, etc] who will be overseeing this project, who will be in charge of publicity, website /social media announcements, etc. These discussions are in the initial phases with Workone who will lead the effort. This wasn't recently discovered as a best practice in other communities and we are hoping to bring to the community in 2016. Potential partners are Workone, Goodwill, NAACP, all training providers, local churches /clergy, Ducomb Center and any other community organization or employer who can add value through marketing, outreach and recruitment. 2. What local data does Cl or the City have on transportation and child care issues which were mentioned as concerns for those seeking employment? 17 The 2015 Indiana Community Needs Assessment (attached). The report cites a recent survey that concluded that 20 percent of Community Action Agencies throughout the State did not have access to reliable transportation. Moreover, mobility and access to transportation issues were cited throughout the document as a key barrier to employment opportunities. The report also cites childcare as a significant barrier to employment. The Report's Map 2 cites "No Transportation" as the top barrier to employment within our region. Moreover, per the US Census 2013 estimates (the most recent data available), single parent families with children under the age of 18 at home represent approximately 15% of all households in the City. VII. Diversity 1. Describe in detail how Cl is working with MBE /WBE Diversity Board in reaching out to smaller minority -owned businesses who are attempting to bid on City projects. What is the success rate this year and what are the goals for 2016? See in several answers below. Also working with City Legal staff to obtain local results from the State of Indiana on information regarding barriers to market entry for MBE /WBE that are specific to St. Joseph County. 2. Is Cl working with other City Departments so that current and future public works bid documents will not drafted /bundled so that smaller minority -owned businesses have an opportunity to participate? Describe these efforts. Yes- Cl is working via DUB members to review existing regulations and find new ways to broaden the field of the existing vendor basis. City Legal is taking the lead on this effort and will be developing some guidelines based on best practices in other communities for how to advance inclusion goals. One such example is to broaden the range of acceptable certifications for WBE /MBE's. 3. What actions has the City taken to educate the majority owned businesses for about WBE / MBE businesses? The Ordinance on Diversity Purchasing calls for the inclusion of business in the sourcing, quoting or bidding processes. Actions taken; a. Public Works bids include a section requiring contractors to award MWBE business a portion of the contract, or prove good faith efforts. A vendor orientation program was coordinated by Public works in spring of 2015. b. The same subject is covered in Public Works pre -bid meetings. 18 c. The Diversity Utilization Board has hosted Outreach programs to familiarize the vendors with these actions. 4. What actions has the City taken to educate WBE / MBE businesses about opportunities? a. Public Works bids include a section requiring contractors to award MWBE business a portion of the contract, or prove good faith efforts. b. All Departments thru their fiscal officers are tracking the inclusion of MWBE businesses on their sourcing and acquisition of goods and services. This is reported twice a year to the Diversity Utilization Board. c. The Diversity Utilization Board acts as a conduit to the respective MWBE groups concerning opportunities. d. Open door /phone policy to the City's purchasing Office to introduce them to the appropriate departments. 5. What actions has the City taken to educate WBE / MBE businesses about general business principles? a. An outreach program was hosted by the city (18 months ago) to teach the principles of City Bidding using the curb and sidewalk program. b. The Diversity Utilization Board and the City works with the local SCORE organization to promote SCORE as a mentorship program. The City has supported and underwritten the St Mary's annual meetings with MWBE businesses to introduce them to certification programs (IDOA) and other related support organizations. VIII. Smart Streets Implementation 1. Summarize the ramp -up discussions /public outreach taking place on the Main and Michigan Street projects. - MOT conversations with key institutions and employers - Guiding principles (3) for the MOT - Initial Presentation to DTSB RAS Group - Oct -Dec: Outreach Effort /multi -media 19 IX. Personnel 1. Department of Community Investment Budget Page 4: Provide a current job descriptions and the proposed new job descriptions for the "Assistant Executive Director and Director II" positions which are proposed to have increases "based on high level of success ". Please see attached the position descriptions for Assistant Executive Director and Director II's. X. Misc 1. Hall of Fame Capital - 677, Page 65: Are there any other expenditures besides the air conditioning repairs for which the City is responsible? Confirm the timeline for the hotel project and projected date of its grand opening? What is the status of the remaining Hall of Fame artifacts - removed, inventoried & stored off -site? As of date of closing (January 2016) the city will no longer be responsible for any expenses other than the maintenance of the HVAC systems for 36 months and the ongoing maintenance of the publically owned tunnel connected to the Century Center. The anticipated completion date for the hotel and building renovations is June 2017 The remaining memorabilia left in the building was sold with the building as the owner plans to utilize as decoration throughout the new complex. 2. Non - Profit Organizations: It was mentioned that there is a large number of `Mission Driven" non -tax paying organizations operating in the City. Please share the statistical information Cl has on the # of such organizations; including Cls recommendations on how each of these organizations may have a greater involvement in contributing to the civic needs as part of the ongoing development of South Bend. Please see the attached report entitled, "Indiana Non - Profits: Scope and Dimensions: South Bend Non Profits" by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. 3. MACOG: What collaborative efforts have been made by Cl this year with MACOG on addressing transportation planning, transit planning, freight planning, economic development and how has Cl invited public participation in such activities this year? What is proposed in 2016? There is a strong degree of coordination between DCI and MACOG. DCI staff is the City's Representative on MACOG's TTAC (Transportation Technical Advisory Committee) In addition to attending the regular Stakeholder Meetings held by MACOG, DCI members also played a key role in the development of the Regional Cities Initiative and worked 20 with MACOG, which serves as staff to the newly formed Regional Development Authority. DCI members participated in MACOG's update of its long range transportation plan, providing key inputs on current and anticipated infrastructure projects. Moreover, DCI often works in tandem with the City's Engineering Department in the funding and coordination of projects such as the Safe Routes to Schools program. In that particular instance, DCI provided $502,000 in funds via the River West Development Area and the River East Development Area as the local match for the Federal funds administered by MACOG. 4. Annexation Policy and Plan: What updates have been made to the 67 -page "Annexation Policy and Plan for City of South Bend" of November 1992? What are the short -term and long -term goals /objectives? What discussions have taken place with APC staff /commission /Z & A Committee? No updates have been made to the 1992 Annexation Policy and Plan. The document is more of an analysis of potential annexation areas and a set of annexation principles rather than goals or a list of intended annexations on a set schedule. As such, the document, which is revisited from time to time, remains relevant and the basis for the City's annexation program. Given a 20 -year history of changes in state law that make involuntary annexations difficult and limit the property tax revenue potentially realized through annexation, the City's policy has been to annex onlythough a voluntary process initiated bythe property owner. Thus, discussions with APC Staff, Commission, and the Zoning & Annexation Committee have been limited to those situations where a property owner is exploring annexation. 5. Foreign Trade Zone: What current measures does Cl have to further promote /market FTZ 125 South Bend operated at 1507 South Olive Street? With the St. Joseph County Airport Authority being the grantee, what collaborative efforts have been made by Cl this year, and what goals /objectives are planned in 2016? Are there any additional subzones planned in the near future to join 125D ASA Electronics, LLC and 125E Thor Industries, Inc.? What have Cl and the Chambers done this year and proposed in 2016 to further economic development and address the outdated infrastructure issues? There are no KPI's in place to measure job creation within a specific zone of the City. The FTZ is an attraction tool utilized for companies that require import of parts /raw materials that are a portion of a final product. To date the vast majority of assembly in the region is located in Elkhart County while manufacturing and distribution has been based, and grown, within St. Joseph County with a large density being within the City limits. When conducting business outreach visits DCI staff does discuss location of 21 suppliers as a means of identifying potential attraction clients. In the event a business is looking to expand or relocate and does import parts, we discuss the benefits of the Zone with them. The change in leadership at the airport has allowed for new discussions as to their requirements for approval of new sites and this is one of many tools we have in our toolkit to assist businesses in expanding or locating in South Bend. 6. Why is the Chase Tower not listed among the 2016 Goals & Challenges? What is the current status of getting Chase Tower operational? What is CI doing currently with the new owner and what is the time -line on this project? Chase Tower is under consideration for Tax Abatement and should be under construction through a $30 million effort by the owner by the end of 2015. 22 City of South Bend, Indiana April 2015 .. 1111 n•.I Ili ��,� _ : ' _ � tt _1 l Page 1 2014 ANNUAL REPORT I. Mission Statement: Our mission is to spur investment in a stronger South Bend. We achieve this by: - Attracting and retaining growing businesses; - Connecting residents to economic opportunities; and - Planning for vibrant neighborhoods. II. Department Structure In 2012 the Department of Community and Economic Development was restructured and rebranded as the Department of Community Investment. The new structure is intended to promote an integrated approach to economic development that incorporates a broad array of perspectives and expertise in all of the Department's activities. No new positions were added to the Department, but rather one role, formerly CED Specialist VI was converted into the Assistant Executive Director/ Director of Business Development position. This position was created to be the `single point of contact' to assist businesses in navigating City departments and the processes /procedures related to any issue that may arise with their operation. There were no changes to the Department's organization in 2014. The Department's organizational structure can be illustrated as follows: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART March 2014 SCOTT FORD 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV CHRIS FIELDING I I DIRECTOR OF I DIRECTOR OF DIRECTOROF I I DIRECTOR OF JITIN KAIN PAMELA MEYER ELIZABETH LEONARD INKS CHRIS FIELDING BROCK ZEES CITYWIDE PLANNING GRANTS MANAGEMENT ""'PT o' co—T To ANALYTICS ANNEXATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FINANCE BUSINESSCGMNLNIII HOUSING ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTING NEGOI- E1NCENTnES ADMIN ECON DEV TOOLS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BROWNFIELDS ■ COMMUNITY OUTREACH SUPPORT SERVICES 511E RELOCAIp %lGGtpN CDCS snl.0 1. BI15..1.�tssTaNCE TAX ABATEMENT PROPERTY MANAGMENT 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 2 III. Leadership ap Scott Ford Chris Fielding Executive Director Assistant Executive Director Brock Zeeb Director of Economic Resources Jitin Kain Director of Planning IV. KPI's for 2014: Beth Leonard Inks Director of Admin & Finance Pam Meyer Director of Neighborhood Engagement Key performance indicators to track departmental activity in 2014. 1. Announced Job Creation for approved projects: 1368 (405 of these jobs projected to come online in 2014) 2. Commercial Private Investment: $180,078,262 3. Public investment into private projects $23,384,509 a. Tax Abatement: $4,063,045 b. Redevelopment Commission: $18,230,826 c. IRF $1,090,638 4. Private /Public Ratio for 2014: 7.50 a. 1/7.50 or 13% public investment leveraged 87% private investment in approved projects. 5. Households Assisted via Housing Programs and Counseling: 485 6. Ancillary economic info: a. Unemployment for the City of South Bend dropped from 8.3% in January 2014 to 7.4% in December 2014, nearly a 11% reduction. The number of employed members in the workforce increased from 39,483 to 40,488, an increase of 1,005 jobs while the total labor force remained relatively constant from 43,057 to 43,715. 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 3 V. Top Achievements for 2014: The main achievements of the Department are organized according to Mayor Buttigieg's three top priorities: `Economic Development', `Good Government', and the `Basics are Easy': A. Economic Development: 1. Lippert Components: The former 500,000 square foot AJ Wright Facility, that had been empty since 2011, was the subject of intense competition in a reviving commercial real estate market. In collaboration with the State of Indiana, Bradley Co. and Holladay Properties, the City was able to attract Lippert Components, a division the $2 Billion Drew Industries, to locate in the building. The project will bring at least 380 jobs and $2.3 million in new investment to South Bend's west side. 2. ND Turbomachinery Facility. A six -party collaboration between the University of Notre Dame, the City of South Bend, the State of Indiana, Great Lakes Capital, Indiana & Michigan Power, and General Electric, the ND Turbo will contain some of the most advanced aerospace testing facilities in the world to allow for advanced research and development of new engine components in South Bend. The $33M project will create at least 57 jobs. ND Turbo will be housed in one of two new `Catalylst' Multi- tenant buildings being constructed at Ignition Park, part of a larger 13 acre high -tech campus to be developed by Great Lakes Capital. 3. Nello: One of the largest single job creation projects in recent local history, South Bend based Nello Corp, opted to consolidate its operations in South Bend from Texas and Bremen, Indiana into a new $57M facility that will lead to the creation of 540 jobs by 2023. Nello is a top tier global supplier of utility tower and wireless communication towers. The new facility is currently under construction to the North of the ethanol Plant and was not awarded any Tax Abatements. 4. Noble America's Ethanol Plant: The November 2012 closure of the New Energy Ethanol Plant created a crisis for the community on several fronts. Not only was the Ethanol Plan the single largest revenue source for the City's Wastewater Utility, the closure of the water wells lead to a rise in the water table, which thereby flooded a number of adjacent homes. While the Department of Public Works was able to devise a plan to temporarily operate the pumps to reduce the water table, DCI negotiated with a potential purchaser to purchase and redevelop the facility. In April, 2014 the agreement was executed with Noble America in which Noble has invested $54 million to redevelop the facility where 67 residents are currently employed. Operations began late in 2014 on a limited basis and will continue to ramp up in 2015. 5. Smart Streets: A branding campaign for public right -of -way improvement projects throughout the City of South Bend includes conversion of downtown one -way streets into two -way, streetscape improvements in the East Bank, Corridor enhancements and neighborhood curb, sidewalks and streetlights. Funding for Phase I was approved by Council in 2013 and these projects included the streetscape improvements to East Jefferson Boulevard and the two -way conversion of William and Lafayette Street all of which were complete in 2014. 6. S.M.A.R.T. Workforce: DCI led the effort to assemble a partnership of St. Joseph County stakeholders to effectively address the shortage of skilled labor available to manufacturers. This is an employer -led curriculum model, successfully employed elsewhere in the State, which ensures that participants will develop skills that are immediately relevant for prospective jobs. The cities of South Bend and Mishawaka 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 4 have provided funding for training scholarships, which in turn attracted American Electric Power to add an additional $5,000 to the program. In 2014 the program provided scholarships and training for 25 students, 18 of whom were from South Bend. 15 of the 18 residents have gained employment through the program while the other 3 residents were initially employed and we are working with them to further their skills and place them into new roles. 7. Project Lead the Way: Project Lead the Way (PLTW) is a project based curriculum with a focus on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs for grades ranging from Kindergarten through the 12. A $542,716 grant from the Redevelopment Commission combined with support from the United Way, the St. Joseph Chamber of Commerce, and the South Bend School Corporation, was able cover a critical funding gap to implement the curriculum in all 21 primary and intermediate schools located within the City's boundaries. The curriculum will align well the existing curriculum at New Tech High School, to have a positive impact on over 11,000 students annually. B. Good Government 1. Drucker Playbook for the Public Sector. In 2014, we concluded an 18 month engagement with the Drucker Society in the beta implementation of the Leadership Playbook. The process helped our entire Community Investment team become a mission -drive organization that is more effective at identifying priorities, managing time, setting goals, and communicating both internally and externally. The Playbook received external recognition as one of the "Bright Ideas" in 2014 by the Ash Center of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. 2. Low Income Housing Tax Credit Process: The Department created a common application, process and policy help streamline and clarify the low income housing tax credit application process. With a process in place, we can educate potential developers as the necessary steps and ensure that community engagement has occurred in advance of the application deadlines. 3. TIF Realignment: In 2014, the Department led a significant overhaul of the TIF geography in South Bend. The consolidation of the Airport Economic Development Area and the bi- furcation of the South Bend Central Development Area, as well as the expansion along the length of Lincolnway West and Western Avenue established a funding mechanism for the implementation of the West Side Main Streets Revitalization Plan as well the Smart Streets Initiative. The eastern portion of the South Bend Central Development Area was added to the Northeast Neighborhood Development Area and it was expanded to encompass the Farmer's Market. The new TIF districts were renamed, "River West Development Area" and "River East Development Area ". Details include: i. 665.7 net new acres added to the TIF districts 1. 405 acres (61 %): Westside corridors 2. 142 acres (21 %):East Bank, including the Farmer's Market and Mishawaka Avenue to the IUSB edge 3. 118 acres (18 %) : Sample Street Industrial Zone ii. Releasing $19M of Assessed Value with the closure of the Central Medical Development Area. This will lead to a minor reduction in the tax rate and an additional $311,685 in Circuit Breaker Relief to the City. 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 5 4. West Side Main Streets Revitalization Plan: The West Side Main Streets Plan, completed in summer 2014, is a market -based strategic revitalization plan for Lincolnway West and Western Avenue. The Plan serves as a guide to business and property owners, residents, developers, the City, and others in making investment, land use, and design decisions along these two corridors. The Plan was a model for public engagement, guided by a steering committee of business owners and residents who live along the Corridors, and Plan was formally approved and adopted by the Area Plan Commission and the Common Council. The first phase of implementation (new street trees, road striping and signal changes) were awarded in the fall of 2014 with construction expected to start in the spring of 2015. 5. Sale of Blackthorn Golf Course: Blackthorn Golf course is a privately managed, public course that was built by the Redevelopment Commission for $5.4M in 1992. Over the past few decades, the City has had to subsidize the course by $6.9M with TIF funds to cover the debt service and capital improvements at the Course. Operationally the course has performed well in the past few years and has hosted a LPGA tournament. However, as the management of a golf course is beyond the core competencies of redevelopment, Community Investment staff initiated a disposition process to sell the golf course to a private entity. In doing so, the course will be added to the tax rolls, will no longer draw upon public subsidies, and will have more flexibility to attract additional development at the course, all while maintaining its commitment to being a golf course open to the public. The course will be sold in first quarter 2015 for $1,655,000. C. Basics are Easy 1. Tax Abatement Compliance: With an interest to improve customer service for our economic development partners, staff automated the tax compliance process. Several notices are generated in the spring to streamline the reporting process, petitioners can now file compliance forms electronically to the City and County bodies. Transitioning from postal mail to digital format has simplified reporting, increased customer response and better customer service. 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 6 VI. Summary of Redevelopment Activities by Area South Bend has both redevelopment areas and economic development areas, all governed by the South Bend Redevelopment Commission. In 2014, the City's redevelopment and Economic Development areas underwent boundary changes to incorporate commercial areas primarily along Lincolnway West and Western Avenue. The expansion allowed the city to better align its priorities with funding sources. Redevelopment Areas: Redevelopment areas use acquisition, clearance, and disposition of land and public improvements to reclaim blighted land for new development. Design review sets and maintains high development standards for the reclaimed land. Redevelopment Areas: • River East Development Area • South Side Development Area • West Washington- Chapin Development Area Economic Development Areas: The declaration of an economic development area does not require the finding of blighted conditions, and does not have the right of eminent domain. South Bend currently has two economic development areas. • River West Development Area • Douglas Road Economic Development Area A map of these areas is included in the following page: 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV .J I jf Page 7 Ll - t •- i, -�r _ ! ii+- 11 11tlj�t� -"'i �_t '�iE -t_= ,,t - -�.if �1 I I ;. _ i I I I 1 _, {�\ E � fl E ! •. �} tV r. � � + ., t s � . — "` tti �tt� b I ,i -!! E } \ I 1 LEGEND' South Bend City Limit _ River West Dev Area River East Dev Area NE Residential TIF _ West Washington Chapin Dev Area (_ South Side Dev Area _ Douglas Rd Dev Area 1 � _ t '� —c 3 I 1_I# I f IIf DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT CITY OF SOUTH BEND DECEMBER 2014 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 8 A. River West Development Area (RWDA) Formerly AEDA; includes west side of SBCDA 1. Ignition Park: a. Turbo Machinery facility announced at Ignition Park, a partnership between the City, ND, GE, Great Lakes Capital and IEDC b. Engineering work continued in 2014 for Phase 1B of Ignition Park, adding a northern drive into the Tech Park. Project expected to begin in spring of 2015. c. Continued Ignition Park South acquisitions and demolitions. 2. Renaissance District Environmental Remediation work initiated. 3. Closed on Curtis Products lease of the Bosch property. 4. Appropriated additional funds for the Hill and Colfax mixed use project 5. Change of developer for LaSalle Hotel from Great Lakes to Real America. B. River East Development Area (REDA) Formerly NNDA; includes East side of SBCDA 1. Bidding and award of alley work to support new homes constructed by South Bend Heritage Foundation on Hill St. 2. 5 Points Utility Study moved to engineering phase. C. Douglas Road Economic Development Area (DREDA) D. South Side Development Area (SSDA) 1. Began implementation of Fellows St. drainage work and intersection improvements. Completion in spring of 2015. 2. Planning for additional sidewalk connectivity around the Erskine Commons development. 3. Began engineering work on the Chippewa and Michigan Roundabout. E. West Washington Chapin Development Area (WWCDA) VI I. Tax Abatement The City of South Bend offers a Tax Abatement Program designed to help new and expanding businesses improve real property or acquire new equipment. The program also provides tax abatement for the construction of new residences. Tax abatement provides tax relief to the owner while supporting new development which would not have occurred without public support. The increase in taxes, generated by the new investment, is phased in over a defined number of years. Approvals in 2014 included seven real property tax abatements and seven personal property tax abatements. The abatements contributed towards attracting an expected $88,766,998 of new investment and 612 jobs created with an annual payroll of $20,822,832. IX. Industrial Revolving Loan Fund The Industrial Revolving Loan Fund (IRF) provides low- interest gap financing to help companies in South Bend expand their operations and facilities, and assists start -up companies in the area. In 2014, the Industrial Revolving Fund closed five loans to businesses totaling $1,090,638. Total new private investment was $1,230,000 with 53 jobs created. 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 9 X. Federal Grants for Neighborhood Development The Neighborhood & Community Engagement Team monitors annual federal entitlements to the City of South Bend from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These funds benefit low to moderate income persons and /or eliminate slum and blight. The City conducts an annual application /request for proposal and award processes for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds. The Housing & Community Development Plan (HCD Plan, also sometimes called the Consolidated Plan) explains how and why HUD funding will be used. The HCD Plan requires the community to combine submission of all its HUD funded grants into one document to allow for better coordination of resources. In essence, the HCD Plan is an application for the following HUD grants: Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, and Emergency Shelter Grant. In addition, because the City of South Bend, the City of Mishawaka, and St. Joseph County entered into an Inter -local Government Agreement in 1991 to establish the St. Joseph County Housing Consortium, the three jurisdictions develop the HCD Plan together. Key Federal resource programs include the following: A. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds can be used for a variety of community development opportunities such as providing affordable housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities for individuals and families with incomes below 80 percent of the area median income. CDBG funds can also be used for the elimination of slum and blight. South Bend and Mishawaka each administer their own CDBG entitlement funds. B. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds are used to develop affordable housing opportunities for households with incomes under 80 percent of the area median income. HOME funds are distributed countywide through the St. Joseph County Housing Consortium. C. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program provides homeless persons with basic shelter and essential supportive services. It can assist with operational costs of the shelter facility and for administration of the grant. The key subject areas for grant activities were the following: - Affordable Housing - Housing Counseling - Community Development Facilities - Capacity Building - Homeless /Emergency Assistance Key Activities Affordable Housing: Assistance with housing issues is provided directly though City programs such as the South Bend Home Improvement Program (SBHIP), as well as through various external agencies that produce housing and offer housing services to residents of the community. Activity in 2014 included: A. Home Purchase: 15 first time homebuyers received closing costs and mortgage assistance through the CHC and NNRO Mortgage Investment programs. 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 10 B. Existing Owner - Occupied Home Repairs - 72 households assisted: a. 27 though SBHIP b. 21 through Rebuilding Together (RT) c. 24 through REAL Services C. Acquisition /Rehab /Resale - 8 properties a. South Bend Heritage Foundation Sold: i. 1026 Jefferson ii. 923 W. LaSalle b. Near Northwest Neighborhood sold: i. 1017 California ii. 1023 California iii. 615 Cushing iv. 628 Scott D. Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization sold: a. 1313 Bissell E. New Construction /Sale -8 residences constructed: a. Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization sold: 624 N. Hill Street 630 N. Hill 803 N. Hill 816 N. Hill b. Habitat for Humanity 2123 Irvington 825 Twyckenham 1727 Chapin (Sold) 617 N. Peter F. Special Needs Housing Assistance - 69 individuals assisted: a. Tenant Based Rental assistance to severely mentally ill i. Oaklawn, 5 individuals b. Permanent Supportive Housing Rental Assistance: i. Oaklawn 64 individuals HUD Certified Housing Counseling: The City of South Bend is a HUD certified Housing Counseling Agency. Counseling services as well as assistance under the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network and the Hardest Hit Funds program are available to eligible individuals. Total Households Counseled: 321 Mortgage Default 238; o Pre - Purchase 74 Community Facility Improvements: funded via Community Development Block Grant. Notable improvements in 2014 include: • Center for the Homeless fire suppression system YWCA Storm Shelter bathroom Capacity Building: funded via Community Development Block Grants: Notable activity in 2014 included: 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV Page 11 • Neighborhood Resources Connection: Funding for 1 scholarship to attend the Regional Neighborhood Network Conference, as well as 20 participants in the Neighborhood Leadership Academy. Homeless Assistance Emergency Solutions Grant: Funding for 6 area shelters, which together served 3685 individuals. Our partners include: • Center for the Homeless 668 • Aids Ministries 27 • Youth Service Bureau 189 • YWCA 1201 • Life Treatment Center 1600 Quality of Life Marketing: Neighborhood Engagement staff host and manage a number of activities to showcase the South Bend community and its neighborhoods. A sampling of the programming on 2014 includes: • Realtor Certification Series 6 participants • 6 Neighborhood Tours with a total of 172 participants • Participation in the "Freshman" Tour 60 participants • Neighborhood Tours 10 tours • Co- sponsorship of Faculty Tour 45 participants 227 W. JEFFERSON BLVD. SOUTH BEND, IN 46601 1 P: 574- 235 -9371 1 FAX: 574 - 235 -9021 1 SOUTHBENDIN.GOV W� • VALUATION REPORT For The Month Of August, 2015 COUNTY CITY YEAR TO DATE COMBINED TOTALS Indiana Community Needs Assessment Conducted for the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority INDIANA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE 334 N. Senate Avenue, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46204 SCHOOL OF PCBLIC AND TT ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Il PUI GYIAAA I aw.y.w Authors Sue Burow Senior Policy Analyst IU Public Policy Institute Laura Littlepage Clinical Lecturer IU Public Policy Institute Jessica Majors Graduate Assistant IU Public Policy Institute Indiana Community Needs Assessment Conducted for the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority 2015 15 -C22 Acknowledgements........................................................................ ............................... Listof Tables ................................................................................. ............................... Listof Maps ................................................................................... ............................... Listof Figures ................................................................................ ............................... ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................... ............................... Stakeholder detail current conditions in community discussions ............................ ClientDemographics ................................................................ ............................... Mobility..................................................................................... ............................... Adults Skills and Finances ....................................................... ............................... Household Support and Nutrition ............................................. ............................... Housing Affordability and Maintenance .................................... ............................... CAAEvaluation ........................................................................ ............................... Introduction.................................................................................... ............................... Methodology.................................................................................. ............................... ServiceArea Overview .................................................................. ............................... CurrentConditions ......................................................................... ............................... Stakeholder Focus Groups Results .......................................... ............................... PovertyOverview ........................................................................... ............................... Demographics — State and Client Population .......................... ............................... FinancialServices .................................................................... ............................... HealthInsurance ...................................................................... ............................... CommunityNeeds .................................................................... ............................... CAAEvaluation ........................................................................ ............................... Data from CAA Stakeholder Surveys ............................................ ............................... CAA Programs and Services .................................................... ............................... CommunityNeeds .................................................................... ............................... CAAEmployee Survey .................................................................. ............................... Conclusion..................................................................................... ............................... Appendix A: MSA Areas by County ............................................... ............................... Appendix B: Change in Poverty by CAA, 2009 — 2013 ................. ............................... Appendix C: Number of establishments providing check cashing services, by county Appendix D. Number of establishments providing cash advance services (small loan lenders), by county ........................................................................ ............................... IU Public Policy Institute 334 North Senate Avenue, 3rd Floor, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (phone) 317.261.3000 (fax) 317.261.3050 www.policyinstitute.iu.edu ..ii .iv .iv .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .5 .5 .6 .9 .9 11 12 34 37 37 44 45 45 47 50 51 53 54 55 RI T Acknowledgements We would like to thank the six Community Action Agencies who hosted and invited participants for each of the focus groups. List of Tables Table 1: Population and change in populations by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2009 -2013 ........................... .............................13 Table 2: Indiana Population by age, 2009 and 2013 ......................................................................................... .............................14 Table 3: Age of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ..................................................................... .............................15 Table 4: Indiana population growth by race, 2009 and 2013 ............................................................................. .............................16 Table 5: Race of individuals served, CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 ............................................................. .............................16 Table 6: Hispanic or Latino Population, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 and 2013 ................................................. .............................16 Table 7: Ethnicity of individuals served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ................................................ .............................17 Table 8: Households, totals and % change, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 and 2013 ........................................... .............................17 Table 9: Household type of those served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ............................................. .............................18 Table 10: Family size of those served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 .................................................. .............................18 Table 11: Employment status of other adults in the household, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 19 Table 12. Unemployment rates and % change in per capita and median household incomes, by Indiana MSA, 2009 - 2013........ 21 Table 13. Disability status of individuals served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ................................. ............................... 21 Table 14: Employment status of CAA clients, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 .................. ............................... 22 Table 15: Barriers to employment, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 .............. ............................... 22 Table 16:. Income sources of clients, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 .................................................. ............................... 24 Table 17: Source of family income of those served, % of CAA clients reporting income, Indiana, 2010 -2013 .............................. 24 Table 18: Family income level (% of HHS Guideline), % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ........................ ............................... 25 Table 19: Barriers to starting a business, % of CAA clients, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 .......................... 25 Table 20: Poverty Rates by Age, Language Spoken and Educational Attainment, 2013 for Indiana and Three Counties with the Lowest and Highest Rates for each category .................................................................................. ............................... 26 Table 21: Highest level of educational attainment of adults served by CAAs (24 Years or Older), Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ................ 28 Table 22: Monthly rent for housing, Indiana, 2013 ........................................................................................... ............................... 31 Table 23: Housing status of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 ................................................ ............................... 32 Table 24. Barriers to locating rental housing, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ............................. 33 Table 25: Barriers to home ownership, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ....... ............................... 33 Table 26: Access or usage of banking services, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ........................ 35 Table 27. Drug Arrests in Indiana, 2012; Change in Total Drug Arrests, 2008 to 2012 ................................... ............................... 36 Table 28: Top 5 clandestine lab seizure rates by Community Action Agencies, Indiana ................................. ............................... 36 Table 29: Health insurance status of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 .................................. ............................... 37 Table 30: Adult skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ........... ............................... 38 Table 31: Financial skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 .... ............................... 39 Table 32: Family support needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ................... .............................41 Table 33: Health and legal support needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ... .............................42 Table 34: Food assistance and education needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ......................43 Table 35: Maintenance and repair assistance needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ................43 Table 36: Housing and utility needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ............. .............................43 Table 37: CAA client feedback, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 ......................................... .............................44 Table 38: Likelihood of referrals and recommendation, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 .............44 Table 39. How likely are you to recommend the services from (Agency)? ........................................................ .............................46 Table 40. Adult skills traiing needs, as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 ............................ .............................47 Table 41: Financial skills training needs, as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 .................... .............................48 Table 42. Household family support needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 ................ .............................48 Table 43. Household service support needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 .............. .............................48 Table 44: Food needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 ................................................ .............................49 Table 45: Home insulation and repair needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 .............. .............................49 Table 46: Affordable housing needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 ........................... .............................49 Table 47: How strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements? ............................................... ............................... 50 List of Maps Map 1: Indiana Community Action Agencies Service Areas .............................................................................. ............................... 7 Map 2: Barriers to employment by CAA, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 ......................... ............................... 23 Map 3: Percentage of residents with an associate's degree or higher, by county, and location of state colleges /universities, Figure 3: Age of adult survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 .......................................................... ............................... 2013 ..................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 30 Map 4: Adult skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 ..................... ............................... 38 Map 5: Financial skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 ............... ............................... 40 Map 6: Family support needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 ........................... ............................... 41 Map 7. Health and legal support needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 ............ ............................... 42 List of Figures Figure 1: Unduplicated number of individuals and families served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 - 2013 .................. ............................... 13 Figure 2: Gender of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 ............................................................ ............................... 14 Figure 3: Age of adult survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 .......................................................... ............................... 15 Figure 4: Age of children as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ............................. ............................... 15 Figure 5: Change in household compoitisons, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 - 2013 ............................................ ............................... 18 Figure 6: Median household income and full -time earnings, by gender, Indiana and U.S. comparison, 2013 ............................... 19 Figure 7: Comparison of Indiana and U.S. unemployment rate and change in Indiana labor force, 2009 -2013 ............................ 20 Figure 8: Problems locating or keeping childcare, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ..................... 24 Figure 9: Percentage receiving SNAP, using local food pantries, and frequency of use as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana 2014 ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 27 Figure 10: Educational attainment, population 25 years and older, Indiana, 2009 - 2013 ................................. ............................... 27 Figure 11: Highest level of educational attainment as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 .................... 28 Figure 12: Percentage of median household income and per capita Income required for state college /university tuition, Indiana 29 Figure 13: Gross rent as percentage of income, Indiana and U.S. Comparison, 2013 ................................... ............................... 31 Figure 14: Monthly owner costs as percentage of income, Indiana and U.S. comparison, 2013 .................... ............................... 32 Figure 15. Vehicles available by occupied housing units, Indiana, 2013 ......................................................... ............................... 34 Figure 16. Reason for not having access to reliable transportation, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 ............................................................................................................................................... ............................... 34 Figure 17. Overall how would you rate the programs and services offered by ( Agency)? ............................... ............................... 45 Figure 18. How would you rate their delivery of services? ............................................................................... ............................... 46 Figure 19: What is the level of public awareness regarding the services that the (Agency) provides? ........... ............................... 47 Figure 20: In your experience, what is the best way to keep up -to -date with other programs' services and eligibility guidelines? 51 iv Executive Summary Stakeholder detail current conditions in community discussions Six regional focus groups were held with stakeholders. During each focus group session, participants discussed the current conditions in the area, greatest needs, and possible strategies for addressing these needs. There were several common trends including poverty rates, employment issues, public transportation, mental health services (including substance abuse), homelessness, affordable housing, and education needs. Client Demographics Indiana's 22 Community Action Agencies (CAAs), served 1,030,819 individuals or 16 percent of the total state population in 2013. This is an increase from 2010 and 2012. While children (under 18) were 24 percent of the state's population in 2013, they were 39 percent of individuals served by CAAs. The percent of clients over 55 has increased since 2010. Sixty percent of survey respondents indicated their household included non - householder adults 18 and over. Twenty percent of these adults were disabled and 21 percent were unemployed. The percent of individuals served by a CAA who are disabled increased from 17 percent in 2010 to 24 percent in 2013. Mobility Half of Indiana's counties are outside a major metropolitan area and therefore the ability of residents to travel to work, school, and health care appointments can be difficult without transportation. In 2013, 7 percent of households in Indiana were without a vehicle. Indianapolis has the largest percentage of households without a vehicle. While, almost 23 percent of households without a vehicle reside in rural areas outside of a MSA. Most (80 percent) respondents to the CAA client survey report access to reliable transportation. Of the 20 percent who did not, not owning a car was cited most frequently as the reason. Adults Skills and Finances Indiana's overall poverty rate is lower than the U.S. poverty rate. It is also lower for seniors and residents who have a high school degree or less, but higher for children and Spanish speakers. The highest poverty rates for Indiana, as a whole and for individual counties, occur among residents who speak Spanish or a language other than English. The full -time earnings for both male and female full -time workers in Indiana lags behind the U.S. median earnings. The gap between the national and Indiana median earnings for female full - time workers is larger than the gap for the male median earnings. This wage gap is particularly relevant for females, as single - parent families, led by a female householder, make up 25 percent of the households with children in Indiana. The median household income in Indiana is $5,000 less than the U.S. median household income. Client survey respondents were asked to provide feedback on a number of factors related to greater adult skills (often linked to increased employability and income). The factors included qqw�.. . employment qualifications and skills and access to job opportunities. The client survey results show relatively consistent rankings across all areas. However, the need for financial aid was listed as most needed or somewhat needed most frequently. Whereas, stakeholders listed the need for computer skills training as most needed. When asked about their need for financial skills training, nearly half of the respondents selected budgeting money as most needed or somewhat needed. Similar results were obtained from the stakeholder survey. Most respondents to the CAA client survey indicated that they have a checking account, but only 37 percent indicated that they had a savings account, and almost 20 percent indicated that they used check cashing or cash advance services. Household Support and Nutrition The Family Household Support section of the survey included questions about the need for parenting skills training, childcare, youth and teen programs, and support for caregivers. For many households, the years before children are school age or times when school is out are the primary concerns. Survey respondents listed the need for teen and youth programs most often, with childcare needs not far behind. With the percentage of Indiana's senior population growing, the demand for support for caregivers may grow over time. This is similar to the stakeholder survey responses and may identify a wide demand for services. Survey respondents were asked to provide input on the need for food assistance and nutritional education. The demand for food assistance is closely tied with the need to access SNAP and food pantries, while the need for nutrition education provides insight on the growing obesity epidemic. Over 70 percent of CAA clients reported that food assistance was either most needed or somewhat needed. Over 50 percent reported a need for nutrition education, but almost one -third said this was not needed. The stakeholder responses differ from the client responses for this topic. Stakeholders see an increased demand for food assistance (87 compared to over 70 percent), and a greater need for nutrition education (94 versus 56 percent). These differences may indicate the need for additional information for this topic or a closer examination by CAA. Housing Affordability and Maintenance Overall, 50 percent of Indiana renters spend 30 percent or more of their monthly income on rent and utilities. However, Indiana has fewer homeowners with excessive housing costs compared to the national average. Over 25 percent of CAA clients surveyed indicated that they were dissatisfied with their current housing. The expense of heat and utilities was the most common reason for dissatisfaction. For those who are looking for housing, the most cited reasons for having a problem locating rental housing were financial. For those who indicated that they would be interested in home ownership, the main barrier that respondents identified was not being able to afford the down payment. CAA clients were asked to provide feedback on the need for rent and mortgage assistance, utility payment assistance, homeless services, and down payment assistance. Over 80 percent reported that utility payment assistance was most needed or somewhat needed. Of all the community needs topics, this received the largest response. Notably, over 27 percent reported that homeless services were not needed. CAA clients were asked to share the demand for home insulation and weatherproofing and removal and repair of condemned and vacant homes. As reported earlier, clients often need assistance paying their utility bills. Increasing or improving insulation and weatherproofing can help lower heating and cooling costs. The survey responses show over 50 percent reporting insulation and weatherproofing assistance as most or somewhat needed. Stakeholders reported the need for weatherization assistance at 93 percent. This is more in line with the reported need for utility assistance (71 percent) and may signal a need for increased education regarding the potential uility cost savings of home insulation and weatherization. Finally, respondents to the client survey reported a lower need for down payment assistance than did the stakeholders (56 versus 78 percent, respectively). CAA Evaluation Clients responding to the survey provided very favorable feedback on the CAA staff and programs this is very similar to the 90 percent of stakeholder respondents would rate the CAA programs as good or excellent. CAA clients also were asked how likely they were to recommend CAA services and programs and to share how likely they were to return to the CAA for assistance in the future. Ninety -seven percent said they were likely or highly likely to recommend the CAA program and services. Ninety -five percent were likely or highly likely to return for services in the future. Introduction The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA) is the state oversight agency for this federal block grant program. Funds made available through this grant are used to support activities that alleviate poverty for low- income families and individuals at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty level. Indiana receives approximately $9 million annually. By regulation, 90 percent of the funds are allocated to private nonprofits or local units of government that provide self- sufficiency programs. In Indiana, funds are allocated to the state's 22 Community Action Agencies (CAA). According to federal regulations, the state and the CAAs are required to conduct a community needs assessment. The goals of the community needs assessment are to identify the current state of low- income families and to identify gaps in services for low- income families within local communities. Methodology The data required to support this report come from three groups of data. First, qualitative data were gathered from six regional focus groups with stakeholders (one urban and one rural in each of the three regions— north, central, and south). During each focus group session, participants discussed the current conditions in the area, greatest needs, and possible strategies for addressing these needs. This information provided a better sense of conditions across the state and aided in the identification of additional data sources to be used or data collection methods to be deployed. Second, quantitative data were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Indiana Business Research Center, Uniform Crime Reporting Data, Indiana Methamphetamine Investigation System, Indiana Department of Financial Institutions, and the Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data. These data are used to provide detail regarding client demographics (population, gender, age, race, ethnicity, family size, household type, educational attainment, and income), use of financial services, health insurance coverage, and substance abuse and arrest. Third, several surveys were conducted at all CAA locations. Each CAA was asked to distribute a survey to their clients. The surveys were made available in multiple formats including paper, electronic, and Spanish - language versions. The initial survey instrument included questions to supplement and support the quantitative data collected from secondary sources. The survey also asked clients to identify and weight community needs in six categories: adult skills training, financial skill training, household support, food, home maintenance and repair, and affordable housing. Lastly, the survey asked clients to rate the programs and services of the local CAA. There were 5,950 total client surveys completed. Service Area Overview Twenty -two Community Action Agencies (CAAs) serve Indiana's 92 counties. These CAAs make up the Indiana Community Action Network. The following agency listing and map detail the location and counties of the CAAs. 1. AREA FIVE: Area Five Agency on Aging & Community Services, Inc. Logansport Cass, Howard, Miami, Tipton, Wabash 2. AREA IV: Area IV Agency on Aging & Community Action Programs Lafayette Carroll, Clinton, Tippecanoe, White 3. CAGI: Community Action of Greater Indianapolis Indianapolis Boone, Hamilton, Hendricks, Marion 4. CANT: Community Action of Northeast Indiana Fort Wayne Allen, DeKalb, LaGrange, Noble, Steuben, Whitley 5. CAST: Community Action of Southern Indiana, Inc. Jeffersonville Clark, Floyd, Harrison 6. CAPE: Community Action Program of Evansville and Vanderburgh County, Inc. Evansville Gibson, Posey, Vanderburgh 7. CAPWI: Community Action Program, Inc. of Western Indiana Covington Benton, Fountain, Montgomery, Parke, Vermillion, Warren 8. CFSI: Community and Family Services, Inc. Portland Adams, Blackford, Huntington, Jay, Randolph, Wells 9. CICAP: Central Indiana Community Action Program Anderson Grant, Madison 10. HOOSIER: Hoosier Uplands Economic Development Corp. Mitchell Lawrence, Martin, Orange, Washington 11. HSI: Human Services, Inc. Columbus Bartholomew, Decatur, Jackson, Johnson, Shelby 12. ICAP: Interlocal Community Action Program, Inc. New Castle Delaware, Fayette, Hancock, Henry, Rush, Wayne 13. LHDC: Lincoln Hills Development Corporation Tell City Crawford, Perry, Spencer 14. NCCAA: North Central Community Action Agencies, Inc. Michigan City LaPorte, Pulaski, Starke 15. NWICA: Northwest Indiana Community Action Corporation Crown Point Jasper, Lake, Newton, Porter 16. OVO: Ohio Valley Opportunities Madison Jefferson, Jennings, Scott 17. PACE: Pace Community Action Agency Vincennes Daviess, Greene, Knox, Sullivan 18. REAL: Real Services South Bend Elkhart, Fulton, Kosciusko, Marshall, St. Joseph 19. SCCAP: South Central Community Action Program, Inc. Bloomington Brown, Monroe, Morgan, Owen 20. SIEOC: Southeastern Indiana Economic Opportunity Corporation Aurora Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio, Ripley, Switzerland, Union 21. TRI -CAP: Dubois - Pike - Warrick Economic Opportunity Committee Jasper Dubois, Pike, Warrick 22. WICAA: Western Indiana Community Action Agency, Inc. Terre Haute Clay, Putnam, Vigo Map 1: Indiana Community Action Agencies service areas 7 LAGRAFJGE STEU8E79 STJOSEPH ELKHART LA FORTE ' LAKE FORTE NOBLE DEKALB AsSTARKE MARSHALL KOSCLUSK WLI IT LEY ALLEN JASPER FULTON P4J LASK I ABASH z J}A. M S NEWT WHITE CASS MJAMI z 0 WELLS O z BENTON CARROL MMT Eu.Ci4 RD HONfARJ} 2 JAY WARREN CLINTON TIPfON �' TSP�ECAHOE DELAWARE RANdOLPH L� Q 7 HAMILTON m z FOUNTAIN HENRY BOONE NTGU M ERY WAYN E a3 i ;.r HAN COCK PARKE MAR 1011 ° I z �ErraR�cica PUTNAM I F;.YETTE 5HELEY RUSH JO FF f}SO H UII101 22CLAY MORGA N � FRANI{LPJ MG0 DECATUR o OWES M BARTHOLO W RIPLEY 33 8 ROW W 0 9JLLIVAr J NNINfsS z GREENE ju1ONROE OHI JACKSON LAWRENCE KNOX DAVIESS RARTJ JEFF ER SON 1` 1N4 ##UH6T ON SC OTT ORANGE C LA RK PIKE DU BOIS GIB SOI-J RAL+UFORD X as .2 PERK m z�L OSEY WARRICK 0 z 3pfi", } 7 Current Conditions Stakeholder Focus Groups Results Six regional focus groups were held with stakeholders (one urban and one rural in each of the three regions — north, south, and central). During each focus group session, participants discussed the current conditions in the area, greatest needs, and possible strategies for addressing these needs. There were several common trends including poverty rates, employment issues, public transportation, mental health services (including substance abuse), homelessness, affordable housing, and education needs. Some participants stated that poverty is often hidden and therefore many are not aware of the problems the area faces. For example, Hamilton County has had an increase in requests for public assistance because families have moved to the area for the school system but cannot afford the cost of housing and transportation in the area. Employment needs varied among the areas; however, all participants expressed the need for increased employment opportunities. In some areas, the inability to pass a drug screening process to obtain employment has become an issue. This hindrance increases the level of poverty in the areas. While some areas are struggling to find employers willing to hire convicted felons, one participant expressed that the area has an employer willing to hire felons, but the lack of transportation hinders employment. Lack of transportation hindering employment was also mentioned in most of the areas. Participants expressed a need for entry level or low skill jobs that pay a living wage in all areas. Additionally, each area noted that there is a definite need to incentivize people to take a job or a promotion instead of relying on public assistance. All areas expressed concern about public transportation. Participants stated that the lack of transportation, or the limited hours of available transportation, makes it difficult for clients to get to work, appointments, and school. One participant mentioned that lack of public transportation means homeless persons were not able to get to job interviews and therefore miss out on job opportunities. Participants had several suggestions for ways to increase the public transportation opportunities. The first suggestion is to extend the hours and service areas that public transportation covers. Another suggested that they would like to find a legal way to be able to use school buses to help bridge the gap between the availability and need for public transportation. Some communities suggested that neighboring communities could pool their resources to purchase a van for transportation and create a fund that would cover maintenance and possibly the purchase of more vehicles as needed. Participants also were concerned about the walkability (and ability to ride a bike) in their communities because of lack of sidewalks and /or bike lanes. They would like a safer environment for clients to walk or bike safely to work or other appointments. Respondents also suggested municipalities implement policies that require developers to build sidewalks in communities. Each group discussed the need for more mental healthcare services, including substance abuse programs. Currently, some areas are relying on religious organizations for limited counseling, but participants stressed the need for more services. While a few areas do have larger mental healthcare facilities nearby, the lack of transportation hinders the ability for clients to keep appointments and seek treatment. Participants would like to see more funding for doctors and nurses for these services. Substance and drug abuse was closely tied to mental healthcare in discussions. Each group indicated that the problem of drug abuse was becoming increasingly worse. Lack of treatment for substance abuse is a problem most areas are currenly trying to handle. Clients attempting to seek treatment are often unable to find a treatment center in the area,often have to find a way to commute to a larger city to seek treatment. Most strategies that participants offered were changes to policies and laws. For example, participants would like to see a change in the policies for housing programs to allow clients with drug convictions to be eligible for the programs. Participants would also like an increase in funding for substance abuse programs. Homelessness was an issue in each area. The lack of shelters, drug abuse programs, and mental health services all increase the need for additional services for this population. Access to better, more affordable transitional housing was also mentioned. Participants would like to see a reduction in the amount of time individuals spend locating and obtaining assistance so they can focus more time on increasing education or skill levels. Participants expressed the need for a way to identify clients who need homelessness services, and suggested a day center, perhaps funded by the United Way, could coordinate services for this population. It was also suggested using local churches as food pantries, and temporary housing may help alleviate some of the burden to find temporary housing. Participants in each session expressed the need for more affordable housing options. Some areas are experiencing a decrease in the number of property owners willing to take part in Housing Choice Vouchers (often referred to as Section 8 housing). The number of people who have excessive housing burden (housing costs are more than 30 percent of monthly income) has become an issue for the areas. Participants mentioned the need for funding to rehabilitate homes, especially for elderly clients or clients whose homes require renovation to qualify for weatherization programs. Participants discussed ways to increase the availability of affordable housing and suggested that communities will have to become creative in solving the issue. Strategies suggested included finding alternative means for high -risk borrowers to obtain housing loans, and using YMCA's /boarding houses as a source of temporary housing. Participants also expressed a need for an increase to the IHCDA housing tax credits. All six groups noted that there were educational needs in their communities. Participants noted that clients move frequently which makes it difficult for schools to keep accurate records of students and whether the educational needs of the students are being met. Participants suggested that implementing tutoring and mentoring programs, as well as advocating for free full day pre - kindergarten, could help with some of the education needs. Each area has seen an increase in the number of students who are eligible for free or reduced lunches, and expressed concern about food insecurities for the children when they are not at school. One rural county indicated there is a need for increased salaries for teachers to keep them in the area and invested in the community. Another area suggested that Goodwill teach English as a Second Language and have a corporate partner sponsor the program. It was also suggested that more information regarding vocational education and training be distributed, and perhaps the Boys and Girls Clubs could help teach trade skills. 10 T Poverty Overview Indiana has had a 19.7% increase in the number of people who are living in poverty from 2009 to 2013. Table 1 details the poverty rates for 2009 and 2013 for each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and for the counties not included in a MSA. Half of Indiana's counties are located in an MSA. Only Indiana counties are included in the populations for MSAs where the principal city is outside Indiana. The map in Appendix A details the counties that are part of each MSA and the counties that are outside of a MSA. The three Indiana counties that are included in the Cincinnati - Middletown, OH MSA are Decatur, Franklin and Ohio. These counties had the largest percent increase in Indiana from 2009 to 2013. The Bloomington MSA, which is comprised of only Monroe County, has had the smallest increase in poverty. The percentage of Indiana's population living in a rural area (all other counties not in MSA) has remained relatively constant from 2009 to 2013, 22 percent and 21.7 percent, respectively. The percentage of the rural population in poverty has also remained constant at 21.9 percent and 21.1 percent respectively. Table 1. Change in poverty by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2009 to 2013 Source: Indiana Business Research Center, STATS Indiana; 2009 and 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005- 2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates 2009 U.S. Census Bureau MSA definitions Table 2 displays the change in total poverty, poverty among children under 18 and poverty for seniors by CAA. Hoosier Uplands and PACE are the only two CAAs that did not have an increase in total poverty rate between 2009 and 2013. H.S.I. had the largest overall increase in poverty (33.2 percent). PACE is the only CAA that showed a decline in poverty rates for all three categories. W Poverty Rate MSA Area 2009 2013 % Change 2009 - 2013 Bloomington MSA 19.5% 19.8% 7.4% Chicago, IL MSA - Gary, IN Division 14.0% 15.3% 9.6% Cincinnati - Middletown, OH MSA 10.1% 13.0% 31.5% Columbus MSA 9.5% 11.8% 29.1% Elkhart - Goshen MSA 12.5% 16.3% 29.7% Evansville MSA 11.7% 13.0% 14.1% Fort Wayne MSA 10.9% 14.0% 31.1% Indianapolis MSA 11.2% 13.8% 27.9% Kokomo MSA 13.9% 15.3% 9.5% Lafayette - West Lafayette MSA 17.0% 18.2% 13.9% Louisville, KY MSA 11.0% 12.7% 18.4% Michigan City - LaPorte MSA 11.7% 15.2% 30.6% Muncie MSA 18.3% 20.8% 16.0% South Bend - Mishawaka MSA 13.0% 16.9% 29.4% Terre Haute MSA 16.0% 17.3% 9.9% All other counties not in MSA (46) 12.6% 14.4% 15.2% Indiana Total 12.6% 14.8% 19.7% Source: Indiana Business Research Center, STATS Indiana; 2009 and 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005- 2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates 2009 U.S. Census Bureau MSA definitions Table 2 displays the change in total poverty, poverty among children under 18 and poverty for seniors by CAA. Hoosier Uplands and PACE are the only two CAAs that did not have an increase in total poverty rate between 2009 and 2013. H.S.I. had the largest overall increase in poverty (33.2 percent). PACE is the only CAA that showed a decline in poverty rates for all three categories. W OVO had the largest increase in children under 18 in poverty for this time period. As later discussed, OVO also has the highest number of drug arrests (of all ages) per 1,000 people in Indiana. The large amount of drug use may be a contributing factor to this high increase in child poverty. The number of Indiana's senior population (65 years and older) who are in poverty has remained the same from 2009 to 2013. The largest change in poverty rates for this age group occurred in Tri -Cap. There was a decrease in senior poverty by 32.6 percent. This area had an 18.4 percent increase in the overall population of residents who are 65 and older. While all CAAs had an overall incease in residents who are 65 and older, less than half of the CAAs had an increase of seniors are are living at or below poverty level. The map in Appendix B shows the rate of change for total poverty by CAA. Table 2: Change in Poverty by CAA, 2009 -2013 CAA Total Poverty Under 18 65 and Older Area 5 14.0% 15.2% -11.8% Area IV 12.1% 20.3% -4.1% CAGI 26.5% 27.0% 10.4% CANI 28.3% 28.9% 11.5% CAPE 10.2% 7.9% 3.2% CAPWI 13.4% 18.9% -14.8% CASI 23.5% 19.2% 11.2% CFSI 20.4% 24.5% -1.8% CICAP 21.1% 24.7% -3.5% H.S.I. 33.2% 32.8% 1.6% Hoosier Uplands -4.9% 1.1% -16.1% ICAP 26.7% 38.4% 7.1% LHDC 4.1% -1.2% -10.9% NCCAA 23.3% 18.3% 12.1% NWICA 9.6% 5.1% 3.2% OVO 17.3% 39.3% -18.1% PACE -6.8% -15.2% -7.3% REAL 29.7% 32.8% -3.6% SCCAP 14.6% 16.4% -0.9% SIEOC 23.4% 31.5% 2.0% TRI -CAP 20.0% 35.4% -32.6% WICAA 5.4% 4.9% -21.3% Indiana Total 19.7% 21.1% 0.0% Source: Indiana Business Research Center, STATS Indiana; 2009 and 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005- 2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates 2009 U.S. Census Bureau MSA definitions Demographics - State and Client Population Indiana's population increased 2.3 percent from 2009 to 2013, less than the U.S. total population growth of 3.3 percent. Table 3 details the changes in population by MSA. Only Indiana counties are included in the populations for MSAs where the principal city is outside Indiana. Counties in the Lafayette and Bloomington MSAs have had the highest rate of population growth, while the Kokomo and South Bend - Mishawaka MSA counties have seen a decrease in population. 12 Table 3: Population and change in populations by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2009 -2013 Source: Indiana Business Research Center, STATS Indiana; 2009 and 2013; 2009 U.S. Census Bureau MSA definitions Indiana's 22 Community Action Agencies (CAAs), served 1,030,819 individuals or 16 percent of the total state population in 2013. This is an increase of 36 percent from 2012 and 13 percent from 2010. The number of families served increased by 27 percent from 2012 but decreased by 25 percent since 2010 (Figure 1). Figure 1: Unduplicated number of individuals and families served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 1,200,000 1,030,819 1,000,000 908,946 800,000 758,158 690,482 600,000 83,291 400,000 88,953 287,041 226,701 200,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 ■ Persons ■ Families Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 13 Total Population MSA Area 2009 2013 % Change 2009 -2013 Bloomington MSA 185,598 195,870 5.5% Chicago, IL MSA - Gary, IN Division 704,361 705,489 0.2% Cincinnati - Middletown, OH MSA 54,136 55,222 2.0% Columbus MSA 76,063 79,587 4.6% Elkhart - Goshen MSA 200,502 200,563 0.0% Evansville MSA 292,709 301,545 3.0% Fort Wayne MSA 414,315 424,122 2.4% Indianapolis MSA 1,875,075 1,953,961 4.2% Kokomo MSA 98,787 98,410 -0.4% Lafayette - West Lafayette MSA 196,329 209,027 6.5% Louisville, KY MSA 248,351 256,125 3.1% Michigan City - LaPorte MSA 111,063 111,281 0.2% Muncie MSA 115,192 117,484 2.0% South Bend - Mishawaka MSA 267,613 266,709 -0.3% Terre Haute MSA 169,825 172,195 1.4% All other counties not in MSA 46 1,413,194 1,423,312 0.7% Indiana Total 6,423,113 6,570,902 2.3% Source: Indiana Business Research Center, STATS Indiana; 2009 and 2013; 2009 U.S. Census Bureau MSA definitions Indiana's 22 Community Action Agencies (CAAs), served 1,030,819 individuals or 16 percent of the total state population in 2013. This is an increase of 36 percent from 2012 and 13 percent from 2010. The number of families served increased by 27 percent from 2012 but decreased by 25 percent since 2010 (Figure 1). Figure 1: Unduplicated number of individuals and families served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 1,200,000 1,030,819 1,000,000 908,946 800,000 758,158 690,482 600,000 83,291 400,000 88,953 287,041 226,701 200,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 ■ Persons ■ Families Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 13 Gender In 2013, 59 percent of the CAAs clients were females, consistent with the previous years, but higher than the state percent female (50.7) (Figure 2). Figure 2: Gender of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 70% 60% 59% 59% 59% 60% 50% 40% 41% 41% 41% 40% ■ Male 30% ■ Female 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Age In Indiana, the largest change in population by age between 2009 and 2013 occurred within the 65 and older category—an increase of 10.4 percent. Current population projections suggest that this category will increase even more in the future as a percent of total population (Table 4). Table 4: Indiana population by age, 2009 and 2013 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates While children (under 18) were 24 percent of the population in 2013, they were 39 percent of individuals served by CAAs, slightly down from 41 percent in 2010 (Table 5). The percent of clients over 55 has increased from 17 percent in 2010 to 21 percent in 2013. Results from the client survey showed a similar pattern in age of client (Figure 3). 14 2009 2013 Age Population % of Total Population Population % of Total Population Change in Population, 2009 -2013 < 5 years 445,604 6.9% 420,815 6.4% -5.6% 5 -17 years 1,143,761 17.8% 1,165,212 17.7% 1.9% 18 - 24 years 643,920 10.0% 666,413 10.1% 3.5% 25 - 44 years 1,689,050 1 26.3% 1,669,039 1 25.4% 1 -1.2% 45 - 64 years 1,672,187 1 26.0% 1,734,390 1 26.4% 1 3.7% 65 or older 828,591 1 12.9% 915,033 1 13.9% 1 10.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates While children (under 18) were 24 percent of the population in 2013, they were 39 percent of individuals served by CAAs, slightly down from 41 percent in 2010 (Table 5). The percent of clients over 55 has increased from 17 percent in 2010 to 21 percent in 2013. Results from the client survey showed a similar pattern in age of client (Figure 3). 14 Table 5: Age of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year < 5 5 -17 18 -23 24 -44 45 -54 55 or older 2010 15% 26% 8% 24% 10% 17% 2011 16% 25% 7% 23% 11% 18% 2012 14% 26% 8% 23% 10% 20% 2013 13% 26% 7% 23% 11% 21% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Figure 3: Age of adult survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 18 -24 years old 13% 75 years or older 10% 25 -34 years old 65 -74 years old 13% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 35 -44 years old 13% 45 -54 years old 13% 55 -64 years old 13% Fifty -three percent of survey respondents reported children living in the home. Figure 4 shows the largest age group of children as reported by survey respondents was 3 -5 years old (28 percent). Figure 4: Age of children as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 9 to 12 years 1 ro/ 6 to 8 years 16% 13 to 17 years 4% 28% Over 18 years 8% Newborn to 1 year 7% years 1L% 15 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Race Indiana is predominantly White (86 percent), however the percentage of the population who is White increased at the lowest rate (Table 6). Table 6: Indiana population growth by race, 2009 and 2013 Race 2009 2013 % Change 2009 -2013 White 5,436,153 5,510,618 1.4% Black 548,998 592,954 8.0% Asian 85,470 107,563 25.8% Other (including Native American, Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Other) 160,236 167,024 j 4.2% Two or More Races 111,612 136,702 1 22.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates The percent of clients who identify as White increased from 67 percent in 2010 to 71 percent in 2013, while those who identify as Black or African American, decreased from 26 percent to 23 percent (Table 7). Table 7: Race of individuals served, CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Ethnicity The Hispanic or Latino population grew at a faster rate from 2009 to 2013 in Indiana than for the United States as a whole, and Hispanic or Latino are 6.4 percent of the population in Indiana (Table 8). While Marion and Lake counties have the largest Hispanic populations, Switzerland and Warren counties have experienced the largest increase in Hispanic or Latino populations during that time period. Table 8: Hispanic or Latino Population, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 and 2013 2009 2013 % Change 2009 - 2013 Indiana Native 400,788 24.7% U.S. 45,476,938 51,786,591 American Hawaiian Black or Indian and and Other African Alaska Pacific Year White American Native Asian Islander Other Race Multi -Race 2010 67% 26% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2011 72% 22% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 2012 73% 21% 1% 0% 0% 2% 4% 2013 71% 23% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Ethnicity The Hispanic or Latino population grew at a faster rate from 2009 to 2013 in Indiana than for the United States as a whole, and Hispanic or Latino are 6.4 percent of the population in Indiana (Table 8). While Marion and Lake counties have the largest Hispanic populations, Switzerland and Warren counties have experienced the largest increase in Hispanic or Latino populations during that time period. Table 8: Hispanic or Latino Population, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 and 2013 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates ill 2009 2013 % Change 2009 - 2013 Indiana 321,320 400,788 24.7% U.S. 45,476,938 51,786,591 13.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates ill Five percent of clients served by the CAAs were of Hispanic or Latino origin and that has remained consistent since 2010 (Table 9). Table 9: Ethnicity of individuals served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Hispanic or Latino Non - Hispanic or Latino 2010 5% 95% 2011 5% 95% 2012 5% 95% 2013 5% 95% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Household Composition The total number of households with children under 18 has declined in Indiana and nationwide (Table 10). There has also been a decline in married with children households. While single parent family households have remained stagnant or declined in Indiana, these households have grown in the nationally. The increase in households with seniors living alone is also important to note as this segment of Indiana's population continues to grow and may have additional community needs. Table 10: Households, totals and % change, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 and 2013 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Figure 5 details the composition of residents in households in Indiana. From 2009 to 2013, Indiana has had a decrease in the number of spouses living in households, while there was a slight increase of spouses in the United States. The number of households where other relatives live together has increased two times as much as the national total. For the United States, the number of unmarried partners living in households has increased faster than Indiana. However, the large increase in other relatives, but not in unmarried partners in Indiana suggests that more households in Indiana are made of up non - traditional families and less of spousal and partner households. 17 2009 2013 Indiana % Change 2009-2013 U.S. % Change 2009-2013 Total households 2,468,006 2,481,793 0.6% 2.7% Households with children 766,321 734,537 -4.1% -2.1% Married 523,774 492,012 -6.1% -4.2% Single male parent 60,319 59,485 -1.4% 4.1% Single female parent 182,228 183,040 0.4% 2.4% Single householders, 65 or Older 232,479 244,196 5.0% 7.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Figure 5 details the composition of residents in households in Indiana. From 2009 to 2013, Indiana has had a decrease in the number of spouses living in households, while there was a slight increase of spouses in the United States. The number of households where other relatives live together has increased two times as much as the national total. For the United States, the number of unmarried partners living in households has increased faster than Indiana. However, the large increase in other relatives, but not in unmarried partners in Indiana suggests that more households in Indiana are made of up non - traditional families and less of spousal and partner households. 17 Figure 5: Change in household compositions, Indiana and the U.S., 2009 -2013 -2.00% 3.00% 8.00% 13.00% 18.00% Population in households Head of household Spouse Child Other relatives Nonrelatives Unmarried partner* 00 ■ Indiana ■ U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates *Unmarried partner is a subcategory of Nonrelatives. 23.00% Clients in single person households increased from 37 percent in 2010 to 42 percent in 2013, the largest category of household type (Table 11). Households with children decreased from 50 percent in 2010 to 41 percent in 2013. Table 11: Household type of those served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Single Person Household Single Parent, Female- Headed Household Single Parent, Male- Headed Household Two Parent Household Two Adults, No Children Household Other Household Types 2010 37% 30% 4% 16% 8% 4% 2011 39% 27% 4% 16% 9% 5% 2012 39% 28% 2% 15% 9% 6% 2013 42% 26% 2% 13% 9% 7% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Almost two - thirds of the clients served were in families with one or two members (64 percent) in 2013, an increase from 59 percent in 2010 (Table 12). Table 12: Family size of those served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 The presence of other adults in the home can be due to many things. It could be an elderly parent who needs care or an adult child that needs to move home because of job loss or mortgage foreclosure. Regardless of the reason, the situation may present additional challenges 18 Number of Peo le in Family Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more 2010 39% 20% 17% 13% 7% 3% 1% 1% 2011 39% 21% 17% 13% 7% 3% 1% 1% 2012 40% 21% 17% 12% 6% 3% 1% 1% 2013 43% 1 21% 15% 11% 1 6% 1 2% 1 1% 1 0% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 The presence of other adults in the home can be due to many things. It could be an elderly parent who needs care or an adult child that needs to move home because of job loss or mortgage foreclosure. Regardless of the reason, the situation may present additional challenges 18 to the household and may indicate financial hardship. Sixty percent of survey respondents indicated their household included non - householder adults 18 and over. Twenty percent of these adults were disabled and 21 percent were unemployed (Table 13). Table 13: Employment status of other adults in the household, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Employment status % of Respondents Disabled 20% Full -time 34% Full -time, still looking for additional work /higher income 5% Part -time 9% Part -time, looking for work 3% Retired 7% Unemployed, looking for work 15% Unemployed, not looking for work 6% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Employment The full -time earnings for both male and female full -time workers in Indiana lags behind the U.S. median earnings (Figure 6). The gap between the national and Indiana median earnings for female full -time workers is larger than the gap for the male median earnings. This wage gap is particularly relevant for females, as single - parent families, led by a female householder, make up 25 percent of the households with children in Indiana. The median household income in Indiana is $5,000 less than the U.S. median household income. Figure 6: Median household income and full -time earnings, by gender, Indiana and U.S. comparison, 2013 $60,000 $50,000 $53,046 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 &$32,J5 $10,000 $0 Indiana $53,046 $47,863 $49,087 $38,635 O� United States Median Earnings for Full -time Male Workers Median Earnings for Full -time Female Workers 2013 Indiana Median Household Income —2013 U.S. Median Household Income Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Between 2009 and 2013, Indiana's unemployment rate decreased more than the U.S. unemployment rate (Figure 7). However, the labor force size in Indiana has decreased (1 percent) while the U.S. total labor force has increased (1 percent change). A decrease in w7 unemployment rate and labor force size may indicate that some job seekers have stopped searching for jobs and no longer file unemployment claims. Figure 7: Comparison of Indiana and U.S. unemployment rate and change in Indiana labor force, 2009 -2013 12.0% 10.3% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2009 2013 Indiana Unemployment Rate � U.S. Unemployment Rate — Indiana Labor Force 3,210,000 3,205,000 3,200,000 3,195,000 3,190,000 3,185,000 3,180,000 3,175,000 3,170,000 3,165,000 Source: Indiana Business Research Center, STATS Indiana, Not - Seasonally Adjusted Labor Force Overview, Annual Averages When we compare unemployment rates and the changes in per capita and median household incomes for each Indiana MSA area for 2009 to 2013, Elkhart MSA showed a decline in median household income, but experienced the largest percent increase in per capita income and the unemployment rate was cut by more than half (Table 14). Indiana counties not included in an MSA (half of all Indiana counties) show a higher increase in per capita and median household incomes than the state as a whole. The unemployment rate for these counties is similar to the entire state. Overall, while median household incomes remained stagnant or changed very little from 2009 to 2013, the per capita incomes of each MSA area increased by at least 10 percent. However, the per capita income for these areas are still lower than the U.S. per capita income (not shown in table). 20 Table 14. Unemployment rates and % change in per capita and median household incomes, by Indiana MSA, 2009 -2013 MSA 2009 unemployment rate 2013 unemployment rate % change in per capita income % change in median household income Bloomington MSA 7.2% 6.2% 11.0% 5.9% Chicago, IL MSA - Gary Division* 10.3% 8.1% 19.4% 2.1% Cincinnati - Middletown, OH MSA* 11.5% 7.1% 16.2% 1.4% Columbus MSA 9.6% 5.2% 20.7% 3.1% Elkhart - Goshen MSA 18.0% 6.9% 22.0% 4.5% Evansville MSA 8.2% 6.3% 19.8% 3.7% Fort Wayne MSA 10.7% 6.8% 16.4% 2.0% Indianapolis MSA 8.8% 6.4% 14.8% 1.0% Kokomo MSA 14.5% 7.3% 16.3% 1.2% Lafayette - West Lafayette MSA 9.3% 6.2% 17.2% 6.7% Louisville, KY MSA* 9.1% 6.8% 13.9% 4.8% Michigan City - LaPorte MSA 11.9% 8.5% 12.8% 1.0% Muncie MSA 10.7% 7.8% 10.2% 0.2% South Bend - Mishawaka MSA 11.5% 8.1% 10.6% 0.0% Terre Haute MSA 10.5% 8.7% 15.5% 4.8% All Counties Not in MSA 46 12.0% 6.80/0 18.2% 3.3% Indiana Total 10.3% 6.9% 17.0% 2.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates; 2009 U.S. Census Bureau MSA definitions *Only Indiana counties are included in the totals for MSAs where the principal city is outside Indiana. The percent of individuals served by a CAA who are disabled increased from 17 percent in 2010 to 24 percent in 2013 (Table 15). Table 15. Disability status of individuals served, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Yes No 2010 17% 83% 2011 16% 84% 2012 18% 82% 2013 24% 76% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 The survey asked clients to share their employment status. Nearly one - quarter of all respondents reported being disabled. The same number stated they were looking for work or jobs with higher income (includes full -time still looking, part-time, looking, and unemployed, looking). Sixteen percent are retired (Table 16). 21 Table 16: Employment status of CAA clients, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 Employment status % of Reporting Disabled 24% Full -time 18% Full -time, still looking for additional work/higher income 4% Part -time 11% Part -time, looking for work 4% Retired 16% Unemployed, looking for work 16% Unemployed, not looking for work 7% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Table 17 details those who reported looking for work were asked to detail what is keeping them from getting work, and could choose more than one response. Again, the most common responses were either a disability or retired. This is indicative that more people are unable to support themselves based solely on retirement or disability funds alone. Lack of childcare or problems paying for childcare were most often listed as other barriers to employment. Table 17: Barriers to employment, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Barriers to employment % of respondents No jobs in my field 3% No transportation 5% Lack of training, education, or skills 6% Wages too low to support family 6% Physical disability 14% Retired 9% Lack of required experience 4% Other 7% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 22 T Map 2 details client responses to barriers of employment by CAA. Having a physical disability was the most common barrier in eleven CAAs. Jobs with wages that are too low to support a family was a common barrier for clients, as well. Map 2: Most common barriers to employment by CAA, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 Barriers to Employment Client Specified Needs Lack of Education. Skills No Jobs in Field No Transportation Physical Disability Wages too low to support family Fourteen percent of respondents reported a need for childcare services with children ages three to five most in need. The survey also asked if there were any problems locating childcare services. Those CAA clients who did list child care problems cited problems with cost most often (Figure 8). Hours, quality childcare options, waiting lists, and lack of providers also were mentioned as barriers. The survey also asked if individuals received help paying for childcare services. Twenty -two percent reported receiving childcare assistance. 23 Figure 8: Problems locating or keeping childcare, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Long waitlist 2% Quality of providers 2% No transportation 1% Location of care providers 1% Children have special needs 1% Hours � 3% Cost � Lack of providers � 2% 0% 2% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 10% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Income In 2013, 87 percent of clients reported at least one source of income, down from 94 percent in 2010 (Table 18). Table 18: Income sources of clients, % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010- 2013 Year One or more sources of income Zero income reported 2010 94% 6% 2011 94% 6% 2012 949/16 6% 2013 87% 13% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Of those who reported income, 40 percent indicated that at least a portion of it came from employment, an increase from 29 percent in 2010 (Table 19). Table 19: Source of family income of those served, % of CAA clients reporting income, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 24 •L C ui + (n � ui }� E i N O U N E o O N E O L m Q N o N to d E c N E E > co U) a�i a_ Cn coa �s W0 W0 0 2010 4% 10% 21% 2% 14% 7% 8% 21% 11% 2011 4% 11% 23% 3% 13% 7% 13% 20% 8% 2012 2% 12% 27% 3% 9% 6% 10% 25% 5% 2013 1% 12% 26% 3% 10% 4% 16% 24% 4% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 24 The income level of clients shifted slightly between 2010 and 2013, from 67 percent at 100 percent or less of Health and Human Services (HHS) Guidelines in 2010 to 70 percent in 2013 (Table 20). Table 20: Family income level (% of HHS Guideline), % of CAA clients, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Up to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 100% 101% to 125% 126% to 150% 151% to 175% 176% to 200% 201% and over 2010 25% 19% 22% 17% 13% 2% 1% 0% 2011 24% 20% 23% 17% 13% 2% 1% 0% 2012 25% 20% 23% 18% 12% 1% 0% 0% 2013 26% 19% 24% 17% 11% 19/. 0% 0% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Child support payments, or lack thereof, may have a tremendous impact on households. Of respondents who indicated that they were entitled to receive child support, only 30 percent reported that they receive support on a regular basis. Nearly half of these respondents reported receiving support once a month or less than once a month. It is important to note that roughly half of those who reported child support eligibility did not respond to the questions regarding receipt on a regular basis or frequency of receipt. Entrepreneurial Nature For those that are unemployed or underemployed, one potential option is to start a business of their own. Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed replied they would be interested in starting their own business. When asked what prevents them from proceeding, lack of finances and know - how are the leading barriers (Table 21). Table 21: Barriers to starting a business, % of CAA clients, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 Barriers to business creation % of Respondents Lack of finances /money 21% Lack of education /training 8% Lack of child care 3% Don't know how to get started 13% Lack of time 4% Not enough assistance 8% Too much red tape 5% Other 3% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Poverty Indiana's overall poverty rate is lower than the U.S. poverty rate. It is also lower for seniors and residents who have a high school degree or less, but higher for children and Spanish speakers. The highest poverty rates for Indiana as a whole and for individual counties occur among residents who speak Spanish or a language other than English. Indiana has a lower total poverty rate than the U.S. There are only two categories where poverty rates are greater than one percent, Spanish speakers and those who speak a language other than English (Table 22). 25 Table 22: Poverty rates by age, language spoken, and educational attainment, 2013 for Indiana, and three counties with the lowest and highest rates for each category O 6.3 f/) N t L d C R t N t L 0 0 R O O O N L R O �. L L p O L _ R R L O N �'' ) R M N N Y M C.1 C� L R N y .R Co d d p 6.7 3.3 C R L t M R N N N O> p 0 t L �_ ~ O U U) W O =- W N= N Dubois N N R Q 8.5 3.8 y cOC J O N J y O V R m Warren Boone Hancock I Warren I Martin IVermillion I Warren = I Hamilton I Hancock United States 15.4 21.6 9.4 13.1 20.8 24.3 27.1 13.7 10.1 4.3 Indiana 14.9 21.8 7.3 13.7 24.0 28.5 26.2 11.9 10.1 3.8 3 lowest counties 4.9 6.3 2.8 4.5 3.9 0 9.7 5.5 2.4 0.3 Hendricks Hendricks Hamilton Hendricks Warren Warren Ohio Tipton Hendricks Carroll 5.1 6.7 3.3 4.7 4.8 0 10.4 5.9 2.7 0.4 Hamilton Hamilton Warrick Hamilton Vermillion Pike Jasper Dubois Warren Adams 7.0 8.5 3.8 6.8 4.9 0 12.4 6.3 5 0.7 Warren Boone Hancock I Warren I Martin IVermillion I Warren IHendricks I Hamilton I Hancock 3 highest counties 21.9 33.9 11.4 21.6 39.8 46.2 35.4 15.5 14.4 8.0 Switzerland Fayette Scott Fayette Crawford Clay Vermillion Fayette Vigo Jay 22.4 34.5 11.7 21.7 39.9 52.6 35.4 15.9 15.2 8.7 Monroe Wayne Pulaski Delaware Adams Rush Montgomery Wayne Jennings Scott 22.5 38.8 14.6 23.7 56.4 58.0 36.1 16.8 16.5 8.9 Fayette ISwitzerlandl Crawford I Monroe I Orange I Lawrence I Harrison I Marion I Henry I Monroe Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Food Security Over half of the survey respondents indicated that they received SNAP, commonly referred to as food stamps, and most of those also indicated that they used a food pantry, usually about once a month (Figure 9). 26 Figure 9: Percentage receiving SNAP, using local food pantries, and frequency of use as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana 2014 60% 50% 47% 40% 30% 20% 10% 38% 15% SNAP Food Pantry 0% About once a month Less than once a month More than once a month Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients When asked questions regarding food insecurity, 27 percent indicated that they had skipped some meals, 7 percent had gone at least a day without eating, and 3 percent had children who complained of being hungry. In addition, 18 percent would like to feed their children better /healthier meals. Of those who reported problems in obtaining food, many (47 percent) indicated that the cost of food was the issue. Educational Attainment Educational attainment has remained relatively unchanged from 2009 to 2013 in Indiana (Figure 10), and the state lags behind national rates. Figure 10: Educational attainment, population 25 years and older, Indiana, 2009 -2013 Bachelors Degree or Higher 22% K23% Associates Degree R 7% 8% High School Diploma /GED, Some College 57% 56% Less than a High School Diploma 14% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 2009 ■ 2013 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates 27 The educational attainment of clients (24 years and older) served by the CAA network, remained relatively consistent from 2010 through 2013, except for those who had only completed to the 8th grade or below and those completing high school or equivalency from 2012 -2013 (dropping from 17 percent of the population to 8 percent, and increasing from 57 percent to 66 percent, respectively) (Table 23). Table 23: Highest level of educational attainment of adults served by CAAs (24 Years or Older), Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Completed some grade(s) from K- 8th grade Completed some grade(s) from 9 -12th grade High school graduate or equivalency Some post- secondary 2 or 4 year college graduates 2010 11% 23% 49% 10% 7% 2011 16% 22% 49% 7% 8% 2012 17% 26% 42% 7% 8% 2013 8% 25% 50% 7% 9% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Most survey respondents (79 percent) graduated from high school with 13 percent earning a post- secondary degree of some kind (Figure 11). Figure 11: Highest level of educational attainment as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Graduate degree , 2% Bachelor degree . 4% Associate degree W 7% Some college, but no degree M 23% High school degree or equivalent (e.g., GED) 43% Less than high school 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients To understand the financial burden of college and university tuition costs on residents who are pursuing an associate's or bachelor's degree, an analysis of state university and college tuition costs was completed. The cost per academic year for each four -year and two -year public college in Indiana was obtained from the Indiana Commission for Higher Education. The averages of tuition rates for the 2009 to 2010 and 2012 to 2013 academic years were calculated. The average median household and per capita incomes for both years were also calculated. 28 The percentage of income required to obtain a degree continues to rise each year (13 percent from 2009 to 2013). The average per capita income for the same time period decreased 3 percent and the average median household income increased by less than 1 percent. Figure 12 displays the percentages of per capita income and median household income required to cover the average cost of tuition for a state college or university. Figure 12: Percentage of median household income and per capita income required for state college /university tuition, Indiana 40% 35% 35% 32% 30% 25% 20% 14% 15% 15% 10% 5% 0% Share of Per Capita Income Share of Median Household Income ■ 2009 - 2010 ■ 2012 - 2013 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005 -2009 and 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates; Indiana Commission for Higher Education An additional analysis was done to determine the percentage of residents, by county, with an associate's degree or higher, in relation to the availability of 2- and 4 -year state colleges or universities in each county. There are two main areas of Indiana where there is a lack of state colleges. The CAA area of CFSI (based in Portland) does not presently have a state college in any of the counties that make up the area. In the west central to northwest sections of Indiana, there is a gap of state college coverage as well. There are three CAA areas that only have one location: CAPWI, LHDC, and Tri -Cap. CANT, NCCAA, both have a 2- and 4 -year option, but both schools are located in the same county. Map 3 details educational attainment by county and the location of state two and four -year universities. The west central and east central portions of the state have limited access to state universities. 29 Map 3: Percentage of residents with an associate's degree or higher, by county, and location of state colleges /universities, 2013 15 14 J 1 t � � r t � 1 Ed ucationa I A ttain men t 2013 - Associate's Degree or Higher 2 -Year '3-t6% State University 0 16.1 -25 _ 25.1 - 35% 4 -Year -351 -49a • State University -50-62% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013 Five -Year Estimates; Indiana Commission for Higher Education Housing Seventy percent of households in Indiana own their own home, compared to 65 percent nationally. A higher percentage renters in Indiana spend less than 25 percent on housing costs than the national totals (Figure 13). However, Indiana's percentage of renters whose housing costs exceed 35 percent of their monthly income (41 percent) is very similar to the national percentage (43 percent). Overall, 50 percent of Indiana renters spend 30 percent or more of their monthly income on rent and utilities. KE Figure 13: Gross rent as percentage of income, Indiana and U.S. comparison, 2013 50.0% 45.0% ° 43.2% 41.3/0 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 12.9% 12.7% 12.9% 11.3% 1.6% 2.1% % % 8.9% 10.0% 5.0% ' 0.0% Less than 15% 15 - 19.9% 20-24.9% 25-29.9% 30 - 34.9% 35% or More ■ Indiana ■ U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Table 24 shows monthly rents in Indiana in 2013. The gross median rent in Indiana was $730, lower than the U.S. gross median rent for 2013 of $904. Table 24: Monthly rent for housing, Indiana, 2013 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Over 56 percent of homeowners in Indiana spend 20 percent or less of their monthly income on housing costs (Figure 14). Indiana also has fewer homeowners with excessive housing costs compared to the national average. The 2013 weighted average of the median housing costs (for owners with and without mortgages) in Indiana is $896. The U.S. weighted average of median housing costs for 2013 was $1,174. 31 Number of Renters Percent of Renters < $200 14,660 2.1% $200-$299 24,651 3.5% $300-$499 78,025 11.1% $500-$749 256,115 36.5% $750-$999 201,505 28.7% $1,000 - $1,499 102,356 14.6% >$1,500 23,727 3.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Over 56 percent of homeowners in Indiana spend 20 percent or less of their monthly income on housing costs (Figure 14). Indiana also has fewer homeowners with excessive housing costs compared to the national average. The 2013 weighted average of the median housing costs (for owners with and without mortgages) in Indiana is $896. The U.S. weighted average of median housing costs for 2013 was $1,174. 31 Figure 14: Monthly owner costs as percentage of income, Indiana and U.S. comparison, 2013 60.0% 56.6% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Less Than 20% 13.6 %13.2% 5.7% 6.8% on 22.0% 30-34.9% 35% or More Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates; Homeowners with and without mortgages are combined. The percent of CAA clients experiencing homelessness in Indiana decreased from 2 percent in 2010 to less than 1 percent (0.3 percent) in 2013, while those owning their own home increased from 34 percent to 38 percent (Table 25). Table 25: Housing status of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year 8.6%9.6% 11 11 20-24.9% 25-29.9% 33.8% ■ Indiana - U.S. 5.7% 6.8% on 22.0% 30-34.9% 35% or More Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates; Homeowners with and without mortgages are combined. The percent of CAA clients experiencing homelessness in Indiana decreased from 2 percent in 2010 to less than 1 percent (0.3 percent) in 2013, while those owning their own home increased from 34 percent to 38 percent (Table 25). Table 25: Housing status of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Own Rent Homeless Other 2010 33.8% 62.7% 2.1% 1.4% 2011 35.5% 62.5% 0.4% 1.6% 2012 35.8% 62.7% 0.5% 1.0% 2013 37.7% 61.1% 0.3% 0.9% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Nearly 40 percent of survey respondents said they spend more than one -third of their income on housing expenses. Over 25 percent indicated that they were dissatisfied with their current housing. The expense of heat and utilities was the most common reason for dissatisfaction. For those who are looking for housing (Table 26), the most cited reasons for having a problem locating rental housing were financial (bad credit and don't have the money for security deposit and /or first or last month's rent). 32 Table 26. Barriers to locating rental housing, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Reason given % of respondents Bad credit 13% Can't find any units for a household member with special needs 1% Don't have good references /background check 4% Don't have the money for security deposit and /or first or last month's rent 19% Evicted from subsidized housing in the past 1 % I don't have a car and there aren't any rental near school, work, grocery store, etc. 3% 1 have a felony conviction 2% Not sure how or where to look 5% 1 wouldn't be any better off as the places I can afford are unsafe, unhealthy, or too small 5% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients For those who indicated that they would be interested in home ownership, the main barrier that respondents identified was not being able to afford the down payment (Table 27). Table 27: Barriers to home ownership, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Reason given % of respondents I can't afford the down payment 29% I can't find anything in my price range 14% 1 don't know how to begin the process 11% I have bad credit 24% 1 was turned down for mortgage financing 4% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Transportation Half of Indiana's counties are outside a major metropolitan area and therefore the ability of residents to travel to work, school, and health care appointments can be difficult without transportation. In 2013, 7 percent of households in Indiana were without a vehicle (Figure 15). While 93 percent of households indicated that they have at least one car, almost 23 percent of those without a vehicle reside in rural areas outside of a MSA. The Indianapolis MSA has the largest share of households without vehicles (26 percent). 33 Figure 15. Vehicles available by occupied housing units, Indiana, 2013 3 or More Vehicles 2 Vehicles 21% 39% No Vehicle 7% 1 Vehicle 33% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 -2013, 5 -Year Estimates Most (80 percent) respondents to the CAA client survey report access to reliable transportation. Of the 20 percent who did not, not owning a car was cited most frequently as the reason (Figure 16). Figure 16. Reason for not having access to reliable transportation, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 No public transportation N 3% Can't afford insurance 5% Can't afford repairs Nook 8% Can't afford car payments 7% Price of gas No car 8% 13% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Financial Services Most respondents to the CAA client survey indicated that they have a checking account, but only 37 percent indicated that they had a savings account, and almost 20 percent indicated that they used check cashing or cash advance services (Table 28). 34 Table 28: Access or usage of banking services, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Reason given % of respondents Checking account 70% Savings account 37% Credit card 29% Check cashing or cash advance 19% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients The availability of institutions, besides banks, that provide check cashing services is important for residents who are unable to obtain a checking account. A list, compiled from Indiana Department of Financial Institutions data, was analyzed to determine the number of check cashing and small loan lender establishments by county in Indiana. There are likely other establishments that offer these services not included in this count; the data provided here are businesses registered with the state for those purposes. Two maps were created from these data. The first map (Appendix C) displays the number of check cashing locations by county. The second map (Appendix D) displays the number of small loan lenders by county. For each map, the CAA numbers, corresponding with the agency listing on page 4 are listed as well. In total, there are 445 check cashing establishments and 363 small loan lenders in Indiana. Some of the small loan lenders were also listed as check cashing locations. There are 27 counties that do not have any registered small loan lenders, and 30 counties without any registered check cashing locations. Drug Abuse Drug abuse was identified as a serious issue in the focus groups. Focus groups expressed concern that it hinders employment because residents are unable to pass drug tests. Areas are also experiencing problems with locating affordable housing for residents who have been convicted of a felony, including drug related felonies. Stakeholders also relayed that the lack of mental healthcare had led to an increase the drug use in their areas. In an effort to assess the need for drug intervention, data regarding the number of drug arrests and clandestine lab seizures were obtained. Data regarding drug arrests were obtained from Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) which is compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Participation in reporting is not required and varies from state to state. In Indiana, there are 86 police agencies who report crime statistics for UCR. All counties were represented in the data, however, the total number of arrests in this report may not include all drug arrests. The data provided are the minimum number of arrests that occurred in 2009 and 2012. Table 29 details the number of arrests made in Indiana and the top five counties with the highest arrests for that category. Synthetic drugs include methamphetamine (meth). Opiate drugs include heroin and cocaine. The total drug arrests also include arrests for marijuana and other substances such as illegal use of prescription drugs. 35 Each category was normalized for arrests per 1,000 people as well as the total number of arrests made. While Indiana has had an overall decline in drug arrests from 2008 to 2012, some counties had a significant increase, more than doubling. Table 29. Drug arrests in Indiana, 2012; change in total drug arrests, 2008 to 2012 Indiana 26,674 4.11 3,018 0.47 3,109 0.48 -11.8% Top 5 counties 4,862 30.82 234 Synthetic 392 Opiate drug % change Marion Drug arrests Clark drug arrests Marion arrests per total drug Total drug per 1,000 Synthetic per 1,000 Opiate drug 1,000 arrests arrests population drug arrests population arrests population 2008 -2012 Indiana 26,674 4.11 3,018 0.47 3,109 0.48 -11.8% Top 5 counties 4,862 30.82 234 2.99 392 3.87 135.0% Marion Scott Clark Scott Marion Scott Orange 2,455 13.72 225 2.67 349 2.23 133.3% Lake Rush Marion Orange Lake LaGrange Martin 1,122 8.61 175 2.43 175 1.81 122.4% Vanderburgh Floyd Vanderburgh Parke Clark Howard Rush 902 7.11 171 2.43 162 1.59 119.1% Allen Orange Tippecanoe Blackford LaPorte Clark Fulton 900 6.80 142 2.13 150 1.46 98.6% Hamilton Clark Vigo Clark Howard LaPorte Washington Source: National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Uniform Crime Reporting Data: County -Level Detailed Arrest and Offense Data, 2009 and 2012 Clandestine labs are places where illegal substances, most frequently methamphetamines (meth), are made. Since 2007, Indiana tracks the locations of where labs are seized by law enforcement. As of November 5, 2014, a total of 9,581 labs had been seized by Indiana State Police. These data are only for seizures made by the Indiana State Police or reported to the Indiana State Police for review. Table 30 lists lab seizure rates for some CAAs, It is interesting to note that Area Five has the fifth highest seizure rate for the CAAs, however none of the counties that make up Area Five rank in the top five when reviewing seizures by county. Jennings County is second for the number of seizures per 1,000 people by county, but the Ohio Valley Opportunities agency does not rank in the top five CAAs. This indicates that while some CAA areas are burdened area - wide by meth production, other CAA areas may have one or two counties where meth production is high. Table 30: Top 5 clandestine lab seizure rates by Community Action Agencies, Indiana Total labs seized Labs per 1,000 population REAL (1,256) PACE (4.22) CANT (1,105) REAL (3.44) H.S.I. 1,054 CAPE 3.43 CAPE 821 H.S.I. 3.37 AREA FIVE (624) HOOSIER UPLANDS (3.06) Source: Indiana Methamphetamine Investigation System, Clan Lab Addresses; November 5, 2014 911 KC79 Health Insurance The percent of individuals with health insurance served by a CAA has increased slightly from 61 percent in 2010 to 63 percent in 2013 (Table 31). Table 31: Health insurance status of individuals served by CAAs, Indiana, 2010 -2013 Year Yes No 2010 61% 39% 2011 60% 40% 2012 64% 36% 2013 63% 37% Source: Indiana Community Services Block Grant Data, 2010 -2013 Nearly 80 percent of survey respondents reported having health care coverage. Those who did not report having health insurance were asked what makes it hard for them to obtain coverage. By far, most (63 percent) said cost. Many of the other responses listed some combination of cost, lack of knowledge, or no employer provider coverage as the reason for their lack of coverage. Community Needs All clients surveyed were asked to provide feedback on community needs. Questions included what was most needed, somewhat needed, not needed, and do not know for 33 different issues. Respondents were given the opportunity to include other responses. The identified needs were categorized into six areas: adult skills training, financial skills training, household support, food, home maintenance and repair, and affordable housing. Adult skills training Respondents were asked to provide feedback on a number of factors related to adult skills. Some concerned employment qualifications, while other addressed the ability to improve skills and access job opportunities. For each of these topic areas, the need for greater adult skill levels is often linked to increased employability and income. The survey results show relatively consistent rankings across all areas. However, the need for financial aid was listed as most needed or somewhat needed most frequently. Financial aid could mean that the client needs assistance with filling out paperwork to receive grants and loans for higher education or the client needs monetary assistance paying for technical or higher education classes. Table 32 shows the responses for all categories within adult skills training. 37 Table 32: Adult skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients In an effort to highlight any differences across the state, the responses were analyzed by CAA. Map 4 shows which adult skills training need was listed most often. All categories are reported most frequently in at least one CAA. Map 4: Adult skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Adult Skills Client Specified Needs L Computer Skills Training L I F nanc ial Aid GED Classes - Job Search Assistance = Training for Specific Skills Financial skills training CAA clients also were asked about their need for financial skills training. The topics include: budgeting money, credit counseling, tax preparation, applying for benefits, health insurance, 38 Literacy Training for specific skills GED classes Financial aid Computer skills training Job search assistance Reliable transporta tion Most Needed 19% 30% 29% 39% 32% 34% 35% Somewhat Needed 24% 24% 21% 22% 26% 23% 19% Not Needed 32% 26% 30% 22% 25% 26% 28% Don't Know 25% 20% 20616 17% 17% 16% 18% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients In an effort to highlight any differences across the state, the responses were analyzed by CAA. Map 4 shows which adult skills training need was listed most often. All categories are reported most frequently in at least one CAA. Map 4: Adult skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Adult Skills Client Specified Needs L Computer Skills Training L I F nanc ial Aid GED Classes - Job Search Assistance = Training for Specific Skills Financial skills training CAA clients also were asked about their need for financial skills training. The topics include: budgeting money, credit counseling, tax preparation, applying for benefits, health insurance, 38 home foreclosure, starting a business, and financial education. These topics impact many aspects of the clients day -to -day activities and may hinder income and employment opportunities. Over half of the respondents selected budgeting money as most needed or somewhat needed. However as shown in Table 33, the need for financial skills training is strong in all categories. Table 33: Financial skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 39 �, �, .� O •~ c�i y o y c -0 a> m x �a � >. c = `�° aa) j E o O C y c a v E U y Q a� � 2 vn 0 r_ 0 S d 3 N� c LL N m V Q Q 0 Most Needed 36% 30% 20% 27% 41% 18% 20% 29% Somewhat Needed 25% 25% 26% 23% 17% 19% 22% 21% Not Needed 24% 27% 36% 36% 29% 39% 34% 30% Don't Know 15% 17% 18% 15% 13% 24% 24% 21% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 39 Looking at the need for financial training by CAA shows that budgeting money is cited most often. Map 5 shows which financial service training was selected most often for each CAA. Map 5: Financial skills training needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Financial Services Client Specified Needs Applying for Benefits Budgeting Money Credit Counseling Health Insurance Coverage Household support The Family Household Support section of the survey included questions about the need for parenting skills training, childcare, youth and teen programs, and support for caregivers. For many households, the years before children are school age or times when school is out are the primary concerns. Survey respondents listed the need for teen and youth programs most often, with childcare needs not far behind (Table 34). With the percentage of Indiana's senior population growing, the demand for support for caregivers may grow over time. 40 Table 34: Family support needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Client Map 6 shows which family support need was selected most often for each CAA. For this issue there is variation throughout the state. Map 6: Family support needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Family Household Support Client Specified Needs EA Childcare Teen Programs (Ages 13 -18) = Youth Programs (Ages 5 -13) CAA clients were asked to highlight the need for healthy lifestyle tools, healthy relationship classes, support groups, mental health services, and legal services. These topics cover several different aspects, but all highlight the potential need for services outside the home. The client- specified need for these services is very consistent across all topics. Healthy lifestyle tools was selected most often, with 54 percent saying it was most needed or somewhat needed (Table 35). All topics were identified by at least 48 percent of clients as needed. 41 Parenting Skills Childcare Youth Programs Teen Programs Support for Caregivers Most Needed 25% 32% 37% 36% 28% Somewhat Needed 20% 19% 18% 16% 20% Not Needed 40% 35% 33% 34% 36% Don't Know 15% 14% 13% 13% 16% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Client Map 6 shows which family support need was selected most often for each CAA. For this issue there is variation throughout the state. Map 6: Family support needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Family Household Support Client Specified Needs EA Childcare Teen Programs (Ages 13 -18) = Youth Programs (Ages 5 -13) CAA clients were asked to highlight the need for healthy lifestyle tools, healthy relationship classes, support groups, mental health services, and legal services. These topics cover several different aspects, but all highlight the potential need for services outside the home. The client- specified need for these services is very consistent across all topics. Healthy lifestyle tools was selected most often, with 54 percent saying it was most needed or somewhat needed (Table 35). All topics were identified by at least 48 percent of clients as needed. 41 Table 35: Health and legal support needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients A closer look at these topics by CAA yields similar results. All of these topics were selected most often by at least one CAA (Map 7). Map 7. Health and legal support needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Houeshold Support Services Client Specified Needs i Healthy Relationships Legal Services Support Groups Tools to Live a Healthy Lifestyle Food Survey respondents were asked to provide input on the need for food assistance and nutritional education. The demand for food assistance is closely tied with the need to access SNAP and food pantries, while the need for nutrition education provides insight on the growing obesity epidemic. 42 Healthy Lifestyle Tools Healthy Relationship Classes Support Groups Mental Health Services Legal Services Most Needed 27% 28% 27% 28% 29% Somewhat Needed 27% 23% 23% 21% 21% Not Needed 32% 34% 34% 36% 35% Don't Know 14% 15% 15% 16% 15% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients A closer look at these topics by CAA yields similar results. All of these topics were selected most often by at least one CAA (Map 7). Map 7. Health and legal support needs, as reported by survey respondents, by CAA, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Houeshold Support Services Client Specified Needs i Healthy Relationships Legal Services Support Groups Tools to Live a Healthy Lifestyle Food Survey respondents were asked to provide input on the need for food assistance and nutritional education. The demand for food assistance is closely tied with the need to access SNAP and food pantries, while the need for nutrition education provides insight on the growing obesity epidemic. 42 As shown in Table 36, over 70 percent of CAA clients reported that food assistance was either most need or somewhat needed. Over 50 percent reported a need for nutrition education, but almost one -third said this was not needed. Table 36: Food assistance and education needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Client Home maintenance and repair CAA clients were asked to share the demand for home insulation and weatherproofing and removal and repair of condemned and vacant homes. As reported earlier, clients often need assistance paying their utility bills. Increasing or improving insulation and weatherproofing can help lower heating and cooling costs. Table 37 shows the survey responses with over 50 percent reporting insulation and weatherproofing assistance as most or somewhat needed. Table 37: Maintenance and repair assistance needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Food assistance Nutrition education Most Needed 43% 28% Somewhat Needed 28% 28% Not Needed 21% 32% Don't Know 8% 12% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Client Home maintenance and repair CAA clients were asked to share the demand for home insulation and weatherproofing and removal and repair of condemned and vacant homes. As reported earlier, clients often need assistance paying their utility bills. Increasing or improving insulation and weatherproofing can help lower heating and cooling costs. Table 37 shows the survey responses with over 50 percent reporting insulation and weatherproofing assistance as most or somewhat needed. Table 37: Maintenance and repair assistance needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Affordable housing With 50 percent of Indiana residents spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing expenses, it is clear that affordable housing is an issue in many communities. CAA clients were asked to provide feedback on the need for rent and mortgage assistance, utility payment assistance, homeless services, and down payment assistance. Table 38: Housing and utility needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Home insulation /weatherproofing Removal /repair of condemned or vacant houses Most Needed 36% 30% Somewhat Needed 22% 18% Not Needed 29% 37% Don't Know 13% 15% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients Affordable housing With 50 percent of Indiana residents spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing expenses, it is clear that affordable housing is an issue in many communities. CAA clients were asked to provide feedback on the need for rent and mortgage assistance, utility payment assistance, homeless services, and down payment assistance. Table 38: Housing and utility needs, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 43 Rent /mortgage assistance Utility assistance (electric/gas/water Homeless services /shelters Down payment assistance Most Needed 48% 62% 38% 38% Somewhat Needed 21% 20% 16% 18% Not Needed 22% 11% 35% 30% Don't Know 9% 6% 12% 14% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 43 Over 80 percent reported that utility payment assistance was most needed or somewhat needed (Table 38). Of all the community needs topics, this received the largest response. Notably, 35 percent reported that homeless services were not needed. CAA Evaluation Clients responding to the survey provided very favorable feedback on the CAA staff and programs (Table 39), including: • 92 percent rated services as either excellent or good; • 93 percent rated staff treatment as excellent or good; • 91 percent responded favorably to the reliability of staff; and • 97 percent found responses to questions and problems to be satisfactory. Table 39: CAA client feedback, as reported by survey respondents, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients CAA clients also were asked how likely they were to recommend CAA services and programs and to share how likely they were to return to the CAA for assistance in the future (Table 40). Ninety -seven percent said they were likely or highly likely to recommend the CAA program and services. Ninety -five percent were likely or highly likely to return for services in the future. Table 38 shows all the survey responses. Table 40: Likelihood of referrals and recommendation, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Overall, how would you rate the program or services you received? 56% 36% 6% 1% 2% How would you rate the way the staff treated you? 62% 31% 5% 1 % 2% How would you rate the reliability of the program staff in doing / what they said they would do? 57% 34% 6% 1 % 3% How would you rate the timeliness of the program staff in / responding to your questions or problems? 1 54% 1 35% 1 8% 1 1 % 2% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients CAA clients also were asked how likely they were to recommend CAA services and programs and to share how likely they were to return to the CAA for assistance in the future (Table 40). Ninety -seven percent said they were likely or highly likely to recommend the CAA program and services. Ninety -five percent were likely or highly likely to return for services in the future. Table 38 shows all the survey responses. Table 40: Likelihood of referrals and recommendation, as reported by survey respondents, CAA clients, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 44 Highly Highly Don't Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely know If you had a friend who was in need of the same or similar services / you received, how likely is it that you would recommend the program / or service to him or her? 72% 25% 1 % 0% 2% How likely are you to seek services from this agency again? 69% 26% 1 % 1 % 4% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Clients 44 BM V I Data from CAA Stakeholder Surveys Stakeholders provide another source of data for the assessment. They are knowledgeable about current conditions in the community and are able to provide feedback on CAA operations and impact. CAA Programs and Services Responses to the stakeholder surveys are similar to the client feedback, and suggest a favorable review of CAA programs and services. Figure 17 shows that 90 percent of stakeholder respondents would rate the CAA programs as good or excellent. Figure 18 shows that 87 percent would rate the delivery of CAA services as good or excellent. Ninety -five percent were either likely or highly likely to recommend CAA services (Table 41). Figure 17. Overall how would you rate the programs and services offered by (Agency)? Poor, 0 Don't Know, 6 Fair, 4 Excellent, 50 Good, 40 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders 45 Figure 18. How would you rate their delivery of services? Pnnr 1 Don't Know, 8 Good, 45 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Excellent, 42 Table 41. How likely are you to recommend the services from (Agency)? Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders However, when asked about the public awareness of CAA programs, Figure 19 shows the response is not as clear. Only 50 percent are either very aware or aware of CAA services. Thirty -eight percent responded that the public was only somewhat aware of CAA services. This is an area for further evaluation and discussion. The impact of CAAs may be enhanced with greater public awareness. Ell % of respondents Highly Likely 70% Likely 25% Unlikely 0% Highly Unlikely 0% Don't Know 5% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders However, when asked about the public awareness of CAA programs, Figure 19 shows the response is not as clear. Only 50 percent are either very aware or aware of CAA services. Thirty -eight percent responded that the public was only somewhat aware of CAA services. This is an area for further evaluation and discussion. The impact of CAAs may be enhanced with greater public awareness. Ell Figure 19: What is the level of public awareness regarding the services that the (Agency) provides? Not Aware, 5% 0 Very Aware, 22% Somewhat Aware, 38% Aware, 28% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Community Needs Stakeholders were asked to identify the need for community resources to match demand in the community. There are differences between the needs identified by the client and stakeholder surveys. Adult skills training The CAA clients listed financial aid and computer skills training most frequently. While there is agreement on the need for computer skills, stakeholders also highlighted the need for specific skills training, job search assistance, and reliable transportation (Table 42). Table 42. Adult skills training needs, as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Financial skills training When asked to list the needs for financial skills training, the responses match the client feedback. Both list budgeting money, financial education, and health insurance coverage at or near the top of the list of needs (Table 43). This level of agreement may assist in developing training to match community need. 47 Literacy Training for specific skills GED classes Financial aid Computer skills training Job search assistance Reliable transportation Most Needed 31% 48% 29% 41% 44% 48% 49% Somewhat Needed 41% 32% 38% 36% 43% 32% 31% Not Needed 7% 4% 20% 6% 4% 7% 6% Don't Know 21% 16% 13% 17% 10% 13% 14% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Financial skills training When asked to list the needs for financial skills training, the responses match the client feedback. Both list budgeting money, financial education, and health insurance coverage at or near the top of the list of needs (Table 43). This level of agreement may assist in developing training to match community need. 47 Table 43: Financial skills training needs, as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Household support The stakeholder responses to the need for household support is very consistent across all topics. This is similar to the client survey responses and may identify a wide demand for services. Table 44 shows stakeholders view household services as either most needed or somewhat needed for all topics areas. Table 44. Household family support needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Parenting skills Childcare Youth programs Teen programs m L R c 45% '1 � 43% X R i N E 38% 5 . V Not Needed p E U p S R 3 9% 0a0 9% Q v N a ii y Q Most Needed 62% 54% 29% 40% 56% 28% 21% 46% Somewhat Needed 26% 30% 41% 44% 32% 43% 37% 38% Not Needed 3% 5% 15% 7% 6% 10% 22% 4% Don't Know 9% 11% 15% 8% 6% 18% 21% 13% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Household support The stakeholder responses to the need for household support is very consistent across all topics. This is similar to the client survey responses and may identify a wide demand for services. Table 44 shows stakeholders view household services as either most needed or somewhat needed for all topics areas. Table 44. Household family support needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders The stakeholders reported need for household support services is consistent across topics. As shown in Table 45, the variation in responses is not more than a percentage or two. These responses are similar to the client survey results and may identify another area of agreement for services and programs. Table 45. Household service support needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Parenting skills Childcare Youth programs Teen programs Support for caregivers Most Needed 64% 61% 45% 50% 43% Somewhat Needed 27% 29% 40% 38% 45% Not Needed 3% 5% 5% 3% 3% Don't Know 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders The stakeholders reported need for household support services is consistent across topics. As shown in Table 45, the variation in responses is not more than a percentage or two. These responses are similar to the client survey results and may identify another area of agreement for services and programs. Table 45. Household service support needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Food The stakeholder responses differ from the client responses for this topic. As Table 46 shows, stakeholders see an increased demand for food assistance (87 compared to 71 percent), and a 48 Tools to live a healthy lifestyle Healthy relationship programs/ classes Support groups Mental health services Legal services Most Needed 44% 34% 57% 43% 51% Somewhat Needed 43% 47% 29% 42% 37% Not Needed 2% 4% 5% 5% 3% Don't Know 10% 14% 1 9% 9% 1 10% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Food The stakeholder responses differ from the client responses for this topic. As Table 46 shows, stakeholders see an increased demand for food assistance (87 compared to 71 percent), and a 48 greater need for nutrition education (94 versus 56 percent). These differences may indicate the need for additional information for this topic or a closer examination by CAA. Table 46: Food needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Home maintenance and repair Stakeholders reported higher levels of demand for home insulation and weatherproofing as well as the removal or repair of condemned or vacant homes than the client surveys (Table 47). This may indicate a gap in perception of housing conditions.lt also differes from the client reported need for utility payment assistance. Table 47: Home insulation and repair needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Food assistance Nutrition education Most Needed 55% 47% Somewhat Needed 32% 47% Not Needed 9% 1 % Don't Know 5% 5% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Home maintenance and repair Stakeholders reported higher levels of demand for home insulation and weatherproofing as well as the removal or repair of condemned or vacant homes than the client surveys (Table 47). This may indicate a gap in perception of housing conditions.lt also differes from the client reported need for utility payment assistance. Table 47: Home insulation and repair needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Affordable housing Table 48 shows a consistent level of need for affordable housing as reported by the stakeholders. For three out of the four topics, the variation between client and stakeholder responses is important. Clients reported a lower need for rent and mortgage assistance than stakeholders (69 versus 92 percent, respectively), and help paying utility bills (82 versus 95 percent, respectively). Respondents to the client survey reported a lower need for down payment assistance than did the stakeholders (55 versus 78 percent, respectively). The reported stakeholder need for utility assistance corresponds to the need for insulation and weatherproofing. Table 48: Affordable housing needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Home insulation/weatherproofing Removal /repair of condemned or vacant houses Most Needed 59% 68% Somewhat Needed 34% 23% Not Needed 1 % 3% Don't Know 5% 6% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders Affordable housing Table 48 shows a consistent level of need for affordable housing as reported by the stakeholders. For three out of the four topics, the variation between client and stakeholder responses is important. Clients reported a lower need for rent and mortgage assistance than stakeholders (69 versus 92 percent, respectively), and help paying utility bills (82 versus 95 percent, respectively). Respondents to the client survey reported a lower need for down payment assistance than did the stakeholders (55 versus 78 percent, respectively). The reported stakeholder need for utility assistance corresponds to the need for insulation and weatherproofing. Table 48: Affordable housing needs as reported by community stakeholders, Indiana, 2014 Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders 49 Rent /mortgage assistance Utility assistance (electric/gas/water Homeless services /shelters Down payment assistance Most Needed 56% 65% 57% 40% Somewhat Needed 36% 30% 34% 38% Not Needed 2% 2% 4% 9% Don't Know 6% 3% 5% 13% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Stakeholders 49 CAA Employee Survey CAA employees were asked to provide confidential feedback on CAA programs and services. As both the clients and stakeholders have a positive view of CAA programs and services, it is helpful to see how employees view these services. From the employee responses in Table 49, they believe they are knowledgeable about CAA programs and services (88 percent), that CAA programs are collaborating to meet client needs (85 percent), and working to enroll clients in all agency programs for which they are eligible (88 percent). They also are knowledgeable about programs outside the agency (83 percent) and understand how to make referrals (80 percent). Finally, they do not believe it is difficult to remain up -to -date with program requirements as only 35 percent of the employee responses agree or strongly agreed with that statement. Table 49: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Employees CAA employees report utilizing a variety of resources and information gathering techniques. Figure 20 shows the tools used and how often. While 15 percent of the employees checked other, a review of the responses finds the most common to be all of the above rather than any additional source or type of information. M Neither Agree Strongly nor Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree I know about other programs at the agency and how to make referrals. 40% 48% 6% 4% 1 % Programs within the agency collaborate to meet participants' needs. 30% 55% 9% 4% 2% 1 know about services outside the agency and how to make referrals to them. 25% 55% 13% 7% 1 % When new participants enroll in my program, we think about what agency programs they might be eligible for and make sure they get information and referral to these programs. 38% 48% 10% 3% 1 % When new participants enroll in my program, we think about what services and benefits outside the agency they might be eligible for and make sure they get information and referral to these services. 35% 48% 13% 3% 1 % It is difficult for the staff of my agency to keep up -to- date with other programs' services and eligibility guidelines. 1 5% 1 30% 1 28% 1 30% 1 7% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Employees CAA employees report utilizing a variety of resources and information gathering techniques. Figure 20 shows the tools used and how often. While 15 percent of the employees checked other, a review of the responses finds the most common to be all of the above rather than any additional source or type of information. M Figure 20: In your experience, what is the best way to keep up -to -date with other programs' services and eligibility guidelines? Other, 15% Visit program websites, 12% Listserv, 3% Agency referral database, 33% Attending community coalition meetings, 17% Resource fair, 4% Source: 2014 Survey of CAA Employees Conclusion Newsletters, 16% With the needs assessment complete, it is helpful to summarize the key findings. First, the CAA's are well - utilized and well regarded by clients and community partners. CAA staff are knowledgeable about the program offerings and can identify ways to remain current in their program knowledge. Community stakeholders rate the programs and delivery of services highly and are likely to recommend their services. The focus group discussions and the data collection highlighted poverty rates, employment issues, public transportation, mental health services (including substance abuse), homelessness, affordable housing, and education needs. The data also show that housing remains affordable and most have access to reliable transportation. The survey of CAA client's added additional detail. Respondents shared a need to for financial education, food and childcare assistance, and home insulation and utility payment support. The survey of CAA stakeholders highlighted the need for literacy training, parenting skills and support for caregivers, and nutrition education. 51 52 Appendix A: MSA Areas by County Terre fflA ute SOUth hero = .�qan c,c,. -Mshavats =dtllA�.- ti5A _..enUSA Bloomngton VISA KO'KM o MSA Colaobus MSA Fort ,WtS A MSA Co-untle8 no? 4:kitletl b 2 MSA Te Te —We kFSA ® So.NI Bend - Mrnawak a NSA P.Jejncie VSA k L igan CRy - L3PO be VGA Loulsullle - :e-traon Coum., WZ- A - La?a't2Eie VZA ®IGVkomo VSA �#idJamapoIls MSA For! Warne MSA Evans Me MSA EAhail - Cosner V-SA 031gmutiS Fl SA -Clm=mall- MkitlleWwn MSA 0: "r 3•3 MSA -Gaay DJu*5.bn --gbri MA 53 Appendix 6: Change in Poverty by CAA, 2009 — 2013 54 Change in Party D.1 % -S. -D % L J S.1 % - 1 E.1D % ® 16.1% -24. -D % - 24.1 % - 34.0% Appendix C: Number of establishments providing check cashing services, by county Check Cashing Locations Number per County 0 0 1 -6 �7 -17 - 18 -52 - 52 - 131 Bank On Location 55 Appendix D. Number of establishments providing cash advance services (small loan lenders), by county 56 Licensed Small Loan Lenders Number per County �o Os -1s - 19 -34 - 34 -ge Redevelopment Commission and Redevelopment Authority Properties Sold From 2012 to 2015 07/08/15 OWNER ADDRESS DATE SOLD DISPOSITION PRICE 2015 ASSESSED VALUE 2014/2015 TAXES PAID PREVIOUS USE Marc A. Mersich 628 Rush 1/24/2012 5,000.00 17,758.00 824.12 Residential Property leased under the Housing Development Corp. (H DC) Oliver Plow 533 Chapin, Lot B 1/25/2012 22,000.00 628,175.00 35,192.96 Vacant Lot Partners, L.P. Michel A. Gilbert, 602 S. Carroll St. 1/27/2012 8,693.69 45,500.00 1844.72 Residential Property leased under Jr. the Housing Development Corp. (H DC) Michel A. Gilbert, 310 E. South St. 1/27/2012 3,271.62 56,400.00 2,388.07 Residential Property leased under Jr. the Housing Development Corp. (H DC) River Race 122 Niles 5/9/2012 10.00 242,375.00 5,999.64 Troegger Sheet Metal Townhomes, LLC River Race 511 E. Jefferson 5/9/2012 0.00 Not Assessed Troegger Sheet Metal Townhomes, LLC Ricio Baltazar 609 Columbia 8/30/2012 8,000.00 10,738.00 474.6 Residential Property leased under the Housing Development Corp. (H DC) 227 Main Street 213 -217 S. Main St. 2/27/2013 15,000.00 Not Assessed SW Corner of Main & Jefferson; Associates, L.P. formally CE Lee Bldg., (Demolished). Currently, a Parking Lot MM Vance, LLC 1017 W. Indiana 3/15/2013 1,528.99 Vacant Residential Lot MM Vance, LLC 1527 S. Kemble 3/15/2013 2,000.00 Vacant Residential Lot East Bank South 228 Sycamore 3/19/2013 8,400.00 25,000.00 903.36 Vacant Land Bend Development, LLC Bruce Gordon 620 W. Columbia 6/12/2013 7,200.00 33,500.00 919.3 Residential Property leased under the Housing Development Corp. (H DC) Trajectory 618 Lincolnway East Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC +47:62 8/30/2013 11,780.91 75,300.00 3,259.80 (H DC) Trajectory 514 S. Rush St. Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 8,551.04 67,000.00 2,909.13 (H DC) Trajectory 518 S. Rush St. Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 185.89 2,500.00 90.34 (H DC) Trajectory 611 E. South St. Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 1,858.92 40,700.00 1,122.32 (H DC) Trajectory 622 Lincolnway East Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 6,273.86 26,200.00 722.47 (H DC) Trajectory 613 E. South St. Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 5,832.37 23,000.00 601.10 (H DC) Trajectory 701 E. South St. Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 209.13 57,500.00 2,489.23 (H DC) Trajectory 632 Lincolnway East Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 395.02 1,500.00 54.20 (H DC) Trajectory 636 Lincolnway East Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 0.00 2,800.00 101.18 (H DC) Trajectory 626 Lincolnway East Residential Property leased under Investment Group, the Housing Development Corp. LLC 8/30/2013 15,312.86 64,600.00 2,799.89 (H DC) Marc A. Mersich 605 Bronson 12/6/2013 10.00 1,900.00 52.14 Vacant Residential Lot leased under the Housing Development Corp.(HDC) Karl G. King, III and 1106 E. Burns 1/1/2014 Donation 263,175.00 6,054.98 Transferred to NNRO for Triangle Margaret B. King Project Northeast 1136 Duey St. 1/1/2014 Donation 20,300.00 733.54 Vacant Residential Lot Neighborhood Revitalazation Northeast 1110 Duey St. 1/1/2014 Donation Not Assessed Vacant Residential Lot Neighborhood Revitalazation Northeast 1102 Duey St. 1/1/2014 Donation 33,200.00 1,199.68 Vacant Residential Lot Neighborhood Revitalazation Northeast 1119 Burns 1/1/2014 Donation 303,200.00 3,994.94 Vacant Residential Lot Neighborhood Revitalazation Northeast 1113 Burns 1/1/2014 Donation 385,600.00 10,329.54 Vacant Residential Lot Neighborhood Revitalazation Northeast 1030 Georgiana 1/1/2014 Donation 72,205.00 2,021.28 Vacant Residential Lot Neighborhood Revitalazation University of Notre 1104 Eddy St. 1/1/2014 Donation 5,000.00 180.65 Vacant Residential Lot Dame DuLac University of Notre 1028 Eddy St. 1/1/2014 Donation 4,900.00 177.06 Vacant Residential Lot Dame DuLac Curtis Products, 401 N. Bendix Dr. 1/8/2014 1,100,000.00 5,359,200.00 203,336.74 Formally the Bosch Corp. Inc. Entermission, Inc. 502 W. Western 1/20/2014 0.00 9,700.00 Formally TRC South Bend, LLC Ave. Harmon Glass Stratabys, LLC 112 S. St. Louis Blvd Vacant Residential Lot 5/9/2014 1,400.00 3,800.00 137.3 East Bank South 517 E. Colfax Ave. 1/2/2015 4,700.16 195,500.00 Vacant Land Bend Development, LLC East Bank South 211 Hill St. 1/2/2015 2,074.56 Not Assessed Vacant Land Bend Development, LLC East Bank South 529 E. Colfax Ave. 1/2/2015 13,225.28 Not Assessed Vacant Land Bend Development, LLC Indiana Michigan 1068 Oliver Plow 2/18/2015 13,060.00 Not Assessed Vacant Land at Oliver Plow Power Company Court Acquisition Group, 6100 Nimtz Prkway 3/2/2015 1,655,000.00 Not Assessed Blackthorn Golf Course and Club LLC House Ivy Tech 230 E. Sample 5/14/2015 Donation Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Discount Rental Community College of Indiana Ivy Tech 120 -124 E. Sample 5/14/2015 Donation Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Enyart Electric Community College of Indiana Ivy Tech 119 E. Ohio 5/14/2015 Donation Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Enyart Electric Community College of Indiana Ivy Tech 129 E. Ohio 5/14/2015 Donation Not Assessed Tax Exempt Residential Vacant Land Community College of Indiana Ivy Tech 202 E. Sample 5/14/2015 Donation Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Sinco Pool Community College of Indiana Ivy Tech 130 E. Sample 5/14/2015 Donation Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Sinco Pool Community College of Indiana Ivy Tech 117 E. Ohio 5/14/2015 Donation Community Not Assessed College of Indiana Formally Enyart Electric Ivy Tech 121 E. Ohio 5/14/2015 Donation Community Not Assessed Tax Exempt College of Indiana 37,500.00 Ivy Tech 125 E. Ohio 5/14/2015 Donation Community 3,088.30 Residential House College of Indiana 111,000.00 Ivy Tech 127 E. Ohio 5/14/2015 Donation Community LaSalle Hotel 2,438.00 College of Indiana 130.08 Residential Northeast 1100 Block South Donation Neighborhood Bend Ave Not Assessed Revitalazation Part of the Bosch Facilities 0.00 Benjamin Stroud 4212 S. Fellows St. 11/10/2014 Benjamin Stroud 4224 S. Fellows St 11/10/2014 Real America 237 N. Michigan 5/1/2015 Five Corners, LLC 1219 Howard 11/14/2013 Career Accademy 3408 Ardmore Tr. 2/18/2015 of South Bend, Inc. Unity Garden 3611 Prast Blvd. 1/12/2015 Kankakee 802 Kaley 8/14/2014 Wetlands Organic Gardens, Inc Carolynn Grant 403 Dayton St 9/18/2012 Totals Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Sinco Pool Not Assessed Tax Exempt Formally Enyart Electric Not Assessed Tax Exempt Commercial Vacant Land Not Assessed Tax Exempt Commercial Vacant Land 37,500.00 1,355.06 Quigley Park 70,000.00 117,000.00 3,088.30 Residential House 57,500.00 111,000.00 2,903.58 Residential House 1.00 Not Assessed LaSalle Hotel 2,438.00 3,600.00 130.08 Residential 730,000.00 Not Assessed Tax Exempt St. Vincent De Paul Society 0.00 Not Assessed Part of the Bosch Facilities 0.00 600.00 21.68 Vacant Lot 10.00 Vacant Lot 3,780,923.30 8,347,926.00 298,412.98 Abandoned Properties by Status As of September 2015 Cleve/an y 1 -80 _..- .._.._�._.._.._.�� �.._ .I F. J. Nimtz 1' -o I W oy I �� r.•a_.._ rColand i X v e o� 1 1 • e ° CftO O , / --� °° 0 ° 0 ° . - ° ooh liar Lq m00 GO 8 o ryqb • C ° O O 0 O 0 O ° I I I I I IO a� 0 •. • •• •:• S - �► • n • •y r�Pc • •i • • •• • • • • �•• • i •• (• • r v•! •• �•�• 0 00 • •••• • • • •1••• ••A �• • •0 f• • • • i • • i• • • —••— , ..... •t.._ r Edison O s O oJtir�e f O 0 •5 O •� � 0 0 • O o ° WO Makin • -� `CY Bison • O s McKinl y -c L all U L 1� o 0 C x Colfa d • �' 0 ° c Q ° �_ 00 08 0 ° 0 ca bode / 0 Sample s O m CD ° O ° G •O O 00 00 - -� • 00 ° � 0 0 8 o o m cgo O 0 m o o° 8 e0° • OZ O 0 oft °0 0 0 ° - `. o O o Legend US Hwy 31� O Demolished • Repaired 1 • BEP 1 r I O Demolition Awarded J 7 O CDC Partner House I O Abandoned i � I � ? ; i- LSt Joseph River . Parks --j L - -j I f - Schools -1 I I I I I Vacant & Abandoned Properties near Schools that are Addressed Within 300' of school As of Sept. 14, 2015 Number Dir Street Suffix Property Address School Action Taken 1134 Sussex DR 1134 Sussex DR Coquillard Primary Repaired 4011 St. Johns WAY 4011 St. Johns WAY Coquillard Primary Repaired 713 S Lake ST 713 S Lake ST Harrison Primary Demolished 314 S Kentucky ST 314 S Kentucky ST Harrison Primary Demolished 5121S Kentucky ST 1512 S Kentucky ST Harrison Primary Repaired 1050 N Adams ST 1050 N Adams ST Holy Cross Demolition Awarded 1530 Van Buren ST 1530 Van Buren ST Holy Cross BEP 2513 Westmoor ST 2513 Westmoor ST Kennedy Primary Repaired 2306 Longley AVE 2306 Longley AVE Kennedy Primary Repaired 2525 Kenwood AVE 2525 Kenwood AVE Kennedy Primary Repaired 2730 Frederickson ST 2730 Frederickson ST Kennedy Primary Demolished 2422 Roger ST 2422 Roger ST Kennedy Primary Demolished 2726 Frederickson ST 2726 Frederickson ST Kennedy Primary Repaired 2901 Westmoor ST 2901 Westmoor ST Kennedy Primary Repaired 2526 lBertrand ST 2526 Bertrand ST Kennedy Primary Demolished 2710 Frederickson ST 12710 Frederickson ST Kennedy Primary Repaired 2516 Bertrand ST 2516 Bertrand ST Kennedy Primary Repaired 2518 Bertrand ST 2518 Bertrand ST Kennedy Primary Demolished 516 N Olive ST 516 N Olive ST Kennedy Primary BEP 273 Westwood LN 273 Westwood LN Lafayette Primary Demolition Awarded 2810 Elwood AVE 2810 Elwood AVE LaSalle Academy Repaired 1629 Fremont ST 1629 Fremont ST LaSalle Academy Repaired 1641 Fremont ST 1641 Fremont ST LaSalle Academy Repaired 2714 Elwood AVE 2714 Elwood AVE LaSalle Academy Repaired 1421 Fremont ST 1421 Fremont ST LaSalle Academy Repaired 1701 N Meade ST 1701 N Meade ST LaSalle Academy Demolished 1337 Fremont ST 1337 Fremont ST LaSalle Academy Demolished 1525 Fremont ST 1525 Fremont ST LaSalle Academy Repaired 2818 Elwood AVE 2818 Elwood AVE LaSalle Academy Repaired 1514 N Meade ST 1514 N Meade ST LaSalle Academy Repaired 1414 E Calvert ST 1414 E Calvert ST Lincoln Primary Demolished 1406 Randolph ST 1406 Randolph ST Lincoln Primary Repaired 401 lDonmoyer AVE 401 Donmoyer AVE Monroe Primary Repaired 914 Cleveland AVE 914 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary BEP 906 Cleveland AVE 906 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Demolition Awarded 1034 Diamond AVE 1034 Diamond AVE Muessel Primary Demolition Awarded 926 Cleveland AVE 926 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 1019 Cleveland AVE 1019 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 1015 lAllen ST 1015 Allen ST Muessel Primary Demolished 1002 Diamond AVE 1002 Diamond AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 1026 Diamond AVE 1026 Diamond AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 1243 Vassar AVE 1243 Vassar AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 1025 Cleveland AVE 1025 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 1011 Allen ST 1011 Allen ST Muessel Primary Deconstructed 908 lBlaine AVE 908 Blaine AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 917 Blaine AVE 917 Blaine AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 1042 Diamond AVE 1042 Diamond AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 921 Cleveland AVE 921 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 1021 Cleveland AVE 1021 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Demolished 1047 Cleveland AVE 1047 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 1029 lCleveland AVE 1029 Cleveland AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 1239 Vassar AVE 1239 Vassar AVE Muessel Primary Repaired 2826 Pleasant ST 2826 Pleasant ST Nuner Primary Repaired 1912 Kendall ST 1912 Kendall ST Our Lady of Hungary Repaired 610 E Dayton ST 610 E Dayton ST 1 Riley High School 1 Demolition Awarded 406 Dayton ST 406 Dayton ST Riley High School IDemolished 403E lBowman IST 1403 E Bowman ST Riley High School IRepaired 1820 Columbia ST 1820 Columbia ST Riley High School Demolished 612 E Dayton ST 612 E Dayton ST Riley High School Demolished 819 Milton ST 819 Milton ST Riley High School Demolished 402 E Dayton ST 402 E Dayton ST Riley High School Demolished 513 E Dayton ST 513 E Dayton ST Riley High School Demolished 1821 Fellows ST 1821 Fellows ST Riley High School Repaired 410 E Dayton ST 410 E Dayton ST Riley High School Demolished 317 E Milton ST 317 E Milton ST Riley High School Demolished 616 S Olive ST 616 S Olive ST St. Adalberts Demolition Awarded 512 S Meade ST 512 S Meade ST St. Adalberts Repaired 505 S Meade ST 505 S Meade ST St. Adalberts Repaired 3303 Locke ST 3303 Locke ST St. John the Baptist Catholic School Repaired 3502 W Lincoln WAY 3502 W Lincoln WAY St. John the Baptist Catholic School Repaired 914 E Dubail AVE 914 E Dubail AVE St. Matthew's Demolished 909 E Dayton ST 909 E Dayton ST St. Matthew's Demolished 717 E Dubail AVE 717 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Demolition Awarded 1614 Marietta ST 1614 Marietta ST Studebaker Demolished 709 E Dubail AVE 709 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Demolished 807 E Dubail AVE 807 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Repaired 729 E Dubail AVE 729 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Demolished 713 E Dubail IAVE 1713 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Demolished 620E jDubaiI JAVE 1620 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Demolished 629E IDubail JAVE 1629 E Dubail AVE Studebaker Demolished 1618 IMarietta IST 11618 Marietta ST Studebaker Demolished SouTH eF of 11ii��Crli ~O F \� 4, U�\NX Q` O i 1865 City of South Bend Assistant Executive Director and Director of Business Development Department: Community Investment (formerly CED) Written by: M Neal Reports To: Executive Director of Community Investment FLSA Status: FT/Exempt/NB Approval(s) Base Hours: Minimum 80 hours bi -weekly Department Head: S Ford Work Hours: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM; M — F; Night and eekend meetings may be required. Human Resources: J Hall Original Date: Other: Revised Date: 4/27/2012 POSITION SUMMARY: Serves as the `single point of contact' in the City to assist businesses seeking to navigate the public process for purposes of economic development. Leads the City of South Bend's Business Development team and its activities to develop the strategies to effectively identify, recruit, support and enhance new and expanding businesses in the City and executes on those strategies. Supports the Executive Director of Community Investment in all of his /her responsibilities. Innovation, creativity, high energy and problem solving are critical skills toward incumbent's success. SUPERVISION EXERCISED: Reporting to Executive Director, responsible for daily operations of entire Community Investment Department and direct supervision of Business Development team. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: • Leads the department's economic development and redevelopment activities including strategic planning, budgeting, hiring personnel and creating successful public - private partnerships. • Develops performance measures based on accepted best practices to assess programming effectiveness. • Leads strategic review of prospective development opportunities requesting City participation. Works with professional service providers (attorneys, financial consultants, engineers, etc.) along with developers /investors to finalize projects. • Organizes internal interdisciplinary project teams around individual opportunities, drawing from the Planning, Analytics, Business Development, and Neighborhood Support groups within the Department, and from outside the Department where appropriate. • Oversees implementation of approved development projects with City participation. • Creates and deploys new business assistance programs, investment initiatives and revises existing program as necessary to increase effectiveness. • Develops and maintains working relationship with key area businesses to facilitate growth and reinvestment in the City. EEO Employer Page 1 of 3 SouTH eF U�\NX Q` O i 1865 City of South Bend Assistant Executive Director and Director of Business Development • Performs as Executive Director of City's Industrial Revolving Fund including marketing, administrating and staffing its commercial loan program. • Works collaboratively with private sector economic development groups to further City's community investment goals and objectives. • Researches, leverages, receives and deploys appropriate federal, state and local funding sources in furtherance of City development goals. • Directs the management of the planning, development, implementation and evaluation of the City's economic development activities for the Urban Enterprise Zone Program. • Meets with and advises City Officials, redevelopment commissioners, business leaders and other concerned citizens as to economic development, redevelopment, community development, business assistance, housing and neighborhood plans. • Supervises and evaluates progress of staff, and coordinates department's work with that of contractors, agencies and other City departments. • Works with the community's elected and appointed leadership to develop policy in the areas of business assistance and economic development and redevelopment. QUALIFICATIONS: • A college degree in public administration, urban planning, law, finance and economics or related field and five years of increasingly responsible positions in real estate and development, public housing, urban planning, urban redevelopment, community development, economic development or a similar area of work experience. • A graduate degree in business, public administration, urban planning, law, finance and economics or related field is preferred. KNOWLEDGE, SHILLS AND ABILITY: • Knowledge of principles and practices of urban planning, redevelopment, business assistance and economic development, neighborhood revitalization and housing programs; • Knowledge of basic public administration procedures; ability to supervise a multifaceted public development agency and coordinate a variety of projects related to economic development, community development, urban redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization; ability to evaluate and analyze complex plans, projects, and programs, taking into consideration such factors as the public budget process, the sources and uses of revenue, the conflicting community viewpoints and plans, the political process, strategic planning considerations and other difficulties; • Ability to direct a professional staff; ability to relate well with community leaders, elected and appointed officials and diverse community and civic groups; • Ability to clearly explain long -term, complex plans and alternatives in both private and public meetings and presentations. SouTH eF of 11ii��Crli ~O U�\NX Q` O i 1865 City of South Bend Assistant Executive Director and Director of Business Development CERTIFICATES, LICENSE, REGISTRATION: Valid Indiana Drivers License EQUIPMENT: Landline and Cell Phones; Scanner; Desktop and Lap Top Computers; Fax Machine; Copier and 10 Key Adding Machine PHYSICAL DEMANDS: The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to sit and walk, and talk or hear. The employee is occasionally required to walk; use hands to fingers, handle or feel objects, tools or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required in this job include vision and the ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: Work is performed in office settings, with moderate inside temperatures. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet to moderate. Entire office is smoke free. DISCLAIMER: The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by individuals assigned to this position. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities, and skills required of personnel so classified. Nothing in this job description restricts management's right to assign or reassign duties and responsibilities to this job at any time REQUIRED: Pre - Employment Drug Screen EEO Employer Page 3 of 3 Job Title: Director, Economic Resources Team Department: Community Investment Team: Economic Resources Location: 1400 S County -City Building Hours: Flexible 8 hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. occasionally may need to report for work before 7:00 a.m., or stay beyond 6:00 p.m. Date: February 12, 2013 JOB DESCRIPTION: Oversees the department's economic development and redevelopment projects, including budgeting, hiring personnel, planning, real estate acquisition and disposition, engineering, relocation, demolition and incentives for business assistance. Does related work as assigned. SUPERVISION RECEIVED: Works under the general guidance and direction of the Executive Director, Department of Community Investment. SUPERVISION EXERCISED: Exercises general supervision over technical and professional personnel. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Prepare annual work program and budget. 2. Perform personnel tasks, including vacation and flex time scheduling, interviewing and hiring new employees, administration of personnel policies and annual personnel evaluations. 3. Coordinate the development of policies, procedures and guidelines for various business assistance programs. 4. Review and oversee all aspects of loan origination, loan servicing, and closings and in particular of credit analysis' and loan summaries, collections and annual credit reviews. 5. Assists Executive Director in the review and analysis of prospective development opportunities requesting City participation. Works with developers, attorneys, financial consultants and others to negotiate contracts /agreements and other documents to consummate the project. 6. Oversees implementation of development deals approved to ensure all terms and conditions are met. 7. Review and oversee all aspects of general business assistance, tax abatement and industrial revenue bonds. 8. Review and oversee grant and /or loan applications from the State and Federal governments. 9. Review and oversee reports prepared to meet the requirements of the City, State and Federal agencies. 10. Assists the Executive Director in the development of new business assistance programs, and make revisions as needed to existing programs. S: \COMMINVEST\MANAGEMENTVOB DESCRIPTIONS\2014 UPDATES\DIRECTOR - ECONOMIC RESOURCES.DOC 11. Prepare and/or review reports which analyze business assistance programs or policies. 12. Respond to inquiries from the media and public in coordination with Executive Director. 13. Oversees Executive Director, Economic Development Commission responsible for all aspects of staffing and administration of the industrial revenue bond program, and general administration. 14. Acts as Executive Director, Industrial Revolving Fund responsible for all aspects of staffing and administration of their commercial loan program, and general administration. 15. Assist Executive Director in the planning, scheduling and coordination of economic development and redevelopment projects for the City including design and development, public relations, fiscal management and program monitoring. 16. Research federal, state and local funding sources and regulations and serves as a liaison with applicable agencies. Work to secure funds for projects. 17. Work with private sector economic development groups. 18. Meet with and advise City officials, Redevelopment Commissioners, business leaders and other concerned citizens as to economic development and redevelopment plans and coordination of activities. 19. Supervise preparation of agendas, minutes and all materials for Redevelopment Commission meetings. 21. Oversee business activities of department relating to management of Blackthorn Golf Course, Parking Garages, and Redevelopment Retail leasing and operations. PERIPHERAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Prepares and presents information on business assistance programs and redevelopment projects to local banks, attorneys, accountants and other interested groups. 2. Maintains files and documents in accordance with State statutes as well as rules and regulations promulgated by Federal, State and local agencies. 3. Assists other staff members as needed. 4. Performs other duties as assigned. DESIRED MINIMIM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: 1. Undergraduate degree in Business Administration, Economics, Finance or a related field, and four to five years experience in commercial or economic development finance. Necessary Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: 1. Knowledge of business financing, involvement in public /private joint financing projects and a working knowledge in real estate development. Must have the ability to perform administrative budgeting, coordinate the activities of others and continually evaluate the need S: \COMMINVEST\MANAGEMENTVOB DESCRIPTIONS\2014 UPDATES\DIRECTOR - ECONOMIC RESOURCES.DOC to revise, add or delete the various types of assistance offered. 2. Skill in the operation of the listed tools and equipment. 3. Ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing with industrialists, architects, contractors, developers, owners, supervisors, employees, and the general public. Ability to establish effective working relationships. 4. Knowledge of principles and practices of urban planning and redevelopment, real estate management, housing and laws related to these areas 5. Knowledge of basic public administration procedures 6. Ability to supervise and coordinate a variety of projects related to economic development and urban redevelopment; ability to evaluate and analyze complex plans, taking into consideration such factors as the budget, sources of income, conflicting plans, land use, relocation time, costs and other difficulties 7. Ability to direct a professional staff; ability to relate well with community leaders and City officials SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Valid State Drivers License, or ability to obtain one. TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT USED: Personal computer; motor vehicle; calculator; phone; copy and fax machine. PHYSICAL DEMANDS: 1. Work is performed mostly in office settings. Some outdoor work is required in the inspection of various business operations and construction sites. Hand -eye coordination is necessary to operate computers and various pieces of office equipment. 2. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is occasionally required to stand or sit; walk; use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to climb or balance; stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; talk or hear. 3. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 10 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: 1. While performing the duties of this job, the employee occasionally works in outside weather S: \COMMINVEST\MANAGEMENTVOB DESCRIPTIONS\2014 UPDATES\DIRECTOR - ECONOMIC RESOURCES.DOC conditions. 2. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet to moderate in the office, and moderate to loud in the field. SELECTION GUIDELINES: 1. Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference check; job related tests may be required. 2. The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position. 3. The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change. Approval: Supervisor Effective Date: February 2013 Approval: Appointing Authority S: \COMMINVEST\MANAGEMENTVOB DESCRIPTIONS\2014 UPDATES\DIRECTOR - ECONOMIC RESOURCES.DOC POSITION DESCRIPTION Class Title: Director Date: April 2014 Department: Community Investment Division: Neighborhood Engagement Location: 227 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 1400 S. Hours: 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m.; occasional nights and weekends General Purpose: Performs a variety of supervisory, administrative, management, and technical work related to grants management, planning, housing counseling, neighborhood development, and social planning activities to support the revitalization of neighborhoods and community. Supervision Received: Works under the general supervision of the Executive Director of Community Investment. Supervision Exercised: Supervision of all Division staff. Essential Duties and Responsibilities Develops and implements the Division work program to include a variety of non - profit entities, boards and commissions, monitoring progress and directing change as needed. Develops and manages annual Division budget review and expenditures. Manages staff and organizes workloads and staff assignments. Trains, motivates and evaluates assigned staff, reviews staff progress and directs change as needed. Provides leadership and direction for neighborhood planning and development projects. Researches, collects and prepares data analysis for housing, neighborhood, commercial corridor, and capital improvement plans. Research, coordinate and write grant applications related to areas of technical assistance, physical development, planning and housing counseling. Works with realtors, attorneys, developers, engineers and the general public to assist them through the application, planning and development process. Functions as the Department / Divison liaison between the Department/Division and City departments and community groups relative to specific activities. Monitors legislation and inter - governmental decisions affecting the division operations and takes appropriate action. Reviews and interprets regulatory information. Makes public and private presentations Provides program information, answers questions and assists the general public. Responds to inquiries form the media and public Efficient use of computer hardware and software to maintain neat and accurate records. Peripheral Duties: Operates a vehicle to run errands, attend meetings and conduct business. Assist other Division staff as necessary. Assumes additional responsibilities as requested by Director Desired Minimum Qualifications Education and Experience: (A) Graduation from an accredited four year college. Preference will be given to applicants with a Masters degree in city, community or urban planning, public administration or government. (B) Minimum of four years practical experience in increasingly responsible positions with some supervisory experience. C Any equivalent combination of education and experience Necessary Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: (A) Ability to read and write, understand and interpret regulations and legislation. (B) Good written and verbal communication skills required for public presentations. (C) Working knowledge of principles and practices of urban planning, land use and neighborhood development. (D) Must be able to organize personnel, work, and maintain neat and accurate records (E) Working knowledge of computer database and geographic mapping systems. (F) Ability to execute responsibilities with little or nor supervision. (G) Working knowledge of computers and programs. (H) Ability to effectively address the public; handle stressful situation; work cooperatively with others; handle multiple tasks; work under pressure deadlines. (I) Ability to attend weekend and evening meetings when necessary. Tools and Equipment Used: Phone, personal computer including word processing, spreadsheet and publishing software, copy machine, fax machine, calculator, binding machine and car. Physical Demands The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to stand or sit; walk, talk and hear. The employee is occasionally required to use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to climb or balance; stoop, kneel, or crouch. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. Work Environment The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee occasionally works in outside weather conditions. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet to moderate in the office, and moderate to loud in the field. Entire office is smoke free. Selection Guidelines Formal application, rating of education and experience; oral interview and reference check; job related tests may be required. Pre - employment drug testing is required. The duties listed above are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similarl related or a logical assignment to the position. The job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the employer and employee and is subject to change by the employer as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change. Status: Full -time, Non - exempt, non - bargaining City of South Bend Position Description DIRECTOR - PLANNING Department: Community Investment Written by: J. Kain Reports to: Executive Director, Community Investment FLSA Status: FT/Exempt/40 Hours per week Approval(s) Job Code: Non-Bargaining Department Head: S. Ford Work Hours: 8:00 am — 5:00 m; Occasional nights & weekends Human Resources: Original Date: Other: Revised Date POSITION SUMMARY Performs complex professional and administrative work in urban planning; directing and developing short and long range planning activities, oversee redevelopment initiatives; coordinating work with County and regional planning agencies; budget preparation and administration; and speaking in front of local civic groups and community meetings. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS • Supervises all Planning staff and interns • Performs advanced professional work related to a variety of planning assignments • Provide leadership and direction in the development and implementation of community plans, planning studies and redevelopment initiatives • Formulates and oversees implementation of growth management, annexation, zoning, and urban design strategies • Oversees project budgets, contract expenditures and compliance • Assists in the preparation of Division and Department budgets • Evaluates planning - related legislation and applicability to department projects • Conducts research and prepares reports on land use, physical, social & economic issues • Provides recommendations on rezonings, variances, alley vacations, and general land use issues • Represents the organization on regional/local boards and committees • Presents reports and other findings to Boards, Commissions, Common Council, and general public • Attends evening and weekend meetings of neighborhood and other community based organizations Planning Director Job Description - 1 - EEO Employer NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE, SHILLS & ABILITIES: • Considerable knowledge of the theory, principles and techniques of the planning profession and development process • Considerable knowledge of federal, state and local laws, ordinances and codes pertaining to a wide variety of planning topics • Considerable knowledge of principles of personnel management, including supervision, training and performance evaluation • Considerable knowledge of the methods and techniques of research and analysis • Knowledge of computer applications including Microsoft Office, Internet applications, and GIS • Proven management skills and ability to manage day -to -day operations • Strong written and oral communication skills, including the editing, oversight or preparation of technical reports, and the presentation of information to government entities and various committees • Strong interpersonal and public relations skills to work effectively with various officials, staff, citizens and other customers • Strong organizational, problem - solving and negotiation skills • Ability to understand and manage high - profile, sensitive or controversial political situations • Ability to exercise sound and independent judgment within general policy guidelines QUALIFICATIONS: • Master's degree in urban planning, public administration or a related field • Minimum of 8 years of progressively responsible planning experience • AICP certification preferred CERTIFICATES, LICENSE, REGISTRATION • Valid Indiana Driver's License or ability to obtain one. Planning Director Job Description -2- EEO Employer EQUIPMENT: Phone, personal computer including word processing, spreadsheet and publishing software; copy machine; fax machine; calculator; binding machine and car. PHYSICAL DEMANDS: The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to sit and walk, and talk or hear. The employee is occasionally required to walk; use hands to finger, handle or feel objects, tools or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include vision and the ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet to moderate in the office, and moderate to loud in the field. Entire office is smoke free. REQUIRED: Drug Test Planning Director Job Description -3- EEO Employer 1]I!1►E :111010, Nonprofit Survey Series Community Report #7 Svu Ch ntND NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS A JOINT PRODUCT OF THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY NOVEMBER 2006 KIRSTEN A.GRONBJERG, KERRY S. BROCK, AND PATRICIA BORNTRAGER TENNEN t t >cope and Community Dimensions NONPROFIT SURVEY SERIES COMMUNITY REPORT #7 SOUTH BEND NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS A JOINT PRODUCT OF THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY NOVEMBER 2006 KIRSTEN A. GRONBJERG, KERRY S. BROCK AND PATRICIA BORNTRAGER TENNEN Copyright © 2006 Kirsten A. Gronbjerg All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Acknowledgments We express our deep -felt gratitude to the many Indiana nonprofits that completed our survey. Without their cooperation, we would have nothing to report. We also thank members of the project advisory board for their assistance with the sur- vey and for their valuable feedback and suggestions on the analysis. This report was prepared as part of an ongoing project on the Indiana Nonprofit Sector: Scope and Community Di- mensions made possible by a grant from the Aspen Institute's Nonprofit Sector Research Fund and by support for the Efroymson Chair in Philanthropy by the Indianapolis Foundation at the Central Indiana Community Foundation and the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy's Indiana Research Fund, supported in part by Lilly Endowment Inc. Addi- tional funding and in -kind support has been provided by WBH South Bend, Inc.; The Center for Urban Policy and the En- vironment at I.U.P.U.I.; the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University on the Bloomington, Indi- anapolis, South Bend, Northwest, and Fort Wayne campuses; Ball State University; and the University of Southern Indi- ana. We are grateful to Kerry Brock for help in finalizing the report. Finally, we thank members of the Advisory Board for the Indiana Nonprofit Sector: Scope and Community Dimensions project for helpful comments and suggestions. The survey instrument is based on key concepts developed by the Donors Forum of Chicago. Laurie Paarlberg did much of the initial work in developing the survey instrument and we received much valuable feedback on several versions of the instrument from a large number of individuals. We also acknowledge the work by Ange Cahoon, Amy Horst, Hun My- oung Park, Allison Leeuw, Julie Schaefer and Erin Nave in carrying out a variety of follow -up tasks to the survey, by Linda Allen, Curtis Child, Abigail Powell, Andrea Lewisand Richard Clerkin for their related work on other reports from this survey, and by the Center for Survey Research at Indiana University for managing the survey process itself. The sup- port and efforts of all of these strengthened this work enormously and we are grateful to them all. Of course, any remain- ing problems remain our responsibilities entirely. We are grateful to the many project research assistants who have worked on the survey in various capacities. Copies of this report are available on the Indiana Nonprofit Sector website (www.indiana.edu /— nonprof) Suggested Citation South Bend Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, Nonprofit Survey Series Community Report Number 7, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg, Kerry S. Brock, and Patricia Borntrager Tennen (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, November, 2006). TABLE OF CONTENTS SOUTHBEND Introduction ............................................................. ..............................2 NONPROFITS: Key Findings .......................................................... ............................... 4 I. Profile .................................................................. ..............................5 SCOPEAND Missions, Size, Age, Targeting, and Demands ............................ 5 Indiana Nonprofits ................................. ............................... 5 DIMENSIONS South Bend Nonprofits ........................... ............................... 5 II. Managing Human and Financial Resources ...... ............................... 7 Financial Conditions ..................................... ............................... 7 Indiana Nonprofits ................................. ............................... 7 INDIANA NONPROFITS: South Bend Nonprofits ........................... ............................... 8 Financial Challenges and Tools .................... ............................... 9 SCOPE & COMMUNITY Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 10 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 10 DIMENSIONS Staff, Volunteers, and Board Resources, Challenges, and Tools 10 Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 11 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 11 NONPROFIT SURVEY SERIES Other Management Challenges and Capacities ......................... 12 Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 12 COMMUNITY REPORT #7 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 13 IIl. Affiliations, Collaborations, and Competition .............................. 14 Formal Affiliations ..................................... ............................... 14 A JOINT PRODUCT OF Indiana Nonprofits 14 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 14 THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY Networks and Collaborations ..................... ............................... 15 AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 15 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 15 THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & Most Important Relationship ...................... ............................... 15 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 16 AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 16 Effects of Networks and Collaborations ..... ............................... 17 Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 17 AND South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 17 Competition................................................ ............................... 18 THE JOHNS HOPKINS Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 18 NONPROFIT EMPLOYMENT South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 18 DATA PROJECT IV. Community and Policy Conditions ................ ............................... 19 Community Conditions and Impacts .......... ............................... 19 Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 19 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 19 Policy Conditions and Impacts ................... ............................... 20 KIRSTEN A. GRONBJERG Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 20 KERRY S. BROCK South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 20 AND Nonprofit Advocacy ................................... ............................... 21 PATRICIA BORNTRAGER TENNEN Indiana Nonprofits ............................... ............................... 21 South Bend Nonprofits ......................... ............................... 22 AppendixA .......................................................... ............................... 23 NOVEMBER 2006 Project Publications and Reports .......................... ............................... 25 INTRODUCTION: As part of the Indiana Nonprofits: Scope and Commu- nity Dimensions project, we and a team of colleagues have undertaken a comprehensive study of the nonprofit sector in Indiana. Through a series of reports, we have looked broadly at the distribution of different types of nonprofits across the state, but have also focused more in depth on the internal structure and operations of individ- ual nonprofit organizations. Drawing on a large survey of 2,206 nonprofits of all types,' we have profiled Indi- ana nonprofits by assessing their basic organizational features and characteristics: revenues, funding sources, employees, volunteers, age, service capacity, and so on. We have also analyzed how they relate to the communi- ties in which they operate and the types of relationships that they have developed with other organizations. And we have presented in -depth analyses of their financial conditions, management challenges and capacities. In this report, we take a different approach by focusing on a specific geographic region — the South Bend metro- politan region (including St. Joseph County) — to see how these nonprofits differ from or resemble others in the state. We are able to do so because the statewide sur- vey of Indiana nonprofits, on which our analysis is based, included expanded samples of nonprofits in twelve communities across the state, including 207 in South Bend, shown in Figure 1. Though our overall state survey draws from a very large sample, we must note that these expanded community samples may not be fully representative of the nonprofit sectors in these communities. For purposes of this analysis, we define the South Bend region to include St. Joseph County? We compare South Bend nonprofits to all other nonprofits in the state (la- beled in the figures that follow as "Not South Bend "). We also compare South Bend nonprofits to nonprofits in six other Indiana metropolitan areas: Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Northwest, Evansville, Bloomington, and Mun- cie (we refer to these as "Other Metro" nonprofits — dark colored regions in Figure 1).3 Thus for every figure pre- 1 For information on the survey and related results, please see sented here we conducted two analyses. One compares South Bend nonprofits to all other nonprofits in the state (i.e. South Bend vs. Not South Bend); the other com- pares South Bend nonprofits to other metro area non- profits (i.e. South Bend vs. Other Metro). To conserve space, we present these in the same figure. Figure 1: The Indiana Nonprofit Sector Project, selected communities For each analysis, we also conducted statistical tests to determine whether differences in responses to survey questions are sufficiently different that we can rule out random chance as the reason for any apparent differ- ences. Interestingly, and to our surprise, South Bend nonprofits exhibit many similar characteristics to other nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas for most of the questions we asked. When there are sta- tistically significant differences, we flag this by includ- ing a note at the bottom of the figure. www.indiana.edu/—nonprof In another series of reports on nonprofit employment we use the lar- In this report, we examine several broad themes: the ger economic regional definition as originally developed by the Indi- characteristics of nonprofits in Indiana and South Bend, ana Department of Commerce in order to present as much detail as the impact of community and policy changes on them, ossible. Please note that the "Not South Bend" and "Other Metro" categories their relationships with other organizations, and their management of financial and human resources. For each are not mutually exclusive since all Other Metro nonprofits are in- topic we begin with a brief overview of all Indiana non - cluded in the Not South Bend category. profits, regardless of their geographic location in the state. This is followed by an analysis of South Bend nonprofits, including how they compare to nonprofits in the rest of the state and those in other metropolitan areas. KEY FINDINGS: Our report shows that South Bend nonprofits resemble other nonprofits throughout the state of Indiana and in other metro areas in almost every dimension examined. They differ in only a few respects. Here we will summa- rize the ways that South Bend nonprofits deviate from those located elsewhere in the state (keeping in mind that overall, they are far more similar than dissimilar). • More likely to be involved in health - related fields: South Bend nonprofits are significantly more likely to be involved in health - related fields (11 percent) than are their counterparts in other metro areas (5 percent) and the rest of the state (4 percent). • More large nonprofits in the region: While only 4 percent of nonprofits in the rest of the state report more than 50 full -time equivalent (FTE) employees, 10 percent of South Bend nonprofits report these very large staff sizes. More likely to rely on government funding: South Bend nonprofits mirror statewide patterns in most of their sources of revenue. However, they are signifi- cantly more likely to depend mainly on revenue from government funding (13 percent) than nonprof- its statewide and in other metro areas (7 percent each). • More likely to utilize formal volunteer recruitment programs: South Bend nonprofits are significantly more likely to engage in formal volunteer recruit- ment programming (26 percent) than are their state- wide counterparts (18 percent). More likely to have organizational email addresses and websites: While some statewide nonprofits have organizational email addresses and websites (47 and 33 percent respectively), South Bend nonprofits are significantly more likely to utilize these key infor- mation technologies (57 and 49 percent respec- tively). • More likely to collaborate with faith -based organi- zations: South Bend nonprofits are more likely to report that their most important collaborative rela- tionships include other faith -based organizations (47 percent) than are their counterparts in other metro areas and the rest of the state (29 percent and 30 per- cent respectively). • Less likely to feel competition from government agencies: South Bend nonprofits are significantly less likely to report competition with government agencies (4 percent) than are their counterparts statewide and in other metro areas (10 percent each). Fewer perceptions of change in community condi- tions: Fewer South Bend nonprofits report increases in population size (22 percent) than their statewide and other metro counterparts (43 and 40 percent re- spectively). Additionally, fewer nonprofits in the South Bend area report increases in racial diversity (27 percent) than nonprofits in the rest of the state (34 percent). Varying impacts from changing community condi- tions: Related to the fact that they perceive fewer changes in population size, South Bend nonprofits also report fewer impacts from changes in popula- tion size (14 percent) than their counterparts in other metro areas and the rest of the state (27 percent and 28 percent respectively). Interestingly, however, there were no significant differences between South Bend nonprofits and nonprofits in the rest of the state in the way they reported impacts in changes in racial diversity, despite the fact that South Bend nonprofits reported experiencing fewer of these changes overall. Perceptions ofgreater impacts from changes in se- lected policy conditions: While differences between South Bend nonprofits and others in the state regard- ing perceptions of stricter health and safety regula- tions were only marginally significant (31 percent vs. 21 percent), significantly more South Bend non- profits reported impacts from these stricter policies than their statewide and other metro counterparts (26 percent vs. 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively). I. PROFILE Missions, Size, Age, Targeting, and Demands: In order to understand South Bend's nonprofit sector we first assess some basic characteristics of nonprofit or- ganizations in the area, such as field of activity4, size, age, targeting patterns, and how the demands for their goods and services have changed over time.5 We present an overview of state patterns before discussing how South Bend nonprofits compare to nonprofits in other metro areas as well as to all other nonprofits in the state.6 Overall, South Bend nonprofits resemble other nonprof- its in metro and non -metro regions throughout the state, but differ notably in a few cases. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Fields of Activity: Indiana nonprofits pursue a broad array of missions, but half focus on just two fields: human services and religious - spiritual development. — Employees: Only 52 percent of Indiana nonprof- its have paid staff, and of these 41 percent have two or fewer full -time equivalent (FTE) staff. On average, staff compensation absorbs half of all expenses. Health and education nonprofits tend to have a larger number of paid staff members, with 32 percent and 24 percent, respectively, reporting more than 50 FTE staff, while mutual benefit (64 percent), public benefit (56 percent), and arts, culture, and humanities (35 percent) non- profits tend to have a small number of paid staff members (0.5 to 2 FTEs). — Year of Establishment: Almost one -half (48 per- cent) of nonprofits were established since 1970, 4 For our definitions of nonprofit fields, see Appendix A. 5 For a more detailed description see Kirsten A. Gronbjerg & Linda Allen: The Indiana Nonprofit Sector: a Profile. Report 42, January 2004. South Bend and other regions were described briefly in the ap- pendices of this report. Available online: www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/results/npsutye y /insprofile.html. 6 Please note that "Indiana Nonprofits" refers to all nonprofit organi- zations captured in the survey; while "Not South Bend" (portrayed in the figures) refers to all nonprofits aside from South Bend nonprofits. Consequently, the data presented for all Indiana nonprofits will not necessarily match the data for any of the regional segments presented under the "Not South Bend" heading. including one -fifth (21 percent) since 1990. However, one - quarter of all nonprofits are very old and were established before 1930. — Targeting: Many target their services to particu- lar groups, especially based on age and geo- graphic regions. — Change in Demand: Many face increasing de- mands for services. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Fields of Activity: While South Bend nonprofits were involved in most fields of activity at the same rate as their counterparts in the rest of the state and in other metro areas, South Bend non- profits are significantly more likely to be in- volved in the health field (11 percent) than statewide (4 percent) and other metro area non- profits (5 percent). See Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of nonprofits by major field of activ- ity and region 40% 1 0 South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 30% 20% 11 I19�- I �aoT16% 1o% 1 1 I I . I 1 1 1 I ■, 8 %, 6% 3% 1% o °i oK, o air c a e (* Significant difference between Bout Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n =207; Not South Bend n= 1,999; Other Metro n =1,142 — Similar to their counterparts elsewhere, almost one -third (32 percent) of South Bend nonprofits work in human services; almost one -fifth (19 percent) in religion; 16 percent in public benefit; 8 percent in education; 7 percent in mutual bene- fit organizations; 6 percent in arts and culture; and the rest in some other field.' The apparent differences between South Bend and Not South Bend in the proportion of nonprofits operating in the field of religion, sug- gested by Figure 2, are only marginally significant. — Employees: South Bend nonprofits, other metro area nonprofits, and nonprofits throughout the state have a median of 0.5 to 1 full -time equiva- lents (FTEs). However, the South Bend region contains a significantly larger proportion of nonprofits with more than 50 FTEs (10 percent) than the rest of the state (4 percent) or other metro areas (5 percent). Despite this difference in the proportion of larger nonprofits, half (50 percent) of South Bend nonprofits do not have any employees at all, which is on par with non- profits statewide and in other metro areas. See Figure 3. Figure 3: Number of nonprofit FTE staff, by region 100% , 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% South Bend Not South Bend * Other Metro None 0.5 to 2 2.5 to 5 5.5 to 15 15.5 to 50 More Than 50 (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend) Note: South Bend n =188; Not South Bend n= 1,853; Other Metro n =1,051 — Year of Establishment: Similar to nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas, the mean age of South Bend nonprofits is 48 years. The median age is 8 years younger than that, at 40 years old, indicating that there are relatively few very old organizations. See Figure 4.8 — About one - quarter (24 percent) of nonprofits in South Bend were established before 1930 and almost another quarter (23 percent) between 1930 and 1959. South Bend's pattern is very similar to nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. See Figure 5.9 s There is no statistical test for the difference between medians, so any apparent differences between median ages cannot be tested for statistical significance. 9 While Figure 5 portrays apparent differences between South Bend and Other Metro in the proportion of nonprofits established between 1930 and 1959, these differences are not statistically significant. Figure 4: Nonprofit age, by region 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Mean Age Median Age (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =194; Not South Bend n= 1,841; Other Metro n =1,062 Figure 5: Year of establishment of nonprofits, by region 100% 80% 60% 400% 20% 0% South Bend Not South Bend Other Metro 1990-2000 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 1930-1959 Before 1930 (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n -194; Not South Bend n= 1,841; Other Metro n =1.062 — Program Targeting: As with nonprofits across the state and in other metro areas, age and geo- graphic location are the most common targets for programs offered by South Bend nonprofits. Half (50 percent) of South Bend nonprofits tar- get their programs based on age and almost half (47 percent) target by geographic location. See Figure 6.10 10 The apparent differences between South Bend and Not South Bend in nonprofits that target their operations based on geographic loca- tion, suggested by Figure 6, are only marginally significant. Figure 6: Percent of nonprofits targeting some or all pro- grams to specific groups, by region 60ro 1 m5-7- 56 %., ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 50% 40% 30% 25% 23.259% 23 % 20% 18% 22° 22 %21% 16%1506 10% 0% Eia , C-1 (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 155 -166; Not South Bend n= 1,432- 1,585; Other Metro n =799 -901 – Change in Demand: Like other nonprofits in Indiana, most South Bend nonprofits say de- mands for their services or programs stayed the same (46 percent) or increased (43 percent) over the last three years. Very few said that demand decreased (10 percent). See Figure 7. Figure 7: Changes in demand for programs and services over the last three years, by region 100% 80°r 60% 40% 20 0% South Bend Not South Bend Other Metro Decreased Significantly Decreased Moderately Stayed the Same Increased Moderately Increased Significantly (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =196; Not South Bend n= 1,892; Other Metro n =1,076 II. MANAGING HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES Financial Conditions: We asked Indiana nonprofits to provide information about their revenues, expenses, as- sets and liabilities, as well as about how these have changed over the past three years. t t Overall, the financial condition of South Bend nonprofits is very similar to that of other nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas, differing only in one major respect. • Indiana Nonprofits: – Amount of Revenues: Most Indiana nonprofits have low revenues (half have less than $40,000 in annual revenues), but education and health nonprofits are quite large — respectively 15 and 14 percent have revenues of $10 million or more, compared to 3 percent overall. More health nonprofits (37 percent) have assets in ex- cess of $1 million than those in other nonprofit fields (20 percent overall). – Change in Revenues and Expenses: Aside from nonprofits in the health field, a greater propor- tion of nonprofits report at least a moderate in- crease in expenses (65 percent) than report a moderate increase in their revenues (57 percent), indicating that a large number of Indiana non- profits face a challenge in developing a cushion of financial reserves to meet unforeseen organ- izational and community needs. – Funding Sources: One -third (32 percent) receive half or more of their funding from donations and gifts, and 28 percent receive at least half of their funding from dues, fees, or private sales of goods and services. Another 14 percent of non- profits receive at least half of their funding from special events or other sources, while govern- ment funding is the dominant source of funding for only 7 percent of nonprofits. The remaining nonprofits rely on a mix of funding sources (12 percent) or they have no revenues (6 percent). 11 For a more detailed description see Kirsten A. Gronbjerg & Rich- ard M. Clerkin, Indiana Nonprofits: Managing Financial and Human Resources, Report #4. August 2004. Available online: www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/re,vults /npsurvevlinsman.html. — Change in Funding Sources: Larger nonprofits are more likely than smaller ones to report changes in the level of revenues they receive from government sources. Smaller nonprofits are more likely than larger ones to report changes in the level of revenues they receive from donations, dues /fees /sales, special events, and other sources of income. — Nonprofits that depend upon a single type of revenue are the most likely to report a change in that revenue stream. Nonprofits that rely on a mix of funding are the second most likely group to report changes in each source of revenues, po- tentially allowing them to off -set decreases in one type of revenue with increases in a different type of revenue. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Amount of Revenues: Median annual revenues for South Bend nonprofits are approximately $27,000, which is less than the median annual revenues of nonprofits statewide ($45,000) and in other metro areas ($61,926). Two - fifths (40 percent) of South Bend nonprofits have revenues under $25,000 (an additional 9 percent have no revenues at all), while only 11 percent have revenues over $1 million. On average, South Bend nonprofits appear slightly smaller than nonprofits in the rest of the state and other metro areas, but these apparent differences are not sta- tistically significant. See Figure 8. Figure 8: Annual revenues of nonprofits, by region 100 (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =161; Not South Bend n= 1,563; Other Metro n =883 — Change in Revenues and Expenses: Reflecting the statewide pattern, the majority of South Bend nonprofits indicate that their revenues stayed the same (37 percent) or increased (36 percent) over the last few years, although a sub- stantial minority (26 percent) say that they de- creased. See Figure 9.12 Figure 9: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in reve- nues and expenses, by region Revenues Expenses 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% r c 0 °J �y °J OiS (No statistically significant differences) ■ Increased Significantly ❑ Increased Moderately ❑ Stayed the Same ■ Decreased Moderately ■ Decreased Significantly Note: South Bend n= 168 -170; Not South Bend n= 1,619- 1,621; Other Metro n= 915 -916 — More than 9 out of 10 South Bend nonprofits said that expenses stayed the same (44 percent) or increased (49 percent). This is also true for nonprofits in other metro areas and for all non- profits throughout the state. South Bend non- profits follow the statewide pattern of more per- vasive increases in expenditures than in reve- nues. — Funding Sources: Revealing the only major dif- ference in financial conditions between South Bend nonprofits and those in the rest of the state, South Bend nonprofits are significantly more likely than nonprofits outside of South Bend to rely on government funding for more than one- half their revenue (13 percent vs. 7 percent). See Figure 10.13 12 The apparent differences between South Bend and Other Metro in changes in expenses, suggested by Figure 9, are only marginally sig- nificant. 13 The apparent differences in reliance on donations between South Bend and Not South Bend, suggested by Figure 10, are only margin- ally significant. The same is true for the apparent differences in reli- ance on government funding between South Bend and Other Metro 9% 7% 7% ❑ No revenues 80% 40% 35 32% ❑ LT $25K 60%- [1$25K-$99K 1s% 15% 40% 21% ®$100K -$249K ■ $250K -$999K 20% ■ $1 M or More 0% South Bend Not South Bend Other Metro (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =161; Not South Bend n= 1,563; Other Metro n =883 — Change in Revenues and Expenses: Reflecting the statewide pattern, the majority of South Bend nonprofits indicate that their revenues stayed the same (37 percent) or increased (36 percent) over the last few years, although a sub- stantial minority (26 percent) say that they de- creased. See Figure 9.12 Figure 9: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in reve- nues and expenses, by region Revenues Expenses 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% r c 0 °J �y °J OiS (No statistically significant differences) ■ Increased Significantly ❑ Increased Moderately ❑ Stayed the Same ■ Decreased Moderately ■ Decreased Significantly Note: South Bend n= 168 -170; Not South Bend n= 1,619- 1,621; Other Metro n= 915 -916 — More than 9 out of 10 South Bend nonprofits said that expenses stayed the same (44 percent) or increased (49 percent). This is also true for nonprofits in other metro areas and for all non- profits throughout the state. South Bend non- profits follow the statewide pattern of more per- vasive increases in expenditures than in reve- nues. — Funding Sources: Revealing the only major dif- ference in financial conditions between South Bend nonprofits and those in the rest of the state, South Bend nonprofits are significantly more likely than nonprofits outside of South Bend to rely on government funding for more than one- half their revenue (13 percent vs. 7 percent). See Figure 10.13 12 The apparent differences between South Bend and Other Metro in changes in expenses, suggested by Figure 9, are only marginally sig- nificant. 13 The apparent differences in reliance on donations between South Bend and Not South Bend, suggested by Figure 10, are only margin- ally significant. The same is true for the apparent differences in reli- ance on government funding between South Bend and Other Metro Figure 10: Percent of nonprofits that receive more than one -half of their annual revenues from selected source, by region 40% ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 33 30 % z6 % FM z7 % 20% 13 % 12 10 %u 7/ 10% 13% $% 7% /fl] 0 4% 6 4% 0% 6 tie y 5 5 � 0; ca�`OC °cam ��0c ,61 aye ��� 066 (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend) Note: South Bend n =183; Not South Bend n= 1,815; Other Metro n =1,026 — However, paralleling statewide and other metro area patterns, South Bend nonprofits are most likely to rely on dues /fees (28 percent) or dona- tions (25 percent) for more than half of their revenues. One in 10 relies primarily on revenue generated from special events (10 percent). — Change in Funding Sources: Changes in reve- nues from different sources for South Bend non- profits reflect similar changes at the state level and in other metro areas. See Figure 11. Figure 11: Percent reporting changes in revenues from government funding, donations and dues or fees by region Dues /Fees Donations Government 100°/ 80% 60°/ 40% 20% 0°/ F A,�c' 5° cry Note: South Bend Metro n= 475 -748 ■ Increased Significantly ❑ Increased Moderately ❑ Stayed the Same ■ Decreased Moderately ■ Decreased Significantly (No statistically significant differences) n =83 -112; Not South Bend n= 901 - 1,365; Other areas, and in reliance on a mix of sources between South Bend and Not South Bend / Other Metro. — Revenues from dues /fees stayed the same for 59 percent and increased for 24 percent of South Bend nonprofits. Revenues from donations and from government funding stayed the same for approximately half (50 percent) and for ap- proximately three- quarters (76 percent) of South Bend nonprofits, respectively. These patterns are nearly identical to the rest of the state and other metro areas. — Revenues from special events, private sales or other sources stayed the same for most South Bend nonprofits (62 percent, 76 percent and 73 percent respectively), in a pattern similar to non- profits from other parts of the state. See Figure 12.14 Figure 12: Percent reporting changes in revenues from special events, private sales, or other sources of funding, by region SDecial Events Private Sales Other E 80% 1'/= 3 % 16° ■ Significantly ❑ Increased Moderately 60% 629 39 ❑ Stayed the 40% 65". 62 76 73°° 6996 72ch 69°° Same ■ Decreased 20% Moderately .0 ■ Decreased 00/1 0% 1% 2% 1% 2/ loo Significantly 4> 6 0�0 dU °a a 0�0 Oe'A c� (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 74 -91; Not South Bend n= 866 - 1,093; Other Metro n= 449 -593 Financial Challenges and Tools: We asked Indiana nonprofits to report on the level of challenges they face in managing finances and the management tools they have to address these challenges. We find that South Bend nonprofits face very similar challenges to and pos- sess the same tools as other Indiana nonprofits. 14 The apparent differences between South Bend and Not South Bend in the number of nonprofits that saw a decrease in reliance on reve- nue from special events, suggested by Figure 12, are only marginally significant. 9 • Indiana Nonprofits: — Challenizes in Financial Management: Many Indiana nonprofits face major challenges in ob- taining funding. Those in the health (78 percent) and the environment and animals (72 percent) fields are the most likely to say that obtaining funding is a major challenge. — Financial Management Tools: Larger nonprofits are more likely than smaller ones to report fac- ing financial management challenges. However, they are also more likely to have organizational tools to address these challenges. — Nonprofits that rely on government sources for more than half of their revenues are more likely to report financial management challenges than nonprofits with other resource dependencies (83 percent of government- dependent nonprofits say obtaining funding is a major challenge vs. 43 percent of nonprofits overall; 20 percent say managing finances is a major challenge vs. 10 percent overall). At the same time, those that rely on dues /fees /sales for more than half of their resources appear to face the lowest level of financial management challenges, but they are also the least likely to report having financial management tools. — Older nonprofits are more likely to have reserves dedicated to maintenance or capital needs than younger nonprofits. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Challenges in Financial Management: South Bend nonprofits are not immune to the financial challenges that nonprofits face in other metro ar- eas and in the state more generally. More than two -fifths (41 percent) say that obtaining fund- ing is a major challenge, although relatively few indicate that using information technology (12 percent), managing facilities (12 percent), and financial management (8 percent) are chal- lenges. These patterns generally resemble those reported by nonprofits elsewhere. See Figure 13. Figure 13: Percent of nonprofits that indicate select issues are a major challenge, by region 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Obtaining Using IT Managing Financial Funding Effectively Facilities Management (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 187 -189; Not South Bend n= 1,756 - 1,765; Other Metro n= 996 -1,006 — Financial Management Tools: Like nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas, some nonprofits in South Bend have acquired tools to help them address potential or real fi- nancial challenges. While a majority (but not all) has recently completed financial audits (65 per- cent) and computerized financial records (65 percent), a smaller proportion has reserves dedi- cated for maintenance (41 percent) or capital needs (33 percent). See Figure 14. Figure 14: Percent of nonprofits that have select organiza- tional components, by region 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% o% Recent Audit Computerized Reserves for Reserves for Financial Records Maintenance Capital Improvement (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 190 -191; Not South Bend n= 1,807 - 1,835; Other Metro n= 1,022 -1,042 Staff, Volunteer, and Board Resources, Chal- lenges, and Tools: We asked Indiana nonprofits about how many volunteers and paid staff they have, as well as about the challenges they face in managing them and the 10 tools they have to address these challenges. We found that South Bend nonprofits closely resemble other Indi- ana nonprofits in both metropolitan and non- metropolitan areas in this respect. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Paid and Volunteer Staff: Just over half (52 per- cent) of Indiana nonprofits report that they have paid staff. However, volunteers are vital to Indi- ana nonprofits. Almost three - fourths report us- ing volunteers (other than board members) over the past year. Of these, 74 percent report that volunteers are essential or very important to their organization. Volunteers tend to be more important to older nonprofits than to younger ones. — Challenges: We find no statistically significant difference by nonprofit field in the challenges related to managing human resources, recruit- ing /retaining qualified staff. — Tools: We also did not find statistically signifi- cant differences by nonprofit field in the chal- lenges related to the tools associated with man- aging paid employees (written personnel policies or written job descriptions). — Nonprofits that rely on government sources for more than half of their revenues have more em- ployees (25 percent have over 50 FTEs), are more likely to have basic organizational struc- tures in place to manage employees, and are also more likely to face challenges in managing em- ployees than those with other funding profiles. — Larger nonprofits, most likely because they tend to have more employees, are more likely than smaller ones to face challenges in managing em- ployees, but are also more likely to have the tools to manage their staff. — Health nonprofits are more likely than any other group to report having a written conflict of in- terest policy (70 percent vs. 30 percent on aver- age), most likely reflecting special pressures as- sociated with funding, accreditation, or profes- sional licensing requirements. — Few nonprofits have volunteer recruitment (18 percent) or volunteer training (21 percent) pro- grams. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Paid and Volunteer Staff. Over half (54 percent) of South Bend nonprofits have paid staff. Nearly three- quarters (71 percent) of South Bend non- profits report that they used volunteers (other than board members) during the most recent fis- cal year. This is on par with nonprofits through- out the state. See Figure 15. Figure 15: Percent of nonprofits utilizing paid staff and volunteers, by region 100% 0 South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 90% 80% 71% 73% 73 70% 60% sa % 5s 52 50 40% 30 20% 10% 0% Paid Staff Volunteers (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 189 -195; Not South Bend n= 1,874- 1,894; Other Metro n= 1,071 -1,078 11 — Challenges: South Bend nonprofits are no more or less likely than other nonprofits in the state to indicate that recruiting and retaining volunteers, board members, and staff is a major challenge. The same is true for managing human resources or board and staff relations. See Figure 16. — Tools: Similar to other Indiana nonprofits, most South Bend nonprofits have written governance policies (85 percent); about one -half have writ- ten job descriptions (56 percent) and personnel policies (49 percent). Only one -third (36 per- cent) have written conflict of interest policies. See Figure 17. Figure 16: Percent of nonprofits that indicate selected is- sues are a major challenge, by region 40% � ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 30% 1 28/� 27% 20% 17 15% V 15% 10% Foi 7% 0% Recruit /Keep Recruit /Keep Recruit/Keep Manage Manage Volunteers Board Staff Human Board /Staff Members Resources Relations (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 183 -207; Not South Bend n= 1,746- 1,999; Other Metro n -998 -1.142 Figure 17: Percent of nonprofits that have selected organ- izational components, by region 100% ■South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑Other Metro 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Written Written Job Personnel Policies Conflict of Interest Governance Descriptions Policy Policies (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 187 -190; Not South Bend n= 1,795 - 1,844; Other Metro n= 1,016 -1,046 — Over one - quarter of South Bend nonprofits have a formal volunteer recruitment program (26 per- cent) and a formal volunteer training program (27 percent). While the percent with volunteer training programs is on par with nonprofits throughout the state, the percent with formal volunteer recruitment programs in South Bend is significantly larger than in the rest of Indiana (26 percent vs. 18 percent). See Figure 18. Figure 18: Percent of nonprofits that have selected organ- izational components, by region 40% � ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 30% 1 I zs% 27 °0 20% - ", 2i� 7 21 % 21 % 10% 0% Volunteer Recruitment Program * Volunteer Training Program (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend) Note: South Bend n =189; Not South Bend n= 1,810- 1,822; Other Metro n= 1,025 -1,035 Other Management Challenges and Capacities: We asked Indiana nonprofits about other challenges they face and the organizational tools they have to address various challenges. South Bend nonprofits are nearly identical to other Indiana nonprofits; however, they vary notably in the dimensions related to information tech- nology. • Indiana Nonprofits: 12 — Challenges: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether certain aspects of delivering and man- aging programs are a challenge. According to their responses, we find that attracting clients and members is perhaps most challenging, with approximately one -half of Indiana nonprofits cit- ing it as a challenge. This is especially the case for nonprofits in the environment and religion fields. — Approximately one -third of Indiana nonprofits report that meeting the needs of members and clients is a major challenge, though religion nonprofits are disproportionately more likely to cite this challenge. Another one -third find that delivering high quality programs is a major chal- lenge, with nonprofits in the religion and human services fields more likely to say so. — Health nonprofits are particularly likely to face major challenges in enhancing the visibility or reputation of their organization. Over half (53 percent) report such challenges, compared to 31 percent of Indiana nonprofits overall. — Strategic planning is most widely reported as a major challenge by religion nonprofits. — Arts, culture and humanities nonprofits (36 per- cent) are more likely than human services non- profits (17 percent) to say they face a major challenge in evaluating their outcomes or im- pacts. — Only 9 percent of Indiana nonprofits report ma- jor challenges in maintaining good relations with other entities. — IT Tools: A majority of Indiana nonprofits have computers (65 percent) and internet access (54 percent) available for key staff and volunteers. Some 47 percent of organizations have their own e -mail address and 34 percent have their own website. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Challenges: Similar to other nonprofits, attract- ing clients /member is the most common chal- lenge reported by South Bend nonprofits (38 percent). One -third of South Bend nonprofits (34 percent) also report major challenges in deliver- ing quality programs. — Challenges related to meeting clients' needs are considered a challenge by 28 percent of nonprof- its in South Bend. Communicating with clients and members also poses a challenge for 15 per- cent of nonprofits in the area. These challenges faced by South Bend nonprofits are on par with those in the rest of the state. See Figure 19. — Enhancing visibility and strategic planning are major challenges for one - quarter or more of South Bend nonprofits (27 percent and 25 per- cent respectively). Evaluating programs is chal- lenging for 1 in 5 nonprofits in the area (20 per- cent), and maintaining good relations for almost 1 in 10 (8 percent). These percentages also re- flect those found in other metro areas and across the state. See Figure 20. Figure 19: Percent of nonprofits that indicate selected is- sues are a major challenge, by region 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro Attracting Delivering Quality Meeting Clients' Communicating Clients /Members Programs Needs with Clients (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 189 -207; Not South Bend n= 1,774- 1,999; Other Metro n= 1,013 -1142 Figure 20: Percent of nonprofits that indicate selected is- sues are a major challenge, by region 40% 0 South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 31% 32% 30% 27% 25%26% � 2 21% 20% 18 %n t 0% � MM I = I I = I I Ro/ s% 0% Enhancing Strategic Planning Evaluating Maintaining Good Visibility Outcomes Relations (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =207; Not South Bend n= 1,999; Other Metro n =1,142 13 — Tools: Information and communication technol- ogy, among other things, helps nonprofits organ- ize records and files, develop and maintain rela- tionships with other organizations, keep up to date with funding opportunities and deadlines, and retrieve important information and data from the Internet. Nonprofits in South Bend are significantly more likely to have organizational email addresses and websites than are their counterparts in the rest of the state (57 percent of South Bend nonprofits have email addresses vs 47 percent of nonprofits statewide, and 49 per- cent have websites vs. 33 percent statewide). See Figure 21. Figure 21: Percent of nonprofits that have selected organ- izational components, by region 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Computers Internet E -mail * Website * (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend) Note: South Bend n= 189 -191; Not South Bend n= 1,803- 1,843; Other Metro n- 1,028 -1,044 — However, South Bend nonprofits are similar to their statewide and other metro counterparts along the other IT dimensions surveyed. Just under two - thirds (65 percent) of South Bend nonprofits have computers, and more than one - half (57 percent) are connected to the Internet. III. AFFILIATIONS, COLLABORATIONS, AND COMPETITION Formal Affiliations: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether they are affiliated with another organization as a headquarters, local subsidiary, or in another way. 15 South Bend nonprofits are nearly identical to other nonprofits statewide and in metropolitan areas in this respect. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Affiliations: More than half of Indiana nonprof- its are affiliated with another organization in some way. This is especially the case for non- profits in the public and societal benefit (e.g., advocacy, community development, philan- thropy) and religion fields, older nonprofits, and medium -sized and large organizations. Besides religious bodies, with whom most religion non- profits are affiliated, Indiana nonprofits in every field are most likely to be affiliated with various mutual benefit or membership associations (e.g., fraternal organizations, professional or trade as- sociations and the like). — Support from Federated Funders: Some 14 per- cent of Indiana nonprofits received funds from federated fenders during the most recently com- pleted fiscal year. This is disproportionately so for nonprofits in the health and human services fields. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Affiliations: Over one -half (56 percent) of South Bend nonprofits are formally affiliated with an- other organization. This mirrors the statewide and metro area patterns. See Figure 22. — Support from Federated Funders: Some 6 per- cent of South Bend nonprofits indicate that they received funding from the United Way during the past fiscal year. Eight percent received sup- port from religious federated funders and just 3 percent received revenue from other federated 15 For a more detailed description of all Indiana nonprofits see Kirsten A. Gronbjerg & Curtis Child, Indiana Nonprofits: Affilia- tions, Collaborations, and Competition. Report #5. November 2004. Available online: vww.indiana.edu/-nonpro`j/`results/npsur- veylinsaffil.htnil. 14 funders. In all, 15 percent of South Bend non- profits received financial support from any one of these types of federated funders. This pattern is similar to other nonprofits throughout Indiana. See Figure 23. Figure 22: Percent of nonprofits formally affiliated with another organization, by region 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 55 South Bend Not South Bend Other Metro (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =191; Not South Bend n= 1,890; Other Metro n =1,088 Figure 23: Percent of nonprofits that receive grants or support from federated funders, by region 20% � ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 17% 15% � 13 %[� 10% 9% % 8% 7,/ 6% 6% 3/ 5/ 6% 0% United Way Religious Other Federated Any Type of Federated Funders Federated Funder Funders (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 165 -167; Not South Bend n= 1,749- 1,761; Other Metro n= 980 -989 Networks and Collaborations: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether they participate in formal collabora- tions or informal networks with other entities. South Bend nonprofits resemble other Indiana nonprofits (in- cluding those in other metro areas) in this respect. • Indiana Nonprofits: – More than half (57 percent) of Indiana nonprof- its are involved in collaborations or networks. Informal networks are more common than for- mal collaborations. – Overall, participation in collaborations or net- works relates most significantly to the non- profit's size and access to technology — larger nonprofits and those with basic information technology components are most likely to indi- cate that they participate in such relationships. • South Bend Nonprofits: – Two -fifths (40 percent) of South Bend nonprof- its participate in informal networks, while ap- proximately one - quarter (27 percent) are in- volved in formal collaborations. Overall, the number of nonprofits in South Bend that indicate that they participate in informal or formal rela- tionships (55 percent) is similar to their counter- parts in other metro areas and the rest of the state. See Figure 24. Figure 24: Percent of nonprofits involved in informal or formal relationships, by region 70% 1 ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 60% s7% 59% 55% 0 50% 1 40 %40% 4� 40% 29 30% 27- I 20% 10% 0% Both Formal and Informal Formal Informal (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 187 -190; Not South Bend n= 1,838 - 1,879; Other Metro n= 1,056 -1,078 Most Important Relationship: We asked nonprofits that participate in networks or collaborations to focus on the one most important to them and to tell us how many and what types of organizations are part of the relation- ship. We found that South Bend nonprofits have collabo- ration patterns that differ slightly from others statewide. 15 • Indiana Nonprofits: — Size of Networks: The median number of or- ganizations in Indiana nonprofits' most impor- tant network or collaboration is 5, although the number is disproportionately higher for health nonprofits and for religion nonprofits that pro- vide human services. — Nonprofits that are small in size and lack tech- nology are disproportionately likely to partici- pate in small networks and collaborations. — Types of Organizations in Networks: About half of the relationships are homogeneous in scope, involving only one or two different types of or- ganizations. The variety of organizations in- volved is positively related to how many organi- zations are involved in the relationship. — Generally, Indiana nonprofits are most likely to say that secular service organizations (42 per- cent) and religious bodies (41 percent) are in- volved in these relationships, although this var- ies according to the field of service in which they are active. Many nonprofits are also in- volved with government agencies (33 percent) or for -profit organizations (23 percent). • South Bend Nonprofits: — Size of Networks: In South Bend, as well as in the rest of the state, the majority of nonprofits that participate in relationships (55 percent) say that there are 5 or fewer members in their most important collaboration or network. See Figure 25. — Types of Organizations in Networks: We asked nonprofits to identify the types of organizations with which they collaborate in their most impor- tant relationship. For the most part, nonprofits in South Bend collaborate with other types of or- ganizations to the same extent as nonprofits out- side of South Bend. One striking difference, however, is the percentage of nonprofits that identify other faith -based organizations in their most important relationship. Almost one -half (47 percent) of South Bend nonprofits name faith -based organizations other than religious bodies as members of their most important col- laboration or network, compared to not even one -third of nonprofits outside of South Bend (30 percent) and in other metro areas (29 per- cent). See Figure 26.16 Figure 25: Number of organizations involved in most im- portant relationship, by region 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 22% ❑1 tot ❑3to5 30% ®6 to 10 0 1 to 20 ■ More than 20 South Bend Not South Bend Other Metro (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =81; Not South Bend n =818; Other Metro n =499 Figure 26: Types of organizations identified in most impor- tant relationship, by region 60%, ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 50 % 47% 47% 43% 40% 30% 20% to% 35% 33% .33 % 1 % 33% 30% E29F 3f` T� 0% ; — , Religious Other Faith- Secular Advocacy Mutual Government Business Body Based Org Nonprofit Benefit Z (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n= 90 -94; Not South Bend n= 1,001 - 1,025; Other Metro n= 610 -623 — The vast majority (78 percent) of South Bend nonprofits say that their most important relation- ship includes 1 to 3 different types of organiza- tions. The same is true for nonprofits statewide 16 The apparent difference between South Bend and Not South Bend in the number of nonprofits that identify advocacy organizations as part of their most important relationship, shown in Figure 26, is not statistically significant. 16 (82 percent) and in other metropolitan areas (80 percent). See Figure 27. Figure 27: Number of types of organizations in most im- portant relationship, by region 40% 37 ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 4% 31% 31% 30% 29 %n Eno ■■M ■■w H11 11. 11.1 11i W-11 1% 3% 0% , i i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =86; Not South Bend n=940; Other Metro ri Effects of Networks and Collaborations: We asked Indiana nonprofits to indicate whether their involvement in networks and collaborations makes it easier, harder, or has no impact on maintaining key organizational capaci- ties. South Bend nonprofits respond in a pattern similar to nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Respondents are most likely to say that partici- pation in networks or collaborations makes it easier for them to enhance their visibility or reputation, meet client or member needs, and ob- tain funding. — Arts, culture and humanities nonprofits stand out as most likely to indicate that they benefit from involvement in networks and collaborations. • South Bend Nonprofits: — A large majority of South Bend nonprofits (68 percent) indicate that participating in networks and collaborations helps enhance their visibility or reputation. A majority (61 percent) also say that their relationships make it easier to meet client or member needs. Inter - organizational re- lationships make obtaining funding easier for almost one -third (32 percent) of the nonprofits in South Bend. These patterns are similar to other nonprofits, metro and non - metro, throughout the state. See Figure 28. Figure 28: Effect of participation in networks or collabora- tions on maintaining key organizational capaci- ties, by region Enhancing Visibility Meeting Client Needs Obtaining Funding 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% • Not Applicable • Harder ❑ No Impact ■ Easier a a o a a o a a o Q °° (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n= 94 -95; Not South Bend n= 940 -945; Other Metro n= 576 -580 — South Bend nonprofits, like other nonprofits throughout the state, are relatively unlikely to say that their participation in networks and col- laborations helps them address some of the chal- lenges of human resources management, such as recruiting and retaining volunteers (27 percent), staff (21 percent) and board members (18 per- cent). See Figure 29. Figure 29: Effects of participation in networks or collabo- rations on maintaining key organizational ca- pacities, by region Recruiting Volunteers Recruiting Staff Recruiting Board Members 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Harder ❑ No Impact ■ Easier ova oJr e� oJ� oJ�r rm� oJ� oJ�r m� (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n=95-96; Not South Bend n= 932 -941; Other Metro n= 569 -576 17 Competition: We asked Indiana nonprofits to identify the arenas in which they compete with other organiza- tions, as well as the different types of organizations with which they do so. South Bend nonprofits face competi- tion along similar dimensions as other metro and non - metro nonprofits in the state, although the types of or- ganizations with which they compete differ slightly. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Extent of Competition: Two -fifths of Indiana nonprofits compete with other organizations (both in and outside of the nonprofit sector) for a variety of resources. — Types of Competitors: They compete most ex- tensively with secular nonprofits (29 percent), followed by religious nonprofits (22 percent), businesses (13 percent), and governments (10 percent). — Generally, the prevalence of competition with other organizations increases with size and ac- cess to technology. Nonprofits that participate in formal or informal relationships are also more likely to compete than those that do not. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Extent of Competition: South Bend nonprofits are no different than other nonprofits throughout the state in that more than one - quarter (27 per- cent) compete with other organizations for fi- nancial resources; one - quarter (25 percent) com- pete to attract clients and members; almost one - quarter compete with other organizations in their efforts to recruit staff or volunteers (24 percent) and deliver programs or services (21 percent); and 15 percent compete to recruit and keep board members. See Figure 30. — Types of Competitors: Reflecting statewide and metro area patterns, nonprofits in South Bend are most likely to compete with secular nonprof- its (27 percent), followed by religious nonprofits (19 percent) and businesses (13 percent). One noted difference between South Bend nonprofits and those in the rest of the state is that South Bend nonprofits are significantly less likely to say that they compete with government agencies (4 percent vs. 10 percent of nonprofits in both the rest of the state and other metro areas). See Figure 31. Figure 30: Percent of nonprofits reporting competition with other organizations, by arena and region 40% ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 0 29% 30% 30 /0 27 % 25% 27% 24% 21% 21% 22% 20 °i 15% 16% 10% 0% Obtain Funding Attract Recruit Denver Recruit/Keep Board Cllents/Merri Staff /Volunteers Program /Serdces Members (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend ri Not South Bend n= 1,999; Other Metro n=1,142 Figure 31: Percent of nonprofits reporting competition, by type of competitor and region 50% 0 South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 42% 40% 38° 29 %30 % 30% 27% 22 % 21 20% 19 13% 14% 10% 10% 4% 0% - Ifl ' Secular Religious Business Government Any Nonprofits Nonprofits *+ Competition (" Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n =207; Not South Bend n= 1,999; Other Metro n =1,142 18 — Overall, almost two -fifths (38 percent) of South Bend nonprofits say that they compete with at least one of these types of organizations in some way. IV. COMMUNITY AND POLICY CONDITIONS Community Conditions and Impacts: We asked Indiana nonprofits for their perceptions of changes in seven community conditions and whether the changes have an impact on them. 17 In this respect South Bend nonprofits appear to be more unusual. We found that South Bend nonprofits report conditions and impacts somewhat differently from other metro and non -metro nonprofits statewide. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Changes in Community Conditions: The major- ity of Indiana nonprofits report that one or more of the seven community conditions changed in their communities during the last three years and half report that multiple conditions changed. Overall, perceptions of changes in community conditions depend significantly on where the nonprofits are located and, in some cases, their size or target group. Perceptions do not vary ac- cording to age, field of activity, or primary source of funding. — Just over half (51 percent) of Indiana nonprofits report that employment and business opportuni- ties changed in their communities, with the ma- jority of these (33 percent overall) saying they decreased. — Changes in employment opportunities are fol- lowed by perceived changes in population size with half noting a change, of which most (42 percent overall) say it increased. — About two - fifths (39 percent) say household in- come changed, with the majority (22 percent overall) of those saying it decreased. — A third (36 percent) say ethnic or racial diversity changed, with almost all (34 percent overall) noting an increase. One in four say crime and 17 For a more detailed description on all Indiana nonprofits see Kirsten A. Gronbj erg & Curtis Child, Indiana Nonprofits: Impact of Community and Policy Changes. Report #3. July 2004. Available online: www.indiana.edu/ nonpro /resultslnpsurvey/inscom.html. violence changed, with most (19 percent overall) noting an increase. — About one in ten (11 percent) noted a change in tension or conflict among community groups, with almost all of those (8 percent overall) say- ing it increased. — For some conditions there are striking similari- ties between how nonprofits perceive commu- nity conditions and official indicators of the conditions, but in other cases there are notable differences between perceptions and the actual conditions. — Impacts from Community Conditions: One -half of Indiana nonprofits indicate that at least one of the community conditions impacted their or- ganization. Almost every condition tends to im- pact a higher percentage of mid -sized and large nonprofits than small ones, as well as those that target their programs to people of a particular income, gender, and/or race. — For the most part, neither the age of an organiza- tion nor the field in which it operates helps ex- plain why a given condition impacts nonprofits. • South Bend Nonprofits: 19 — Changes in Community Conditions and impacts: South Bend nonprofits are less likely to report that population size increased within the geo- graphic areas in which they operate (22 percent), compared to nonprofits across the state (43 per- cent) and in other metro areas (40 percent). As might be expected, they are also less likely to say that changes in population size impacted them (14 percent vs. 28 percent and 27 percent, respectively). See Figures 32 and 33. — Additionally, South Bend nonprofits are less likely to report increases in racial diversity in the area (27 percent) than are nonprofits in the rest of the state (34 percent). However, this differ- ence is not reflected in the way in which South Bend nonprofits report the impact of changes in racial diversity in the area —16 percent of South Bend nonprofits report such an impact, which is similar to the 19 percent of nonprofits in the rest of the state who also reported feeling an impact from these changes. Figure 32: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in se- lected community conditions, by region 60% Employment Population �000rtunities Size *+ 50% - 9 Household 40% 15 18 Income 30% 12 17 17 20% 10% ■ Decreased ❑ Increased Racial Crime & Diversity Violence Tension 0% 2% 0 a a o a a o a a o a a o a s o a a o �mc r�er osr d' �0g 5 5 �� a y o (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n= 149 -162; Not South Bend n= 1,516- 1,644; Other Metro n= 845 -911 Figure 33: Percent of nonprofits reporting being impacted by selected community conditions, by region 40% 35% ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 30% � 222 1 I 28%29% 28% 22% 20% 19 17% 160 140 15% 12 0 10% 0% Employment Household Population Crime and Racial Opportunities Income Size *+ Violence Diversity 100,/01 -22 % 8 %ice Tension Among Community Groups (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n= 156 -170; Not South Bend n= 842 -911; Other Metro n= 1,515 -1,647 — Aside from the perceived changes and impacts related to population size and racial diversity, South Bend nonprofits report similar changes and impacts as their counterparts in other metro areas and the rest of the state across all of the other issues about which they were asked. Policy Conditions and Impacts: We also asked Indiana nonprofits about changes in five government policies and whether the changes affect their organiza- tion. While, as we've discussed, perceptions of commu- nity conditions in South Bend differed from perceptions in the rest of the state, perceptions of policy conditions are nearly identical to those of other nonprofits and met- ropolitan organizations statewide, although perceptions of the impacts of these conditions differ in some cases. • Indiana Nonprofits: — Changes in Policies: More than one -third of Indiana nonprofits indicate that at least some policies have changed during the last three years, although this varies considerably depend- ing on the type, size, and funding structure of the nonprofit. For almost every policy, health and human services nonprofits, large organizations, and those that depend primarily on government funding are the most likely to say that multiple policies changed. In almost all cases, the policies became stricter. — Changes in health and safety regulations are the most commonly reported (23 percent say that such policies changed). These were followed by client eligibility requirements for government programs (16 percent), personnel and legal regu- lations (15 percent), professional licensing re- quirements (14 percent), and government con- tract procurement policies (11 percent). — Impacts from Policies: One - quarter of all Indi- ana nonprofits says that at least one of these policies had an impact on their organization. As with perceptions of policy changes, significantly more of the health and human services nonprof- its, large organizations, and those that rely pri- marily on the government for funding say that this is the case. Overall, the policies were at least four or five times as likely to impact the non- profits when the policy became stricter versus when they became more lenient. • South Bend Nonprofits: 20 — Changes in Policy and Impacts: For every policy condition about which we asked, South Bend nonprofits do not substantially differ from non- profits across the state in the percentage that in- dicate that the policies became stricter, more le- nient, or did not change. While there appears to be a difference between nonprofits in South Bend and those elsewhere in the state in terms of the proportion that perceive that health and safety regulations have become stricter, these differences are only marginally significant. See Figure 34.18 Figure 34: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in se- 0% lected policy conditions, by region 40% ealth & Safety 0 °a m °a 0O 0°a 0 °a 4. 2 °a 0°a 4- ,b o °a ZO Regulations 0 °a m °a 0O Q? m oar ❑ More Relaxed 30% '0% Licensing m m� r r� o1 ■ Stricter Requirements ,c S� Personnel y yo yo� yo� o r� Client and Legal Government ° 0% Eligibility Regulations Contract 20% 10% Bend 191 �� Policies Other �{�� 0% 0 °a m °a 0O 0°a 0 °a 4. 2 °a 0°a 4- ,b o °a ZO a_p aCa 2O 0 °a m °a 0O Q? m oar m mg ¢> mg m m� m m� r r� o1 o� o r� ,c S� � �o yyo` y yo yo� yo� o 'f '6' o` �yd, o (No statistically significant differences) Note: South Bend n =98 -131; Not South Bend n= 916- 1,377; Other Metro n= 492 -762 — South Bend nonprofits generally do not differ from nonprofits elsewhere in reporting impacts from most of the policy changes about which we asked. However, for one policy condition, health and safety regulations, South Bend nonprofits (26 percent) are significantly more likely than their counterparts in other metro areas (13 per- cent) and in the rest of the state (14 percent) to say that they are impacted by this set of policies. See Figure 35. 18 Apparent differences between South Bend and Not South Bend / Other Metro in perceptions of licensing requirements are not statisti- cally significant. Figure 35: Percent of nonprofits impacted by selected pol- icy conditions, by region 30% ■ South Bend ❑ Not South Bend ❑ Other Metro 126% 20% 1116 °ro 10% 0% 14% X13% 13% 13% I—I 11% =11% = 11% 1 8% 9% 6% Health & Client Licensing Personnel Government Other Safety Regs Eligibility Recs Regs Contracts (" Significant differences between South Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n =99 -132; Not South Bend n= 921 - 1,382; Other Metro n -496 -765 Nonprofit Advocacy: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether they promote positions on certain policy issues or on issues related to the interests of certain groups. South Bend nonprofits show patterns that vary in this re- spect from the patterns of other Indiana nonprofits, both metropolitan and statewide. • Indiana Nonprofits: 21 — Participation in Advocacy: More than one- quarter of Indiana nonprofits indicate that they participate in some form of advocacy (although only 3 percent say it is one of their three most important programs or activities). Health non- profits are the most likely to say that they en- gage in advocacy, followed by religious, public benefit, and human services nonprofits. Mid- sized and large organizations are also more likely to engage in advocacy than smaller ones. — Resources for Advocacy: Many nonprofits that engage in advocacy devote only limited re- sources to it. One in ten of the organizations that say they participate in advocacy do not commit any financial, staff, or volunteer resources to it. — Many Indiana nonprofits that are involved in ad- vocacy lack key information technology tools for it. While three - quarters of them have com- puters available, only two - thirds have Internet access and/or e -mail, and less than half have a web site. — Health and education nonprofits that participate in advocacy tend to be better equipped with such tools, while human services, arts, and especially mutual benefit nonprofits involved in advocacy tend to lack these tools. Large nonprofits and those that receive the majority of their funding from the government are considerably more likely to have all four technology tools we men- tioned. • South Bend Nonprofits: — Participation in Advocacy: South Bend non- profits are significantly more likely to partici- pate in advocacy (41 percent) than their counter- parts in other metro areas (27 percent) and the rest of the state (26 percent). See Figure 36. Figure 36: Percent of nonprofits that participate in advo- cacy, by region 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% South Bend Not South Bend * Other Metro + (* Significant difference between South Bend and Not South Bend + Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n =187; Not South Bend n= 1,775; Other Metro n -1,010 — Resources for Advocacy: Despite a greater like- lihood of participating in activities related to ad- vocacy, South Bend nonprofits do not differ sig- nificantly from nonprofits in other metro areas and the rest of the state in the amount of volun- teer or staff time devoted to these activities. However, they are significantly less likely to de- vote some amount of financial resources to these activities than are their counterparts in other metro areas. See Figure 37. Figure 37: Extent of nonprofit resources devoted to advo- cacy, by type of resource and region Volunteer Time Staff Time Financial Resources + 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ❑ NA ❑ None ❑ Some ■ Most IZ0ca eel tea Seca o eg °ca °ca ego ec� �r '91 qk (+ Significant difference between South Bend and Other Metro) Note: South Bend n= 52 -55; Not South Bend n= 438 -483; Other Metro n= 267 -288 22 APPENDIX A NTEE MAJOR CATEGORIES AND MAJOR FIELDS NTEE Major Fields L j NTEE Major Groups and Decile Categories I Arts and Culture --------------------------- - - - - -- Arts, Culture and Humanities ( - L20 A20 Arts, cultural organizations A60 Performing arts organizations, activities L30 A30 Media, communications organizations. A70 Humanities organizations L40 A40 Visual art organizations, services A80 Historical societies and related Housing owners, renters' organizations A50 Museums, museum activities A90 Arts service organizations and activities IIEducation ----------------------------------- - - - - -- Education-(B)----------------------------------------- B20 B30 Elementary, secondary education B60 Vocational, technical schools B70 Adult, continuing education Libraries, library science B40 Higher education institutions B80 Student servcs & organizations of students B50 Graduate. Drofessional schools B90 Educational services & schools —other III Environment/Animals IV Health V Human Services Environment (C) ----------------------------------------------- C20 Pollution abatement and control services C30 Nat. resources conservation & protection: C40 Botanical, horticultural, & landscape C50 Envirnmt'l beautification & open spaces C60 Environmental educ. & outdoor survival ---------- - - - - -- Health-Care-(E) ---------------- E20 Hospitals, primary medical care facilities E30 Health treatment facilities, outpatient E40 Reproductive health care facilities, allied E50 Rehabilitative medical services E60 Health support services E70 Public health programs E80 Health (general and financing) E90 Nursing services Diseases, Disorders & Medical Disciplines (G) ----------------------------------------------- G20 Birth defects and genetic diseases G30 Cancer G40 Diseases of specific organs G50 Nerve, muscle, and bone diseases G60 Allergy related diseases G70 Digestive diseases, disorders G80 Specifically named diseases, n.e.c. G90 Medical Disciplines, n.e.c. ---- - - - - -- -Crime & Legal-Related-(I) I20 Crime prevention 130 Correctional facilities 140 Rehabilitation services for offenders I50 Administration of justice, courts I60 Law enforcement agencies I70 Protect, prevent: neglect, abuse, exploit. I80 Legal Services Animal - Related (D) ------------------------------------------------ D20 Animal protection and welfare D30 Wildlife preservation, protection D40 Veterinary services, n.e.c. D50 Zoo, zoological society D60 Other services — specialty animals Mental Health & Crisis Intervention ) ------------------------ - - - - -- - - - -- F20 Alcohol, drug, & subs. Abuse, dependency prevention & treatment F30 Mental health treatment F40 Hot line, crisis intervention services F50 Addictive disorders, n.e.c. F60 Counseling support groups F70 Mental health disorders F80 Mental health association Medical Research (H) ------------------------------------------------ H2O Birth defects and genetic diseases H30 Cancer research H40 Specific organ research H50 Nerve, muscle, and bone research H60 Allergy related diseases H70 Digestive diseases, disorders H80 Specifically named diseases, n.e.c. H90 Medical Specialty Research, n.e.c. Employment (J) ---------------- r----------------- J20 Employ. procurement assist. & job training J30 Vocational rehabilitation J40 Labor unions, organizations _ Foods Agriculture -& Nutrition (KC - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --------------- Housin g & Shelter (L - - - - - - ----------------- K20 Agricultural programs L20 Housing devel., construction, management K30 Food service, free food distribution L30 Housing search assistance K40 Nutrition programs L40 Low -cost temporary housing K50 Home economics L50 Housing owners, renters' organizations L80 Housing support services: other 23 NTEE Major Fields �E NTEE Major Groups and Decile Categories V. Human Services (contin- ued) Public Safety, Disaster Preparedness, Relief (M) ----------------------------------------------- M20 Disaster preparedness & relief services M40 Safety education ------------ Youth Development (0) 020 Youth centers & clubs 030 Adult, child matching programs 040 Scouting organizations 050 Youth development programs, other ............ Recreation & Sports (N) ---- ------------------------- -----, N20 Recreational & sporting camps N30 Physical fitness, recreational facilities N40 Sports training facilities, agencies N50 Recreational, pleasure, or social club N60 Amateur sports clubs, leagues N70 Amateur sports competitions N80 Professional athletic leagues ------- - ----- Human Services (P) ............... P20 Human service organizations P30 Children's & youth services P40 Family services P50 Personal social services P60 Emergency assist. (food, clothing, cash) P70 Residential, custodial care (group home) P80 Services to promote independence of VI International _______________________ International, Foreign Affairs &National Securily - (Q) - ------------- - - - -- --------------------- Q20 Promotion of international understanding Q50 Foreign policy research & analysis Q30 International development, relief services Q70 International human rights 040 International peace & security VII Public and Societal Benefit Civil Rights, Social Action & Advocacy (R) ----------------------------------------------- R20 Civil rights, advocacy for specific groups R30 Intergroup, Race Relations R40 Voter Education, Registration R60 Civil Liberties Advocacy Philanthropy, Voluntarism, Foundations (T) ----------------------------------------------- T20 Private grammaking foundations T30 Public foundations T40 Voluntarism promotion T50 Philan., charity, voluntarism promotion T60 Non - grantmaking, non - operat. foundations T70 Fund- raising organizations var. categories T90 Named trusts, n.e.c. Social Science (V) ----------------------------------------------- V20 Social science research institutes, services V30 Interdisciplinary research V40 Mystic, paranormal studies: incl. astrology. Community Improvement, Capacity Building (S) S20 Community, neighborhood devel/imprvm't S30 Economic development S40 Business & industry S50 Nonprofit management Science & Technology (U) ---------------------------------------------- U20 Science, general U30 Physical, earth sciences research & prom. U40 Engineering & technology research, serv. U50 Biological, life science research Public & Societal Benefit (W) ---------------------------------------------- W20 Government & public administration W30 Military, veterans' organizations W40 Public transportation systems, services W50 Telephone, telegraph, telecommunication W60 Financial institutions, services W70 Leadership development W80 Public utilities W90 Consumer protection & safety VIII Religious and Spiritual ----------- _--------------------------- Religion-Related ( X)---------------------------------------- Development X20 Christian X60 Confucian X30 Jewish X70 Hindu X40 Islamic X80 Religious media, communications orgs X50 Buddhist X90 Interfaith Issues IX Mutual Benefit Mutual & Membership Benefit (Y) - - -- ------------------------------- Y20 Insurance Providers, Services Y40 Fraternal Beneficiary Societies Y30 Pension and Retirement Funds Y50 Cemeteries & Burial Services X Unknown Unknown (Z) 24 PROJECT PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS Over the last several years a number of reports and articles related to the Indiana Nonprofit Sector Project have been pub- lished, in addition to papers presented at various colloquiums and conferences. The following citations include project - related reports and papers as of May 2006. Online reports, as well as summaries of all other items, are available on the project website: www.indiana.edu/ nonprof. To obtain a complete version of an unpublished paper please contact Kirsten Gronbjerg (kgronbi&indiana.edu, (812) 855 - 5971). Indiana Nonprofit Survey Analysis This survey of 2,206 Indiana nonprofits, completed in spring and early summer of 2002, covered congregations, other charities, advocacy nonprofits, and mutual benefit associations. It used a stratified random sample drawn from our com- prehensive Indiana nonprofit database and structured so as to allow for comparisons among (1) different nonprofit source listings (including those identified through the personal affiliation survey) and (2) twelve selected communities around the state. The survey included questions about basic organizational characteristics, programs and target populations, finances and human resources, management tools and challenges, advocacy activities, affiliations, and involvement in networking and collaboration. An almost identical instrument was used to survey Illinois congregations, charities and advocacy non- profits for the Donors Forum of Chicago (report available Online at www.donors orum.org, December, 2003). Online Statewide Reports • Indiana Nonprofits: A Portrait of Religious Nonprofits and Secular Charities, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg, Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Survey Report #7. June 2006 (htty://www.indiana.edu/ nonpro / results /npsurvey/insfaithbased.html). • Indiana Nonprofits: A Profile of Membership Organizations, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Ten - nen. Online report. Survey Report #6. September 2005 (www.indiana.edu/—nongrof/results/npsurveylinsmember.html). • Indiana Nonprofits: Affiliation, Collaboration, and Competition, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Curtis Child. Online report. Survey Report #5. November 2004 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/resultslnpsurveylinsaffil.htm . • Indiana Nonprofits: Managing Financial and Human Resources, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Richard M. Clerkin. Online report. Survey Report #4. August 2004 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/resultslnpsurveylinsman.htm/ . • Indiana Nonprofits: Impact of Community and Policy Changes, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Curtis Child. Online report. Survey Report #3. June 2004 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/results/npsurvevlinscom.htmL) • The Indiana Nonprofit Sector: A Profile, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Linda Allen. Online report. Survey Report #2. January 2004 (www.indiana.edu/ nonprof / results /npsurvey/inspro ale.html). • The Indianapolis Nonprofit Sector: Management Capacities and Challenges, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Richard Clerkin. Online report. Preliminary Survey Report #1. February 2003 (ww-w.indiana.edu/—non,2rof/results/npsurveylindEmanag.html). Online Regional Reports • South Bend Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg, Kerry S. Brock, and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #7. November 2006 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/results/npsurveylinscomsouthbend.pdj. • Fort Wayne Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg, Abigail Powell, Andrea Lewis, and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #6. November 2006 (www.indiana.edu/ nonpro / results lnpsurvey /inscomfortwayne.pdfl. 25 • Indianapolis Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #5. November 2006 (www.indiana.edu/—nongrof/resultslnpsurveylinscomindianapolis.p d�. • Evansville Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg, Curtis Child, and Patricia Borntrager Ten- nen. Online report. Community Report #4. June 2006, revised November 2006 (www.indiana.edu/ nonprof / results lnpsurveylinscomevansville.,2dfl. • Muncie Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #3. June 2006 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/results/npsurveylinscommuncie.pdl). • Northwest Region Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #2. February 2006 (www. indiana. edu/ nonpro / results /npsurvey/inscomnorthwest pd. • Bloomington Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #1. September 2005 (revised, December 2005) (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/resultslnpsurveylinscombloominjzton.p dfl. Journal Articles and Conference Presentations • Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations: Their Characteristics and Activities, by Curtis Child and Kirsten A. Gronbjerg. Social Science Quarterly, forthcoming. • Infrastructure and Activities: Relating IT to the Work of Nonprofit Organizations, by Richard Clerkin and Kirsten A. Gronbjerg. In Nonprofits and Technology, edited by Michael Cortes and Kevin Rafter. Chicago: Lyceum Press (forthcoming). • The Capacities and Challenges of Faith -Based Human Service Organizations, by Richard Clerkin and Kirsten A. Gronbjerg. Public Administration Review (forthcoming, January - February 2007). • Nonprofit Networks and Collaborations: Incidence, Scope and Outcomes, by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Curtis Child. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of ARNOVA, Washington, D.C., November 17 -19, 2005. • A Portrait of Membership Associations: The Case of Indiana, by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of ARNOVA, Washington, D.C., November 17 -19, 2005. • Examining the Landscape of Indiana's Nonprofit Sector: Does What You See Depend on Where You Look? By Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Richard Clerkin. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34 (No. 2, June): 232 -59. 2005. Indiana Nonprofit Employment Analysis An analysis, comparing ES202 employment reports with IRS registered nonprofits under all sub - sections of 501(c), using a methodology developed by the Center for Civil Society Studies at The Johns Hopkins University, to examine nonprofit employment in the state of Indiana for 2001 with comparisons to 2000 and 1995. The analysis includes detailed informa- tion by county, region, and type of nonprofit as well as industry and sector comparisons. Online Statewide Reports • Indiana Nonprofit Employment, 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Report No. 2 by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Erich T. Eschmann. May 2005 www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/results/l*nnonprofitemploy.htm). • Indiana Nonprofit Employment, 2001. Nonprofit Employment Report No. 1 by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Hun Myoung Park. July 2003 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/results/innonprofltemp/ov.htm . 12 Online Regional Reports • Evansville Economic Region Nonprofit Employment: 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Series No. 2D by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Kerry Brock. May 2006 (www.indiana.edu/ nonprof/ results/ inemploylEvansvilleempl05.pdj). • Muncie Economic Region Nonprofit Employment: 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Series No. 2C by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Kerry Brock. May 2006 (www.indiana.edu/ nonprof/ results /inemploy/muncieemplOS.pdjg. • Northwest Economic Region Nonprofit Employment: 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Series No. 2B by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Kerry Brock.February 2006 (www.indiana.edu/ nonprof/ results/ inemploy/northwestemp/O5.pdffj. • Bloomington Economic Region Nonprofit Employment: 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Series No. 2A by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Erich T. Eschmann with Kerry Brock. January 2006 (www.indiana.edu/—nonprof/resultslinemplovlbloominktonemp/05.p . • Bloomington Nonprofit Employment, 2001. Nonprofit Employment Report No. 1, Supplement A, by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Sharon Kioko. August 2003 (www.indiana.edu/ nonprof /results /inemploy/Bloomin to�nempl03.,2 Personal Affiliation Survey Analysis We completed a survey of 526 Indiana residents in May 2001, designed to make it possible to evaluate the utility of an al- ternative approach to sampling Indiana nonprofits (as compared to drawing a sample from a comprehensive nonprofit da- tabase). The survey probed for the respondents' personal affiliations with Indiana nonprofits as employees, worshippers, volunteers, or participants in association meetings or events during the previous 12 months. We recorded the names and addresses of the church the respondent had attended most recently, of up to two nonprofit employers, up to five nonprofits for which the respondent had volunteered, and up to five nonprofit associations. Journal Articles and Conference Presentations • The Role of Religious Networks and Other Factors in Different Types of Volunteer Work, by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Brent Never. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14 (Winter 2004, No. 3):263 -90. • Individual Engagement with Nonprofits: Explaining Participation in Association Meetings and Events, by Kirsten Gronbjerg. Paper presented at the ARNOVA Meetings, Montreal, Canada, November 14 -16, 2002. • Volunteering for Nonprofits: The Role of Religious Engagement, by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Brent Never. Paper pre- sented at the Association for the Study of Religion. Chicago, August 14 -16, 2002. Indiana Nonprofit Database Analysis We developed a comprehensive database of 59,400 Indiana nonprofits of all types in 2001 (congregations, other charities, advocacy nonprofits, and mutual benefit associations) using a unique methodology that combines a variety of data sources, most notably the IRS listing of tax - exempt entities, the Indiana Secretary of State's listing of incorporated non- profits, and the yellow page listing of congregations. We supplemented these listings with a variety of local listings in eleven communities across the state and with nonprofits identified through a survey of Indiana residents about their per- sonal affiliations with nonprofits. The database was most recently updated in 2004 and is available in a searchable format through a link at www.indiana.edu/—non,2rof Journal Articles and Conference Presentations • Extent and Nature of Overlap between Listings of IRS Tax - Exempt Registrations and Nonprofit Incorporation: The Case of Indiana, by Kirsten Gronbjerg and Laurie Paarlberg. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31 (No. 4, December, 2002): 565 -94. 27 • Evaluating Nonprofit Databases. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (July, 2002, No. 10): 1741 -77. Resources for Scholarship in the Nonprofit Sector: Studies in the Political Economy of Information, Part I: Data on Nonprofit In- dustries. • Community Variations in the Size and Scope of the Nonprofit Sector: Theory and Preliminary Findings, by Kirsten A. Gronbjerg and Laurie Paarlberg. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30 (No. 4, December, 2001) 684 -706. 28 JNIVERS /Tq r gig is S r • �OccCX� ' T e Center on P i pant ro at Indiana University Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis The I rid i; -ina Uaj ver -Nity Clio d of Pubfic and Environment Affairs Making A World 9 atlfelInca 29