Back To Table of Contents

Federal Programs and Local Organizations:
Meeting the Housing Needs of Rural Seniors

© Housing Assistance Council, 2001

Permission is granted ONLY to nonprofit community-based organizations to reproduce and/or adapt this document, and only for their own use.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Each of the counties studied had significant success accessing federal funding accessing federal programs on behalf of elderly homeowners and renters. The four case studies therefore provided consistent examples of major factors contributing to successful use of federal housing and social service programs for rural elderly residents. The cases also illustrated the gaps that are commonly found in local housing provision for senior residents. In addition, complications were noted extending services to elderly residents in sparsely settled rural areas. Other kinds of complications were observed as groups attempted to consolidate services in population centers. Finally, the case studies suggest that elderly in-migration to rural counties may have different impacts depending on what elderly subgroups are the primary in-movers.

Accessing Federal Programs

The four counties examined for this report exhibited two common trends that help explain the substantial success of local organizations in accessing federal housing assistance to meet the needs of senior residents. Each county had a strong network of nonprofit housing sponsors and social service providers. In different ways, each county also had substantial housing need among elderly residents.

All of the case study counties had either a strong nonprofit housing organization, an established formal housing collaborative, or a strong informal network of housing and social service providers. The Housing Council in Chenango County helped diverse local organizations coordinate their resources, allowing individual organizations to take the lead on project proposals with the support of other community-based organizations and public agencies. In Lowndes County, housing and social service providers have an intricate, informal network of service referral, fostering greater access to the full range of services and programs available to assist elderly households. In Carteret County, faith-based organizations played a significant role in the housing and services network for senior citizens.

Each of the counties also exhibited some form of substantial, even overwhelming, housing need among elderly households. In the case of Lowndes County, the scope and depth of substandard housing problems, and the extensive poverty of the county, result in substantial need for federal assistance. An example of how need impacts the allocation of federal resources can be found in Rural Development's designation of Lowndes County as a "target area." In Lake and Carteret counties, large elderly populations and significant elderly in-migration have required housing and social service providers to target much of their work towards improving the affordable housing options available for seniors. In Chenango County, the great number of elderly residents living in old farmhouses and mobile homes needing repairs have made housing assistance for these residents a priority among local housing and service providers.

Unmet Housing Needs of Rural Elderly Residents

Only one of the four counties had an affordable assisted living project. Housing and social service providers in each county noted the lack of assisted living developments as a significant unmet housing need. Chenango County's Section 202 project provided an assisted living environment with subsidized rents, but the only comparable project in the county was considered by residents to be "luxury" housing, and was unaffordable to seniors with low incomes. Although assisted living is a relatively new concept, it has a significant place between the extremes of independent living and nursing home care. As seniors become more frail, they frequently need additional help with the activities of daily living, but do not require or desire the extensive care and loss of independence associated with nursing homes. There are few federal housing development programs that can be used to develop an assisted living project. Section 515 funding is restricted to congregate housing for elderly tenants, and although Section 202 allows inclusion of appropriate support services, many organizations have difficulty obtaining ongoing funding to maintain service provision.

Each of the counties exhibits significant rehabilitation work on behalf of elderly homeowners, either through the Section 504 program or efforts by nonprofit organizations funded through other sources such as HPG or CDBG. Technically, homeowner rehabilitation does not constitute an unaddressed need in these counties. However, the scope of substandard housing problems, particularly the lack of adequate well and septic systems, means that far more rehabilitation work could be done in each of these counties. In addition, given the preference of elderly clients to age in place, housing and service providers in each of the counties emphasized the importance of rehabilitation services in helping elderly clients maintain an independent lifestyle. When paired with extensive and efficient outreach from social service agencies, these elderly homeowners can often substantially delay their entry into extensive nursing home care.

Service Challenges

The challenges faced by social service providers working with elderly clients primarily relate to common features of the rural environment. Each of these counties had dispersed populations. Each also faced significant limitations extending transportation to outlying areas. Finally, each county also struggled to improve a limited outreach infrastructure.

The sparsely settled nature of many rural counties is itself a limiting factor in service delivery. Small populations dispersed over a wide geographic area complicate efforts to extend transportation networks, provide outreach, or bring people to services in population centers.

All of these counties had some form of public transportation, and some had transportation networks expressly for seniors. However, rural routes often involve great distances, inaccessible areas, and limited ridership. In most cases, without substantial public subsidy, it is not cost effective to maintain rural public transportation networks. Even in the counties studied that had well-established public transportation, such as Lowndes and Chenango counties, transportation providers could not afford to run vans evenings or weekends. In each of these counties, though, public transportation plays an important role in reducing the isolation of elderly persons living in remote rural areas. In the case of Chenango County, public transportation to the county's small towns also facilitated service delivery to elderly residents, with Agency on Aging meals delivered along transportation routes.

In each of the counties studied, agencies have invested much of their resources in developing and maintaining outreach capacity. However, in each case, housing and social service providers noted they continue to seek additional funding to hire more outreach personnel. If community organizations are going to emphasize initiatives to maintain independent living among local seniors, service extension becomes a priority. On the other hand, consolidation of services in population centers is generally a more cost-effective use of limited resources. However, if transportation networks do not run regularly or extend widely, it can be difficult for seniors living in outlying areas to reach the services available only in a county's more populous towns.

The Impact of Elderly In-Migration

The two counties with substantial elderly in-migration, Carteret and Lake counties, had different impacts from the influx of seniors. In both cases, however, elderly in-migration complicated provision of housing and services to low-income elderly residents. In Carteret County, higher income seniors are the primary in-movers, while in Lake County most elderly in-migrants have low or moderate incomes.

In the case of Carteret County, the influx of primarily affluent retirees has driven up housing costs and property taxes for local elderly residents. In addition, much of the new housing development has been in response to the needs of in-migrants, and is therefore unaffordable for low-income elderly residents seeking affordable rental housing options. The large number of new, wealthy residents also tends to mask the housing and service needs of low-income elders in the county. Greater numbers of people with higher incomes raises the county's median income, which could have an impact on groups competing for state and federal resources allocated at least partly based on poverty measures.

In Lake County, the influx of low- to moderate-income seniors has had a different impact. A low cost of housing is a significant factor contributing to its high in-migration rate of elderly persons. However, a significant portion of the county's housing stock includes older mobile homes and converted vacation homes. Many of these are in need of repair or rehabilitation. In this case, in-migrants do need substantial subsidized housing services and publically funded supportive services, which have stretched local capacity to deliver these resources.

Although substantial housing and service needs of elderly households remain to be met in rural areas, the work of organizations in these four counties illustrates common features of successful federal program use. These counties have strong nonprofit housing organizations, social service and housing providers investing in improved outreach capacity, and both formal and informal networks to better coordinate agency resources. The case studies therefore suggest a number of strategies that rural organizations serving elderly clients might replicate in their efforts to secure the federal and state resources needed to improve the quality of life for rural seniors.

Back To Table of Contents