2018 Impact Study

Report to Habitat for Humanity of Colorado

October 2018

Title Page and Acknowledgements

Report prepared by:

Annette Shtivelband, PhD – Founder and Principal Consultant at Research Evaluation Consulting Anne Marie Runnels, MA – Evaluation Advisor at Research Evaluation Consulting Kimberly S. Spahr, BS – Research and Evaluation Associate at Research Evaluation Consulting Mindi Wisman, MSW - Research, Evaluation, and Writing Associate at Research Evaluation Consulting Mitchel N. Herian, PhD – Researcher and Principal at Soval Solutions

Special thanks to:

Eric Thompson, PhD – Economics Professor at University of Nebraska School of Business Lauren J. Gibbs – Expert in nonprofit impact communications Michael Reid Lazear – Report reviewer Jorge Palma – Native speaker translator Joe Richards – Spanish translator

Acknowledgements:

This report would not be possible without the generosity of Bryant Colorado, a leading provider of heating and cooling systems. In addition to supporting this research, Bryant Colorado has pledged to donate a new, high efficiency furnace to each new Habitat for Humanity home built in Colorado in the next 12 months, a total value of $200,000, ensuring comfortable homes for more than 100 families in need of decent, affordable housing. “After volunteering with Habitat for Humanity, I knew that Bryant had to be a part of the Habitat magic that is transforming communities,” enthused Tim Brooks, President of Lohmiller & Company dba:Bryant Colorado. “As a Colorado company we stand ready to do whatever it takes to build great communities where people care for one another.”

Table of Contents Title Page and Acknowledgements ...... 2

Table of Contents ...... 3

Executive Summary ...... 5

PART 1: Introduction and Methodology ...... 10 Introduction ...... 11 Habitat for Humanity ...... 11 Research Evaluation Consulting ...... 12 Purpose of the Study ...... 12 Methodology ...... 14 Survey Development ...... 14 Master Dataset ...... 16 Data Analysis ...... 16 Sample Size ...... 17 Homeowner Zip Codes and Counties Represented ...... 18

PART 2: Homeowner Results ...... 19 Homeowner Results ...... 20 Homeowners and their Families ...... 20 Demographic Information About Survey Participants ...... 25 Denise’s Story: Pursue A Dream Career ...... 28 Educational Outcomes ...... 29 John and Amalia’s Story: Habitat Makes Home Ownership Possible ...... 32 Financial Impact...... 33 Pam’s Story: The Health Benefits of a Habitat Home ...... 38 Health and Quality of Life ...... 39 Daniel’s Story: Part of a Community ...... 44 Neighborhood and Community Impact ...... 45 Feedback from Homeowners ...... 48

PART 3: Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity in Colorado ...... 55 Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity in Colorado ...... 56 IMPLAN Model ...... 56 Financial and Employment Data ...... 57 Volunteer Estimates ...... 59 Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity Affiliates ...... 59 Tax Impact of Habitat for Humanity Affiliates ...... 61

PART 4: Discussion ...... 63 Discussion ...... 64 Findings about Homeowners and their Families ...... 64 Educational Outcomes ...... 64 Financial Impact...... 65 Health and Quality of Life ...... 65 Neighborhood and Community Impact ...... 66 Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity in Colorado ...... 66 Limitations ...... 67

PART 5: Actionable Recommendations and Conclusion ...... 68 Actionable Recommendations ...... 69 Further Examine Trends in 2018 Homeowner Data ...... 69 Increase Efforts to Maintain Multiple Forms of Contact from Homeowners ...... 69 Consider Compiling Additional Baseline Data from Homeowners ...... 69 Conduct an Economic Impact Study Every 3 Years ...... 70 Continue to Make Evaluation a Priority ...... 70 Conclusion ...... 70

PART 6: References and Appendices ...... 71 References ...... 72 Appendix A. 2016 Denver Metro Survey Questions ...... 74 Appendix B. 2018 Homeowner Survey ...... 80 Appendix C. Affiliate Survey ...... 89 Appendix D. Affiliate Survey Participants ...... 92

Executive Summary

Introduction There is a housing crisis in Colorado. Research conducted by the Shift Research Lab suggests, that, since the 2008 economic downturn, many more families live in Colorado than the housing market can accommodate. Such an increase in demand drives up the price of homes, making them unaffordable for many families (Newcomer & Resnick, 2018). Evidence of this trend is abundant; rents are rising, home prices are increasing, and the consequences are mounting. Habitat for Humanity of Colorado (HFHC) hired Research Evaluation Consulting (REC) to conduct a comprehensive assessment that measured the effect that HFHC and local Habitat for Humanity (HFH) affiliates had on Habitat homeowners, their families, and the state of Colorado. Findings focused on homeowners and their families, respondent demographics, educational outcomes, financial impacts, health and quality of life outcomes, and neighborhood and community impact. The survey also gave homeowners the opportunity to share their stories and provide their feedback. HFH affiliate findings focused on the economic impact of the construction of homes, operating costs, activities related to ReStore, and volunteering. This report highlights the Habitat homeowner experiences of Denise, John and Amelia, Pam, and Daniel as REC presents findings from this study.

Methodology Data from three surveys (two homeowner surveys, one affiliate survey) were analyzed and interpreted in preparation of this report. New questions were added to the 2018 Homeowner Survey to capture richer information and this survey was also offered in Spanish to accommodate the diverse populations that HFH serves. The 2018 Affiliate Survey also provided new findings surrounding the economic impact of HFH.

Results Detailed findings for the following sections are reported in the full-length report: 1) Findings about homeowners and their families, 2) Educational outcomes, 3) Financial impact, 4) Health and quality of life, 5) Neighborhood and community impact, 6) Feedback from homeowners, and 7) Economic impact of HFH. Below are some key trends from these sections.

Findings about Homeowners and their Families The characteristics of homeowners and their families suggests that HFH serves a diverse group of low-income individuals throughout Colorado:

• The typical homeowner respondent was most likely to have lived in their Habitat home 1-3 years, have a family that consists of 4 members, earn between $20,000-$34,999 per year, have two children, not have any adult children, be a White female, completed some college (less than two years), and be employed full-time. • Nearly 56% of homeowner respondents had lived in their Habitat home for 5 years or less, about 83% earned $49,999 or less per year, and nearly 86% were engaged in either part-time, full-time, or self-employment.

• About 36% of homeowners who participated in this study identified as Hispanic or Latino/a.

Educational Outcomes When examining educational outcomes of homeowners and their families, the data suggests that homeowners are hopeful about their futures and that of their children.

• About 67% of homeowners expected that their children would earn a bachelor’s degree or greater. • Approximately 34% of homeowners pursued additional education since becoming a Habitat homeowner. About 12% of these individuals reported pursuing some college. • For those who had adult children, about 35% had completed high school or their GED, followed by nearly 13% who had completed technical training or a vocational diploma. • About 22% of the 2018 homeowners felt their children’s school performance was somewhat better. Approximately 52% had noticed an improvement in their children’s grades in particular.

Financial Impact Homeowners were asked questions that gauged the financial impact of owning a Habitat home and their perceptions regarding their family’s financial stability.

• Most homeowners reported that they could not have owned a home without help from HFH, that their families valued saving money, and that they believed that their home had gone up in value. Ratings for covering an unexpected bill or helping a close relative with financial problems were lower. Even so, rating of financial stability was relatively strong. • About 65% of homeowners felt that they were somewhat or much better at saving money since becoming a Habitat homeowner. • There was a significant decline in the total number of public assistance program usage before and after becoming a Habitat homeowner. In fact, across all programs, an average reduction in usage was observed for 58% of programs! REC was also able to generate an estimate for what this looked like for Medicaid and CHP+ savings - $297,462 and $282,370, respectively. This represents a savings of nearly $600,000 dollars in one year. It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate as these numbers only reflect the responses of 181 respondents and not all Habitat homeowners throughout the state.

Health and Quality of Life Health and quality of life outcomes demonstrate that Habitat homeowners, overall, are experiencing improved outcomes.

• Approximately 94% of homeowners felt that their lives had improved. • Nearly 90% of homeowners reported some improvement to their family’s health. • About 69% of homeowners rated their health as very good or excellent. 6

• Nearly 61% of homeowners reported they were able to spend more quality time with family. • About 58% of the time homeowners reported that their families always had enough to eat. • Nearly 57% of homeowners reporting that they could often or always afford to see a doctor.

Neighborhood and Community Impact Overall, findings indicated that homeowners view their homes and neighborhoods positively.

• Ratings for home and neighborhood were relatively high – 8.69 and 7.66 out of 10, respectively. • Nearly 90% of homeowners reported that their neighborhood felt safer than where they had lived before. • About 48% of homeowners reported their neighborhoods were staying the same and about 29% thought their neighborhoods were improving. • Attendance to community events, volunteering in the community, voting in local, state, or federal elections, and church/religious activity participation all significantly increased between 6% and 16%.

Feedback from Homeowners In 2018, Habitat homeowners were asked to tell their stories and provide feedback about their experiences with HFH.

• Homeowners felt more financially secure living in their Habitat home. • They shared how they were able to save more money to support their families. • They took personal pride in owning their homes. • They had more space and privacy. • They were able to live in a better neighborhood, and they felt their families had a better quality of life.

Economic Impact of HFH Findings from the IMPLAN analysis indicate that HFH greatly supported the economy of Colorado during Fiscal Year 2018.

• Nearly 81% of affiliates completed the survey and provided estimates regarding construction of homes, operating costs, activities related to ReStore, and volunteer activities. • Affiliates were established between 1978 through 2008. Results were reported for resort, rural, and urban affiliate sites as well as estimates statewide. • In aggregate, reporting HFH affiliates had $32.6 million in non-payroll expenses and $15.8 million in payroll expenditures. • Nearly 316 FTE employees were reported for Fiscal Year 2018 and across the state, the average salary was $49,984.

• 78 new homes were built, and 119 homes were repaired or renovated by the responding affiliates. • A total of 34,607 individual volunteers devoted 316,405 hours to HFH affiliate sites. This equated to about 165 FTE and REC estimates that over $8.5 million dollars in labor were donated to HFH affiliates in Fiscal Year 2018.

REC also used IMPLAN to examine the economic impact of direct employment, labor income, total output and the associated indirect and induced effects to create a single estimate. Results from this analysis indicate that HFH had a total statewide impact of:

• 539 employees; • $28.4 million in labor income; and • $62.1 million in total industrial output.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive assessment that measured the effect that HFH had on Habitat homeowners, their families, and the state of Colorado. Data from three surveys (two homeowner surveys, one affiliate survey) were analyzed and interpreted in preparation of this report. Homeowner findings focused on homeowners and their families, survey participant demographics, educational outcomes, financial impacts, health and quality of life outcomes, neighborhood and community impact, and gave homeowners the opportunity to share their stories and provide their feedback. The 2018 Affiliate Survey also provided new findings surrounding the economic impact of HFH. This study offers valuable information about Habitat homeowners, their families, their communities, and the affiliates who help build, renovate, and repair their homes.

Limitations It is important to consider the limitations of this study:

• Homeowner data was collected in two separate time periods – 2016 and 2018 by two different teams. • Homeowner data represented a convenience sample. HFHC and REC were only able to collect data from homeowners who had a working email address. • For the Affiliate Survey, REC obtained data for only 21 of the 26 affiliate organizations (80.8% across the state). • For the Affiliate Survey, not every affiliate answered every question on the form.

Taken together, these limitations likely influenced the results of this impact study. Nonetheless, this study produced some important and robust findings for HFH.

Actionable Recommendations Based on the findings of this economic impact study, REC makes the following five recommendations to HFHC:

1) Further examine trends in 2018 homeowner data; 2) Increase efforts to maintain multiple forms of contact from homeowners; 3) Consider compiling additional baseline data from homeowners; 4) Conduct an impact study every 3 years; and 5) Continue to make evaluation a priority.

PART 1: Introduction and Methodology

“…my family has experienced what it means to work toward their dreams.”

“I didn’t realize how much having a home meant to me until after I moved in…it really has been life changing.”

“It taught me how to appreciate and work hard for something that you can call your own.”

“…we can breathe, we are safe.”

Introduction There is a housing crisis in Colorado. Research conducted by the Shift Research Lab suggests, that, since the 2008 economic downturn, many more families live in Colorado than the housing market can accommodate. Such an increase in demand drives up the price of homes, making them unaffordable for many families (Newcomer & Resnick, 2018). Evidence of this trend is abundant; rents are rising, home prices are increasing, and the consequences are mounting. The data shows that residents are losing the ability to afford housing in Colorado, which has led to serious consequences. Families are experiencing homelessness and housing instability at alarming rates. Findings from the 2017 Centennial State Survey indicate that Coloradans rank housing as the biggest problem facing their communities. In fact, nearly two-thirds of survey respondents (out of 532 total respondents) reported that there is a lack of adequate access to affordable housing in their area (Social Research Center, 2017). In a 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation study on the state of affairs in Colorado, 80% of respondents said that housing costs are getting worse and 15% of respondents (the highest percentage found) stated that housing affordability is the most important issue facing Colorado residents today (Kirzinger et al., 2018).

According to federal data, home prices in Colorado have grown faster over the past year than any other state except Washington (Federal Housing Finance Agency, 2017). Furthermore, a recent national housing profile of Colorado found that over 170,000 or 23% of renter households in the state can be classified as extremely low-income (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2018). A 2016 University of Denver report found that Colorado’s steady stream of new residents combined with the decline in available low-income housing has added up to a 600% increase in the Colorado homeless population over the past decade and a half (Adcock et al., 2016). Such research shows that population growth in Colorado far outpaces wage growth. Clearly, there are not enough homes for low-income people to rent or affordable homes for families to buy, a trend which is leading to a multitude of problems, including homelessness. So, how does one go about solving the complex puzzle that is the Colorado housing crisis? One piece of the solution: Habitat for Humanity.

Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity of Colorado (HFHC) supports the local Habitat for Humanity (HFH) affiliates through advocacy, training, funding, finance, and disaster response. Habitat affiliates build, renovate and repair safe, stable, affordable homes with low income families throughout the state. Twenty-five HFH affiliates across Colorado are currently building in 45 communities, and to date have built over 2,100 new homes, rehabbed and repaired over 500 homes, and helped more than 2,600 families who would otherwise be unable to become homeowners (HFHC, 2017). The need for affordable housing in Colorado is critical. There is a limit to how many homes HFH can build in the state, but HFH’s impact goes beyond merely providing homes for families. As this report will illustrate, HFH homeowners say that their experience with the program has positively impacted their families immeasurably by granting safety and security, building equity, encouraging economic

improvement and growth, and providing hope for the future and pride in achieving homeownership. Figure A represents the 34 counties1 that are served by HFH.

Figure A. Counties Served by HFHC

Research Evaluation Consulting To examine their impact, HFHC partnered with Research Evaluation Consulting (REC) to develop a survey for HFH homeowners regarding their experience with the program as well as a survey for HFH affiliates to measure economic impact during Fiscal Year 2018. Data for this study were interpreted, analyzed and reported by REC with findings presented in this report. REC is a Colorado-based consulting firm that delivers quality research and evaluation services to social sector agencies. This organization has expertise in both quantitative and qualitative research methods. REC also provides clients with a variety of professional and customized services that facilitate, strengthen, and promote effective organizational practices.

Purpose of the Study The intended purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive impact study that measures the effect that HFH has had across Colorado and on homeowners. To best understand and quantify their impact, HFHC enlisted REC to create a survey for homeowners. Topics of the survey include how working with HFH has influenced homeowners' family life, economic stability, connection to community, education and overall health. REC developed this new homeowner’s survey based on a study conducted by HFH of Metro Denver in 2016 (Velez, O’Brien, Connors, Clarke, & Walters, 2016). The new 2018 homeowner’s survey is similar to the 2016 survey. However, it is important to

1 Counties served by HFHC include: Adams, Alamosa, Arapahoe, Archuleta, Boulder, Broomfield, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Delta, Denver, Douglas, Eagle, El Paso, Fremont, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Jefferson, La Plata, Larimer, Mesa, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Pueblo, Rio Grande, San Juan, San Miguel, Summit, Teller, and Weld. 12

note that in this report, homeowner data from both the 2016 surveys and 2018 surveys are included. Additionally, REC created an Affiliate Survey for the 26 affiliate HFH sites2 and that data is also included in this report. The main purpose of this study was to examine the data from both the HFH homeowners and affiliates to have a comprehensive understanding of the impact of HFH. Through the stories of Denise, John and Amelia, Pam, and Daniel as well as the findings from this study this report will capture how HFH makes a difference in the lives of the homeowners they serve.

2 HFHC was included in this survey to capture any additional expenses, costs, operations, and volunteer data that was not captured from other affiliate responses. 13

Methodology The following section provides information about the HFH surveys, describes recruitment for this project, and explains the techniques used by REC to prepare, clean, and analyze the data.

Survey Development Three instruments provided the foundation for the current impact study, including an Affiliate Survey (Appendix A), 2016 Denver Metro Survey (Appendix B), and 2018 Homeowner Survey (Appendix C). Each tool assessed a different population crucial to Habitat (e.g., homeowners and affiliates). For homeowner surveys only, data represented two distinct years – 2016 and 2018.

Habitat for Humanity 2016 Denver Metro Survey In 2016, HFH of Metro Denver partnered with the Evaluation Center at the University of Colorado Denver to identify the impact of Habitat on homeowners across Metro Denver. To this end, the evaluation team developed the 2016 Denver Metro Survey, which focused on homeowners’ quality of life, economic stability, and public assistance use. The evaluation team recruited participants to complete the 15-minute survey by sending online links to homeowners through email or mail.

A total of 121 homeowners completed the Denver Metro Survey, which resulted in a 23.4% response rate3. REC obtained a copy of the dataset from this study and removed six participants who completed less than half of the survey. As a result, the 2016 sample that REC included in the present study decreased to 115 homeowners. It should be noted that REC consulted the 2016 evaluation team to obtain information about the strengths and weaknesses of the 2016 study4.

2018 Homeowner Survey HFHC partnered with REC in September 2018 to design a new evaluation tool called the 2018 Homeowners Survey. To inform this tool, REC identified different impact studies conducted nationwide. Guided by HFHC, REC focused primarily on the surveys from three similar impact studies conducted in Georgia, Minnesota, and Denver Metro (Center for Economic Research, 2017; Mattessich & Hansen, 2015, Velez et al., 2016). REC utilized some questions from the 2016 Denver Metro Survey as the basis for this 2018 survey. Each question was carefully reviewed to ensure relevance to the goals of the current economic impact study. Where necessary, questions from both surveys were merged and analyzed by REC team members and then reviewed by HFHC staff.

The 2018 Homeowner Survey included the following eleven sections: 1) Home and neighborhood, 2) Social connectedness, 3) Health, 4) Financial well-being, 5) Public assistance, 6) Youth education, 7) Impact on adult children, 8) Homeowner education, 9) Feelings about Habitat home, 10) Demographic questions, and 11) Raffle/future contact options. The final 2018 Homeowner Survey contained 55 questions. For a copy of the survey, see Appendix B. REC created the final 2018 Homeowner Survey and uploaded it into SurveyMonkey, an online tool.

3 Six cases were omitted as more than 50% of the data were missing that was relevant for this study. 4 For additional information, please see Habitat for Humanity: 2016 Denver Metro Survey (Velez, O’Brien, Connors, Clarke, & Walters, 2016). 14

Spanish Translation Based on recommendations from the 2016 Denver Metro Survey, the REC team translated the current survey into Spanish. The translation work was completed by a Native Spanish speaker and the resulting translation was reviewed by an independent translator (i.e., back- translated) who had expertise in academic Spanish. The two translators worked together to ensure the quality of the translations and adjust discrepancies.

2018 Homeowner Survey Recruitment HFHC contacted the 25 affiliate leaders and requested that they share the link of the survey with the homeowners they served. A total of nine affiliates (36%) provided HFHC with an email contact list and six affiliates (24%) shared survey information directly with their homeowners. Eight affiliates (33.3%) did not share the survey or chose not to specify how they shared the survey, and one affiliate (4.2%) said they had no emails available.

Homeowners were recruited both by phone and email5. REC drafted a phone script, which HFHC volunteers used to call homeowners and request their email addresses for distributing the survey. HFHC emailed survey invitation links to a total of 406 homeowners. From this group, 214 homeowners (52.7%) completed the survey6; within this group, 192 completed an English survey (89.7%) and 22 completed a Spanish survey (10.3%). The response rate obtained for this study is a rough estimate only; as of Fiscal Year 2017, HFH served 2,679 families in total (HFH, 2017). As such, the 406 homeowners who received recruitment emails represent only a subset of all families served by HFH. On average, homeowners took 16 minutes to complete the English version and 23 minutes to complete the Spanish version of the survey. To boost response rates, REC offered homeowners an incentive - homeowners were provided an opportunity to enter a raffle drawing for one of ten $25 Amazon gift cards.

Affiliate Survey HFH operates through networks of local affiliates, or partnerships with independent, local organizations. HFHC (2018) describes affiliates as, “Independently run nonprofit organizations at the local level providing safe, decent affordable housing for hardworking low-income families.” These affiliate organizations provide crucial support for projects and influence HFH’s overall economic and social impact on Colorado.

To estimate the impact HFHC and affiliate organizations have on both local and state economies for Fiscal Year 2018, REC developed and tested an online, 15-question survey designed specifically for affiliates. This survey focused on three broad types of affiliate activities including: 1)

5 All homeowners were encouraged to complete the online survey; however, not all homeowners provided their email addresses. The purpose of the calls was to invite homeowners to complete the online survey and homeowners who were interested in this study, provided their email address. 6 A total of seven individuals completed less than 50% of the survey. These individuals were excluded from the sample. 15

Construction of homes, 2) Operating costs, and 3) Activities related to ReStore7. Within these categories, participating affiliate organizations reported on:

• Overall expenses; • Labor expenses; • Employment numbers; • The number of homes that had been constructed, renovated, or rehabilitated in Fiscal Year 2018; and • How many volunteers and volunteer hours had been utilized in Fiscal Year 2018.

The Affiliate Survey was pilot tested with two sites prior to being offered to all affiliate organizations across Colorado. Results from this initial data collection effort informed the final version of the Affiliate Survey, which was hosted on SurveyMonkey.

Affiliate Recruitment On September 12, 2018, HFHC sent an email invitation to 25 affiliate sites8 across the state of Colorado, asking them to complete the survey. The survey was open for 18 days, and the completion took, on average, 40 minutes. Overall, 21 out of 26 contacted affiliate organizations (80.8%) completed the survey (Refer to Appendix D for a list of participating affiliates). Five affiliate organizations (19.2%) did not complete the survey.

Master Dataset To increase the usability of data, REC spent time carefully reviewing data sources and cleaning homeowner data9. This process increased REC’s familiarity with HFH data as well as the increased quality of resulting data analyses. REC carefully merged data from the 2016 Denver Metro Survey and the 2018 Homeowner Survey into a master dataset using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS10. All final statistical analyses took place in SPSS Version 25.

Data Analysis The three surveys resulted in quantitative (i.e., close-ended) and qualitative (i.e., open-ended) data. Quantitative data, or information that is easily represented through numbers, included demographic questions (e.g., gender, age) or statement ratings. REC examined the overall characteristics of the

7 As described by HFHC (2018), ReStores, “…sell new and used items to the general public. All proceeds generated by the ReStore Stores are re-invested by the local affiliate to fund new homes for Habitat for Humanity families.” 8 HFHC is an affiliate site of Habitat for Humanity International. This site was included in the Affiliate Survey because this organization had information (e.g., operating costs, volunteer hours) that would contribute to the economic impact study that was not being captured from the other 25 affiliate sites 9 Data cleaning refers to the technique of examining datasets for patterns of missing data, identifying inconsistencies, and altering the format of data to improve overall quality and facilitate analysis (Rahm & Do, 2000). 10 IBM SPSS is a software package owned by IBM used to perform statistical analyses. SPSS stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 16

data focusing on frequencies and descriptive statistics. Measures such as the mean11, range12, standard deviation13, and mode14 were also examined. Each of these analyses helped REC interpret the data collected for HFHC.

Qualitative data, or information not easily represented by numbers, came primarily from open-ended responses. Open-ended data explores complex phenomenon, such as opinions and personal statements. While responding to the homeowner and affiliate surveys, many participants shared their thoughts and feelings. REC analyzed all given responses, coded them for common themes and patterns, and grouped those themes together using a Grounded Theory15 approach (Hallberg, 2006). This method provides a picture of the typical responses given for each question. To better describe the themes, REC also provided representative quotes that illustrated individuals’ responses.

Sample Size REC reported the sample size, or n, throughout the report. Sample size refers to how many individuals provided an answer for a particular question. The sample size varied throughout the data analysis, as not all participants answered each question. Throughout this report, the italicized letter ‘N’ indicates the number of participants, or the sample size. A capital ‘N’ is used when discussing the total sample of 329 participants, and a lower-case ‘n’ represents any number of participants less than 329.

Primary Language In 2016, the homeowner survey was only available in English and 115 homeowners completed it. In 2018, an updated version of the survey was offered in both English and Spanish16. A total of 214 homeowners completed this survey, with 192 in English (89.7%) and 22 (10.3%) in Spanish.17 In total, 329 surveys were completed by homeowners across the state, with 307 (93.3%) in English and 22 (6.7%) in Spanish.

11 Mean/Average response (M): An average (i.e., arithmetic mean) used to describe the central tendency of groups of data. 12 Range: A number computed by subtracting the minimum number in a dataset from the maximum number in that dataset. The range describes the spread of a set of data, with a higher number often indicating more spread in the data and a lower number indicating less spread in the data. Outliers, or unexpected extreme values, may influence the range. When reporting the range, REC ensured that no outliers influenced the interpretation. 13 Standard Deviation (SD): The consistency of responses of each question (i.e., the spread of the data within a range of scores). A higher SD indicates that the data is more spread out with differing answers. A lower SD signifies that the data is all clustered together, so resident responses are more similar. 14 Mode: This is the number that is most frequently reported in response to a Likert question. 15 Grounded Theory Approach: A technique developed for analyzing qualitative data. Key steps include coding all responses for major categories/concepts, grouping those categories/concepts, and identifying relevant relationships between responses (Hallberg, 2006). 16 Offering the survey in Spanish was a recommendation that was made from the 2016 study. 17 Seven cases were omitted because more than 50% of participant data was missing. 17

Homeowner Zip Codes and Counties Represented Among the homeowners who provided their zip code18 (n = 282, 85.7%), there were 71 zip codes reported. Forty-seven homeowners (14.3%) did not provide a response. Of the Denver 2016 survey participants, most (n = 100, 87%) answered this question. It is important to note that these homeowners represented the Denver metro area. The 2018 survey was distributed across the state and most homeowners (n = 182, 85%) responded. Overall, the three most-referenced zip codes for both years were 80501 (n = 24, 8.5%), 80537 (n = 15, 5.3%), and 80525 (n = 14, 5%).

Counties Represented REC investigated which counties were most frequently represented. Table A displays the 20 counties represented by 281 homeowners who responded (85.7%)19. Denver county (n = 50, 17.8%) had the highest representation, followed by Larimer (n = 48, 17.1%) and El Paso (n = 35, 12.5%) counties.

Table A. Counties Represented (n = 20) County n Percentage Denver 50 17.80% Larimer 48 17.10% El Paso 35 12.50% Boulder 27 9.60% Arapahoe 20 7.10% Jefferson 20 7.10% Weld 17 6.00% Eagle 15 5.30% Adams 10 3.60% Teller 10 3.60% Mesa 9 3.20% Chaffee 6 2.10% Garfield 5 1.80% Alamosa 2 0.70% Archuleta 2 0.70% Cheyenne 1 0.40% Gunnison 1 0.40% Moffat 1 0.40% Montezuma 1 0.40% Summit 1 0.40%

18 One homeowner provided an incorrect zip code and that response was categorized as a “no response” participant. 19 The counties were calculated by extrapolation from zip code data (Corra, 2018). 18

PART 2: Homeowner Results

“As a single mom, I was extremely stressed. I endured many sleepless nights worrying where my kids and I would end up. My worst fear was having to settle for an unsafe location…I thank God and the wonderful people at Habitat for choosing us when they did. I am grateful for the support and for the unforgettable experience.”

“It was a quality home to raise my children in, warm, clean, safe. They were able to stop focusing on the daily stress of growing up poor and start focusing on living normal childhoods.”

“We now have a stable, secure, safe place to call home.”

“I don’t have to work two jobs to afford housing, I can work a normal work week and be present as a parent for my children”.

Homeowner Results This section of the report presents findings from the homeowner surveys, focusing on homeowner demographics, family characteristics, education, financial impact, health, quality of life, neighborhood/community involvement, and overall homeowner feedback.

Homeowners and their Families The following section provides information about homeowners and their families. Specifically, how long homeowners have lived in their Habitat home, how many people (including children) live in the home, the income level of each family, the number of children living in the home, the number of adult children who are or have lived in the home, the age of the oldest adult child who has lived in the Habitat home, the number of years this adult child has lived in this home, and the age of the adult child who has lived in the home the longest.

Housing Tenure When asked how long homeowners had lived in their Habitat home, all but one participant (n = 328, 99.7%) answered this question. Responses ranged from “Less than 1 Year,” to “More than 20 Years.” Most homeowners reported that they had lived in their Habitat home “1 up to 3 years,” followed by “3 up to 5 years,” and “less than 1 year.” This indicates that most respondents had only lived in their Habitat home for a relatively short period of time. Please refer to Chart A.

Chart A. Length of Time in Habitat Home (n = 328) 90 78 80 70 60 60 45 50 43 41 40 33 30 23 20 10 5 0 Less than 1 up to 3 3 up to 5 5 up to 7 7 up to 10 10 up to 15 up to More than 1 year years years years years 15 years 20 years 20 years

Total Number of People Living in Habitat Home When asked about the total number of people in their Habitat home (including children), homeowners (n = 287, 87.2%) reported between 1 to 11 people, with the average number being almost 4 (M = 3.67, SD = 1.59). The most frequent household size was four people (26.1%), followed by three people (19.9%), and two people (18.5%), as indicated in Table B.

Table B. Size of Habitat Households (n = 287) Number of Household Members N % of Responses One 21 7.30% Two 53 18.50% Three 57 19.90% Four 75 26.10% Five 52 18.20% Six 15 5.20% Seven 10 3.50% Eight 3 1.00% Nine 0 0.00% Ten 0 0.00% Eleven 1 0.03%

Income Level Most homeowners (n = 287, 87.2%) provided information about their total annual income before taxes, as visualized in Chart B. Habitat homeowners (n = 109, 38%) were most likely to make between $20,000 to $34,999, followed by $35,000 to $49,999 (n = 101, 35.2%), and between $50,000 and $74,999 (n = 39, 13.6%). The data suggest that about 73% of homeowners (n = 210) earned a household income between $20,000 to $49,999. About 17% of homeowners reported their annual income before taxes was between $50,000 to $99,999. In addition, nearly 10% of Habitat homeowners are below the poverty line, making under $20,000 or less before taxes each year20.

20 According to U.S. Department of Human and Health Services (2018), the 2018 poverty level for a family of four (the most-frequently citied household size in this study, was $25,100 and a family of three was $20,780. 21

Chart B. Annual Income Level of Homeowners (n = 287)

120 109 101 100

60 39 40 28

20 10

0 Under $20,000 $20,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999

Homeowner Children The majority of homeowners (n = 238, 72.3%) reported that they had children under the age of 18 who were permanently living in their Habitat home. Seventy-three homeowners (22.2%) said they did not have children permanently living in their home and eighteen homeowners (7.6%) did not respond to the question. When asked how many children were permanently living in their home currently, most homeowners (n = 256, 77.8%) responded to this question and the number of children ranged from 0 to 6, with an average of about 2 children (M = 2.02, SD = 1.18). The most frequent response was also two children (34.4%), followed by one child (29.3%), and three children (18.8%), as demonstrated in Table C.

Table C. Number of Children Currently Living in Habitat Home (n = 238) Number of Children N % of Responses No children 17 6.6% One child 75 29.3% Two children 88 34.4% Three children 48 18.8% Four children 19 7.4% Five children 8 3.1% Six children 1 0.4%

Adult Children Homeowners were asked if they had any adult children (18 and over).21 Most homeowners (n = 310, 94.2%) answered this question, with approximately half (n = 160, 51.6%) saying they did have adult children. Homeowners were then asked if they had any adult children permanently living with them in their Habitat home22. A total of 213 homeowners (64.7%) responded to this question and about 96 homeowners (45.1%) did have adult children currently living with them; whereas, 116 homeowners (54.9%) did not as depicted in Figure B.

Figure B. Adult Children Currently Living in Habitat Home (n = 213)

Yes 45.1%

No 54.9%

Adult Child Who Has Lived the Longest in Habitat Home A couple questions asked about the adult child who had lived the longest in the Habitat home. According to respondents (n = 136, 41.3%), the age of this adult child ranged from 18 to 38, with the average age being 22.3 (SD = 4.13). As seen in Chart C, the most frequent age reported was 21 (18.4%), followed by 18 (14.7%) and 19 (14%).

21 Homeowners (n = 212, 64.4%) also shared if they had adult children who used to live in their Habitat home. Ninety- six homeowners (45.3%) selected “Yes” and 116 homeowners (54.7%) reported “No”. 22 “Permanent” was defined as at least half of the school year or at least half time. 23

Chart C. Age of Adult Child Who Lived in Habitat Home the Longest (n = 136) 30 25 25 20 20 17 15 13 14 10 10 10 5 5 3 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 36 37 38 Age of Adult Child

When asked how many total years this adult child had lived in the Habitat home, homeowners (n = 140, 42.6%) reported that the length ranged from 0 to 24 years, with the average length being 6.72 years (SD = 5.87). The most frequent tenure was 4 years (18.6%), followed by 5 years (12.1%), and 2 years (10.7%), as depicted in Table D23.

Table D. Longest Time Adult Child Has Lived in Habitat Home (n = 140) Number of Years in Habitat n % of Responses Home Zero years 5 3.60% One year 13 9.30% Two years 15 10.70% Three years 13 9.30% Four years 26 18.60% Five years 17 12.10% Six years 2 1.40% Seven years 3 2.10% Eight years 3 2.10% Nine years 4 2.90% Ten years 12 8.60%

23 Five of the homeowners reported that their child(ren) had lived in their Habitat home “0” years, which likely indicated they had lived in their Habitat home for less than one year.

Eleven years 1 0.70% Twelve years 3 2.10% Thirteen years 3 2.10% Fourteen years 2 1.40% Fifteen years 1 0.70% Sixteen years 2 1.40% Seventeen years 3 2.10% Eighteen years 1 0.70% Nineteen years 3 2.10% Twenty years 3 2.10% Twenty-one years 2 1.40% Twenty-two years 1 0.70% Twenty-three years 0 0.00% Twenty-four years 2 1.40%

Demographic Information About Survey Participants A set of questions asked homeowners to report demographics. Such information included gender, ethnicity, highest education, and employment status.

Gender Most homeowners (n = 290, 88.1%) reported their gender with a large majority of those responses being Female (n = 233, 80.3%), followed by Male (n = 57, 19.7%). Thirty-nine homeowners (11.9%) skipped this question.

Ethnicity Most respondents (n = 266, 80.9%) provided information about their ethnicity, while 63 homeowners (19.1%) did not respond to this question. Their responses are displayed in Chart D in order of frequency, with “White or Caucasian” having the largest number of responses (n = 165, 62%). A total of 56 homeowners (21.1%) that chose “Other” and provided an explanation. Of these, 31 (55.4%) identified as Hispanic, Latino/a, or Mexican, 15 participants (26.8%) identified as Mixed, six individuals (10.7%) identified as African, and the other three (5.4%) gave unique responses24. When asked specifically if they were Hispanic or Latino/a, 282 homeowners (85.7%) answered this question. More than 60% of homeowners (n = 180, 63.8%) were not Hispanic or Latino/a; while 102 homeowners (36.2%) said they were. Forty-seven homeowners (14.3%) skipped this question.

24Afghan, Brown, and Spanish American are what participants shared for this response. 25

Chart D. Ethnicity of Homeowners (n = 266)

180 165 160 140 120 100 80 57 60 40 33 20 7 6 3 0 White or Other Black or Asian or American Native Caucasian African Asian Indian or Hawaiian or American American Alaska Native other Pacific Islander Education Level Most homeowners (n = 287, 87.2%) provided information about the highest level of education they had completed, as depicted in Table E. Most frequently, homeowners had completed “Some college” (n = 63, 22%), followed by “High school/GED” (n = 56, 19.5%), and an “Associate’s degree” (n = 49, 17.1%). This indicates that the majority of homeowners (n = 210, 73.2%) had graduated from high school, but had not completed a bachelor’s degree or beyond. This also suggests that this group of homeowners were slightly below the national average for education level, as than one-third of the adult population in the U.S. had a bachelor’s degree or higher (Alonzo, 2017).

Table E. Highest Level of Homeowner Education (n = 287) Level of Education N % of Responses Less than high school 22 7.70% High School/GED 56 19.50% Some college (less than 2 years) 63 22.00% Technical training or vocational diploma 42 14.60% Associate’s degree 49 17.10% Bachelor’s degree 45 15.70% Master’s degree 9 3.10% Doctorate degree or professional degree beyond a bachelor’s 1 0.30%

Employment Status Most homeowners (n = 284, 86.3%) provided information about their employment status, as visualized in Table F. Most homeowners reported full-time employment (n = 203, 71.5%), followed by self-employed (n = 24, 8.5%), and employed part-time (n = 19, 6.7%). Such findings indicate that nearly 87% of Habitat homeowners are working either full-time, part-time, or are self- employed.

Table F. Employment Status of Homeowners (n = 284) Employment Status N % of Responses Employed full-time for pay/income 203 71.50% Self-employed 24 8.50% Employed part-time for pay/income 19 6.70% Disabled or unable to work 10 3.50% Unemployed 10 3.50% Stay at home parent 8 2.80% Other 7 2.50% Full-time student 2 0.70% Retired 1 0.40%

Denise’s Story: Pursue A Dream Career

Denise had always wanted to be a teacher. “I just knew it, in the core of me, that this is what I wanted to do. I was on the right track, but things got derailed, and I found myself divorced—alone with a one and two-year old to raise, and suddenly that dream got moved to the back burner because I knew I needed to work to provide for my family.” She ended up in a low-paying job at a local hospital, struggling to make ends meet for herself and her children. At the suggestion of a coworker, she applied for a Habitat home and was accepted. With the financial stability that affordable homeownership provided, she was able to go back to school and earn her Master’s degree in Education, and later landed her dream job teaching kindergarten. This fall marks her 16th year as a teacher, and she loves every day of it. Her success has positively impacted her children as well, who are now grown. Her daughter earned a vocational diploma and is pursuing a career she loves, and her son has a great job in the construction industry. Denise has also started a college fund for her grandchildren. She stands firm that everything would have been different – her job, her house, her kids – if not for Habitat. “Not only did Habitat provide me with an opportunity to pursue my dream career, but it also taught me and my kids a lot about the value of hard work, time management, and the good in the community. I was worried what would happen to my kids before Habitat came along, but now I know that the cycle of worrying about jobs and where to live has been broken because of Habitat. My kids are doing great and I’m very proud.”

Educational Outcomes This section summarizes findings regarding educational outcomes for homeowners and their children. Results focus on whether homeowners pursued additional education after becoming Habitat homeowners, educational outcomes of adult children, school performance and grades of children 18 and younger, and the expectations Habitat homeowners hold for their child(ren).

Homeowner Education Homeowners reported if they had pursued any additional education since moving into their Habitat home. A total of 308 participants (93.6%) answered this question, with two-thirds saying “No” (n = 204, 66.2%) and one-third saying “Yes” (n = 104, 33.8%). Twenty-one homeowners (6.4%) did not provide a response.

Additional Education Pursued As a follow-up to whether participants pursued additional education since moving into their Habitat home, the survey asked homeowners to report what additional education they had completed. A total of 235 participants (71.4%) responded to this question by choosing between eight options. The most frequent responses included: “Some College” (n = 29, 12.3%), “Technical Training/Vocational Diploma” (n = 26, 11.1%), and “Associate’s Degree” (n = 25, 10.6%). Ninety-four homeowners (28.6%) did not answer this question. These findings suggest that after moving into their Habitat home, about one-third of participants pursued (or are pursuing) additional education. Chart E presents the distribution of education pursued after moving into a Habitat home.

Chart E. Additional Education After Habitat (n = 235)

Some College 29 (Less than 2 Years) Technical Training/ 26 Vocational Diploma

Associate's Degree 25

Bachelor's Degree 18

GED 16

Master's Degree 3

Doctoral Degree 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Education of Adult Children Many homeowners live with their adult children. Participants (n = 144, 43.8%) reported the highest education level completed for the adult child who lived with them the longest. The most frequent responses included “High School Graduate/GED” (n = 51, 35.4%), followed by “Some College” (n = 45, 31.3%), and “Technical Training/Vocational Diploma” (n = 18, 12.5%). Participants also chose “Bachelor’s Degree” (n = 12, 8.3%), “Associate’s Degree” (n = 9, 6.3%), “Less than High School” (n = 7, 4.9%), and “Master’s Degree” (n = 2, 1.4%). A total of 185 participants (56.2%) did not respond to this question.

School Performance for Children (18 and Younger) Homeowners were asked to evaluate their children’s school performance since they moved into their Habitat home. From the 2018 sample, 144 homeowners (67.3%) answered the question. Within this group, 62 homeowners (54.4%) reported that their children’s grades were about the same, followed by 32 homeowners reporting that grades were somewhat better (22.2%), and 2 individuals (1.3%) felt their children’s grades were a little worse.

Grades After Habitat In 2018, another question asked homeowners about their children’s grades since moving into a Habitat home. Options ranged from 1 (i.e., “Much Worse”) to 5 (i.e., “Much Better”), with an additional “Don’t Know” response. In total, 133 homeowners (40.4%) responded and the most frequent responses included “About the Same” (n = 62, 46.6%), “Much Better” (n = 37, 27.8%), and “Somewhat Better” (n = 32, 24.1%). On average, homeowners rated their children’s grades at a 3.78 (SD = 0.87) out of 5, which falls between “About the Same” and “Somewhat Better”. A total of 196 homeowners (59.6%) did not provide a response to this question. It should be noted that approximately 52% of homeowners who responded to this question had observed an improvement in their children’s grades since becoming a Habitat homeowner. Chart F presents the frequency of all options selected for this question.

Chart F. Grades After Habitat (n = 133)

70 62 60 50 37 40 32 30 20 10 0 2 0 0 Much A Little About the Somewhat Much Don't Worse Worse Same Better Better Know

Expectations for Children’s Future Homeowners were asked to share their expectations for their children since becoming a Habitat homeowner. The following questions focus strongly on expectations regarding educational outcomes and future hopes for children.

Education Expectations of Children (18 and Younger) In total, 186 homeowners (56.5%) discussed their expectation of education for their children (18 and younger). The most frequent expectations for children included a graduate degree beyond a bachelor’s (n = 67, 36%), a bachelor’s degree (n = 57, 30.6%), and vocational/technical school (n = 38, 20.4%). This data suggests that about 67% homeowners (n = 124, 66.6%) expect their children to graduate college if not pursue additional education. A total of 143 participants (43.5%) did not provide a response to this question. Chart G below presents the full distribution of responses to this question.

Chart G. Expectations of Children’s Education (n = 186)

Less than a High School Degree 2

Graduate from High School 22

Attend Vocational/Technical School 38

Earn a Bachelor's Degree 57

Earn a Degree Beyond a Bachelor's 67

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

John and Amalia’s Story: Habitat Makes Home Ownership Possible

John and his wife Amalia purchased their Edwards, Colorado Habitat home in 2010. John attests to the positive impact that owning a Habitat home has had on his family’s economic well-being. He says it never would have been possible for them to buy a home by conventional means in Eagle County, one of Colorado’s most expensive housing markets. Being selected to purchase a Habitat home with just a small down-payment and interest-free mortgage “was like winning the lottery.” Lower housing costs, coupled with a 33% reduction in utility bills due to Habitat Vail Valley’s LEED Silver construction, left them with additional cash each month. It gave them financial breathing room that enabled a different mindset than they’d had when living paycheck to paycheck “in survival mode,” and allowed them to budget for other things they couldn’t afford before. They were able to start paying off high- interest credit cards and other debt. They opened savings accounts for their four sons, which might one day pay for a first car or college tuition. They’ve been able to enroll their boys in programs like COPA soccer, school sports, and church activities such as youth camps and field trips. They’ve even been able to take vacations, which wasn’t even an option before. John says, “Having the opportunity of home ownership here in Eagle County has not only given us a comfortable future but has also given our children a fighting chance at an actual career and life they want to choose and not be forced into. Having this home has grown our faith to believe in things we cannot see. I am hopeful for a brighter future for my family and I have God and HFH to thank for that.”

Financial Impact Owning a Habitat home often influences individuals’ finances. The following section presents results from questions focused on finances, including homeowners’ perceptions of financial stability, ability to save money, and the use of public assistance (e.g., Medicaid, Food Stamps).

Perceptions of Financial Stability To measure perceptions of financial stability, homeowners rated how true seven statements were to them. Options ranged from 1 (i.e., “Not at All”) to 5 (i.e., “Very True”), and between 309 and 315 participants (93.9% - 95.7%) rated these statements. Across all statements25, participants, on average, rated financial stability at a 3.76 (SD26 = 0.69) out of 5. The statement, “I could not have owned my home without help from Habitat for Humanity” received the highest average rating (M = 4.60, SD = 0.86) out of 5. Conversely, the statement, “If a close relative were having financial problems, we feel we could afford to help them out” had the lowest average rating (M = 2.80, SD = 1.31) out of 5. Table G presents each statement, the average rating, and standard deviation. Overall, these findings suggest that participants rated aspects of financial stability differently. For example, saving for the future received high ratings, but the ability to financially help family received lower ratings. This means that perceptions of financial stability are not unitary and vary between homeowners.

Table G. Financial Stability Ratings (n = 309-314) Statement M SD I could not have owned my home without help 4.60 0.86 from Habitat for Humanity. In our family, we feel it is important to save for 4.29 0.90 the future. My house has gone up in value since I moved in. 4.10 1.30 We feel we are financially better off now than we 3.88 1.19 were five years ago We seem to have little or no problem paying our 3.77 1.21 bills on time. We worry about how we would cover a large 3.12 1.31 unexpected bill (for home, auto repairs, etc.). If a close relative were having financial problems, 2.80 1.31 we feel we could afford to help them out.

25 The statement, “We worry about how we would cover a large unexpected bill (for home, auto repairs, etc.)” was reverse-coded when calculating the average financial stability rating. 26 SD stands for standard deviation. A definition of this term can be found on page 17 as footnote 13. It should be noted that lower standard deviations are better as it indicates greater consistency in participant responses. 33

Ability to Save Money In 2018, homeowners were asked to rate their ability to save money since moving into their Habitat home on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating “Much Worse,” and 5 indicating “Much Better.” The average response from the 204 (95.3%) homeowners who answered this question ranged from 1 to 5 with an average response of 3.84 (SD = 1.04) and a mode of 4 (i.e., “Somewhat better”). These results suggest that most homeowners believed their ability to save money had improved when compared with their situation prior to living in their Habitat home. In fact, about 65% of homeowners felt they were somewhat or much better at saving money since becoming a Habitat homeowner. Refer to Chart H below.

Chart H. 2018 Homeowner Perceptions Regarding Their Ability to Save Money (n = 204) 80 68 70 65 60 51 50 40 30

20 14 10 6 0 Much worse A little worse About the same Somewhat better Much better

Public Assistance Use Financial well-being also encompasses the use of public assistance programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid. From a list of 13 options27, participants selected all sources of public assistance they had received both before and after moving into their Habitat home. They could choose as many options as applicable and could choose “Other” if necessary.

Assistance Before Habitat The total number of assistance types selected ranged from zero to 10, and a total of 296 participants (90%) chose at least one option. The most frequently used programs included Medicaid (n = 174, 58.8%), Child Health Plan Plus (n = 128, 43.2%), and Food Stamps (n = 118, 39.9%). Homeowners used on average 2.17 types of public assistance (SD = 1.81) before moving into a Habitat home. Thirty-three individuals (10%) selected no public

27 The 2016 survey included eight options and five new options were added in the 2018 survey. The five new options included the Colorado Indigent Care Program (CICP), Colorado PEAK, Connect for Health Colorado, Old Age Pension (OAP), and an “Other” option. 34

assistance options for this question. The 20 individuals (6.8%) who chose “Other” specified the additional assistance they received. Responses included adoption, Colorado Child Care Assistance (CCAP), the Free and Reduced Lunch program (FRL), Food Bank, Medicare, church assistance, and the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC). Chart I displays the number of participants who chose each assistance option before moving into a Habitat home.

Assistance After Habitat After moving into a Habitat home, participants utilized between zero and six types of assistance, and 181 individuals (55%) selected at least one option. The most frequent assistance utilized included Medicaid (n = 108, 59.7%), Child Health Plan Plus (n = 70, 38.7%), and Utilities Assistance: Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP; n = 42, 23.2%). On average, individuals used 0.91 types of assistance (SD = 1.09) after moving into a Habitat Home. A total of 148 participants (45%) chose no public assistance options for this question. Chart I shows the number of participants who chose each option before and after moving into a Habitat home.

Chart I. Public Assistance Use (n = 296 - 18128)

174 Medicaid 108 128 Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+) 70 118 Food stamps 28 101 Utilities Assistance: LEAP 42 Rental assistance 48 3 31 Colorado PEAK 10 26 Colorado Indigent Care (CICP) 5 22 Connect for Health Colorado 15 Other 14 0 23 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 16 20 Temporary Assistance (TANF) 1 9 Weatherization Assistance (CEOWx) 1 Old Age Pension (OAP) 0 1 0 50 100 150 200 Before Habitat After Habitat

28 Chart I summarizes the frequency of public assistance usage for two different time periods. In total, 296 homeowners (90%) chose at least one option for before moving into a Habitat home, and 181 homeowners (50%) chose at least one option for after moving into a home. 35

Change in Public Assistance Use REC examined how use of public assistance programs changed before and after moving into a Habitat home. Between these two time periods, the total number of assistance options that homeowners chose decreased on average by 58% and the average number of options selected also significantly decreased from before (M = 2.17, SD = 1.81) to after (M = 0.91, SD = 1.09). This significant decrease (p < .01) suggests that, on average, homeowners used fewer types of public assistance programs after moving into a Habitat home. Table H presents each public assistance option, the frequency of use before and after moving into a Habitat home, and the corresponding percent decrease during this time.

Table H. Changes in Public Assistance Use (n = 296 - 181) Use Before Use After Percent Public Assistance Type Habitat Habitat Decrease Medicaid 174 108 37.9% Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+) 128 70 45.3% Food Stamps 118 28 76.3% Utilities Assistance: Low Energy 101 42 58.4% Assistance Program (LEAP) Rental Assistance 48 3 93.8%

Colorado PEAK 31 10 67.7% Colorado Indigent Care Program 26 5 80.8% (CICP) Supplemental Security Income 23 16 30.4% (SSI) Connect for Health Colorado 22 15 31.8% Colorado Works: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 20 1 95% (TANF) Other 14 0 100% Colorado Energy Office Weatherization Assistance 9 1 88.9% Program (CEOWx) Old Age Pension (OAP) 0 1 N/A29

Total 714 300 58%

29 Because Old Age Pension (OAP) had a count of zero before Habitat, a percent change for the difference between before and after Habitat could not be computed. 36

As seen in Table H, the use of most specific assistance programs decreased from before to after moving into a Habitat home30. The option “Other” had the largest percentage decrease at 100%. This was followed by a 95% decreased use of Colorado Works: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a 93.8% decreased use of rental assistance, and an 88.9% decreased use of Colorado Energy Office Weatherization Assistance Program (CEOWx).

Medicaid Savings Based on data from the State of Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee’s Budget in Brief for Fiscal Year 2017-201831, Medicaid costs $4,507 per person per year enrolled in the program. Data suggests that after moving into a Habitat home, 66 fewer homeowners utilized Medicaid. This results in an approximate minimum savings of $297,46232.

Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+) Savings Based on data from the State of Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee’s Budget in Brief for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, CHP+ costs $2,567 per child per year enrolled in the program. Data suggests that after moving into a Habitat home, 58 fewer homeowners utilized CHP. Based on the number of children that the homeowners said lived in the home33 (M = 1.67, SD = 1.11) this results in an approximate minimum savings of $282,370.

In sum, these findings suggest that homeowners reported significantly less use of public assistance programs after moving into a Habitat house. The most frequently used programs (i.e., Medicaid, Child Health Plan Plus) before moving into a Habitat house remained most frequently used after, but the overall number of people using these programs decreased. Programs with the largest decrease in usage included “Other,” TANF, rental assistance, and CEOWx. While statewide data were only available for a couple major programs, this reduction in public assistance usage led to substantial taxpayer savings – conservatively nearly $600,000.

30 Old Age Pension (OAP) was the only assistance option that increased after moving into a Habitat home, and the increase only represented one household (n = 1, 0.3%). 31 State of Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee. (2017). Budget in Brief: Fiscal Year 2017-2018. Retrieved from https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy17-18bib.pdf. 32 This amount represents a conservative estimate, given that it is based off of the homeowner only, and multiple people in the home could have taken part in the public assistance program. The data are not clear as to how many adults and children in the home utilized Medicaid and CHP+, so REC decided to report a conservative estimate of savings based on the homeowner alone. This estimate also does not take into account the multiple years of potential savings that may have occurred. Unfortunately, this information was not collected through the homeowner surveys. 33 Twenty-two homeowners (36.2%) did not specify the number of children in their home. For the estimated savings, REC conservatively counted them as having one child each. Four of these homeowners (6.9%) stated they had no children in the home, and these individuals were not counted in the estimated savings. 37

Pam’s Story: The Health Benefits of a Habitat Home

Purchasing a Habitat home gave Pam the opportunity to plant her own vegetable and flower gardens in her yard, which she describes as much- needed therapy during the three hardest years of her life. A car accident in 2015, while she was in the midst of completing the sweat equity requirements for her home, left her with chronic back pain. Then in 2016, her system crashed due to long-term stress and medical issues, resulting in several months of short-term disability. She says that throughout this time, despite the back pain, “I still needed the emotional therapy I found in gardening. There's such a sense of pleasure when you're making your own home and yard beautiful. I always felt better and more peaceful working out in the yard and garden.” 2017 was even more difficult for Pam. She had to leave her job early in January, and several weeks later was diagnosed with cancer. She underwent surgery in April, followed by two months of radiation treatments in May and June. Pam says, “My yard and garden again were my therapy. I always felt better when I could go outside, and it would help me forget about things and feel like a regular person again. I had no job for the first time in many years and wasn't able to get one until this year. God got me through, and financially, having a low-cost place for me and my son to live has been so important. I love my home so much and am so thankful to be here.”

Health and Quality of Life Habitat ownership can also impact the health and quality of life for homeowners and their families. Health includes physical health, family health, healthcare affordability, and food security; while quality of life includes indicators such as social connectedness and time with family.

Rating of Current Health A total of 317 homeowners (96.4%) rated their overall health on a scale from 1 (i.e., “Poor”) to 4 (i.e., “Excellent”). Most frequently, participants described their health as “Very Good” (n = 153, 46.5%), followed by “Fair” (n = 89, 27.1%), “Excellent” (n = 66, 20.1%), and “Poor” (n = 9, 2.7%). On average, individuals rated their health at 2.86 (SD = 0.78) out of 4, which falls between “Fair” and “Very Good”. Twelve individuals (3.6%) did not provide a response. Chart J presents the homeowners’ current self-rated health.

Chart J. Rating Current Health (n = 317) 160 153

140

120

100 89 80 66 60

20 9 0 Poor Fair Very Good Excellent

Family Health Participants responded to the statement, “Overall, my family’s health has improved since I moved into my Habitat home”. Responses ranged from 1 (i.e., “Not at All True”) to 5 (i.e., “Very True”), and 314 individuals (95.4%) rated this statement. Most frequently, participants said this statement was “True” (n = 91, 28.7%), followed by “Somewhat True” (n = 87, 27.4%) and “Very True” (n = 70, 22.1%). On average, since moving into a Habitat home, individuals rated their family’s health as a 3.42 (SD = 1.24) out of 5. This average rating falls between “Somewhat True” and “True”. Fifteen participants (4.6%) did not provide a response. This finding indicates that nearly 90% of homeowners reported some improvement to their family’s health since becoming a homeowner. Chart K presents the frequency of all responses.

Chart K. Family Health After Habitat (n = 314) 100 91 87

80 70

40 34 32

0 Not at All True A Bit True Somewhat True True Very True

Healthcare Affordability In total, 317 homeowners(96.4%) discussed whether they could afford to go to the doctor when necessary. Responses ranged from 1 (i.e., “Never”) to 5 (i.e., “Always”), and most frequently, individuals chose “Always” (n = 100, 31.5%) or “Sometimes” (n = 100, 31.5%), followed by “Often” (n = 82, 25.9%). Homeowners gave an average response of 3.74 (SD = 1.10) out of 5 which corresponds to between “Sometimes” and “Often”. Twelve individuals (3.6%) did not provide a response. Chart L presents the breakdown of all responses to this question.

Chart L. Healthcare Affordability (n = 317) 120 100 100 100 82 80

40 23 20 12

0 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Food Security In 2018, homeowners were asked if they and their family had enough to eat. Most homeowners answered (n = 211, 98.6%) this question. Results indicate that about 59% of homeowners “Always”

had enough to eat (n = 124, 58.8%) which is indicative of high food security. In addition, 28% of homeowners (n = 59) reported that they “Often” had enough to eat, followed by “sometimes” (n = 20, 9.5%), and “rarely” (n = 8, 3.8%). As depicted in Chart M, most homeowners had enough to eat on a regular basis.

Chart M. Perceptions of Food Availability (n = 211) 140 124 120

100

80 59 60

40 20 20 8 0 Always Often Sometimes Rarely

Overall Impact on Homeowner Family Quality of Life In 2018, homeowners were asked if their lives and the lives of their family members had improved or become worse since moving into their Habitat home. All 214 homeowners (100%) responded to this question as depicted in Chart N. Most homeowners (n = 150, 70.1%) shared that their lives and their family members’ lives had become much better, 51 homeowners (23.8%) reported that their lives were somewhat better, eight homeowners (3.7%) reported no change, and five homeowners (2.3%) felt their lives were somewhat worse. These results indicate that nearly 94% of homeowners felt that their lives had improved since becoming a Habitat homeowner.

Chart N. Overall Assessment of Improvement of Life (n = 214) 160 150 140 120 100 80 60 51 40

20 8 5 0 Much better Somewhat better There was no Somewhat worse change

Social Connectedness Quality of life also includes spending time with family, hosting friends/family at home, and children having friends over. Each of these activities addresses social connectedness.

Time with Family A total of 322 homeowners (97.9%) answered the question, “Since moving into your Habitat home, do you feel you are able to spend more quality time with your family”. Responses included 1 (i.e., “Less Quality Time”), 2 (i.e., “About the Same Quality Time”), and 3 (i.e., “More Quality Time”). Most frequently, homeowners (n = 197, 61.2%) said they were able to spend more quality time with family since moving into their Habitat home, followed by about the same quality time (n = 115, 35.7%), and less quality time (n = 11, 3.1%). On average, homeowners rated their time with family at a 2.58 (SD = 0.55) out of 3, which corresponds to between “About the Same Quality Time” and “More Quality Time”. Seven individuals (2.1%) did not provide a response to this question.

Hosting Friends and Family Homeowners also discussed how often they hosted friends and family at their homes for a meal or other get-togethers. Overall, 322 homeowners (97.9%) answered the question, and responses ranged from 1 (i.e., “Never”) to 6 (i.e., “More than Once a Week”). The most frequent responses included, “Once a Month” (n = 104, 32.3%), “Less than Once a Month” (n = 93, 28.9%), and “Every Two Weeks” (n = 42, 13%). Individuals, on average, rated this question at a 3.16 (SD = 1.37) out of 6, which falls between “Once a Month” and “Every Two Weeks”. Seven individuals (2.1%) did not provide a response to this question.

Children Inviting Friends Over A total of 223 homeowners (67.8%) discussed how often their children invited friends over to play or do homework. Options ranged from 1 (i.e., “Never”) to 6 (i.e., “More than Once a Week”), and the most frequent responses were “More than Once a Week” (n = 54, 24.2%), “Once a Month” (n = 41, 18.4%), and “Never” (n = 41, 18.4%). These were followed by “Less than Once a Month” (n = 36, 16.1%), “Once a Week” (n = 27, 12.1%), and “Every Two Weeks” (n = 24, 10.8%). Homeowners gave an average response between “Once a Month” and “Every Two Weeks” (M = 3.55, SD = 1.84) out of 6. Overall, 106 individuals34 (47.5%) did not respond. Chart O presents the frequency of each response.

Chart O. Children Inviting Friends Over (n = 223) 60 54

50 41 41 40 36

30 27 24

0 Never Less than Once a Month Every Two Once a Week More than Once a Month Weeks Once a Week

In summary, homeowners were asked questions pertaining to their health and quality of life. These questions addressed their health, healthcare affordability, food security, social connectedness, and overall quality of life. In general, homeowners attributed their increased quality of life to becoming a Habitat homeowner. In fact, nearly 94% of homeowners reported that their lives had improved since becoming a Habitat homeowner.

34 This total represents both individuals who do not have children and those who chose not to answer. 43

Daniel’s Story: Part of a Community

Prior to becoming a Habitat homeowner ten years ago, Daniel lived at home under the care of his parents. With a mild case of cerebral palsy and a chemical imbalance, his mother Cheryl says that he would spend hours a day just rocking in a chair. She says he didn’t have a social life, responsibilities, or dreams for the future. Daniel applied for a Habitat home at his parents’ suggestion, and was accepted. Both he and his mother attest that homeownership has truly been life-changing for him; it enabled him to live independently, care for himself, and establish a community. Daniel knows quite a few of his neighbors, and says they all help each other out when someone has a need. This has made him more trusting and outgoing. Having a Habitat home also enabled Daniel to get a job at the Walmart near his house. Since he doesn’t drive, he needed to be able to work within walking distance. He can get there rain or shine, and also has easy access to restaurants, stores, and his bank.

Daniel says that when he’s out with his friends, people recognize him from Walmart and from his picture at the Habitat ReStore, and are very friendly to him. When his parents moved away, they asked him if he wanted to move with them and he said no; he didn’t want to leave his friends, his job, or his home in this wonderful community. Daniel says, “I think I am healthier and happier as I do not live with stress about finances, or landlords. I love my job at Walmart and I love my home. I am able to be independent and ask for help if I need it from my friends and neighbors. Most of all I feel good about myself from all I have learned about owning a home. I have accomplished a lot by learning to take care of my Habitat home.” His mother says, “I gave him his breath, but Habitat gave him a life!”

Neighborhood and Community Impact Beyond impacting individuals and families, Habitat also demonstrated an impact on neighborhoods and communities. Homeowners rated their home and neighborhood, and also provide information about their level of community involvement.

Rating of Home Most homeowners (n = 328, 99.7%) rated their house as a place to live on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 indicating “Worst” and 10 indicating “Best.” On average, homeowners rated their home as 8.69 (SD = 1.69) out of 10 and the most frequent rating or mode of 10. These findings suggest that homeowners felt that their Habitat home was a better place to live compared to where they had previously lived. One homeowner (0.3%) did not respond to this question.

Rating of Neighborhood Homeowners (n = 314, 95.4%) also rated their neighborhood as a place to live on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 indicating “Worst” and 10 indicating “Best.” Responses ranged from 1 to 10 with an average rating of 7.66 (SD = 2.17) out of 10, and the most frequent rating or mode of 10. These findings suggest that homeowners believed their neighborhood was a pretty good place to live. Homeowners were also asked to what extent they agreed with the statement, “I take more pride in my neighborhood now that I own a Habitat home,” on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating “Not at all True,” and 5 indicating “Very True.” Responses (n = 328, 99.7%) ranged from 1 to 5 and the average rating was 3.52 (SD = 1.49) out of 5. This means that most homeowners somewhat agreed that they took more pride in their neighborhood since moving into their Habitat home. A total of 15 homeowners (4.6%) did not respond to this question.

Views About Safety A total of 321 homeowners (97.6%) provided a rating for the statement, “I feel my neighborhood is safer than the neighborhood where I lived before moving into my Habitat home,” on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating “Not at all True,” and 5 indicating “Very True.” Responses (n = 321, 95.6%) ranged from 1 to 5 and the average rating was 4.06 (SD = 1.23) out of 5 with 5 as the most frequent response or mode. This indicates that most homeowners agreed that their neighborhood is safer than their previous neighborhood. Eight homeowners (2.4%) did not respond to this question. Chart P presents all homeowner responses.

Chart P. Views About Safety (n = 214) 180 172

160

140

120

100

60 56 56

40 22 20 15

0 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all True Very True

Views About Neighborhood Progress Homeowners were asked to describe their perceptions of neighborhood progress (or lack thereof) and 214 homeowners (100%) responded to the question. The most frequent response from homeowners (n = 103, 48.1%) indicated that they thought the neighborhood was staying the same, followed by improving (n = 61, 28.5%), getting worse and declining (n = 31, 14.5%), and don’t know (n = 19, 8.9%). These findings suggest that most of the homeowners did not perceive that their neighborhood was either progressing or becoming worse.

Community Involvement In 2018, homeowners estimated their participation in four types of community activities before and after moving into a Habitat home. Between 203 and 214 participants (94.9% - 100%) rated each activity35 and responses ranged from 1 (i.e., “Never”) to 5 (i.e., “Weekly”). Before buying a Habitat home, church/religious organization activities had the highest average ratings (M = 3.16, SD = 1.56) out of 5, falling between “Occasionally” and “Monthly”. After moving into a Habitat home, church/religious organization activities still had the highest average ratings (M = 3.37, SD = 1.50) out of 5, falling between “Occasionally” and “Monthly”.

Homeowner’s average ratings for all four community activities increased from before to after owning a Habitat home. Additional analyses revealed that this increase was statistically significant (p < .01) for all four community activities, which means that homeowners participated in community

35 The sample size varied because some individuals skipped rating specific community activities. 46

events much more after owning a Habitat home. Moreover, this increase in participation varied based on the activity. Sporting events had the highest average increase at 16%, followed by a 13% increase for volunteering in the community, a 7% increase for voting in local, state, or federal elections, and a 6% increase for church/religious organization activities. These findings suggest that owning a Habitat home led to a significant increase in homeowners being involved in community activities. Table I presents the average ratings and standard deviation for each community activity before Habitat. Between 1 and 11 participants (0.5% - 5.1%) did not rate all community activities.

Table I. Community Involvement (n = 203 - 214) Before Habitat After Habitat Community Activity Change M SD M SD Community Events 2.54 1.02 2.95 0.99 16% Increase (e.g., sports/music) Church/Religious 3.16 1.56 3.37 1.50 6% Increase Organization Volunteering in the 2.61 1.09 2.95 1.00 13% Increase Community Voting in Local, State, 2.66 1.11 2.86 1.08 7% Increase or Federal Elections

In sum, these questions about home and neighborhood rating, safety, neighborhood progress, and involvement in community activities reflected the impact of Habitat on neighborhood and community involvement. Homeowners rated their current Habitat home situation higher when compared with their previous home and neighborhood. Also, there was a marked increase in homeowners’ level of community involvement since becoming a Habitat homeowner.

Feedback from Homeowners Homeowners who were surveyed in 2018 provided feedback about their experience with HFH and how it affected their lives and those of their family. This feedback consisted of examples of impact, how being a Habitat homeowner supported education, the impact of being a Habitat homeowner on adult children, and what individuals liked best about being a Habitat Homeowner.

Examples of Impact Homeowners were asked to give an example of how being a homeowner had impacted them and their family. About 78% of homeowners (n = 166, 77.6%) answered this question and their responses were grouped into the following six distinct themes, examined below in order of frequency.

Personal Pride in Being a Homeowner Sixty-two homeowners (37.3%) said that having pride in being a homeowner, a sense of family pride and joy, and having responsibilities had greatly impacted them. These participants speak of a sense of pride and accomplishment in achieving homeownership; as more than one person remarked, their Habitat home has been life changing.

Participants said “…my family has experienced what it means to work toward their dreams”, and “being a homeowner has given my family a sense of pride”. One participant said, “I didn’t realize how much having a home meant to me until after I moved in…it really has been life changing”. Another homeowner said “…it made us realize you can do things that you never thought you could” and “it taught me how to appreciate and work hard for something that you can call your own”.

Living in a Secure, Safe, Stable Home Sixty-one homeowners (36.7%) discussed the importance of feeling safe, secure, and stable in their HFH home. These responses suggest that the impact of having a secure, stable place to call home and raise a family—a forever home—was a huge weight off their shoulders and gave their family a stable foundation for the future.

Participants said “…it has made us secure in life”, and they “…don’t have to move from place to place” and “my children feel confidence that I have a safe place to live” and “…we can breathe, we are safe”, and “we now have a stable, secure, safe place to call home”. Participants also shared: “I’m mentally in a better place because I feel good about my situation and where I’m at in life” and “we have stability as a family in all aspects”, and “…it gave our family a foundation and stability”.

More Space and Better Community Thirty-four homeowners (20.5%) said that they were positively impacted by their new amount of space, their gardens and yards, their communities, neighbors, and school districts. Many participants said they no longer had to share bedrooms, that they had yards for the

first time and liked participating in their community—all new changes positively impacting their lives and the lives of their families.

Participants appreciated that, “…we went from living in a cramped apartment to living in our own home and we all love the garden that we grow and maintain” and “…we are now contributing positively to our community and making it a better place”, and “…we are happier and have become more community oriented” and “…we have gotten very close with the other Habitat homeowners, it’s like having more family”. Homeowners also said, “being able to…play outside in our very nice neighborhood has been amazing”, and several homeowners appreciated that “we no longer have to live in apartments”.

Saving More Money Twenty-nine homeowners (17.5%) said that having more savings for their family was a positive impact of their HFH experience. It’s clear from their responses that many families are saving money, and have enough money for education and even travel—truly positive outcomes from their HFH experience.

Participants said “…we have achieved economic stability which has helped us get ahead in different aspects in life”, and “…it allows us to save money and travel” and “…I was able to borrow against my home and send my child to college”.

Happier Family Lives Twenty-nine homeowners (17.5%) talked about having healthier and happier families, better relationships with extended families, and more time to spend with their family. Overall, participants said that their experience has allowed them to spend more quality time with their family, a very positive impact.

Participants said “…it’s given me more opportunities to spend time with my family” and “…I can spend quality time with my kids”. One participant said, “I don’t have to work two jobs to afford housing, I can work a normal work week and be present as a parent for my children”. Another said “…my kids are happier and more appreciative of life” and “we have been able to do more things as a family” and “…the relationship [with extended family] has improved tremendously”.

No Impact or General Homeownership Challenges Ten homeowners (6%) said that their Habitat experience had either no impact on their family or described challenges associated with general homeownership.

How Habitat Supports Education Homeowners were asked how being a homeowner supported their education and the education of their children. Approximately 60% of participants (127 out of 214 or 59.3%) answered this question and their responses were grouped into the following five distinct themes, examined below in order of frequency:

Stable Environment to Support Education Thirty-five homeowners (27.5%) talked about having a stable home environment, and a peaceful and quiet place for their children to study as examples of how their HFH experience has supported their education and the education of their children. In general, participants made a connection between their HFH homeownership experience providing a stable environment and having more educational opportunities for themselves and their children.

Participants said, “…my kids have a dedicated space to do homework now”, and “…it has provided a stable environment and a regular place to study”, and “…this has helped us be a better family together as well as being supportive of each other individually, including school and future education aspirations.” And, as one participant put it, “…we can afford to go back to school and have a better future.”

No Impact Thirty-four homeowners (26.8%) said that their HFH experience had no impact on their education or their children’s education. Participants said, “no support”, “not at all”, “no”, “it hasn’t really affected it”, and “this doesn’t apply”. It is not clear exactly what was meant by some of these responses—perhaps participants didn’t understand the context of the question or didn’t make a connection between a stable home life and successful school life. Nonetheless, these participants chose to say their HFH experience had no impact on their families’ educational experience, which is worth noting.

Encouraging Educational Pursuits Thirty-two homeowners (19.5%) said that their HFH experience supported their education by helping them start, finish, or go back to school, expand their career, and focus on school or work without financial stress. Overall, many participants connected their HFH experience with their ability to have significantly more money, time, and physical space to help their children further their education.

Participants said that their HFH home, “…allowed them to support their son to continue with university studies” and that “…we’re now able to homeschool our granddaughter” and “…I gave my children a way for them to live rent free and pay for their college”, and “the affordability of my home allowed me to return to college” and “my kids do better in school because I can be home to supervise them and set them up for success”.

Positive School Community Nineteen homeowners (15%) said that having a positive school community, good school environment, living close to school and not having to worry about moving and changing schools was a way that having their HFH home directly impacted their children’s education. Essentially, homeowners said that because of their HFH homes, they were in better school districts, more positive school communities and their children were better off educationally, because of it. 50

Participants said “…we live in a great school district and my son is really thriving” and their house “…allowed my children [to] stay in once school without having to move” and “…my children have been able to establish friends in school; they have been able to set down roots”.

Saving Money for School Eighteen participants (14.2%) talked about the impact of their HFH home on their finances and ability to save for college (for themselves or their children), pay off loans, and opportunity to support their children in college. It is clear that homeowners directly associated their HFH homes with their ability to save money and pay for their own educational pursuits and those of their children—a truly positive impact, indeed.

One participant said, “I can afford to put money away for his education as well as start paying off my student loans, another said “…being debt-free I have been able to open some college savings accounts for my children and grandchildren”, and one homeowner shared, “I will be earning my doctorate soon; something I would not have been able to do without Habitat”.

How Habitat Impacts Adult Children Homeowners were asked to give an example of how owning a Habitat home improved the lives of their adult children. Approximately one-third of participants (n = 73, 34%) answered this question and their responses were grouped into the following five distinct themes, examined below in order of frequency:

Living in a Secure, Safe, Stable Home A little less than half of the participants (n = 33, 45.2%) gave examples related to feeling safe, secure, stable and comfortable when discussing how owning their homes improved the lives of their adult children. Having a home gave these participants a secure, stable place to raise their families—a place they would not be kicked out of, a place where they could afford to stay indefinitely—and the comfort that provided is substantial.

Participants talked about having a “…stable, consistent, safe location”, “security, friendship, community and stability”, and “…a home that will not be taken away”. One parent summed it up best by describing how finally having a home helped her family feel a sense of security they had never known, “It was a quality home to raise my children in, warm, clean, safe. They were able to stop focusing on the daily stress of growing up poor and start focusing on living normal childhoods.”

Financial Support for Education Twenty-three homeowners (31.5%) talked about the importance of helping their children with school and rent to improve their lives. This included allowing their children to stay with them to save money and helping them pay for school expenses. Overall, participants seemed to draw a clear line between having a home they could afford and being able to financially

support their children in their educational pursuits.

Participants discussed, “…providing a place [for kids] to live while attending school”, “…paying school fees”, that “…they have been able to pay for their own out-of-pocket college expenses”, and the ability to “…save money for college tuition”. As one participant put it, “Having a stable home allowed all of my children to continue with their education and become good members of society”.

Improved Emotional Health and Increased Confidence Twelve out of 73 (16.4%) homeowners said that their children had better emotional health and confidence due to their home. For these homeowners, having a home eased more than just their financial burdens—it helped with their emotional ones as well.

Participants said their kids were “… healthier emotionally”, “confident”, that they were “better off emotionally and closer as a family”, and that “…Habitat changed their life”. As one homeowner said, “As a single mom, I was extremely stressed. I endured many sleepless nights worrying where my kids and I would end up. My worst fear was having to settle for an unsafe location…I thank God and the wonderful people at Habitat for choosing us when they did. I am grateful for the support and for the unforgettable experience.”

Becoming Financially Stable Eleven participants (15.1%) stated that some of their adult children were now buying their own homes, that they had been able to educate their children about saving, and were able to save more money for their family because of their home. It’s apparent from these participants’ responses that becoming a homeowner and the pride of homeownership is being passed down from parents to children as is fiscal responsibility and financial solvency.

Participants said they were “…very vocal about finances and living within your means”, that their children were “…buying their own homes now”, they “…have their own homes and appreciate them”, that they had “…financially been able to do fun family activities together”, and that their adult child “…is encouraged to excel in life against the odds by becoming a first-time homeowner”.

More Privacy and Space at Home Eight out of 73 (10.9%) homeowners said that their homes provided privacy for their children, allowing them to have their own rooms in many cases, private space to play with friends and study, and safe, private outside space. It seems clear that these homeowners’ lives and their children’s lives were greatly improved by having their own home with more privacy and space.

As one participant said, “my children have their own room and have privacy, feel comfortable and can rest after a long day of school; it’s much better than living in the apartment where we live before”, and another offered this view, “We adopted our adult

child at the age of 19. We would not have been in a place or had the space to do so without having a Habitat home.”

Best Aspects of Habitat Homeowners were asked what they liked best about living in their Habitat home. Most homeowners (n = 180, 84.1%) answered this question and their responses were grouped into the following six distinct themes, examined below in order of frequency:

Personal Pride in Becoming a Homeowner The aspect of their home most frequently discussed by participants was their status as a homeowner; the pride they felt in being able to say their house was theirs, and that they could make their own decisions and not need permission from a landlord. Ninety-one participants (50.1%) referenced this theme in their responses. The sense of pride and autonomy that these participants associate with being a homeowner comes through clearly in their responses—they are proud to finally be able to say they own their home.

Many participants said “…it’s mine”, one said they liked “…the freedom to make decisions without [asking] permission”. Other comments include “...it belongs to me and I helped build it”, and “…I have something to pass down to my kids and a place to call home”, that they “…own a piece of the American dream”. As one homeowner put it, “I love my house. For the first time ever, I feel like I fit in and belong.”

Improved Location and Increased Space Forty-five participants (25%) said they liked their neighborhood, location, their yard and garden and their privacy and space. Many participants mentioned living in small apartments prior to having their homes, so having more space both indoors and out was new and significant.

One homeowner said “…we can have our own space and privacy above all”, others said they like “…having a yard and a garden to take care of and a neighborhood of homeowners”, that they “like taking care of their house and saving for improvements, and like the friends they’ve made in the neighborhood”. Participants also said “…we live in a wonderful neighborhood walking distance from the children’s school”, that “their kids finally have a place to play” and “…we each have a space to come home to, we have a place to call home”.

Peace of Mind and Stability of Homeownership Nearly one-quarter of participants (n = 43, 24.4%) liked the stability, security, safety, and sense of self-sufficiency that their HFH house provided. It’s clear from their responses that for some participants ‘safety’ and ‘security’ means living in a less dangerous neighborhood, for others it means not having to move because of rising rents and being able to put down roots—regardless—the peace of mind and stability of owning a home is important to these homeowners.

Participants said “…I feel safe and know that my family is safe”, and “…it is a safe and secure home surrounded by love and happiness”. Participants also said “…I love the stability of owning my own home” and that they liked “…the security of having a place to set down roots, a place of our own”.

Saving Money and Building Equity Forty-two participants (23.3%) said that they most enjoyed the financial stability, lack of debt, not having to pay rent and ability to build equity. According to their responses, many families are paying a mortgage instead of rent for the first time in their lives, are saving money, and are also building equity for the first time in their lives—all important milestones.

Participants said “…I love that I know that my mortgage payment will not drastically increase year after year” and “…We are putting money into the equity of our house and not somebody else’s pocket” and “…I won’t have to worry about my rent going up”. Participants also said “…I love that in this area of rising housing costs I now have my house paid off”, and “…I can grow equity in my home for a better future”.

Improving and Decorating the Home Twenty-five homeowners (13.9%) talked about how much they liked the design of their house, being able to decorate it themselves, engaging in home improvement projects and the high efficiency aspects of some houses. The ability to hang a family picture for the first time in your own home means a great deal, as evidenced by these responses.

Participants said they liked that “…we get to decide how our home looks” and that they can “…put a nail in the wall whenever and wherever I want”. Participants also said, “I love being able to repaint and decorate and have people over”, and that they liked that their home was “…well-insulated and energy efficient”, and that “…the energy efficiency saves us a lot of money and environmental impact which is excellent”. As one participant noted “…I’ve always rented and always had off-white walls that I couldn’t change; it was never worth the effort to hang pictures because we probably wouldn’t be there long”.

Positive Impact on Family Well-Being Twenty-two homeowners (12.2%) discussed the positive impact their house had on their families’ well-being, that they helped build their own house, achieved a goal as a family, and were investing in their future. These responses indicate that participants appreciated the experience HFH gave their family—being able to invest in their families’ future, build a home and grow emotionally.

Participants said their homes provided “…more quality time with family”, and “…an investment for the family”, and that they were “…in control of their living space and that helps improve their mental state as a whole”, that their house “…allows us as a family to feel much more secure mentally, physically and financially”. As one participant put it “My wife wanted it, we set a goal and we achieved it—together”.

PART 3: Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity in Colorado

“[I’m] encouraged to excel in life against the odds by becoming a first-time homeowner”.

“…being debt-free I have been able to open some college savings accounts for my children and grandchildren”,

“…I can grow equity in my home for a better future”.

“…the energy efficiency saves us a lot of money and environmental impact which is excellent”.

Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity in Colorado This section of the report presents the results of the economic impact study as reported by HFH affiliates. Economic impact studies provide estimates that a particular business, business activity, or industry have upon a local or regional economy. In this case, REC was interested in estimating the impact that HFH has on both local and state economies for Fiscal Year 2018.

IMPLAN Model To make this estimate, the IMPLAN model was used.36 IMPLAN is an industry-standard approach to modeling the effects of economic activity. IMPLAN utilizes an input-output technique to estimate the economic effects of direct spending for expenses and labor costs. By using an input- output approach, IMPLAN considers the flow of spending that typically takes place within an industry to estimate the indirect effects and induced effects of direct spending. Indirect effects include the second-order impact of direct spending that took place in support of Colorado HFH construction activities, operation costs, and ReStore activities. For example, in constructing new homes HFH affiliates purchase goods and services from local vendors. Local vendors, in turn, purchase goods and services from other local vendors. Induced effects are those impacts that take place as consumers spend their paychecks on local goods and services. IMPLAN calculates the direct, indirect, and induced effects on employment, salary, and total output. Estimates of tax impact are also calculated.

To estimate the economic impacts of HFH activities, it was necessary to collect relevant data from HFH affiliates.37 On September 12, 2018, 25 HFH affiliates throughout the state of Colorado as well as HFHC38 were invited to complete a brief survey asking about expenses, labor expenses, and employment numbers across three broad types of activities: 1) Construction of homes, 2) Operating costs, and 3) Activities related to ReStore. In addition, affiliates were asked to report how many homes had been constructed, renovated, or rehabilitated during Fiscal Year 2018. Affiliates were also asked to report how many volunteers and volunteer hours had been utilized during the same fiscal year.

Invitations were delivered via email to relevant points of contact at each Colorado affiliate. The online survey closed on September 30, 2018. A total of 21 out of 26 affiliates (80.8%) completed the survey allowing for a fairly comprehensive look at the activities of HFHC and the affiliates across the state. To better understand how affiliates impact local economies, HFHC asked REC to break data out by rural, urban, and resort regions. Therefore, the descriptive data below will be presented in that way, as will the economic impact estimates to follow.

36 For more information on the IMPLAN modeling please access http://www.implan.com. 37 The Affiliate Survey was pilot tested with two sites prior to being launched to all affiliates. Results from this initial data collection effort informed the final version of the affiliate survey. 38 HFHC is an affiliate site of Habitat for Humanity International. This site was included in the Affiliate Survey because this organization had information (e.g., operating costs, volunteer hours) that would contribute to the economic impact study that was not being captured from the 25 affiliate sties. 56

Financial and Employment Data Table J below presents the financial and employment data for HFH affiliates in Fiscal Year 2018. As noted above, results are presented for affiliates in resort, rural, and urban areas separately. Statewide figures are also presented. Statewide, HFH affiliates had $32.6 million in non-payroll expenses and $15.8 million in payroll expenditures. With 315.8 full time equivalent (FTE) employees, the statewide average salary was $49,984. Statewide figures were driven largely by activities of urban HFH affiliates, which reported relatively large non-payroll expenses, payroll expenses and numbers of full- time employees. Findings from the Affiliate Survey indicate that a total of 78 new homes and 119 repairs or renovations were completed in Fiscal Year 2018. However, data from HFHC suggests that this number is higher – 94 homes were built and 136 were repaired or renovated during this time period. The affiliates reporting financial information range from very mature organizations (one was established in 1978) to relatively new (three were formed in 2000). The majority of affiliates was formed in the 1990s.

Habitat affiliates located in resort areas of the state built nine new homes in Fiscal Year 2018 and repaired two more. Rural affiliates had $2.4 million in direct non-payroll expenditures, $1.5 million in payroll, and employed 28 FTE personnel. Rural affiliates built 12 new homes in Fiscal Year 2018 and repaired or renovated 12 homes. Rural affiliates had $2.9 million in direct spending, $.9 million in direct labor costs, and directly employed 37 FTE personnel. Urban affiliates made the greatest contribution to the Colorado economy. Urban affiliates were much more active, reporting $27.3 million in direct expenditures, direct labor expenditures of $13.4 million, and direct employment of about 251 people.

Table J. Financial and Employment Figures for HFH Affiliates for Fiscal Year 2018 Resort Affiliates Rural Affiliates Urban Affiliates Statewide Construction Non-Payroll Expenses $1,312,660 $2,394,370 $15,961,027 $19,668,057 Number of Employees 3.7 4.0 41.4 49.1 Payroll $256,704 $127,641 $3,495,161 $3,879,506 Operations Non-Payroll Expenses $562,865 $230,890 $7,226,204 $8,019,960 Number of Employees 10.2 13.7 88.3 112.1 Payroll $643,297 $397,706 $5,058,563 $6,099,566 ReStore Non-Payroll Expenses $512,960 $275,770 $4,101,103 $4,889,833 Number of Employees 14.1 19.5 121.0 154.6 Payroll $612,660 $384,887 $4,807,434 $5,804,981 Totals Non-Payroll Expenses $2,388,485 $2,901,030 $27,288,334 $32,577,850 Number of Employees 28.0 37.2 250.6 315.8 Payroll $1,512,661 $910,234 $13,361,158 $15,784,053 Average Employee Salary $54,024 $24,502 $53,310 $49,984 Total Homes Built 9 12 57 78 Repaired 2 9 89 100 Renovated 0 3 16 19 Homes Built Since Formation 44 246 1,733 2,023 Volunteers Number of Volunteers 474 2,355 31,778 34,607 Volunteer Hours 16,545 35,751 264,109 316,405 Volunteer FTE Equivalent 8.6 18.6 137.6 164.8 Volunteer Estimated Value $339,838 $298,112 $5,353,230 $5,941,840

Volunteer Estimates Volunteer labor is a critical component of HFH activities in Colorado and throughout the nation. Affiliates were asked to report the number of volunteers they had utilized in Fiscal Year 2018 as well as the number of volunteer hours donated during this time period. As shown in Table J, 34,607 individual volunteers assisted HFH affiliates in some capacity. The equivalent of 316,405 hours were donated by those volunteers. While it is difficult to quantify the value of volunteer labor, REC took two approaches. First, REC looked to a 2014 evaluation conducted on behalf of Charlottesville, Virginia to estimate the equivalent number of FTE employees utilized through volunteer labor. In that report, Rephann (2014) computed the FTE value of volunteer labor by first dividing the total number of volunteer hours by the total number of annual hours for an average full-time worker. As Table J above shows, there were 316,405 volunteer hours in Fiscal Year 2018. Dividing this value by 1,920 annual hours typically worked by one FTE employee, resulted in the equivalent of 164.8 FTE personnel volunteered to affiliates across the state. To obtain the estimated value of volunteer labor, the total number of volunteer hours were multiplied by the estimated hourly value of volunteer labor. For 2017, Independent Sector, a national organization that computes annual estimates of the value of volunteer labor for each state, estimated the hourly value of a volunteer hour in Colorado to be worth $26.78.39 Multiplying this value by the number of total volunteer hours, REC estimates that over $8.5 million in value was generated through the use of volunteer labor (316,405 hours * $26.78) in Fiscal Year 2018. In other words, volunteers contributed labor that saved over $8.5 million dollars for HFH affiliates. While this analysis demonstrates the value of utilizing volunteer labor, these estimates are not included in the economic impact estimate that follows.

Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity Affiliates The next step of the impact analysis was to use direct employment, labor income, and total output to estimate indirect and induced effects. Because direct spending on construction, operations, and ReStore operations involve unique patterns of spending, it was necessary to identify the IMPLAN codes associated with each type of activity. Again, drawing on earlier work, construction activities were assigned IMPLAN code 59 (i.e., Construction of new single-family residential structures; NAICS 233411); general operations were assigned IMPLAN code 486 (i.e., Community food, housing, and other relief services including rehabilitation services; NAICS 624A00); and ReStore retail activities were assigned IMPLAN code 399 (i.e., Retail - Building material and garden equipment and supplies stores; NAICS 444000). Rather than estimate the impacts of each IMPLAN code activity separately, REC estimated a model that combined the three distinct IMPLAN codes simultaneously so that a single estimate could be obtained.

The results of the initial analysis are presented in Table K. As indicated in the table, HFH had a total statewide employment impact of 539 employees, $28.4 million in labor income, and approximately $62.1 million in total industrial output.

39 For more information, please see: https://independentsector.org/resource/vovt_details/. 59

Table K. Statewide Economic and Employment Impact of HFH Impact Type Employment Labor Income ($) Output ($) Direct Effect 315.8 $17,531,420a $29,394,569a Indirect Effect 81.5a $4,255,812a $12,478,494a Induced Effect 141.6a $6,574,395a $20,249,751a Total Effect 538.8a $28,361,627a $62,122,813a a Estimate generated using IMPLAN.

To better examine how HFH affiliates impact specific regions of the state, estimates were generated separately for affiliates that operate in resort, rural, and urban areas of the state. Four affiliates were included in the Resort HFH estimate; eight affiliates were included in the Rural HFH estimate; nine affiliates were included in the Urban HFH estimate. The results are presented in Table L below. Please note that the numbers presented in Table L were not simply summed to produce the results in Table K above. Rather, separate estimation models were generated for the statewide estimate and each of the three sub-area estimates in Colorado. This also explains why the separate analyses presented in Table L below do not simply sum up to the statewide figures presented in Table K above. In other words, the separate IMPLAN estimates for each of the three sub-regions only consider the effects that affiliates have in the counites they serve, while the statewide analysis considers the impact that HFH affiliates have on the statewide economy, regardless of affiliate location. The statewide model, therefore, includes economic activity that takes place in other non- affiliate counties of the state and that might be affected by HFH activities.

As shown in Table L, resort affiliates supported nearly 23 FTE positions, had a labor income impact of $1.4 million, and a total industrial output of $3.1 million. The IMPLAN model shows that rural affiliates supported 29 FTE jobs, $1.1 million in labor income, and about $4 million in industrial output. The IMPLAN model indicates that urban affiliate activities supported about 251 FTE jobs, $15.8 million labor income, and $40.2 million in industrial output.

Table L. Resort, Rural, and Urban Economic and Employment Impact of HFH Impact Type Employment Labor Income ($) Output ($) Resort Direct Effect 13.9 $1,048,074 $1,875,525 Indirect Effect 4.1 $158,838 $518,023 Induced Effect 4.9 $208,801 $669,389 Total Effect 22.9 $1,415,713 $3,062,937 Rural Direct Effect 17.7 $709,348 $2,625,260 Indirect Effect 6.2 $231,851 $718,113 Induced Effect 5.0 $171,442 $604,718 Total Effect 28.8 $1,112,641 $3,948,091 Urban

Direct Effect 129.7 $9,954,707 $23,187,231 Indirect Effect 53.6 $2,743,400 $7,625,100 Induced Effect 67.9 $3,093,391 $9,342,287 Total Effect 251.2 $15,791,497 $40,154,617 Note: All numbers are estimates based on IMPLAN model.

Tax Impact of Habitat for Humanity Affiliates In addition to employment, labor income, and total industrial output, HFH activities yield a variety of federal, state, and local taxes as affiliates purchase supplies, when vendors purchase supplies, and as households and employees purchase goods and services throughout the community. Table M below presents the statewide estimate of taxes generated through affiliate activities in Fiscal Year 2018. Please note that these tax revenue estimates are based on the total effect of statewide HFH activities. As shown in Table M below, the total estimated state and local tax revenue generated through HFH activities is about $2.9 million in Fiscal Year 2018. An additional $6.5 million in federal tax revenue was also generated.

For employee compensation, IMPLAN computed social insurance tax contributions for employees and employers at the state, local, and federal levels. For example, $27,913 was estimated for social insurance tax for employees and $58,470 for employers. This computes to $86,383 for employee compensation for state and local tax revenue. Table M below summarizes all categories that provide information about the estimated tax revenue of HFH activities at the state, local, and federal levels.

Table M. State and Local Tax Revenue Generated by HFH Activities40 Category State and Local Tax Revenue Federal Tax Revenue Employee Compensation $86,383 $2,983,237 Social Insurance Tax- $27,913 $1,520,893 Employee Contribution Social Insurance Tax- $58,470 $1,462,344 Employer Contribution Proprietor Income $0 $134,275 Social Insurance Tax- - $134,275 Employee Contribution Tax on Production and Imports $1,918,624 $235,085 Excise Taxes - $164,986 Custom Duty - $62,248 Sales Tax $959,633 - Property Tax $845,308 - Motor Vehicle License $24,514 -

40 For further information about the tax categories refer to: https://implanhelp.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/115009674528-Generation-and-Interpretation-of-IMPLAN-s-Tax-Impact-Report. 61

Severance Tax $11,723 - Other Taxes $61,914 - S/L Non-Taxes $15,532 - Fed Non-Taxes $7,851 Households $778,551 $2,321,231 Personal Tax: Income Tax $530,072 $2,321,231 Personal Tax: Non-Taxes $172,277 - (Fines- Fees) Personal Tax: Motor Vehicle $31,791 - License Personal Tax: Property Taxes $10,679 - Personal Tax: Other Tax $33,732 - (Fish/Hunt) Corporations $92,702 $774,009 Dividends $10,732 - Corporate Profits Tax $81,970 $774,009 Total $2,876,260 $6,447,837

In sum, during Fiscal Year 2018, the economic impact analysis shows that Colorado HFH activities have a significant impact on the state economy ($62.1 million), support a large number of jobs (about 539 FTE positions), and provide substantial labor income to Colorado workers ($28.4 million in wages). In addition, the equivalent of 316,405 hours were donated by volunteers – an estimated equivalent of nearly 165 FTE personnel hours and $8.5 million savings to HFH and its affiliates. Further, approximately $2.9 million in state and local taxes and about $6.5 million in federal tax revenue were generated by HFH activities in Fiscal Year 2018. These estimates demonstrate how HFH has contributed to the economy of Colorado and the nation through their activities in Fiscal Year 2018.

PART 4: Discussion

“…I’ve always rented and always had off-white walls that I couldn’t change; it was never worth the effort to hang pictures because we probably wouldn’t be there long”

“I love being able to repaint and decorate and have people over”

“…We are putting money into the equity of our house and not somebody else’s pocket”

“…allows us as a family to feel much more secure mentally, physically and financially”

Discussion The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive economic impact study that measured the effect that HFH has on Habitat homeowners, their families, and the state of Colorado. Data from three surveys (two homeowner surveys, one affiliate survey) were analyzed and interpreted in preparation of this report. Homeowner findings focused on homeowners and their families, respondent demographics, educational outcomes, financial impacts, health and quality of life outcomes, neighborhood and community impact, and gave homeowners the opportunity to share their stories and provide their feedback. New questions were added to the 2018 Homeowner Survey to capture richer information and this survey was also offered in Spanish to accommodate the diverse populations that HFH serves in Colorado. The 2018 Affiliate Survey also provided new findings surrounding the economic impact of HFH. This study offers valuable information about Habitat homeowners, their families, their communities, and the affiliates who help these individuals build, renovate, and repair their homes. Through the stories of Denise, John and Amelia, Pam, and Daniel as well as the findings from this study, REC was better able to assess how HFH makes a difference in the lives of the homeowners they serve. The following section summarizes key findings from this study.

Findings about Homeowners and their Families Results indicate that the typical homeowner who completed this study was most likely to have lived in their Habitat home 1-3 years, have a family that consisted of 4 members, earn between $20,000- $34,999 per year, have two children, not have any adult children, be a White female, completed some college (less than two years), and be employed full-time. Of course, there was great variation regarding the homeowners who completed this study and findings surrounding these families. For example, for those families who did have adult children, that oldest adult child was most likely to be 25 years old and have lived in the Habitat home for a total of four years. Looking more closely at these results, nearly 56% of homeowners who completed the survey had lived in their Habitat home for 5 years or less, about 83% earned $49,999 or less per year, and nearly 86% were engaged in either part-time, full-time, or self-employment. Another interesting finding is that about 36% of respondents identified as Hispanic or Latino/a. Taken together, the characteristics of homeowners and their families suggests that HFH serves a diverse group of low-income individuals throughout Colorado. However, it is difficult to determine how representative this sample is compared to the 2,600 or so families served by affiliates across the state.

Educational Outcomes When examining educational outcomes of homeowners and their families, the data suggests that homeowners are hopeful about their futures and that of their children. Approximately 34% of homeowners pursued additional education since becoming a Habitat homeowner. Specifically, about 12% of these individuals reported pursuing some college. For those who had adult children, about 35% had completed high school or their GED, followed by nearly 13% who had completed technical training or a vocational diploma. When homeowners in 2018 were asked about their children’s school performance, about 22% felt performance was somewhat better. When these same

homeowners were asked whether there was an improvement in their children’s grades, approximately 52% had noticed an improvement. Finally, homeowners were asked about their expectations for their children’s education – 67% of homeowners expected that their children would earn a bachelor’s degree or greater. Such findings suggest that something about being a homeowner may inspire hope towards education and support educational aspirations.

Financial Impact Homeowners were asked questions that gauged the financial impact of owning a Habitat home and their perceptions regarding their family’s financial stability. Results indicated that homeowners felt that they could not have owned a home without help from HFH, that these families valued saving money, and that homeowners believed that their home had gone up in value. Ratings for covering an unexpected bill or helping a close relative with financial problems were lower. Even so, ratings of financial stability were relatively strong. When homeowners were asked about their ability to save money since moving into their Habitat home, about 65% of homeowners felt that they were somewhat or much better at saving money. To further examine whether owning a Habitat home had a financial impact, REC asked homeowners what kinds of public assistance they utilized before and after owning their home. Results indicate that there was a significant decline in the total number of public assistance program usage before and after becoming a Habitat homeowner. In fact, across all program, an average reduction in usage was observed for 58% of programs. REC was also able to generate an estimate for what this looked like for Medicaid and CHP+ savings - $297,462 and $282,370, respectively or nearly $600,000 in savings over a year. This is a conservative estimate as these savings only reflect the responses of 181 respondents.

Health and Quality of Life Next, health and quality of life indicators were assessed. Results show that about 69% of homeowners rated their health as very good or excellent. When asked whether their family’s health had improved since becoming a Habitat homeowner, nearly 90% of homeowners reported some improvement to their family’s health. When homeowners were asked whether they could afford to visit a doctor, sometimes and always were equally the most frequent responses with about 57% of homeowners reporting that they could often or always afford to see a doctor. To examine potential food insecurity of homeowner families, one question asked whether homeowners and their families had enough to eat – this was always true about 59% of the time and often true about 28% of the time. Homeowners were also asked whether their lives and the lives of their families had improved since owning a Habitat home. Results indicate that nearly 94% of homeowners felt that their lives had improved. To better understand the social ties of Habitat homeowners, the survey asked about whether homeowners felt they had more quality time with their family since owning a Habitat home. About 61% of homeowners reported they were able to spend more quality time with family. Similar trends were observed when looking at how often Habitat homeowners hosted friends and family at their place with the most frequent response being once a month. For those homeowners with children, friends were invited over for play or homework, the most common response was more than once a week. These health and quality of life outcomes demonstrate that Habitat homeowners, overall, are experiencing improved outcomes.

Neighborhood and Community Impact Homeowners also discussed their neighborhoods and involvement in their local communities. Ratings for their home and neighborhood were relatively high – 8.69 and 7.66 out of 10, respectively. What this means is that Habitat homeowners felt that this was one of the best places they had lived and overall, the neighborhood also received a good rating. When homeowners were asked whether their neighborhood felt safer than where they had lived before, most homeowners reported this statement was true. When homeowners were asked about the progress of their neighborhoods, about 48% reported it was staying the same and about 29% thought their neighborhoods were improving. Homeowners were also asked about the kinds of community activities they and their families engaged in before and after becoming a Habitat homeowner. Attendance to community events, volunteering in the community, voting in local, state, or federal elections, and church/religious activity participation all significantly increased between 6% and 16%. Such findings indicate that homeowners view their homes and neighborhoods positively and something about becoming a Habitat homeowner encourages more community involvement.

Economic Impact of Habitat for Humanity in Colorado The purpose of the affiliate study was to examine the economic impact of HFH at the local, state, and federal levels. Nearly 81% of affiliates completed the survey to provide estimates regarding construction of homes, operating costs, activities related to ReStore, and volunteer activities using the IMPLAN model. Affiliates were established between 1978 through 2008. Results were reported for resort, rural, and urban affiliate sites as well as estimates statewide. The findings from this survey indicate that statewide, HFH affiliates had $32.6 million in non-payroll expenses and $15.8 million in payroll expenditures. A total of nearly 316 FTE employees were reported for Fiscal Year 2018 and across the state, the average salary was $49,984. A total of 78 homes were built and 119 homes were repaired or renovated. For the 21 out of 26 affiliates who completed the survey, a total of 2,023 homes were built since their organization began. A total of 34,607 individual volunteers devoted 316,405 hours to HFH affiliate sites. This equated to about 165 FTE and REC estimates that over $8.5 million dollars in labor were donated to HFH affiliates in Fiscal Year 2018.

Next, to examine the economic impact of direct employment, labor income, total output and the associated indirect and induced effects – IMPLAN codes were identified and utilized to create a single estimate. Results from this analysis indicate that HFH had a total statewide impact of 539 employees, $28.4 million in labor income, and approximately $62.1 million in total industrial output. Further analyses were conducted to examine the economic impact of four resort, eight rural, and nine urban affiliates. Results indicate that resort affiliates supported nearly 23 FTE positions, had a labor income impact of $1.4 million, and a total industrial output of $3.1 million. Rural affiliates supported about 29 FTE jobs, had a labor income of $1.1 million, and about $4 million in industrial output. Findings also indicate that urban affiliate activities supported about 251 FTE jobs, $15.8 million labor income, and $40.2 million in industrial output. When tax revenue was examined, HFH affiliate activities produced over $2.8 million in local and state tax revenue as well as more than $6.5 million in federal tax revenue. Such findings indicate that HFH greatly supported the economy of Colorado in Fiscal Year 2018.

Limitations It is important to consider the limitations of this study. First, homeowner data was collected in two separate time periods – 2016 and 2018 by two different teams. To obtain a more representative sample, REC combined data from the 2016 Denver metro homeowner study and the present 2018 statewide study. Many of the questions were identical (see Appendices B and C); however, new questions were added, and the flow of the survey was changed. The 2018 study was also offered in both English and Spanish which may have influenced outcomes. It is also possible that homeowner outcomes may have been different in 2016 (an urban sample) compared to 2018 (a resort, rural, and urban sample). These differences represent an important limitation of this study. Another limitation is that the homeowner data represented a convenience sample. HFHC and REC were only able to collect data from homeowners who had a working email address. A total of 329 homeowners were included in this study out of an estimated 2,600 homeowners – a response rate of 12.6%. The 2016 study reported a response rate of approximately 23.6% and the 2018 study reported a response rate of 52.7% for all available email addresses. Clearly there is great variation in these estimates as records of the contact information of homeowners were incomplete.

Next, for the Affiliate Survey, REC obtained data for only 21 of the 26 affiliate organizations (80.8% across the state. While it appears that the largest and most active affiliates reported financial and employment information, there were five affiliates that did not provide information for the study. With the additional information, it is likely that REC would have observed larger direct impacts, as well as larger estimated indirect and induced effects of HFH activity in the state. Finally, a minor limitation to the study was item non-response on the financial and employment form sent to affiliates. Specifically, not every affiliate answered every question on the form. It is unclear whether the affiliates simply chose not to complete the field, or whether the field was left blank because of a lack of activity related to the field in question. Taken together, these limitations likely influenced the results of this economic impact study. Nonetheless, this study produced some important and robust findings for HFH affiliates.

PART 5: Actionable Recommendations and Conclusion

“…I have something to pass down to my kids and a place to call home”

“…[I] own a piece of the American dream”

“I love my house. For the first time ever, I feel like I fit in and belong.”

“…it’s mine”

Actionable Recommendations Based on the findings of this economic impact study, REC makes the following five recommendations to HFHC:

Each recommendation is discussed in further detail below.

Further Examine Trends in 2018 Homeowner Data While most Habitat homeowners praised their home and gave favorable responses for quality of life, finances, and community involvement, little is known about homeowner trends beyond descriptive statistics. In other words, this report provides summary data for homeowners who chose to complete this survey. There may be a subset of homeowners who need additional support from HFH or may have less than optimal outcomes. REC recommends looking deeper at homeowner data from 2018, to examine whether groups of homeowners may have significantly different results. For example, does housing tenure influence study outcomes? Are there any meaningful differences in outcomes between different groups of homeowners? Understanding these trends can help HFH provide additional, targeted assistance where necessary.

Increase Efforts to Maintain Multiple Forms of Contact from Homeowners Results from this study suggest that affiliates across the state may not maintain multiple forms of contact including email addresses. As homeowner data goes back to the 1970s to the present, there may be a need to update the contact information of current and past homeowners. Once homeowners leave their Habitat home (e.g., selling their home, death, giving their home to their children, etc.), homeowner contact information may not continue to be collected. HFH may want to consider strategies for collecting this information from homeowners on a yearly basis. This will help future communication and evaluation efforts. Keeping such records could also offer an opportunity to solicit additional support for HFH through charitable donations, volunteer hours, and event sponsorship.

Consider Compiling Additional Baseline Data from Homeowners REC recommends that HFH consider compiling additional baseline data from homeowners such as gender, race, income, and education. Housing tenure may also need to be added to some affiliate locations. This information should regularly be updated, at least once a year to better understand baseline trends in Habitat homeowners. This data may be collected from affiliates individually, but there may be a need for a system that captures and summarizes trends across the state.

Conduct an Impact Study Every 3 Years REC recommends that HFH consider conducting this impact study every 3 years. This time period will give HFH sufficient time to address changes and for those changes to influence homeowner and affiliate outcomes. Such findings will also provide HFH with invaluable information about how their services are making a difference in the lives of homeowners and provide a mechanism for homeowners to provide recommendations for improvement. Further, the findings from such studies can support the strategy and mission of HFH. It is also recommended that this survey continue to be offered in English and Spanish. If a comparison between 2018 and 2021 is desired, REC recommends keeping the survey the same between both time periods.

Continue to Make Evaluation a Priority This comprehensive impact study sheds light on the experiences and outcomes of Habitat homeowners and the affiliates that serve them. Utilizing evaluation as a tool for continued learning and support can help ensure that HFH continues to achieve its mission. As the evaluation needs of each affiliate may vary as well as the communities served, different evaluation strategies may be necessary. This study uncovered many key findings that can be used to seek new funding for Habitat projects. For example, Habitat homeowners relied less on public assistance when compared with their previous situation, saving the state government substantial funds. This finding and others could be leveraged to pursue new funding opportunities at the local, state, and federal level. Making evaluation a priority may support future grant efforts and ultimately help HFH serve more homeowners and help address the housing crisis in Colorado.

Conclusion In conclusion, this comprehensive impact study offers valuable information about Habitat homeowners, their families, their communities, and the affiliates who help these individuals build, renovate, and repair their homes. Through the stories of Denise, John and Amelia, Pam, and Daniel as well as the findings from this study REC was better able to assess how HFH makes a difference in the lives of the homeowners they serve. REC also proposed the following five recommendations: 1) Further examine trends in 2018 homeowner data, 2) Increase efforts to maintain multiple forms of contact from homeowners, 3) Consider compiling additional baseline data from homeowners, 4) Conduct an impact study every 3 years, and 5) Continue to make evaluation a priority. While the housing crisis in Colorado remains a significant challenge that needs to be addressed, what is clear from this study is that HFH is offering low-income individuals with affordable housing, increasing the number of affordable homes in the state, and offering hope to homeowners and their families.

PART 6: References and Appendices

“…my children have been able to establish friends in school; they have been able to set down roots”.

“I’m mentally in a better place because I feel good about my situation and where I’m at in life”

“…we went from living in a cramped apartment to living in our own home and we all love the garden that we grow and maintain”

References Adcock, R.A., Butler-Dines, R., Chambers, D.W., Lagarde, M.J., Moore, A.M., Nutting, C.F., Reed, S.M., Schreiber, A.M., Warren, P.M., Webb, K.A., & Zwiebel, E.M. (2016). Too high a price: What criminalizing homelessness costs Colorado. University of Denver Sturm College of Law Homeless Advocacy Policy Project.

Alonzo, F. (2017). Highest educational levels reached by adults in the U.S. since 1940. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press- releases/2017/cb17-51.html.

Center for Economic Research. (2017). Impact of Habitat for Humanity Homeownership in Georgia. Retrieved from http://wp.habitatgeorgia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2017-Impact- Study.pdf

Corra Group. (2018). Colorado county look up by zip code or city. Corra Group. http://www.corragroup.com/colorado-county-lookup.html

Federal Housing Finance Agency. (2017). U.S. prices rise 1.6 percent in second quarter. Federal Housing Finance Agency News Release August 22, 2017.

Habitat for Humanity of Colorado. (2017). Habitat for Humanity Annual Report 2016-2017. Habitat for Humanity of Colorado.

Hallberg, L. R. M. (2006). The "core category" of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1(3), 141-148.

Health and Human Services Department (2018). Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved on 12 October 2018 from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/18/2018-00814/annual-update-of- the-hhs-poverty-guidelines

IMPLAN. (2018). IMPLAN: Make an Impact. Retrieved from http://www.implan.com/company/.

Kirzinger, A., Wu, B., Hamel, L., Brodie, M., Fort, T, Legleiter, K. & Weightman, A. (2018). Coloradans’ perspectives on health, quality of life, and midterm elections. The Kaiser Family Foundation and Colorado Health Foundation.

Mattessich, P. & Hansen, M. (2015). Impacts of Habitat for Humanity homeownership. Wilder Research. www.wilderresearch.org

National Low-Income Housing Coalition. (2018). 2018 Colorado housing profile. National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Newcomer, J., & Resnick, P. (2018). Exploring Colorado’s housing affordability challenges in all of their complexity. Shift Research Lab. Available at: https://www.shiftresearchlab.org/HousingUnaffordability.

Rahm, E., & Do, H.H. (2000). Data cleaning: Problems and current approaches. Retrieved from http://dc-pubs.dbs.uni-leipzig.de/files/Rahm2000DataCleaningProblemsand.pdf.

Rephann, T. J. (2014). Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville: Economic, Community, and Partner Effects. Available at: https://www.cvillehabitat.org/file_download/inline/5726c3cc-62cb- 4c24-9ff5-0c479e371c69

Social Research Center and Center for Opinion Research. (2017). Colorado Mesa University centennial state survey summary of findings. The Social Research Center, Colorado Mesa University and Center for Opinion Research, Floyd Institute for Public Policy, Franklin and Marshall College.

State of Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee. (2017). Budget in Brief: Fiscal Year 2017-2018. Retrieved from https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/fy17-18bib.pdf.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.

Velez, C., O’Brien, T., Connors, S., Clarke, E., & Walters, B. (2016). Habitat for Humanity 2016 Denver Metro Survey. Retrieved from The Evaluation Center at the University of Colorado Denver.

Appendix A. 2016 Denver Metro Survey Questions Home and Neighborhood Questions 1. How long have you lived in your Habitat 1 = Less than a year home? Please round up or down to the 2 = 1 to 3 years nearest whole number. 3 = 3 to 5 years 4 = 5 to 7 years 5 = 7 to 10 years 6 = 10 to 15 years 7 = 15 to 20 years 8 = More than 20 years 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate 1 = Worst your house as a place to live? 10 = Best 4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate 1 = Worst your neighborhood as a place to live? 10 = Best 5. Do you feel your neighborhood is… 1 = On its way up and improving 2 = Staying about the same, neither improving nor declining 3 = Getting worse and declining 4 = Don’t know 6. Please complete this sentence: My Open ended response Habitat home makes me feel……. Questions About Children 1. Are there any children under 18 1 = Yes permanently living in your home? 2 = No “Permanently” is defined as AT LEAST HALF THE SCHOOL YEAR. 2. Please tell us the age of each child in the One column for the age of each child home, starting with the youngest 3. How often does your child(ren) invite 1 = Never friends over to play or do homework 5 = Most days together? 4. Is there a space in your home set aside for 1 = Yes your child(ren) to study and do homework in 2 = No your home? 5. Is the public elementary school closest to 1 = Yes your home satisfactory? 2 = No 3 = Don’t know 6. OVERALL, would you say your child is 1 = Better doing better, worse or about the same in 2 = About the same school since moving into your Habitat home? 3 = Worse

7. OVERALL, how far do you expect your 1 = Complete less than a high school diploma child(ren) to go in his/her education? Check 2 = Graduate from high school only one. 3 =Attend a vocational or technical school after high school 4 = Attend two or more years of college 5 = Earn a bachelor’s degree 6 = Earn a graduate degree or professional degree beyond a bachelor’s 8. Do you have any children 18 or older who 1 = Yes have permanently lived in your Habitat 2 = No home? “Permanently” is defined as AT LEAST HALF THE SCHOOL YEAR. 9. For the next few questions, please 1 = 18 think of the child who has lived in your 2 = 19 Habitat home the longest. How old is this 3 = 20 child now? 4 = 21 5 = 22 6 = 23 to 25 7 = 25 or older 10. How long has (or did) this child live in 1 = Since before entering elementary school your Habitat home? 2 = Since elementary school 3 = Since middle school 4 = Since high school 5 = Other, please specify______11. Thus far, what is the highest level of 1 = Less than a high school diploma education that this child has achieved? 2 = Graduate from high school 3 = Vocational or technical school after high school 4 = Two or more years of college 5 = Bachelor’s degree 6 = Graduate degree or professional degree beyond a bachelor’s 12. Since moving into your Habitat home, 1 = Yes have you yourself pursued and completed 2 = No additional education?

13. What additional education have you 1 = GED completed? 2 = Vocational or Technical School certification 3 = Associate Degree 4 = Bachelor’s Degree 5 = Graduate degree or professional degree beyond a bachelor’s 6 = Other, please specify______Happiness 1. Do you have any pets? 1 = Yes 2 = No 2. If yes, what types of pets? Please check all 1 = Cat that apply 2 = Dog 3 = Guinea Pig, Hamster, or Rabbit 4 = Fish 5 = Reptile 6 = Bird 7 = Other 3. Were you able to have pets before moving 1 = Yes into your Habitat home? 2 = No 4. Do you see yourself getting a pet, or 1 = Yes getting more pets, now that you are in a 2 = No Habitat home? 3 = Don’t know / Not sure 5. How often you host friends or family at 1 = Never your house for a meal or other get-togethers? 5 = Most days 6. Since moving into your Habitat home, do 1 = No, not at all you feel you are able to spend more quality 5 = Yes, most days time with your family? Financial Well-being 1. We feel we are financially better off now 1 = Not at all true than we were five years ago. 5 = Very true 2. If a close relative were having financial 1 = Not at all true problems, we feel we could afford to help 5 = Very true them out. 3. We seem to have little or no problem 1 = Not at all true paying our bills on time. 5 = Very true 4. We worry about how we would cover a 1 = Not at all true large unexpected bill (for home, auto repairs, 5 = Very true etc.). 5. In our family, we feel it is important to 1 = Not at all true save for the future. 5 = Very true

6. My house has gone up in value since I 1 = Not at all true moved in 5 = Very true 7. I could not have owned my home without 1 = Not at all true help from Habitat for Humanity 5 = Very true 8. I feel my neighborhood is safer than the 1 = Not at all true neighborhood where I lived before moving 5 = Very true into my Habitat home. 9. I seem to take more pride in my 1 = Not at all true neighborhood now that I own a Habitat 5 = Very true home. 10. Do you have a household budget? 1 = Yes 2 = No 11. How often are you able to stick to your 1 = Never household budget? 2 = Hardly ever 3 = About half the time 4 = Most of the time 5 = Always Reliance on Public Assistance 1. Please check any assistance you may have 1 = Food stamps received from the following sources 2 = Rental assistance before your Habitat home and currently. 3 = Colorado Works/ TANF (two columns) 4 = Medicaid 5 = CHP+ 6 = SSI/SSDI 7 = Child Care assistance / CCCAP 8 = Utility bill assistance / LIHEAP 9 = CEOWx Health 1. In general, would you say that your health 1 = Poor is excellent, very good, fair, or poor? 2 = Fair 3 = Very Good 4 = Excellent 2. Can you afford to go the doctor when you 1 = No, never need to? 5 = Yes, always 3. Has a doctor or other health professional 1 = Yes EVER told you that any of the children 2 = No (under 18) currently in your home has 3 = Not sure asthma?

4. For these next two questions, please think 1 = Yes of your youngest or only child who was 2 = No diagnosed with asthma. Does this child still have asthma? 5. During the past 12 months, has this child 1 = Yes had an episode of asthma or an asthma 2 = No attack? 6. Overall, my family’s health has improved 1 = Not at all true since I moved into my Habitat home. 5 = Very true

Demographics 1. Including yourself, how many total people Number of people______regularly live in your home? “Regularly” means at least half the time. 2. What is the total annual household $ ______per year income before taxes? Please include money from jobs or other earnings, pensions, interest, social security, child support, and so on. 3. Including yourself, how many people are Number of people on the mortgage_____ listed on your mortgage? Please answer the following questions for each mortgage holder: 4. Age ______years old 5. What is the highest level of education that 1 = Less than high school [this homeowner] completed? 2 = High school graduate/GED 3 = Some college 4 = Technical training or Vocational diploma 5 = Associate’s Degree 6 = Bachelor’s Degree 7 = Master’s Degree 8 = Doctorate degree or Professional degree beyond a bachelor’s 6. Which of the following best describes [this 1 = Employed for pay or income homeowner’s] employment status? 2 = Self-employed 3 = Unemployed or out of work 4 = Full-time student 5 = Stay at home parent 6 = Retired 7 = Disabled or unable to work 8 = Other (please describe)

7. How would you describe [this 1 = White homeowner’s] race? 2 = African American/Black 3 = Asian 4 = Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 5 = American Indian or Alaska Native 6 = Mixed race 8. Is [this homeowner] Hispanic/Latino? 1 = Yes 2 = No 9. Gender 1 = Male 2 = Female 3 = Other 10. What is [this homeowner’s] marital 1 = Single/Divorced/Widowed status? 2 = Married/ Living together 3 = Other (please describe) 11. What language is [this homeowner’s] 1 = English primary language? 2 = Spanish 3 = Other (please describe) 12. In what county do you live? Drop down list of Counties in the Denver-metro Habitat Service area 13. What is your zip code? 5-digit open ended response Other 1. What do you like best about living in your Open text field Habitat Home? 2. Is there something about your Habitat Open text field homeowner experience that you wish was better or could be improved? 3. Complete the following sentence: Open text field Because of my Habitat house . . .

Appendix B. 2018 Homeowner Survey Home and Neighborhood The following questions will ask you about your perspectives on home and neighborhood.

1. How long have you lived in your Habitat home?  Less than 1 year Please round up or down to the nearest whole  1 up to 3 years number.  3 up to 5 years  5 up to 7 years  7 up to 10 years  10 up to 15 years  15 up to 20 years  More than 20 years 2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate . . . Rating scale of 1 to 10 with 1 = “Worst” Your house as a place to live? and 10 = “Best.” Your neighborhood as a place to live? 3. How true are the following statements for you? Rating scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = “Not at all true,” and 5 = “Very true.” I feel my neighborhood is safer than the neighborhood where I lived before moving into my Habitat home. I take more pride in my neighborhood now that I own a Habitat home. 4. Do you feel your neighborhood is . . .  Getting worse and declining  Staying about the same, neither improving nor declining Improving  Don't know Social Connectedness The following questions ask you how being a Habitat homeowner has impacted your social experiences and community connections.

5. Since becoming a Habitat homeowner, are the  Much worse lives of you and your family members better or  Somewhat worse worse?  There was no change  Somewhat better  Much better 6. How often do you host friends or family at your  Never house for a meal or other get-together?  Less than once a month  Once a month  Every two weeks  Once a week  More than once a week 7. Since moving into your Habitat home, do you feel  Less quality time since moving into you are able to spend more quality time with your your Habitat home family?  About the same quality time since moving into your Habitat home  More quality time since moving into your Habitat home 8. Prior to purchasing your Habitat home, how often  Never did you participate in the following community  Rarely activities?  Occasionally . . .Community events such as sporting/music events  Monthly . . . Church or other religious organization  Weekly . . . Volunteering in the community . . . Voting in local, state, and federal elections

9. Since purchasing your Habitat home, how often  Never do you participate in the following community  Rarely activities?  Occasionally . . .Community events such as sporting/music events  Monthly . . . Church or other religious organization  Weekly . . . Volunteering in the community . . . Voting in local, state, and federal elections

Health The following questions will ask you to describe your health and nutrition.

10. In general, would you say that your health is  Poor excellent, very good, fair, or poor?  Fair  Very Good  Excellent 11. Can you afford to go the doctor when you need  Never

to?  Rarely  Sometimes  Often  Always 12. Do you and your family have enough food to eat?  Never  Rarely  Sometimes  Often  Always 13. Overall, my family’s health has improved since I  Not at all true moved into my Habitat home.  A bit true  Somewhat true  True  Very true Financial Well-being The following questions will ask about financial well-being. 14. How true are the following statements for you?  Not at all true 1 . . . We feel we are financially better off now than we  2 were five years ago.  3 . . . If a close relative were having financial problems,  4 we feel we could afford to help them out.  Very true 5 . . . We seem to have little or no problem paying our bills on time. . . . We worry about how we would cover a large unexpected bill (for home, auto repairs, etc.). . . . In our family, we feel it is important to save for the future. . . . I could not have owned my home without help from Habitat for Humanity. . . .My house has gone up in value since I moved in.

15. Since moving into your Habitat home, how  Much less secure would you rate your financial security?  A little less secure  About the same  Somewhat more secure  Much more secure  Don’t know 16. Since moving into your Habitat home, how is  Much worse your ability to save money?  A little worse  About the same

 Somewhat better  Much better  Don’t know Public Assistance The following questions ask about the types of public assistance services you use or have used. 17. Please check any assistance you may have  Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+) received from the following sources BEFORE  Colorado Indigent Care Program moving into your Habitat home. (CICP)  Colorado PEAK  Colorado Energy Office Weatherization Assistance Program (CEOWx)  Colorado Works: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  Connect for Health Colorado  Food stamps  Medicaid  Old Age Pension (OAP)  Rental assistance  Supplemental Security Income- SSI/SSDI (6)  Utilities Assistance: Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP)  Other: ______18. Please check any assistance you  Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+) are CURRENTLY receiving now that you are in your  Colorado Indigent Care Program Habitat home. (CICP)  Colorado PEAK  Colorado Energy Office Weatherization Assistance Program (CEOWx)  Colorado Works: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  Connect for Health Colorado  Food stamps  Medicaid  Old Age Pension (OAP)  Rental assistance

 Supplemental Security Income- SSI/SSDI (6)  Utilities Assistance: Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP)  Other: ______Youth Education 19. Do you have children under the age of 18 who  Yes are permanently living in your Habitat home?  No “Permanently” is defined as AT LEAST HALF THE SCHOOL YEAR.

The following questions will ask you about children who are permanently living in your home. “Permanently” is defined as AT LEAST HALF THE SCHOOL YEAR. 20. How many children under 18 are permanently Open-ended response living in your home? 21. Overall, about how often does your child(ren)  Never invite friends over to play or do homework together?  Less than once a month  Once a month  Every two weeks  Once a week  More than once a week 22. Overall, would you say your child(ren) is doing  Worse better, worse or about the same in school since  About the same moving into your Habitat home?  Better

23. Since moving into your Habitat home, do you  Much worse feel your children’s grades in school are better or  A little worse worse?  About the same  Somewhat better  Much better  Don’t know 24. Since moving into your Habitat home, do you  Much worse feel better or worse about your children’s future?  A little worse  About the same  Somewhat better  Much better  Don’t know 25. Since moving into your Habitat home, do you  Much worse feel more or less confident about your ability to  A little worse support your child(ren)’s education after high school?  About the same  Somewhat better

 Much better  Don’t know 26. Overall, how far do you expect your child(ren) to  Complete less than a high school go in his/her education? diploma  Graduate from high school  Attend a vocational or technical school after high school  Earn a bachelor’s degree  Earn a graduate degree or professional degree beyond a bachelor’s Adult Children 27. Do you have any adult children (ages 18 or  Yes older)?  No

Impact on Adult Children The following questions will ask you about ADULT children living with you currently (or who have lived with you in the past) in your Habitat home. 28. Do you have any children 18 or older who  Yes are CURRENTLY living in your Habitat home on a  No PERMANENT basis?

29. Do you have any children 18 or older who USED  Yes TO LIVE in your Habitat home on a  No PERMANENT basis?

30. Given an example of how owning a Habitat Open-ended home has improved the lives of your adult children For the next few questions, please think of the ADULT child who has lived in your Habitat home the longest. 31. How old is this child now? Drop-down menu of age choices 32. Approximately, how many total years has this Open-ended ADULT child lived with you in your Habitat home (e.g., 5, 10, 20)? 33. Thus far, what is the highest level of education  Less than high school that this ADULT child has achieved?  High school graduate/GED  Some college (less than 2 years)  Technical training or Vocational diploma  Associate’s Degree  Bachelor’s Degree

 Master’s Degree  Doctorate degree or Professional degree beyond a bachelor’s Homeowner Education These questions ask you to provide information about any education that you have completed or pursued since becoming a Habitat homeowner. 34. Since moving into your Habitat home, have you  Yes yourself pursued and completed additional  No education?

35. What additional education have you completed?  None – does not apply  GED  Some college (less than 2 years)  Technical training or vocational diploma  Associate’s degree  Bachelor’s degree  Master’s degree  Doctorate degree or professional degree beyond a bachelor’s Feelings about Habitat Home The following questions ask you to describe how being a Habitat homeowner has impacted your life. 36. What do you like best about living in your Open-ended Habitat home? 37. Is there something about your Habitat Open-ended homeowner experience that you wish was better or could be improved? 38. Give an example of how being a Habitat Open-ended homeowner has impacted you and your family. 39. How has being a Habitat Homeowner supported Open-ended your education and the education of your children (if applicable)? Demographic Questions As a reminder, this survey is anonymous and confidential. Any information you provide will not be associated with you and your family. Findings from this study will be summarized for all survey participants. 40. Including yourself, how many total people Open-ended (including all adults and children) regularly live in your home? 41. What is the total annual household income before  Less than $20,000

taxes? Please include money from jobs or other  $20,000 to $34,999 earnings, pensions, interest, social security, child  $35,000 to $49,999 support, and so on.  $50,000 to $74,999  $75,000 to $99,999  $100,000 to $149,999  More than $150,000 42. What is your race/ethnicity?  American Indian or Alaska Native  Asian or Asian American  Black or African American  Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander  White or Caucasian  Other; please specify: ______43. Are you Hispanic or Latino/a?  Yes  No 44. What is your gender?  Female  Male  Other 45. What is your zip code? Open-ended 46. What is your highest level of education?  Less than high school  High school graduate/GED  Some college (less than 2 years)  Technical training or vocational diploma  Associate’s Degree  Bachelor’s Degree  Master’s Degree  Doctorate degree or Professional degree beyond a bachelor’s 47. Which of the following best describes your  Disabled or unable to work employment status?  Employed full-time for pay or income  Employed part-time for pay or income  Full-time student  Not employed, looking for work  Not employed, NOT looking for work  Retired  Self-employed

 Stay at home parent  Other; please specify: ______Amazon Gift Card 48. Would you like to enter a raffle drawing for one  Yes of ten $25 Amazon gift cards?  No

Raffle Entry Please provide the following information to enter the raffle drawing. Again, this section is optional and your information will be kept confidential. Please note that a valid email address is required to receive the gift card. 49. First Name 50. Email Address 51. Phone Number Further Contact 52. Would you be willing to speak with someone at  Yes Habitat for Humanity to share your story?  No

Contact Information Please provide the following information if you are willing to tell your story to someone at Habitat. Again, this section is optional and your information will be kept confidential. 53. First Name 54. Email Address 55. Phone Number

Appendix C. Affiliate Survey Organizational Background 1. What is the name of your organization? Open-ended 2. In what year did your organization begin? Open-ended 3. Since your organization began, how many total Open-ended homeowners has your site served? Construction Operations 4. We would first like to know about expenses and employment related to Construction operations in FY2018. Construction operations include new builds, home repairs, and renovations completed during FY 2018.

 Total Non-Payroll Expenses (in dollars). Construction operations include construction materials, warehouse utilities, etc. ______ Total Number of Employed. Total number of construction jobs supported by Habitat during FY2018, entered as full-time-equivalent (FTE). For example, if a full-time employee worked for six months during FY2018, this would be the equivalent of 0.5 FTE. ______ Total Payroll Expenses (in dollars). This includes total payroll expenses paid to construction employees by Habitat, including wage and salary, all benefits (e.g., health, retirement), and employer-paid payroll taxes (e.g., social security, unemployment, etc.). ______ Of the Total Non-Payroll Expenses, approximately what percentage are dedicated to New Builds? ______

5. Next, we would like to know about operating expenses and employment in FY2018.

 Total Non-Payroll Expenses (in dollars). Total non-payroll, day-to-day expenses that are not included in construction or ReStore. This includes rent, utilities, office supplies, etc. ______ Total Number of Employed. Total number of office jobs supported by Habitat during FY2018, entered as FTE. ______Total Payroll Expenses (in dollars). Total payroll expenses paid to office employees by Habitat, including wage and salary, all benefits (e.g., health, retirement, etc.), and employer- paid payroll taxes (e.g., social security, unemployment, etc.). ______

ReStore Operations 6. Next, we would like to know about expenses and employment related to ReStore operations in FY2018.

 Total Non-Payroll Expenses (in dollars). Total non-payroll costs of operating ReStore. This includes ReStore rent, utilities, etc. ______ Total Number of Employed. Total number of ReStore jobs supported by Habitat during FY2018, entered as FTE. ______ Total Payroll Expenses (in dollars). Total payroll expenses paid to ReStore employees by Habitat, including wage and salary, all benefits (e.g., health, retirement, etc.), and employer- paid payroll taxes (e.g., social security, unemployment, etc.). ______7. What is the total number of new housing units Open-ended built and closed during FY2018? 8. What is the total number of housing units repaired Open-ended in FY2018? 9. What is the total number of renovated housing Open-ended units that closed during FY2018? 10. What is the average household income of families Open-ended who closed on homes in FY2018? Additional Expenses and Volunteerism This section focuses on any other additional expenses beyond construction, operations, and ReStore as well as a couple questions regarding volunteerism. Additional Expenditure Details 11. Has your organization incurred any other Open-ended additional expenses or expenditures? If so, please specify the purpose of each additional expense and the amount for FY 2018. Volunteerism 12. In FY 2018, how many volunteers have served Open-ended your organization?

13. In FY 2018, approximately how many hours have Open-ended been volunteered to your organization? Final Questions Habitat for Humanity of Colorado and Research Evaluation Consulting are currently conducting an impact study with homeowners. As part of this process, REC will share de-identified Homeowner data with sites who request this information. The following questions ask whether you would want this information and request the zip codes your site serves. Specifically, the following question asks about zip codes for your service area. 14. What are the ZIP codes served? Open-ended 15. Do you want de-identified data for your region?  Yes  No

Appendix D. Affiliate Survey Participants

1) Berthoud Habitat for Humanity 2) Chaffee County Habitat for Humanity 3) Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity 4) Greeley-Weld Habitat for Humanity 5) Gunnison Valley Habitat for Humanity 6) Flatirons Habitat for Humanity 7) Habitat for Humanity of Colorado 8) Habitat for Humanity of Fremont County 9) Habitat for Humanity of Grand County 10) Habitat for Humanity of La Plata County 11) Habitat for Humanity of Mesa County 12) Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver 13) Habitat for Humanity of Montezuma County 14) Habitat for Humanity of Teller County 15) Habitat for Humanity of the St Vrain Valley 16) Habitat for Humanity Vail Valley 17) Habitat of Humanity of the San Juans 18) Loveland Habitat for Humanity 19) Pikes Peak Habitat for Humanity 20) San Luis Valley Habitat for Humanity 21) Summit Habitat for Humanity