Minneapolis NRP: Resources: Reports: Housing Loan Survey

NRP loan and grant home improvement programs stimulated significant investment in Minneapolis residential properties.

Nearly all survey respondents (94%) indicated that the availability of NRP funds influenced their decision to improve their property.
Over half (56%) said they would not have improved their property without NRP funds, and 90% would have delayed the improvements.
2/3 of the owners invested additional funds in their property that they would not have invested otherwise.
NRP funds of $28,008,575 leveraged an additional $33,610,290 or 1.2 dollars for each NRP dollar.
Over 1/3 of those surveyed said that because of NRP funds, neighbors who didn't receive funds also made improvements to their properties.
Overall NRP expenditures resulted in an estimated 2,674 additional permits citywide from 1992 to 1997.¹⁰

"Thanks again ... Likely I would have put off for a few more years what really needed to be done now had the community not provided the impetus and assistance to make this happen."

- 1997 letter from Longfellow resident

NRP loan and grant home improvement programs helped foster stability in Minneapolis neighborhoods.

3/4 of survey respondents said that they would stay in their home longer after making the investment.
4 out of 5 (83%) felt the program made a big difference in increasing property values in their neighborhood.
89% of loan/grant recipients expected to live in their present home 2-3 years from now, while only 54% of all residents expected this.
69% of recipients were very satisfied with the home they live in now, compared to only 58% of the general population.
When asked, "Does your own neighborhood make you want to live where you do or does it make you want to move?" almost 3/4 of recipients said it makes them want to stay and only 5% said it makes them to want to move. This is vastly different than the 1993 homeowners' survey response, where only 56% said their neighborhood made them want to stay and 17% said it made them want to move.

"I have lived in our home 30 years and we just paid the mortgage on it, but we were thinking of moving because of the decay that has been getting worse every year. We keep up our house the very best we can but you get discouraged when others don't...

Thank you again for helping NE Minneapolis. Maybe the help your Committee is giving us will get things started and I can be proud of this neighborhood like I was 30 years ago."

- 1994 letter from Logan Park resident

NRP loan and grant home improvement programs improved the appearance and livability of Minneapolis neighborhoods.

4 out of 5 (83%) of those surveyed felt that the loan/grant program made more changes in the appearance and livability of their neighborhood than were happening before.
In rating their neighborhood as a place to live, 9 out of 10 recipients gave it an excellent or good rating. Only 3/4 of the Minneapolis residents asked gave their neighborhood a similar rating.
When asked about the general appearance and livability of their neighborhood, 85% said it was excellent or good, with only 15% choosing fair or poor. The responses from the 1993 Minneapolis homeowners where the same question was asked, showed only 60% giving the neighborhood a favorable rating, with 40% saying it was fair or poor.
Recipients also felt better about how their neighborhood had changed in the last 5 years than others. Among grant/loan recipients 2/3 said their neighborhood was more desirable as a place to live, 1/4 said there was not much change, and 5% said it was less desirable. This was vastly different than responses of homeowners in 1993, only 10% of whom said their neighborhood was more desirable, 1/2 said there was not much change, and 1/3 said it was less desirable.

NRP loan and grant recipients were more involved in their neighborhood and felt that their neighborhood was a high priority with the City government.

Recipients were more likely to know about the identity of their area as a neighborhood, with 97% being aware that they lived in a neighborhood with a particular name, compared to only 79% of the general population who were aware of this.
Recipients were much more likely to agree that improving their neighborhood was a high priority with the City government. 55% agreed and 33% of recipients felt it was not a high priority. These numbers were reversed for the general population, only 1/3 of whom thought improving their neighborhood was a high priority with the City government and 55% of whom felt it was not a high priority.
Recipients were also more likely to have attended meetings or participated in volunteer work dealing with neighborhood issues. 6 out of 10 recipients had attended or participated at least once in the last year compared to 4 out of 10 Minneapolis residents. Recipients were also more likely to have attended or participated more often than residents. It can not be determined whether being a recipient led to involvement in the neighborhood, or whether those involved in the neighborhood were more likely to become recipients.

"I want you and SENA to know how thankful I was to receive the grant...

I never could have managed the costs of these repairs had I not gotten the grant. I don't walk up my steps without thinking about (it) ...

I hope that the program can happen again sometime in the future, so that others can experience the blessing I received from it."

- 1997 letter from Standish Ericsson resident

Grants made greater positive impacts on recipients' willingness to invest and their feelings about their neighborhood than did loans.

Grant recipients were more likely than loan recipients (80% vs. 66%) to invest additional
72% of grant recipients as compared to 60% of loan recipients invested additional funds that they would not have invested otherwise. Many of the grant programs required recipients to match the NRP funds with additional funds.
Only 40% of grant recipients said they could have found another source of funds to improve their property vs. 56% of loan recipients.
50% of grant recipients felt that neighbors who didn't receive NRP funds still invested in their properties because of the NRP improvements in the neighborhood compared to 26% of loan recipients.
79% of grant recipients intend to live in their home longer now that they received NRP funds to improve it, compared to 69% of loan recipients.
Grantees were also more likely to attend neighborhood meetings or volunteer to work on neighborhood issues. Only 54% of loan recipients attended or volunteered in the last year compared to 68% of grant recipients.
87% of grant recipients vs. 79% of loan recipients felt that the NRP loan or grant program made more changes in the appearance and livability of the neighborhood than were happening before.
Grant recipients tended to be longer term residents than their loan counterparts with 2/3 of grant recipients living in their neighborhood 10 years or more, compared to half of loan recipients with the same time of residency.

10 Source: NRP Evaluation Report Phase One: 1990-1999 by Teamworks, page 25

Conclusions

Housing Loan Survey Table of Contents