HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-24 - Economic Vitality Board - Agendas & Packet Materials supplemental materials 2
PREPARED FOR: CREATED
City of Missoula 3/29/2024
Community Planning, Development, and Innovation (CPDI)
435 Ryman Street
Missoula, MT 59802
ci.missoula.mt.us
406-552-6630
City of Missoula
2024-28 Equity Plan
CITY OF MISSOULA 2024-28 EQUITY PLAN
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 1
SECTION I.
Executive Summary
The Equity Plan is a fair housing plan that commits the City of Missoula to advancing equity
in housing, community development programs, and residents’ access to high-opportunity
and well-resourced areas. The plan identifies meaningful actions to overcome historic
patterns of segregation, promotes fair housing choice, and fosters inclusive communities
that are free from discrimination.
Primary Findings
The analyses of community engagement (Section II and Appendix A), demographics
(Section III), access to opportunity (Section IV), disproportionate housing needs (Section V),
and fair housing environment (Section VI) yield the following primary findings for the city of
Missoula.
Community engagement. This section summarizes challenges, ideas, and
outcomes gathered throughout the community engagement process from a wide variety of
residents and stakeholders. Primary findings include:
The lack of affordable housing is the most significant challenge currently facing the city
of Missoula. Residents and stakeholders identified several factors impacting affordable
housing development, including the lack of available land and infrastructure, high
development costs, community opposition, and lack of resources, among other
factors.
Populations in significant need of housing and other services include low-income
families/single mothers, Indigenous residents, older populations, residents with
disabilities, refugee populations, Veterans, LGBTQIA+ residents, and formerly
incarcerated residents.
Mental health services, chemical dependency services, and affordable childcare
options were identified as significant community needs. Housing navigation and
housing retention services were also described as considerable needs in the city.
Residents and stakeholders identified several housing types they wanted to see more
of in Missoula, including low-barrier supportive housing, transitional housing, and
innovative housing types, such as land trust and shared equity housing models. More
resources dedicated to interpretation and translation services, as well as more
education and training around tenants’ rights, fair housing, and reasonable
accommodations, were also highlighted as actions the City should pursue.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 2
Housing and Community Needs survey findings. The City of Missoula
administered a Housing and Community Needs survey from August 2023 to December
2023. Residents and stakeholders throughout the community were asked to identify
resident groups with the greatest housing challenges, the types of housing and housing
activities most needed in the city, the greatest unmet community development, economic
development, and public service needs, and how they wanted the City to prioritize its
federal resources. A brief summary of the high-level results is provided below. The
complete survey analysis can be found in Appendix A.
Low- and moderate-income families, persons/families who are currently unhoused,
persons with a mental illness, persons living with disabilities, persons experiencing
substance abuse/chemical addictions, and seniors/elderly residents were identified as
groups with the greatest housing challenges in Missoula.
According to residents and stakeholders, the five most critical housing outcomes for
Missoula to prioritize are more affordable rental housing for low- to moderate-income
residents, more homeownership opportunities for low- to moderate-income residents,
a better distribution of affordable housing, increased shelter capacity to support
residents who are currently unhoused, and more Section 8 or rental subsidies.
The five most critical community development outcomes identified by residents and
stakeholders included increased access to mental health care services, increased
access to addiction treatment services, additional and/or higher quality childcare
centers, street and sidewalk improvements, and more climate resilience-focused
planning and implementation efforts.
Nearly 4 in 10 resident respondents (38%) reported experiencing or knowing someone
who has experienced housing discrimination when looking for housing in Missoula
over the last five years.
Over a quarter of resident respondents (27%) reported being displaced from their
housing situation (e.g., moving out of a home/apartment when they did not want to
move) in Missoula over the last five years.
Demographic patterns. This section analyzed demographic patters associated with
residential settlement, housing availability and affordability, and access to opportunity.
Primary findings of this section are detailed below.
Missoula is predominantly made up of non-Hispanic White residents (86% of the city’s
population); however, over the last twenty years, the city has slowly become more
diverse.
The percentage of people living in poverty in Missoula (9.2%) has declined by nearly
50% since 2010. Poverty varies by race and ethnicity but is significantly high for
American Indian and Alaska Native residents (36%), as well as residents that identify as
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 3
two or more races (26%). Residents living with disabilities (28%) and single mothers
(22%) are also disproportionately more likely to live in poverty relative to the general
population.
American Indian and/or Alaska Native and Asian residents, as well as residents who
identify as two or more races, have lower median incomes compared to the general
population.
Residents of color are concentrated in Census tracts that overlap with the Westside,
Northside, and Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
Access to opportunity. Analysis in this section points to gaps in access to
opportunity in:
Education. Missoula students have higher levels of proficiency across race and
economic status than peer districts and the state of Montana; however, white students
have substantially higher proficiency rates than all other student groups by race and
income within Missoula schools. Moreover, Indigenous students tend to have lower
high school graduation rates in Missoula, and lower academic achievement levels than
non-Hispanic White students.
Employment outcomes. Education gaps directly translate into employment gaps.
Overall, Indigenous, Black, and Hispanic/Latino residents have the lowest levels of
labor market engagement, as well as the smallest proportions of those with a college
degree (40% for all three groups, respectively) in the city. While these proportions are
much higher compared to national rates, these groups still fall behind non-Hispanic
White Missoulians with a college degree (51%). However, unemployment rates for
these three groups are relatively low (all under 4.4%).
Broadband access. While 96% of households with income above $75,000 have an
internet subscription, only 75% of households earning below $20,000 have an internet
subscription. For low-income households, lack of internet access may limit their ability
to access community resources.
Access to transportation. In focus groups conducted to support this study,
residents and stakeholders expressed mixed reactions about the city’s transportation
system. While many lauded that the system is free for Missoula residents, several
residents and stakeholders articulated a need for stronger connections between bus
routes and amenities, better signage, and safer and more accessible bus stops.
Access to healthy food. Seven Census tracts in the city are identified as having
limited food access, which include the Westside, Northside, River Road, University, and
Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
Disproportionate housing needs. The data analysis in this section of the Equity
Plan finds the most severe disproportionate housing needs in:
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 4
Severe cost burden. African American and Indigenous households are much more
likely to be severely cost burdened than non-Hispanic White households. Based on this
measure, these households are approximately 1.5 to 2 times as likely to experience
eviction and houselessness due to inability to keep up with their rent or mortgage
payments.
Homeownership rates. Similarly, large gaps in homeownership exist for
Indigenous and African American households in Missoula; significant gaps exist for
Hispanic households, as well. Only 11% of Indigenous households and 16% of African
Americans own their homes compared to 48% of non-Hispanic White households.
With the exception of African American households in the county, homeownership
rates are higher for all three groups in both Missoula County and the state.
Displacement. Overall, 27% of Missoula households report moving in the last 5
years against their choice. By race and ethnicity, Indigenous respondents (57%) were
more than twice as likely to experience displacement than Missoula households
overall. Additionally, 50% of single-parent respondents reported recent displacement,
mainly due to rent increases, while low-income households (households making less
than $25,000) and student respondents were also more likely to report experiences
with displacement.
Access to mortgage loans. Of applicants for mortgage loans in 2022,
Hispanic/Latino and Asian applicants had the highest denial rates (14% each,
respectively). Most often, loan applications are denied due to credit worthiness,
particularly low credit scores or high debt-to-income ratios—suggesting that credit
building programs would be useful to help attain homeownership. While too few
observations were available for most applicants by race and ethnicity, Hispanic
applicants (7%) were almost twice as likely than non-Hispanic White applicants (4%) to
receive a high-priced loan.
Fair housing environment. This section of the Equity Plan assesses private and
public barriers to housing choice within the context of existing fair housing laws,
regulations, and guidance.
According to the housing and community needs survey conducted for this Equity Plan,
Indigenous headed households, students, lower-income households, and households
with a member living with a disability were the most likely to believe they had
experienced housing discrimination when looking for housing in the city in the past 5
years.
HUD reported 11 fair housing complaints in Missoula between 2019 and 2023. Most
complaints submitted to HUD during this period affected individuals with disabilities.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 5
The regulatory review of Missoula’s zoning ordinance did not find any major issues.
Best practices that are not as critical in nature but would be beneficial during the next
update of the code or in text amendments include:
➢ Include a definition of “disability” or “person with disabilities” that aligns with
Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) in the development code. In defining disability, it is important to
include the broad definition that has been interpreted by the courts to apply
to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which includes persons in recovery from
substance abuse challenges and persons with HIV/AIDS.
➢ Establish a standard process for reasonable accommodation requests in
land use, zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures.
➢ Implement residential unit classifications, zone districts, and site design
requirements for alternative housing types (e.g. tiny homes, cottage
housing, courtyard development, micro-homes, and cooperative housing).
➢ Include a statement in the purpose of the zoning ordinance that discusses
fair housing law or include a cross-reference that identifies the adopted
planning documents that discuss and contain policies related to fair
housing.
The City is proactively taking short-term and long-term actions through policy and
zoning updates, community engagement efforts, and fair housing education and
training opportunities to affirmatively further fair housing in the community.
Impediments and Fair Housing Actions
Impediments. The fair housing impediments found in this Equity Plan include:
Shortage of affordable, accessible housing units. The shortage in supply of
affordable, accessible housing units in the city disproportionately impacts low-income
households—primarily minorities—households with individuals living with a disability or
seniors, and single mother households, many of which are on fixed or limited incomes.
Discrimination in rental transactions. Disproportionate shares of Indigenous headed
households and households with at least one person living with a disability experience
housing discrimination based on the community survey conducted for this Equity Plan,
resident and stakeholder feedback, and fair housing complaint data provided by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Barriers to homeownership. As detailed in Section V of this report, large gaps in
homeownership exist for African American and Indigenous households in Missoula;
moderate gaps exist for Hispanic households. While too few observations are available for
loan denials by race/ethnicity, Census Tracts that overlap with the Franklin to the Fort and
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 6
River Road neighborhoods have higher rates of mortgage loan denials compared with the
city overall. These neighborhoods have greater proportions of residents of color.
Hispanic applicants are nearly twice as likely to receive high-priced loans compared with
non-Hispanic White applicants. From a policy perspective, Hispanic households in Missoula
may be most at risk for high-cost loans (predatory, credit cards) to help with needed home
improvements, and would benefit from publicly-assisted home improvement grants and
low cost loans.
Disparate access to opportunity. As detailed in Section IV of this report, access to low
poverty neighborhoods, quality schools, transportation challenges, adequate workplaces,
and health services compound upon each other to create disparate access to opportunity
among different resident groups, primarily Indigenous residents in Missoula. Resident and
stakeholder feedback also highlighted that Indigenous residents have significant housing
needs and lack of access to culturally-responsive services.
Lack of access to fair housing resources. As detailed in Section VI of this report, the
City could improve its Fair Housing webpage by providing more robust information on the
Federal Fair Housing Act, the Montana Human Rights Act, education and training
opportunities on fair housing and tenants’ rights, and local resources/organizations that
residents can utilize if they feel like they have experienced housing discrimination.
Residents and stakeholders also wanted to see more information, guidance, and training
opportunities available for City officials and landlords related to handling requests for
reasonable accommodations.
Lack of access to translation and interpretation services. Resident and
stakeholder feedback indicated a critical need for more translation and interpretation
services to assist limited English proficiency (LEP) and refugee populations access services
throughout the city.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 7
Actions. To address the fair housing impediments identified in this Equity Plan, the City
of Missoula has developed three fair housing subgoals that align with the goals developed
for its Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan goals, fair housing subgoals, and
current/planned actions to address the identified impediments are:
Housing Options. Increase and preserve affordable housing options for extremely low,
low, and moderate-income households emphasizing accessibility, affordable rentals for
low-income families with children, energy efficiency, and proximity to community amenities
and services.
Fair housing subgoal. Implement current policy/programmatic actions that aim to
improve housing choice and explore new strategies that expand access to opportunity for
Missoulians in protected class populations.
Current or ongoing actions:
The City of Missoula has been focusing its HUD funding for the past eight years on
increasing inventory of affordable and accessible homes. The City has added over 400
new affordable units in the last two years and focused its housing policy staff on
increasing affordable units and innovating new models.
The City is currently undergoing an update to its growth policy. The Our Missoula
growth policy update and code reform project aims to improve access to opportunity
across the community by updating City codes, including zoning, to remove code-
induced barriers to opportunity.
Planned or potential actions:
Implement updated land development code to increase the diversity of affordable
housing options throughout the city and improve access to opportunity in high-
resource areas, including areas with transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access.
Continue prioritizing investment in innovative housing models, such as community
land trusts and housing cooperatives, to increase access to affordable homeownership
opportunities.
Continue prioritizing investment in developments that prioritize proximity to transit,
services, and amenities.
Explore fair housing “testing programs” to reduce discrimination in rental transactions.
Explore policies that address disparities in access to homeownership opportunities.
Supporting Vulnerable Populations. Improve housing stability for individuals and
households with critical needs, particularly those experiencing or at-risk of houselessness,
by creating permanent supportive housing and providing emergency and transitional
housing services.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION I, PAGE 8
Fair housing subgoal. Increase educational opportunities and resources to improve
understanding of tenants’ rights, fair housing laws, and other housing resources in the
Missoula community.
Current or ongoing actions:
In 2022 and 2023, the City's housing policy staff hosted a series of listening sessions to
better understand displacement and rental discrimination. Building upon these
conversations, in 2024, the City is hosting a series of fair housing workshops targeted
to renters, landlords, and housing non-profits as a next step in that work with the goal
of increasing knowledge and resources about fair housing in the community.
Planned or potential actions:
The City will update its fair housing webpage to include information on the Federal Fair
Housing Act, the Montana Human Rights Act, education and training opportunities,
and local resources/organizations.
Community Services. Address critical community needs by funding gaps in services for
extremely low, low, and moderate-income individuals and households.
Fair housing subgoal. Increase access to services for limited English proficiency (LEP)
and refugee populations by providing translation and interpretation resources.
Current or ongoing actions:
In early 2024, the City signed on as a member of Montana Language Services,
expanding available translation tools to city staff and partners. These tools will be
implemented across city departments and incorporated into documents, court
proceedings, and other municipal functions.
Planned or potential actions:
The City will offer language-specific fair housing workshops in summer 2024 so that
people can engage with the curriculum in their primary languages.
II. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
SUMMARY
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 1
Section II.
Community Engagement Summary
This section reports the findings from the community engagement conducted to support
the City of Missoula’s Equity Plan. It explores residents’ housing choices and preferences,
challenges and experiences with displacement and housing discrimination, and access to
opportunity.
The Root team is grateful to the residents who shared their experiences and perspectives
with fair housing and access to opportunity by participating in the community engagement.
The community engagement process included:
A housing and community needs survey available for resident and stakeholders, in
paper format and online (an analysis of the survey results is available in Appendix A);
Resident focus groups conducted with community partners, including the Missoula
Housing Authority, Homeword, Poverello Center, YWCA, Mountain Home Montana,
Summit Independent Living, and Missoula Aging Services.
Stakeholder interviews with over 30 individuals representing government agencies,
affordable housing developers, social service organizations who provide support to
unhoused and low-income residents, health agencies and organizations, real estate,
economic development, residents living with disabilities and other populations
experiencing disproportionate housing challenges.
Primary Findings
The lack of affordable housing is the most significant challenge currently facing the city
of Missoula. Residents and stakeholders identified several factors impacting affordable
housing development, including the lack of available land and infrastructure, high
development costs, community opposition, and lack of resources, among other
factors.
Specific populations that are in significant need of housing and other services include
low-income families/single mothers, Indigenous residents, elderly residents, residents
with disabilities, refugee residents, Veterans, LGBTQIA+ residents, and formerly-
incarcerated residents.
Mental health services, chemical dependency services, and affordable childcare
options were identified as significant community needs. Housing navigation and
housing retention services were also cited as considerable needs.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 2
Residents and stakeholders identified several housing types they wanted to see more
of in Missoula, including low-barrier supportive housing, transitional housing, and
innovative housing types, such as land trust and shared equity housing models. More
resources dedicated to interpretation and translation services, as well as more
education and training around tenants’ rights, fair housing, and reasonable
accommodations, were also highlighted as actions the City should pursue.
Affordable Housing
Throughout the community engagement process, residents and stakeholders described
the lack of affordable housing in the city as the most significant issue in Missoula. As
detailed below, residents and stakeholders attributed the lack of affordable housing to
several issues and described the community impacts, as well. Generally, residents and
stakeholders identified low-income Missoulians as the community members most
impacted by the lack of affordable housing.
Lack of available land. Several stakeholders identified the lack of available land as a
barrier to building affordable housing in Missoula. One stakeholder articulated that there is
no land available for housing within city limits where you can build a home for under
$400,000. Another stakeholder described that not enough large tracts of land are available
to develop a significant number of units with one development.
Infrastructure and other development costs. Several stakeholders
articulated that the cost of building is extremely high, as well as infrastructure costs (e.g.,
sidewalks). A couple stakeholders noted that because infrastructure costs are so high, the
only product that they can build that can pencil are luxury homes. Another stakeholder
shared that in both the city and county, “we are great at building homes for the secondary
market and not for those who already live here and can’t afford the existing homes. We
can’t build enough affordable homes to keep up with this group.” A few other stakeholders
noted that the City’s isolated geography, as well as short building season due to the
weather, contribute to the high cost of development.
Several stakeholders described the need for improved and new infrastructure in the city,
particularly water and sewer infrastructure for new housing development. These
stakeholders wanted felt that significant federal investment in infrastructure is needed
because currently, “any effort we take to improve infrastructure is on the back of local
homeowners.” Stakeholders highlighted the need to modernize existing infrastructure,
too.
Residents and stakeholders also spoke about the lack of street and sidewalk infrastructure
around Missoula. One stakeholder shared that “a large part of city doesn’t have streetlights
or sidewalks. Families in these neighborhoods don’t feel safe walking around because they
feel like they’re putting themselves at risk.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 3
Some stakeholders expressed a desire to see the City assist developers with infrastructure
costs. They felt that if funding was made available to help defray the costs of infrastructure
provision, it should go to smaller, local developers and not to larger corporations.
Development review process. Participants also expressed a desire for more
transparency and partnership around getting housing developments approved by the city.
Some participants expressed frustration about “unexpected surprises” during the
development review process (e.g., not knowing they are on the hook for sidewalk
improvements at the beginning of the project). They described that not knowing what is
expected of them up front can add cost to a project (which not a lot of small developers
can absorb) and end up making the project financially infeasible. They also advocated for a
more streamlined process. One stakeholder felt that the process needed more
transparency and predictability, adding that “we should be able to go into these processes
educated about what is expected from us.” Another suggestion was less subjective design
requirements for housing developments. Stakeholders also felt that the process for lot line
adjustments and subdividing lots should be streamlined.
Another stakeholder shared that a recent state bill passed requires jurisdictions to limit the
time it takes for development review, zoning updates, etc. While they appreciated the
intent behind the bill, the stakeholder added, “where is the funding that is going to allow us
to meet these different goals?”
Community opposition. Several residents and stakeholders highlighted community
pushback on affordable housing development projects. One stakeholder articulated that
“[we] need to stop kowtowing to the [‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) residents]. They have
stopped affordable housing development, social services….[we need to] stop letting the
NIMBYs dictate our policies.” Residents spoke about community pushback on the
development of affordable housing throughout the city, particularly from residents of
higher-income neighborhoods.
External factors. Several stakeholders described several issues outside of the City’s
control impacting affordable housing development.
Several stakeholders described the state of Montana’ regulations around affordable
housing development as “pretty cumbersome.” One stakeholder emphasized the
importance of the City working collaboratively with local service providers and developers
to incent development of affordable housing, adding that “[Missoula] does not have a lot of
the tools that other communities have to produce affordable units (e.g. inclusionary
zoning).”
Another stakeholder articulated that in “…working with local developers, [we’ve found that]
a lot of them want to do affordable housing without taking federal subsidies. Several
developers have noted because costs are so high, federal subsidies are not enough “to
make a project pencil with affordable housing units included in it.” Additionally,
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 4
stakeholders also admitted that a lot of developers aren’t “set up” to take on the
administrative responsibilities that come with accepting federal resources, such as annual
monitoring and income verification. One stakeholder described that this would force
developers “to put a lot of time and effort in for not a lot of return.”
A handful of stakeholders mentioned that outside of federal funding, the state of
Montana’s tax structure “…doesn’t really offer any ways to fund [affordable housing].”
Several stakeholders highlighted the difficulty in finding gap financing for affordable
housing development.”
Other issues. Several residents and stakeholders articulated other issues they attribute
to the lack of affordable housing in the city. One stakeholder felt that historically, “[the
city’s] development and planning has largely occurred without intentionality behind it.”
Another stakeholder felt that Missoula “…is playing catch up on affordable housing. Until
they rein in development and do it more intentionally, it’s going to continue to fuel the fire
[of not having enough affordable housing available].” This stakeholder added that “growing
the tax base” can no longer be the impetus for development decisions in the city.
A handful of residents and stakeholders spoke about the local community perception
about the lack of affordable housing, primarily attributing it to “affluent outsiders” moving
into the city. These residents and stakeholders also described that many local residents
feel like Missoula is losing its culture and what makes it unique.
Economic impacts. Stakeholders described the lack of available affordable housing
in Missoula as having significant impacts on local businesses, industries, and the workforce.
Stakeholders emphasized that the lack of affordable housing is impacting the local
economy in two primary ways—businesses are struggling to recruit people to serve their
clientele because housing is unaffordable; simultaneously, existing workforce is leaving
Missoula because they can no longer afford to live in the city. One stakeholder described
that the lack of affordable housing is “the biggest constraint on the health of our
community…it’s impacting both the business community and our city’s social
infrastructure.”
Another stakeholder shared that their organization “would take more people tomorrow if
they could hire them. We are losing staff because of [the lack of] housing. In the last six
weeks, we have lost three staff members because their rent increased.”
Housing Needs
Rental housing
Several residents connected housing unaffordability to the lack of available rental units at a
variety of price points. Residents also noted that because there is a lack of inventory
available, landlords are less likely to take Section 8 housing choice vouchers. A handful of
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 5
stakeholders cited the city’s extremely low apartment vacancy rate (a couple stakeholders
cited it under 1%).
One resident said that “as a renter, it’s impossible to live here. I can’t live here, and my
friends keep getting pushed out.” Another resident said that “finding housing as a single
parent working full-time is an almost impossible job. I wish there was more subsidized
housing available.” Residents also wanted to see a better distribution of affordable housing
throughout the city. One resident noted that all of the housing “…is being pushed into the
Northside [neighborhood].”
Several residents emphasized an “imbalance” between what type of housing is needed in
the city and what type of housing the market is currently producing. One resident felt that
the “[housing] market is responding to housing needs with the wrong solutions.” Another
resident articulated that the private market is primarily building two-to-three-bedroom
homes for sale in the city, adding that “these are the only types of homes that have been
built in the past five years.” They added that, “existing residents are getting displaced just
trying to find a studio apartment.” A stakeholders added that “we’re building the wrong
things for people at different stages of life.”
Several stakeholders spoke about the households in need of affordable housing who make
too much money to qualify for subsidized housing but not enough money to be
competitive in the rental market. One stakeholder emphasized that the City has its hands
tied with who they can help with the funding they receive.
Homeownership
Several stakeholders noted that homeownership opportunities for populations making less
than 80% AMI are extremely scarce, with one stakeholder noting that “every organization is
struggling to meet the needs of these populations with homeownership.” Another
stakeholder noted that their organization traditionally worked with populations making
less than 80% AMI, but now they have expanded up to 120% AMI, adding that “we need
more flexibility in how we can use the funding we get.” Another resident shared that most
homes in Missoula are selling for $600,000 or more and felt that the only people who can
afford these prices are coming to Missoula from out of state.
Stakeholders advocated for the City to look at new models of homeownership and other
strategies to make homeownership more viable for lower income households. One
stakeholder lauded the City setting up its affordable housing trust fund and wanted to see
the City utilize these resources, paired with others, to fund innovative homeownership
opportunities. Another stakeholder advocated for the City to invest in more land trusts and
shared equity homeownership models, citing North Missoula CDC’s residential cooperative
as an example. The need for homeownership opportunities for the local workforce was
highlighted numerous times by residents and stakeholders. A couple of stakeholders
voiced their excitement about the Missoula Redevelopment Agency’s workforce housing
program.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 6
Downpayment assistance. Residents and stakeholders described one of the greatest
current challenges faced by populations looking to buy a home is the (lack of) stability in
interest rates. Stakeholders described the significant challenges that low-income families
face in the for-sale market, with one individual stating that these families “have almost no
chance competing with other households.” There was a sense among residents that more
downpayment/closing cost assistance would help these households be more competitive.
However, some stakeholders noted that current downpayment assistance, like HRC’s DPA
program, is not currently being utilized by anyone “because there is no stock available at
affordable price points.” Nonetheless, residents and stakeholders agreed these programs
are extremely important in helping low-income households become homeowners.
Homeowner rehab. Stakeholders stressed the importance of resources being made
available for homeowner rehabilitation. Stakeholders praised the City’s use of CDBG dollars
for rehabilitation, with one asking, “how can we expand that program or mimic it to help
homeowners who don’t qualify income-wise but need the money for repairs?” Stakeholders
agreed that the homeowner rehabilitation program is an effective way to keep people
housed who might be at-risk of losing their housing.
Other thoughts. Other ideas and thoughts related to homeownership included:
Stakeholders in the real estate industry spoke highly about the City’s Townhouse
Exemption Development (TED) tool and the process.
One stakeholder thought the City should create a registry of people interested in
selling their homes to first-time homebuyers, households with FHA loans, households
utilizing other subsidy homebuying programs, etc. They thought that if a seller does
sell their home to one of these eligible households, they could receive some type of
incentive from the City.
Another stakeholder wanted to see more mobile home park developments approved.
One stakeholder floated an idea about limiting the size of homes in subdivisions to
between 1,000-1,200 sq. ft. in order to get more homes on the ground. Stakeholders
also felt that there is a lot of demand for tiny homes but they are not currently allowed
by the City.
Housing cost burden
Many residents talked about the experience of being cost burdened and how housing
prices have been skyrocketing over the last few years. One resident spoke about the
pressures of inflation and cost of living, adding that there are “too many expenses to pay to
keep housing.”
Several residents shared that their only source of income is from SSI/SSDI. One resident
shared that they only receive $131 per month through SSI, adding “How can I afford
anything...I just want to feel secure.” Another resident added that they rely on the food
bank for groceries because all their money goes to housing. Several residents shared that
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 7
social security payments do not keep up with rising rental costs. One resident shared that
their rent increased from $550 to $800 per month for a subsidized one-bedroom unit, but
their social security payments have remained the same. They added, “how are people on
fixed incomes supposed to afford higher rents?”
Another resident, who works part-time, shared that they live in income-based housing and
one of their paychecks goes entirely to rent. They added that, “it’s hard enough as a two-
person household living in Missoula, but it’s really tough as one person, especially a single
parent. My landlord increased my rent, too.”
Related to homeownership, most residents felt discouraged about ever being in a position
to buy a home in Missoula. One resident shared that “no one can buy a house here, even
with a better paying job. There is no way I can afford to buy a home.” Another resident
shared that because of the cost of homes for sale, “I’m stuck in apartment living [for the
rest of my life].” Residents also noted that because of skyrocketing housing costs, lower-
income homeowners are at risk of displacement. Several residents noted that it’s really
difficult for seniors living on fixed income to pay their property taxes.
Many residents expressed a desire for more affordable housing options for low-income
households and individuals, particularly for seniors and residents living with disabilities.
Houselessness
Several residents spoke about the challenges faced by residents who are unhoused in
Missoula. One resident experiencing houselessness spoke to the vulnerability that
unhoused people face every day, adding that “people are living in poverty and fighting
against a system they know nothing about,” particularly people who have been houseless
their entire lives. One resident noted that it’s really difficulty to see unhoused Indigenous
elders living on the streets. Residents and stakeholders shared numerous ideas about how
to help the city’s unhoused population.
More housing options and resources. Residents and stakeholders expressed
the need for a variety of housing options to be made available for the city’s unhoused
residents. Many residents and stakeholders acknowledged that experiencing
houselessness is an incredibly personal experience and cannot be solved with “blanket
solutions.” One stakeholder felt that the main impediments to alleviating houselessness in
the community were “a lack of resources and a broken system.”
Residents and stakeholders described a spectrum of housing options that are needed for
unhoused residents, including temporary safe outdoor space (e.g., tiny homes as
temporary housing), low-barrier housing (e.g., pallet homes), and year-round shelter space.
One stakeholder wanted to see resources prioritized for year-round emergency shelter
paired together with wraparound services, adding that “we might not house everyone, but
we can make it brief and one-time for others.” A handful of stakeholders emphasized the
need for interventions for people at-risk of experiencing houselessness to ensure they
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 8
don’t become houseless. In general, the need for more resources to address the issue of
houselessness was the most significant challenge for stakeholders and service providers.
Several houseless residents wanted to see more “safe outdoor spaces” available in
Missoula, as well as more outdoor heaters to keep warm during the colder months. One
resident expressed their gratefulness for the warming shelters, adding they “just want a
safe and warm spot [to sleep].” Another resident expressed a desire to live somewhere that
“needed a key,” adding that they “just want to feel safe.” A handful of residents expressed
appreciation for the community they have at J Street Shelter and that they feel safe there.
More services and continued collaboration. Several stakeholders
emphasized a need for more housing navigation and housing retention services. One
stakeholder said that in some instances, “you can’t get someone housed, not follow-up with
support, and expect them to succeed.” Stakeholders described many of the current
services and resources going toward addressing the problem, including the crisis
intervention team, the homeless outreach team, and the mobile support team that
responds to calls alongside law enforcement, as well as the new Riverwalk Crisis Center
that opened in November 2023. While these efforts were greatly appreciated by residents
and stakeholders, they emphasized the need for ongoing investment in these services.
Additionally, stakeholders and residents highlighted the need for more substance use and
mental health services and interventions. Stakeholders also wanted to see more funding
available for innovative service delivery programs (e.g., one stakeholder talked about how
“Shelter Court,” which helps unhoused residents deal with warrants and other legal issues)
is paired with other services, such as employment and literacy assistance).
Several stakeholders also emphasized a need for continued coordination and
communication across service providers and sectors. One stakeholder felt that “the City
does a pretty good job of this already—we have lots of cross-sector meetings (e.g.,
community justice and housing, etc.) but it’s still hard to keep up with everything that’s
going on.” Another stakeholder felt the City could communicate more to the public about
what it’s doing to help unhoused residents and how it addresses the broader issue.
Stakeholders also spoke about how great the unhoused service providers are in the city
but that it’s important to continue looking at how to make system improvements. One
stakeholder wanted to see “a more robust approach to walking people through the
continuum of care all the way…where are the gaps in the system and how can we address
them?”
Public education and community sentiment. Several stakeholders
appreciated the work of the Poverello Center and felt that the City should continue
supporting the organization. One stakeholder shared that “’the Pov’ gets targeted unfairly
and framed as part of the houselessness problem from the broader community instead of
an organization that is helping people survive and be cared for.” This stakeholder felt the
City could help deflect some of this sentiment from the community and help emphasize
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 9
that addressing houselessness requires a community-wide effort and can’t be addressed
solely by the government or one organization.
Stakeholders and residents agreed that there are misconceptions and fear around the
unhoused population in the broader community. Some felt that there is a perception in the
community that the unhoused population is mainly made up of people “not from Missoula”
and therefore, not “deserving” of local resources. Some felt this perception perpetuated
the notion that unhoused residents are unworthy of assistance.
As such, several residents and stakeholders emphasized the need to help unhoused
residents with dignity. One unhoused resident emphasized a need for more public
education around being unhoused, specifically the diversity of reasons that can lead
someone into being unhoused, what it entails, and how difficult it can be to become
housed again. Another resident noted that “we’re not homeless, we’re people without a
home.”
When talking about encampment clearings, one stakeholder discussed the importance of
finding housing together for everyone in the camp. This stakeholder added that “these
residents have built community together and it’s important that they stay together…I would
like to see more housing options made available to be able to implement a ‘shelter-first
together model’ possible.”
Another stakeholder reflected that right now, the “city and county have progressive and
caring public officials that want to fix this issue. Sometimes we forget to give them credit
for what they have done and what they are doing.” This stakeholder felt that this was a
moment to leverage the opportunity to address the problem of houselessness in “a bold
and innovative manner.”
More public facilities. Several residents expressed a desire to have access to public
restrooms and showers. One resident shared “I just wish I could take a hot shower every
day.” Another resident felt that unhoused residents are disenfranchised because they are
not able to vote due to lack of a permanent address.
Current Housing Situation and Challenges
Residents were asked to share their current housing situations and the housing challenges
they’re facing. Several residents described unforeseen situations related to family issues,
job loss, health issues, etc. that led them to experience houselessness. One resident
shared that “a lot of people are one paycheck away from being homeless…we are
hardworking people.” One resident said that constantly being worried about whether they
will keep their housing is “…demoralizing—you work your entire life and I’m still barely
surviving. My pride is hurt, and it makes me question my self-worth.” Another resident
attributed their lack of housing to the inability to find employment, noting that “to keep a
job, you need housing stability…without housing, you can’t get a job. It’s a vicious cycle.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 10
Residents described a wide range of housing situations and how they came to live in their
current home. Residents had lived in Missoula for as short as three weeks and as long as
37 years. Below is a sample of what was heard:
One resident shared their family moved to Missoula and ended up paying around
$2,500 per month for their home, noting that “we didn’t have a lot of options.” A
combination of one adult leaving a better paying job and another adult leaving the
household resulted in one of the adults becoming the primary caregiver for their
children in a home they could no longer afford. This resident shared they had to “beg
and borrow” to pay the rent in their home before they could find a cheaper alternative.
Another resident shared that they were living with their mother and one-year-old and
after their mother passed away, they fell into houselessness. They noted that while
they are currently living in an apartment, they used to live in their car with their
teenage daughter at a local park.
One resident shared they are currently living in their car. They expressed a desire to
see more areas made available for “safe tent living and better security.” They added
they also wanted better maintenance of these areas to help keep them clean.
One resident shared that they were living in an apartment and were thrown out of
their house while going through a bad divorce. They shared they were homeless for
about a month before they were finally accepted into a shelter. They described being
the primary caregiver to their special needs children and not being able to find
employment. They noted that because they don’t have much credit built up or job
experience, “it’s been hard to afford the [rental] prices.”
One resident noted that after experiencing challenges trying to find housing, they
ended up getting their apartment at Tamarack because the previous tenant ended up
making too much income and was kicked out.
One resident shared that “when you have a job and have to take care of your children,
it makes it really difficult to find housing.” This resident lived in Missoula their entire
life and are currently unhoused for the first time, noting that they “don’t feel safe right
now emotionally.”
One resident shared that their sister just made enough to be over the income
threshold to be eligible for subsidized housing, “If she had help, she would still be alive
today.”
One unhoused resident shared that they are a current property owner and just filed
for disability. They shared they can’t get their house back because renters won’t leave
so they are going through the courts right now to get it resolved. This resident added
that “who would think a property owner could be homeless for almost a year?”
One resident expressed gratefulness for currently having a roof over their head in a
shared housing setting but shared that they always feel they hypervigilant of their
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 11
surroundings, which they shared was how they felt around their abuser. “I just feel
emotionally exhausted all the time.”
One participant noted that before kids, to rent a studio and afford the deposit and
first/last month rent, they had to split the unit among three people.
One resident shared they moved into an apartment and the landlord was not
responsive to maintenance requests. They shared that the landlord “…didn’t fix our
toilet, we had our door spraypainted and we were threatened by our neighbor – our
landlord didn’t do anything.”
One resident shared that if you’re low income, “you just have to take it. If you have a
criminal record, an eviction on your record, etc., you just have to take what you’re
given and settle. You have to put up with a bad landlord and they use the fact that
you’re low income to their advantage. They know they can do it, too.”
One resident described leaving a housing situation because they encountered a lot of
issues with the landlord and management, specifically raising the rent and giving them
a 30-day notice to leave. The resident ended up leaving and later found out after the
fact that there were resources available to help them stay in their place. “There should
be more education and marketing around these types of resources for residents.”
A resident described that they were offered resources by an organization to help pay
their rent and the landlord didn’t want to fill out the paperwork so the process got
stalled. They were 7 months pregnant at the time.
A male/female couple who had been living on the reservation (he is a member; she is
not) became homeless. They have a 4-year-old and are currently pregnant. They have
been in their current housing situation for 8 weeks and are grateful for the “solid
foundation” it offers.
A mother shared that her and her preschooler have been living in the shelter for 6
months. “I’m glad it exists. If we weren’t able to be here, we’d be living in our car.”
A woman with three kids has been in the shelter since July 2023. She has a criminal
record (felony for drug related crime) and cannot find a place to use the rapid
rehousing voucher she has. She moved back in with her abuser to have housing and
lost the voucher.
One resident shared that they lived in the complex owned by Western Montana
Mental Health Center, but it was sold and the new owner turned it into an Airbnb. No
relocation was offered to tenants who were displaced.
Another resident shared that their landlord just didn’t renew their lease because they
wanted them to move out. They noted that the landlord charged the next tenant a lot
more.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 12
One resident shared that they have a drug conviction and felony on their record. This
resident shared that they “had a voucher but couldn’t use it because of that. Can I get
on wait lists even though I have that record because the “look back” will expire at some
point? But what I am I supposed to do now?”
Another resident shared that “my landlord was trying to cheat the state out of rental
assistance and on the form they filled out to get housing, they said the rent was higher
than it was. I fixed it and we got evicted.”
One attendee lived in an apartment with faulty heat elements (apartment fires were
common, the fire department later reported) and her unit had smoke damage. The
property owner fined her $13,000! She was successful in court with the help of legal
aid.
Navigating trying to find housing. Several residents described a significant
need for more assistance in navigating how to apply for housing, what resources are
available for low-income individuals, etc. One resident shared that the process of trying to
apply for subsidized housing is too difficult to navigate for people “who are living through
traumatic experiences.” Another shared that “the process to find housing takes a really
long time.”
One resident described their experience applying for their current housing unit . They
acknowledged the privilege they hold and how time consuming the process was and how
persistent they had to be to navigate the process. They added for someone who doesn’t
have privilege, as well as time, persistence, etc., “it can be really discouraging [trying to find
and get housing].” Another resident shared that “many people get discouraged going
through the process [of applying for subsidized or income-restricted housing] and give up.”
A handful of residents noted that they’ve met with a housing specialist at the Missoula
Food Bank, which was described as “really helpful.” Several residents expressed a desire to
see a “centralized office or system” to get help with housing questions, assistance with
applications, paperwork and/or processes, information on housing resources for tenants
and landlords, etc. One resident expressed that “it’s nearly impossible to get people on the
phone to follow up with getting a place to live. Having a place to work through to help
streamline the process would be great.” Another resident felt that having a system like this
would be “an invaluable resource.”
Although many residents shared that they were unaware of existing housing support
resources that are currently available, some residents praised the City and organizations
for their existing network of support. One resident noted felt that “the housing assistance
network in Missoula is amazing. It is sync-ed up with the Missoula Housing Authority and
easier to get on multiple lists. There seems to be communication among city departments.
This was much easier than in Hamilton, where you had to physically go to many places to
get on their lists.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 13
Residents agreed it would be helpful to have more help looking for housing, as well as a
better understanding of what resources are available. One resident shared that “it’s
unrealistic for people in our situation to have money available for application fees, security
deposit, and first and last month’s resident…as well as making three times the amount of
rent.”
Residents described a variety of services they would like to see made available related to
helping unhoused residents find housing, including:
Housing advocates available at the J Street Shelter (e.g., “office hours”) to help clients
fill out housing and employment applications, as well as assistance dropping off
applications at physical locations.
A transparent, centralized and community-wide dashboard about what housing is
available in Missoula.
Services to help people get their identification (“ID”) cards. Several unhoused residents
shared that not having an ID is a major barrier to getting housing and finding
employment.
Several residents voiced a need for a list of resources/list of people to reach out to (or
if a list already exists, for it to be more widely promoted).
Voucher and subsidized housing concerns. Residents shared feedback and
challenges related to the Section 8 voucher program, as well as subsidized housing.
Several residents felt the income threshold to qualify for Section 8, as well as subsidized
housing, is too low. One resident noted that “there are people who are working full time
and [are] barely making it.” Compounding this issue is the lack of affordable housing.
Numerous residents described that because there is no affordable housing, the waitlists
for Affordable housing are incredibly long. One resident shared that they had applied to a
local apartment complex, but the waitlist is one-year long. Another resident noted that a
waitlist they were on for a unit with 3+ bedrooms was five years long.
Several participants wanted wages and rent to rise at the same rate. They also advocated
for the HUD voucher to be more aligned with the actual rental market – the voucher
currently doesn’t cover enough of the rent for people to actually use it. There is still a gap.
Residents also felt requirements to stay in subsidized housing were overly stringent. One
resident noted that your income gets checked every year to ensure that you still meet the
income requirements; however, as this resident shared, “if you get a new job and get paid a
little bit better, you might get kicked out.” Another resident felt there was an imbalance
with income-based housing, noting that “if I begin to make more money, I have to pay more
rent. How am I supposed to get ahead?”
Residents also noted a lot of staff turnover that made it difficult for employees to be well
versed with the Section 8 housing choice voucher program. Not knowing eligibility
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 14
requirements or other important regulations made it difficult for the voucher holder to
understand what was required of them. Several stakeholders in organizations that provide
housing and other social services emphasized that the lack of affordable housing (and
lower wages) is directly contributing to staff turnover.
Another resident noted that if you lose your voucher—even if it’s not your fault because no
one will rent to you—you can’t apply for another year. Several residents advocated for
vouchers not being released to people until there are enough units available to utilize the
voucher. One resident shared that it took their household two years to get a voucher,
however, “once we did [receive a voucher], it was during COVID and no apartments were
available. We had 60 days to find a place and couldn’t and the housing authority refused an
extension. So, we became homeless.” Stakeholders agreed that it is more challenging for
voucher holders to utilize the vouchers because the fair market rents that the voucher
amounts are based on are lagging a year and a half to two years behind actual market
conditions.
Several stakeholders voiced a desire to see HUD raise its payment standards so that the
voucher is able to cover the cost for a larger proportion of units.
Other challenges. Stakeholders and residents identified several other housing
challenges, which are summarized below.
Landlord issues. Several residents described their landlords as “intimidating,” which
made them less likely to report issues with their units. A couple of residents shared stories
about maintenance requests that were ignored or not fulfilled; a handful of residents
shared they were hesitant to tell landlords about maintenance issues for fear of being
labeled as a nuisance and subject to retribution by the landlord (e.g., getting kicked out).
Overall, stakeholders agreed that the City and other service organizations should build
stronger relationships with landlords and property managers to increase access to housing
for low-income residents.
Application issues and fees. Several residents cited complex application processes
and requirements, as well as expensive application fees as barriers to finding housing.
Residents shared that application fees are so expensive per application that it limits the
amount of housing that they are able to apply for. Other residents expressed being
overwhelmed by the amount of paperwork and articulated a need for help filling out
applications. One stakeholder encouraged the City to look at adopting a centralized system
that processes rental applications where one fee allows you to apply for as many units the
applicant wants within a specified timeframe (e.g., six to nine months).
Technology. Several residents spoke about their lack of access to technology (e.g.,
computers, phones) and how that impacts their ability to apply for housing. One resident
lauded the Missoula Food Bank for having a “one-stop-shop” of not only food access, but
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 15
access to other services. Residents appreciated this model and some felt it could be made
more robust.
Several residents wanted to see more housing applications available online. Many
described challenges related to filling it out and being able to track if it’s been accepted or
not, as well as the process/follow-up once it is submitted. Conversely, several other
residents appreciated the availability of paper rental applications due to their lack of access
to the internet.
Rental history and other requirements. Many residents spoke about the stringent
requirements specified by landlords while looking for housing, including making three
times the amount of rent per month and rental history requirements. One participant that
“many places don’t take applicants who have a gap in their rental history…[your time at
the] shelter does not count towards rental history, either.
Another participant described the challenges of applying to housing with no rental history
when they were 18. “How can I have a rental history if I’ve never rented a place before?” A
lot of residents around this age don’t have rental history. A lot of landlords won’t take a
letter of good will, either.”
Lack of identification. One major issue identified by unhoused residents as an
impediment to finding housing was not having identification. One resident noted that
because they don’t have a job, they are unable to get housing and ”…vice versa, because I
don’t have housing, I can’t get a job.” Another resident shared that their identity was stolen,
“which has hindered my ability to get housing.” Several types of identification needed by
unhoused residents were articulated, including birth certification copies, ID cards, drivers’
licenses, and social security numbers.
Other significant issues highlighted by residents and stakeholders as challenges in securing
housing were credit issues, debt, and criminal history.
Populations Experiencing Disproportionate Impacts
Residents and stakeholders identified several populations that disproportionately
experience housing and service challenges in Missoula. One stakeholder who works with
several of these populations highlighted housing, bathrooms, and case management as the
most crucial needs of these populations. They added that the State of Montana cut funding
for case management a few years ago.
Low-income families/single mothers. Stakeholders and residents identified a
significant need for more family-oriented housing, particularly for single mothers. Several
residents described the challenges of looking for and finding housing as a single parent, as
well as finding childcare and employment. One stakeholder who works in the school
system shared that a lot of single mothers are “doubled-up,” meaning they are jumping
from house to house living with friends and families. Several residents described staying in
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 16
abusive relationships because there were no other available housing options for them to
pursue.
Elderly residents. Stakeholders described that elderly residents are becoming a growing
proportion of the unhoused population in Missoula. Several stakeholders described the
lack of housing options available for this population to downsize in the city. As a result,
these populations are living in housing that is incompatible with their needs. Other
stakeholders emphasized that housing insecurity is high for this population and that older
populations are more vulnerable to declining health situations once unhoused.
Residents living with disabilities. Residents and stakeholders shared that residents
living with disabilities are in significant need of more affordable and accessible housing
options. One stakeholder noted that it’s difficult for residents who need 24-hour care and
assistance to find housing that is large enough to accommodate their needs and within their
price range. Stakeholders and residents also highlighted the significant need for mental
health services for this population.
Formerly incarcerated residents. Stakeholders described that housing options for
formerly incarcerated populations is incredibly limited. One stakeholder shared that “if no
one homes or hires [this population], they have a higher likelihood of reoffending.”
Refugee residents. Stakeholders shared that newly arriving families have significant
challenges qualifying for housing because they don’t have rental history, credit history, etc.
to obtain housing and there’s no mechanism to offer substantial equivalency for these
requirements. Stakeholders also described transportation, education, employment,
childcare, and health service challenges faced by newly-arrived residents. One stakeholder
noted that most organizations that receive federal funding are not equipped to provide
interpretation services for their clients in order for them to easily access services.
One stakeholder described their organization reaching out to landlords to advocate for
their clients to get housed; while landlords are generally in support of finding housing for
their clients, the stakeholder described it as “not sustainable or feasible for them with
costs, timing or capacity.”
In addition to resources for interpretation and translation services to assist these residents
access housing and other services, which was described as a significant need, one
stakeholder advocated to see a set aside of project-based housing vouchers for refugee
families and programs that help these populations leverage their skills into employment
opportunities.
Indigenous residents. Residents and stakeholders described that Indigenous residents
are disproportionately impacted by housing and service challenges. Stakeholders shared
that Indigenous residents account for a significant proportion of the unhoused population
while making a comparably smaller proportion of the city overall. One stakeholder shared
that “as a result of colonization, Indigenous populations have less access to health care, are
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 17
more likely to have substance abuse challenges, and are at a higher risk of human
trafficking.” This stakeholder added that many pregnant Indigenous women don’t want to
get treatment because they distrust the system. Stakeholders emphasized that these
residents don’t just need more access to housing and services, but it also has to be
culturally appropriate and responsive.
LGBTQIA+ residents. Residents and stakeholders described that members of the
LGBTQIA+ community are more likely to be discriminated against when looking for housing
in the city. A significant need for more mental health services was also identified as a need
for this population.
Veterans. Stakeholders highlighted a need for more affordable housing options and
mental health services for unhoused Veterans in Missoula. Several stakeholders that most
of the city’s veterans are renting in apartments because they don’t have any other choice.
One stakeholder shared that “most of our veterans would like to be away from people.
Smaller complexes with 4-8 units are ideal. A lot of our clients won’t go to the Pov because
there are a lot of people there, which can be triggering.” Stakeholders also wanted to see
more mental health support for veterans that aren’t eligible for VA assistance.
Housing Authority concerns
While residents described some frustration with the Missoula Housing Authority, the
greatest challenges attributed to housing authority-related issues were described as
“system issues.” One participant described the Housing Authority as a dysfunctional
bureaucracy that “should be dismantled and rebuilt,” emphasizing that they were
describing the system, not any particular staff.
One resident, who shared that they were seeking housing and EBT assistance, described
the challenges of applying for housing with the Missoula Housing Authority. They shared
that while they are well-educated, it was not a “straightforward process.” Related to
“systemic” frustrations, this resident heard that one of the developments was having
trouble filling units because “the income threshold is so narrow.”
Another resident shared that “once you are accepted, there is a crazy quick turnaround
time to get all of the necessary paperwork, fees, etc. in.” Several residents shared this
experience. One resident described that they were selected for a unit and had just three
days to decide if she was going to take the unit. She had to take out a loan just to pay all of
the upfront costs. They added that “it worked out – but if you don’t take a unit, you’re
moved to the bottom of the list.”
Residents expressed a desire for more consistent communication with Housing Authority
staff. One resident said that they “want better contact with MHA —all communications are
by mail and it’s hard to get physical mail when you are unhoused.” Another stakeholder
added that “it would be a lot easier if they had applications and other forms available to fill
out online…because if you miss one thing, [you are knocked down to the bottom of the
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 18
list].” Many residents expressed some frustration about not being able to connect with staff
in-person or over the phone.
Some residents shared they weren’t informed about what types of developments and units
they are eligible for and which they aren’t. Residents felt that the Housing Authority could
provide more clarity around which developments/units potential tenants are eligible to
apply for at the beginning of the application process.
Many residents noted that the Missoula Housing Authority has an incredibly long waitlist,
particularly for units with a greater number of bedrooms. While they appreciated the
efforts targeted at increasing housing stock, residents expressed frustration at how long it
takes to get off the waiting list.
Community Development, Economic Development and Public Services
Residents described several community development and economic development
outcomes, as well as neighborhood and community services, they wanted to see more of
or enhanced throughout the city of Missoula.
Transportation. Residents had mixed reactions to the city’s current transportation
system. One resident shared that the bus system in Missoula is “overall really good and has
pretty good coverage.” Other residents felt there wasn’t enough coverage throughout the
city, particularly on the city’s periphery. Several stakeholders and residents wanted to see
the development of affordable housing and the transportation system more closely
aligned. One stakeholder added that “it seems like a lot of these decisions [about where to
build affordable housing] are made first and transportation is brought in after the fact.
Several residents spoke about highly of Mountain Line and the paratransit system, with
many noting that it is their primary mode of transportation around the city. Others noted
that paratransit services are only available within a certain boundary and do not serve the
entire city, primarily areas closer to the city’s edges. Many people expressed a desire to see
paratransit service boundaries expanded.
Many residents wanted to see a stronger connection between transportation routes and
the location of basic life amenities (e.g., grocery stores, health clinics) and other multimodal
systems (e.g., bicycle and trail). Other residents wanted to see transportation routes
prioritize connections between affordable housing developments and locations with
several amenities. One resident wanted to see more centralized services available at
transportation hubs.
Generally, residents wanted to see more bus stops and better signage around the city. One
resident advocated for a bus stop on Broadway and Russell. Another resident wanted to
see better signage around four-way stops and roundabouts, noting that it can be unclear
when to stop. One resident recalled on a very small sign on a bus route near the mall that
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 19
said, “bus stop moved,” but did not articulate where it moved. Other transportation-related
needs articulated by residents included safer crossings and accessible and
covered/sheltered bus stops.
Residents also wanted to see transit frequency increased and available more regularly
during off-periods (between 7pm and 7am), specifically for people who work later or at
shift jobs. One resident shared that the buses started running on the weekends, “which is
great, but there are not enough drivers. The same drivers are working 7 days/week and I
worry about them and their safety.”
Numerous residents also highlighted the inequities that exist in transportation between
more affordable (e.g., Northside) and less affordable areas (e.g., Rattlesnake) of the city.
One resident noted that “the north side has a lot of new apartments going in but no truly
safe routes to schools. Having kids ride bikes over the bridge is unacceptable!” Another
resident highlighted the challenges for someone with a disability to bus to the hospital, get
off of the bus, and get into the hospital.
Food access. A handful of residents talked about how grocery stores are really
expensive right now. Residents lauded the Missoula Food Bank, not only for providing no-
barrier food access but for also serving as a hub for centralized services, including housing
assistance, health services, mental health services, and childcare.
One stakeholder shared that due to inflation, food costs have risen and prevent people
from paying their rent. This stakeholder said the number one reason people come to the
Food Bank is because of the cost of housing.
Increased access to social services. The majority of residents described a
significant need for increased access to and/or more social services. One resident felt that
“because Montana is a rural state, it makes it hard to get services.” A handful of residents
wanted to see the City and service providers strengthen connections between service
provision and people in need of these services. One resident articulated that “nobody here
seems to know how to access resources or know what is available.” Several residents
advocated for a “centralized system or list” of what types of services are available in the
city, as well as people that can help you navigate what services exist and understand what
resources are available. Another resident suggested having a “one-stop shop” for services
referral that case managers and clients could utilize.
While residents identified a need for more people with specialized skills and institutional
knowledge in the social service setting, they acknowledged that compensation and lack of
capacity were barriers impacting the level and effectiveness of service provision in
Missoula. One resident affirmed this reality, sharing that “there is too much turnover at
jobs; navigating programs and systems is hard. You need specialized people in these
positions and they need to be well compensated.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 20
Stakeholders wanted to see more effort around bringing services to people that need
them. One stakeholder felt that “we need to go to the places where these residents are
being safely housed, provide an incentive (e.g., free meal, childcare) and help them address
their needs.” Another stakeholder felt that “outreach is essential—these workers make the
connections, will take clients to places to get things done, do warm handoffs, etc.” While
stakeholders wanted to see more of these efforts occur, they acknowledged that this
model takes more resources and staff capacity.
Mental health services. One of the greatest needs identified throughout the
community engagement process was the need for more mental health services. Several
unhoused residents advocated for an on-site mental health provider at the J Street Shelter,
as well as more training for staff on how to interact and help people dealing with mental
health challenges. One stakeholder felt that “as a nation, we are underfunding mental health
services. We’re not even at an inappropriate level, we’re funding at a criminally negligent
level and we’re trying to come up with local solutions for a national problem.” This
stakeholder also shared that the State of Montana has dramatically cut funding for mental
health services, noting that since 2017, their funding for mental health home visitors had
been cut by 70%.
In addition to the need for more mental health services overall, stakeholder identified a
need for more culturally-appropriate mental health services, as well as mental health
support targeted at youth populations. Several stakeholders felt that the lack of affordable
housing is compounding the mental health and substance abuse crisis in the city.
Substance use/chemical dependency services. In tandem with mental
health services, stakeholders and residents identified a critical need for more services
targeted at substance use and chemical dependency. Overall, stakeholders felt that the City
has a lot of providers doing a lot of really good prevention work; however, as one
stakeholder put it, “systematically, we need to pour more resources into prevention.”
Stakeholders also wanted to see more addiction recovery centers and detox programs
available in the city for specific populations, such as women and Indigenous residents.
Stakeholders felt that carving out a specific space for these populations would be more
advantageous for their recoveries.
Basic life skills. Services/classes that residents and stakeholders wanted to see
included:
Life skills classes (e.g., budgeting, financial literacy). One mother shared that they
would benefit from a food and health class, adding “I have anxiety about buying
groceries—I don’t know what to get or how to cook it.”
Financial education classes to help improve credit scores.
Parenting classes available at all times of the day. One resident shared they would love
to attend parenting classes, but “trying to fit them into my schedule is really hard.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 21
Hobby or skills building classes for adults. One resident shared that “it’s difficult
making friends as an adult and it can be hard to socialize, especially when you have
children. Just having a place to come and hang out with friends (that is child friendly)
would be nice.”
A handful of residents discussed the community school model at Lowell School in the
Northside neighborhood. Described as a “service hub,” they noted that Partnership
Health Center provides wraparound services, including vaccinations, dental, and de-
stigmatized meals for children and families. One resident noted they also have a
Wednesday food market for families. Residents wanted to see this model replicated
and available throughout other areas in the city.
“Basic life assistance.” Several unhoused residents described a need for help once they
move into a new housing situation. A handful of residents highlighted “post-move-in”
assistance, such as getting used furniture, kitchenware, and other household items.
Additionally, a couple residents advocated for “life coaches” to help them get back into
a normal routine. Resources for clothes, food, laundry, and unforeseen issues (e.g.,
new car tires) were also identified as needs by residents.
Public facilities. Residents described a need for a variety of public facilities, including
improvements to streets, sidewalks, and other basic infrastructure.
Public hygiene facilities. Several residents expressed a desire to see more public
facilities, such as public showers and restrooms, made available for unhoused residents.
One resident shared that “further criminalizing people for being unhoused when we don’t
have public bathroom facilities is not right—we need to give them options. The City closed
the only authorized campsite.”
Accessible playgrounds and recreational opportunities. Residents advocated for
more accessible playgrounds, education, and Pre-K classes children living with disabilities.
Several residents and stakeholders applauded the Missoula Parks and Recreation
programs that are available for children but wanted to see more recreation opportunities
available for the general population.
Streets, sidewalks, lighting. Several residents and stakeholders described a significant
need for improved street and sidewalk infrastructure, as well as traffic calming measures
and better lighting. One resident noted that the Scott Street bridge over the railroad is
designated as a “Safe Routes to School” route, which they called “absurd.” Another resident
articulated a need for more lighting throughout the city, adding “it is so dark in many parts
of the city and around many apartment complexes. The exception is MHA complexes; they
are well lit.”
A couple residents reported that the area near Mountain Home Montana has no sidewalks.
One resident added that “near Mountain Home, there are no safe crossings. The
pedestrian bridge is closed on the Northside and now there is no safe way to get across the
street. The underpass is really sketchy, there is too much traffic, and not enough stop
signs. It’s really dangerous in this area.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 22
Residents also advocated for more “beautification” measures or cleanup efforts around the
city. Several residents wanted to see more garbage cans made available near
encampments and along the river.
Childcare
Residents expressed a significant need for more affordable childcare options, as well as a
better distribution of childcare options around the city.
Several single mothers spoke about how the lack of safe, affordable, and available
childcare options limits their ability to find employment. One resident shared that their
child is not potty trained yet and most daycares require children to be potty trained. They
added that “I’m on a bunch of waitlists, which means I can only work part-time when my ex
is watching my son. Otherwise, I’m watching them full-time.” Another mother shared that
without getting a reduced rate for childcare through the TANF program, “I wouldn’t be able
to afford childcare.”
Residents also expressed a desire to see childcare options that are open 24-hours or
beyond normal working hours. One resident noted that as a server, “you make all your
money during the night shifts. You barely make any money during the day.” They added
that they are forced to take day shifts because they can’t find childcare options during the
evening. Other residents noted that it is challenging to find childcare options for those that
work night shifts or swing shifts in other jobs.
Residents shared that if 24-hour childcare were available, many would pursue full-time
employment opportunities. Several residents shared that because of the lack of affordable
childcare options, they are unable to enter the workforce.
Several residents noted that there are grants available to help with the cost of childcare,
however, the grants are not able to cover childcare services after 6pm. Residents
expressed a significant need for more resources to help with the cost of childcare.
Other childcare issues highlighted by residents and stakeholders included more specialized
training for teachers to be better equipped to care for children with special needs. One
mother shared that “if you have special needs children, which many of us do, you can’t
work. There are no afterschool programs to take them outside of school. It’s pretty much a
full time “Mom job.”
A couple residents noted that Lowell Elementary receives a grant for “high quality and free”
childcare through the City’s Parks and Recreation department. This program is also being
piloted at Franklin Elementary. Residents who benefit from the program said more funding
like this should be available for families for childcare, characterizing it as a “gamechanger.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 23
Employment
Residents expressed a significant need for more employment opportunities and services to
aid residents advance their careers. A handful of residents felt that the impacts of the
housing crisis could be softened if “people had the opportunity to make more money.” A
couple residents felt that job placement services would increase their chances of finding
employment.
Residents who are currently unhoused described several challenges related to finding
employment, with one resident noting that landlords “want you to get a job to be housed
and employers want you to be housed to get a job.” Residents shared that there are
actually a lot of jobs that need to be filled, but the pay is so low. One resident said that they
looked at getting a job at Burger King, which pays between $10-17/hour, and ended up not
taking the job because “the math doesn’t work; it’s actually harder for me to survive if I do
work.” Another resident added that few, if any, lower paying jobs offer benefits or provide
health insurance, which makes it less enticing to take if the job is available. Additionally,
one resident said, “I can’t make $18/hour and afford rent.”
Residents overwhelmingly felt like housing and employment benefits aren’t on the same
page, with on resident adding that the two systems “work against each other.” A few
residents also spoke about the “benefits cliff,” calling it a real disincentive to work. One
resident noted that “the second you get a job, you lose your food stamps—or they go down
so low it’s not worth it (like $46/month). You start paying more for Medicaid. Then childcare
costs $600-700 a kid. If I’m paying $1,000 for rent, $1,400 for childcare, $200-300 for gas to
get to work—but working a job that pays $10/hour, it just doesn’t make sense to work. I’m
only making like $1,700 a month and those costs are more than that.” One resident
suggested having “sliding scale” benefits and housing options…”so you don’t lose
everything once you get a job.”
Another resident shared that the amount of work required to get and keep TANF is more
than just getting a normal job. “If I had childcare, I would go get a job.” Other residents
agreed, with one resident sharing that “TANF rules also make it impossible to find work.
You have to volunteer and meet with a counselor once a week. My car broke down and my
tags expired, and I didn’t have money to fix it…so I couldn’t get there. I lost my benefits.”
A couple of unhoused residents advocated to have a job fair held at the Johnson Street
Shelter to better connect unhoused residents to employment opportunities.
Solutions
Residents provided several solutions to address the identified housing, community, and
service challenges discussed above.
Housing types. Residents had several suggestions for different housing types they
wanted to see available in Missoula. Most residents felt that the majority of developers in
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 24
Missoula are building high-income products, not affordable housing options. Housing types
mentioned include:
Low-barrier, permanent supportive housing. Numerous residents and
stakeholders highlighted a critical need for more permanent supportive housing in
Missoula. One stakeholder shared that “we don’t really have true supportive housing
in our community, which is a significant need.”
Transitional housing. One of the most critical needs highlighted by residents and
stakeholders was the need for more transitional housing. Residents felt transitional
housing with a longer timeframe would better allow people the opportunity to heal,
find employment, find places to care for their children, etc. Several residents spoke
highly of the Mountain Home Montana model and wanted to see that type of housing
and wraparound services model more widely available throughout the city.
Innovative housing types. Stakeholders shared a desire to see more affordable,
diverse, and innovative housing types and neighborhood designs. One stakeholder
wanted to see more areas dedicated for land trusts, adding that “a non-traditional
approach is what it’s going to take [to ease the affordable housing crunch].”
Another stakeholder spoke about looking at different types of housing models that are
easier to construct, adding that the community should be looking at “modular or
volumetric modular…which is quicker than stick-build construction.”
Middle density housing. Several residents shared that they would like to see more
“middle density housing”, such as four or sixplexes. A couple residents noted that
middle density housing would feel “less institutional” compared to multi-family
apartments but would still allow for a “sense of community” among neighbors.
Accessible housing. The need for more accessible housing options was highlighted
consistently by residents and stakeholders, particularly for older populations and
residents living with a wide range of disabilities.
Small, efficient housing units. A handful of residents advocated for more small,
efficient housing units. Most residents wanted to see this housing type developed
close to public transportation and other amenities. One resident added that they
“want to be able to walk to the store from my place and be in a safe spot.”
Pet-friendly housing. A segment of residents described how challenging it is to find
housing units that accept pets.
Innovative housing models. Residents articulated a desire to see more
“innovative housing” models developed in the city. Several unhoused residents wanted
to see more tiny home communities, prefabricated pod homes, and pallet homes. In
addition to having their own personal safe space, residents also highlighted the
communal aspects of this type of development.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION II, PAGE 25
Residents and stakeholders also wanted to see more housing available for populations
experiencing disproportionate impacts (e.g., residents living with a disability, older
populations), populations that are harder to house (e.g., justice-involved residents), and the
local workforce.
Other solutions. Other solutions articulated by residents and stakeholders included:
Interpretation and translation services. Stakeholders wanted to see the City take a
more proactive role in providing interpretation and translation services for populations
who don’t speak English to access the services they need.
More collaboration with service organizations. One stakeholder shared that while
the City has built out its housing department, they felt that the City could do a better job of
bringing in organizations sooner to consult on issues. They felt that local organizations are
being brought in after decisions are made, which is feeling like a “top down” approach.
More housing funding. Residents expressed a significant need for more housing
investment at both the state and federal levels. One resident wanted to see more
investment into social/public housing, while others wanted to see more robust funding
mechanisms help capitalize the City’s affordable housing trust fund. Several residents
advocated for rent control measures to be implemented.
Zoning reform. Other residents advocated to see more liberalized zoning allowed
throughout the city. Several residents pointed to the fact that most of the affordable, multi-
family housing developments are concentrated in the Northside, Westside, and Franklin to
the Fort neighborhoods.
Reasonable accommodations. A handful of stakeholders and residents wanted to see
more robust training made available for city officials and landlords related to handling
requests for reasonable accommodations. One resident emphasized that there are a range
of disabilities that people have and those in position who field these requests need more
training to adequately address the request. This resident suggested holding these trainings
at organizations like Homeword.
Tenant rights/Fair housing resources. Several residents and stakeholders agreed
that more awareness, education, and knowledge of tenants’ housing rights was greatly
needed and felt the City should provide more fair housing resources and trainings to
landlords and residents.
III. DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 1
SECTION III.
Demographic Patterns
This section examines demographic patterns that are associated with residential
settlement, housing availability and affordability, and access to opportunity.
Primary Findings
Missoula is predominantly made up of non-Hispanic White residents (86% of the city’s
population); however, over the last twenty years, the city has slowly become more
diverse.
Unlike Missoula County and the state of Montana, the majority of households in
Missoula (56%) are “non-family” households—largely householders who live alone or
share the home with people they are not related to. This is primarily due to the
presence of the University of Montana.
The percentage of people living in poverty in Missoula (9.2%) has declined by nearly
50% since 2010. Poverty varies by race and ethnicity but is significantly high for
American Indian and/or Alaska Native residents (36%), as well as residents that identify
as two or more races (26%). Residents living with disabilities (28%) and single mothers
(22%) are also disproportionately more likely to live in poverty relative to the general
population.
American Indian and/or Alaska Native and Asian residents, as well as residents who
identify as two or more races, have lower median incomes compared to the general
population.
Residents of color are concentrated in Census tracts that overlap with the Westside,
Northside, and Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
Census tracts located in the central areas experience greater rates of poverty and
lower household median incomes. Generally, these areas also have a greater
proportion of residents who identify as Black, Indigenous, and/or People of Color
(BIPOC).
While Missoula’s Dissimilarity Index scores—a measure of the severity of
segregation—show low levels of segregation for all groups in Missoula, this is primarily
due to the city’s relatively low proportion of households of color.
Methodology
The majority of data provided in this section is sourced from the American Community
Survey—both one-year and five-year estimates. When available, one-year estimates are
used to provide the most current data available. One-year estimates are tabulated for
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 2
areas with a population of 65,000 or greater. For smaller geographic areas, such as Census
tracts, the most current five-year estimates are used. As such, estimates for variables will
vary (for example, 2022 1-year estimates for residents with a disability in Missoula is XX%;
2022 5-year estimates report XX% of residents in the city live with a disability).
Section Overview
At the writing of this report, the City of Missoula is undergoing a concurrent process to
update its Growth Policy, which aims to refresh the community’s vision of how it grows and
align its zoning and development code to implement that vision. As part of this effort, the
City conducted an Equity in Land Use Report, which evaluates the City’s land use policy and
zoning regulations and analyzes how well it currently supports “advancing housing
affordability and reducing barriers to historically disadvantaged populations from thriving
in the community.”1 As this Equity Plan covers many similar themes, content from the
Equity in Land Use Report will be integrated and noted throughout this section.
Historical Context
The location of present-day Missoula has been home to the Séliš and upper Qĺispé Nations
since time immemorial. These Nations held immense respect for the areas they inhabited,
as well as ”…a profound ethic of reciprocity between people and the land.”2 The arrival of
non-Indigenous newcomers, and the introduction of a fundamentally different economic
system centered around land ownership, resources extraction, and profit, completely
disrupted…the prevailing socio-economic way of life that the Séliš and Qĺispé nations had
known for thousands of years.”3
The area now known as the city of Missoula was historically abundant with natural
resources, particularly bull trout fish and bitterroot. Established in 1866, Missoula became
known “…as a lumber town and trading post bolstered by the arrival of the
transcontinental railroad…[which] provided the platform for industrial economic activity
and the extraction of resources in Séliš and Qĺispé territories.”4 The abundance of timber
in the Missoula valley and its surrounding areas aided the continued construction of the
transcontinental railroad westward and positioned Missoula as a regional trade center.
In the late 19th century, Missoula was chosen by the State legislature to be the site of the
state’s new university, which, as the university grew, “…brought economic and cultural
1 Our Missoula: Equity in Land Use Report, August 2023.
2 Our Missoula: Equity in Land Use Report, August 2023, page 13
3 Our Missoula: Equity in Land Use Report, August 2023, Executive Summary
4 Page 15
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 3
benefits to the city.”5 Missoula’s economy continued to be centered around timber into the
20th century, driven by the railroad expansion, increased national demand for lumber, and
improved agricultural methods and machinery.6 Similar to many cities throughout the
country after World War II, “Missoula experienced a post-war residential housing boom as
soldiers took advantage of the GI Bill. Enrollment at the University also increased as a
result of the educational benefits related to that legislation.”7 The logging industry
continued to be the city’s primary economic driver into the 1970s.
Factors contributing to segregation in Missoula.8 In the early and mid-20th century,
several policies and practices promoted racial and ethnic segregation of BIPOC9 residents
within neighborhoods, justified by many as a way to ensure neighborhood stability. While
substantial evidence of discriminatory real estate practices exists throughout the country,
as articulated in the City’s Equity in Land Use audit, “…there is limited documentation
available that these practices were widespread in Missoula; however, the lack of
documentation should not imply that they were not influential in shaping where BIPOC
households could live in Missoula and how rules and regulations changed over time.”10
Lending practices. Construction and homeownership loans backed by the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) enabled the post-war housing boom but did not benefit
all populations equally. The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created
residential security maps—also known as “redlining” maps because of the shading
used to designate undesirable neighborhoods—for cities across the country. While no
map exists that covers the city of Missoula, there is anecdotal evidence of
discriminatory lending practices occurring in the city.
Steering. Real estate steering is an illegal practice where a realtor or leasing agent
intentionally directs a buyer or renter toward—or away from— a specific area based
on protected class characteristics. Steering can be explicit, such as showing Hispanic
homebuyers homes only in areas that are predominantly Hispanic) and less explicit,
5
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501233012/http://www.historicmissoula.org/History/FromtheBeginning/SlowandSte
adyGrowth18931900/tabid/196/Default.aspx
6
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501232947/http://www.historicmissoula.org/History/FromtheBeginning/ANewCentu
ry18981920/tabid/197/Default.aspx
7
https://web.archive.org/web/20120501233002/http://www.historicmissoula.org/History/FromtheBeginning/GreatDepre
ssionThereafter19302005/tabid/199/Default.aspx
8 More information related to historical discriminatory real estate practices in Missoula can be found beginning on page
of the City’s Equity in Land Use Audit.
9 BIPOC is an acronym for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.
10 Page 19
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 4
such as misrepresenting the status of a unit’s availability. Similar anecdotal evidence
shows that steering by real estate agents did occur in Missoula.
Deed restrictions and restrictive covenants. Covenants and other deed
restrictions explicitly preventing racial and ethnic mixing within neighborhoods were
common practice in the mid-20th Century. The City’s Equity in Land Use Audit
documents evidence of covenants based on race, nationality, and minimum home
value.
Zoning. Adopted in 1932, Missoula’s first zoning code allowed multi-family dwellings
in nearly 85% of the city’s residentially-zoned land. Currently, exclusive single-dwelling
zone districts make up the majority of the residential land in the city. As articulated in
the City’s Equity in Land Use Audit, “[a]lthough single-dwelling zoning does not
explicitly exclude certain people, it influences the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic
makeup of neighborhoods.”
Growth and Diversity
Since 2010, the city of Missoula has experienced relatively strong growth. The city added
over 10,000 residents in the past twelve years—a 15% increase in population. Compared to
Montana’s other two largest cities, Missoula grew at the same rate as Billings and five times
the rate of Great Falls over the same time period. Missoula County and the state of
Montana also experienced considerable population growth since 2010, albeit at a slightly
lower rate compared to the city.
Figure III-1.
Population
Change, Various
Jurisdictions, 2010-
2022
Source:
2010 Census, 2022 ACS 1-year
estimates, Root Policy Research.
Familial status. The majority of households in the city of Missoula are non-family
households, primarily due to the presence of the University of Montana. Nearly one in five
households (19%) are married couples without children while nearly one in eight
households (13%) are married with children. Three percent of households in Missoula are
single mothers—the same proportion in both Missoula County and the state. Conversely,
the majority of households in Missoula County and the state of Montana are family
households (52% and 61%, respectively). One in four households (25%) in the county and
nearly one in three households (31%) in the state are comprised of married couples with
no children.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 5
Figure III-2.
Household Type by Jurisdiction, 2022
Source: 2022 ACS 1-year estimates, Root Policy Research.
Geographic concentrations. For the purposes of this section, a geographic
concentration of a demographic group is defined as a Census tract with 150 percent (or 1.5
times) of the city proportion of that group. For example, if 10 percent of residents in the
city overall are Asian but the Asian population of a specific Census tract is 15 percent, that
tract would be “concentrated.”
Disability. Figure III-3 shows that nearly 11,500 individuals in the city of Missoula live
with at least one disability—equivalent to 15% of the total population. This is slightly higher
than the state’s rate of people living with a disability (14.4%). Disabilities are most prevalent
among the city’s older populations, with nearly one in four residents between the ages of
65-74 years old and four out of every ten residents over the age of 75 living with a
disability. Figure III-3 also shows that Missoula’s population trends younger, suggesting
they have workforce to support economic growth.
Figure III-3.
Disability by Age Group,
Missoula, 2022
Source:
2022 ACS 1-year estimates, Root Policy
Research
Cognitive, ambulatory, and independent living disabilities are the most prevalent in
Missoula. Residents under the age of 18 are more likely to live with a cognitive difficulty
while older populations are more likely to live with an ambulatory difficulty.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 6
Figure III-4.
Disability by Type,
Missoula, 2022
Source:
2022 ACS 1-year estimates, Root Policy
Research
Figure III-5 shows the percentage of residents with a disability by Census tract in Missoula.
Census tracts with more than 18% of residents with a disability (2022 5-year ACS data
reports 12% of residents in Missoula live with a disability) are considered to be
concentrated.
The map suggests that, overall, residents with a disability are relatively evenly distributed
throughout Missoula; however, there is a concentration of residents living with a disability
in three Census tracts. Census Tracts 7 (Riverfront neighborhood) and 3 (Heart of Missoula
neighborhood) have the greatest proportions of residents living with a disability in the city
(21.6% and 20.6%, respectively). While Missoula’s eastern boundaries do overlap with
Census Tract 4, nearly all of the residents living with disabilities in this tract are located just
outside of city limits.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 7
Figure III-5.
Percent of Residents with at Least one Disability by Census Tract, Missoula,
2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the city proportion of residents with a disability (12.1%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research
Race and ethnicity. Figure III-6 shows the race and ethnicity of residents in the city.
Missoula has seen gradual increases in ethnic diversity as it has grown: As of 2022, the
proportion of non-Hispanic White residents decreased by four percentage points
compared to 2010. The largest single racial or ethnic group is residents of Hispanic descent
and residents identifying as two or more races, with both groups comprising 5% percent of
the city’s population. From 2010 to 2022, the Hispanic population increased by
approximately 1,200 individuals, doubling the size of this population in the city. For
residents who identify as two or more races, the population increased by approximately
2,850 individuals—a five-fold increase since 2010. Collectively, these two populations
groups accounted for 40% of the citywide population growth between 2010 and 2022.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 8
Overall, Missoula has very few African American/Black residents. In 2010, the African
American/Black population represented 0.5% of the city’s overall population; in 2022, these
residents accounted for 0.2% of the population—a decrease of approximately 50%. The
American Indian/Alaska Native population has remained relatively consistent over the
same time period.
Figure III-6.
Distribution of Race and Ethnicity, Missoula
Note: “NH” refers to non-Hispanic.
Source: 2010 Census, 2015 and 2022 ACS 1-year Estimates, Root Policy Research.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 9
Geographic concentration of people of color. Figure III-7 shows the percent
of non-White and Hispanic residents—collectively “people of color”—by Census tract.
Census tracts with more than 21% of non-White and Hispanic residents are considered a
concentration. Concentrations of people of color exist in two Census tracts in the city of
Missoula. These areas correspond with the Westside, Northside, and Franklin to the Fort
neighborhoods.
Figure III-7.
Percent People of Color by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of non-White and Hispanic residents (14%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
Figure III-8 shows the percent of Hispanic residents by Census tract in Missoula.
Concentrations occur when Census tracts are more than 6.75% Hispanic. Four Census
tracts in the city of Missoula — all north of S 6th Street W. — have concentrations of
Hispanic residents. The corresponding neighborhoods are the Lower Rattlesnake,
Westside, Northside, Riverfront, and River.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 10
Figure III-8.
Percent Residents of Hispanic Descent by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of Hispanic residents (4.5%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 11
Figure III-9 shows the percent of African American/Black residents by Census tract in
Missoula. As mentioned earlier, African American/Black residents make up a very small
proportion of residents in the city overall. Within the city boundaries, just one Census tract
has a concentration of African American/Black residents, which corresponds with the
Franklin to the Fort neighborhood. African American/Black residents account for 16% of the
population in this Census tract. According to 2022 5-year ACS data, 311 African
American/Black residents live in this Census tract, which accounts for 59% of all African
American/residents that live in Missoula.
Figure III-9.
Percent Black Residents by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of Black residents (1.05%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
Figure III-10 shows the percentage of Asian residents by Census tract in Missoula. Similar to
other non-White Hispanic populations, Asian residents make up a relatively small
proportion of city residents overall. Census tracts with 2.4% or more Asian residents are
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 12
considered a concentration. There are five Census tracts with a concentration of Asian
residents; the tract with the greatest concentration of Asian residents (5.9%) corresponds
with the Lower Rattlesnake neighborhood. Census Tract 9.01 has the next greatest
concentration of Asian residents (5.8% of the tract population); however, most of the tract’s
boundaries fall outside of the city’s boundaries. Other neighborhoods with concentrations
of Asian residents include Captain John Mullan, Riverfront, and Miller Creek.
Figure III-10.
Percent Asian Residents by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of Asian residents (1.6%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
Figure III-11 shows the percent of American Indian and/or Alaska Native (AIAN) residents by
Census tract in Missoula. Census tracts with more than 3% of AIAN residents are
considered concentrated. In Missoula, five Census tracts have concentrations of AIAN
residents. The Census tract with the greatest concentration of AIAN residents (8.2%)
correspond with the southern portion of Rose Park and Lewis & Clark neighborhoods.
Other concentrations of Native American residents are found in the Westside and
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 13
Northside (6.4%), the northern portion of Rose Park (5.8%), Franklin to the Fort (4.8%), and
Heart of Missoula (3.1%) neighborhoods. Collectively, these tracts represent 17,956 total
residents and 1,085 AIAN residents.
Figure III-11.
Percent American Indian and/or Alaska Native (AIAN) Residents by Census
Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of Native American residents (2%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
Figure III-12 shows the percentage of residents who identify as two or more races by
Census tract in Missoula. Census tracts with more than 7.05% of residents who identify as
two or more races are considered concentrated. There are seven such tracts in Missoula.
The Census tract with the greatest concentration of residents who identify as two or more
races (13%) corresponds with the Westside and Northside neighborhoods. Other areas
with concentrations of residents who identify as two or more races include Franklin to the
Fort (9.9%), Rose Park (9.1%), and Heart of Missoula (7.8%) neighborhoods.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 14
Figure III-12.
Percent of Residents who Identify as Two or More Races by Census Tract,
Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of residents who identify as two or more races (4.7%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 15
National origin and limited English proficiency (LEP). According to 2022
5-year ACS data, approximately 4% of the residents in Missoula—about 2,700—were born
outside the U.S. Of these, 52% are naturalized citizens. Most of the city’s foreign-born
residents were born in Asia (39%), followed by Europe (34%) and Latin America (13%). The
country of origin accounting for the most foreign-born residents in Missoula is Germany
(over 500 residents), followed by China (331) and the Philippines (289).
Figure III-13 shows the percent of foreign-born residents by Census tract. Concentrations
occur in Census tracts with more than 3.7% of foreign-born residents and are found in the
University District, as well as the Lewis & Clark, Riverfront, and Two Rivers neighborhoods.
Figure III-13.
Percent Foreign Born by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of foreign-born residents (3.7%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 16
As shown in Figure III-14, 5.5% of Missoula’s population over the age of five speaks a
language other than English at home. Overall, 1.4% of the population has limited English
proficiency—i.e., they speak English less than “very well” according to the Census LEP—with
Asian, Pacific Island, and other Indo-European languages the most common among LEP
populations in the city. Spanish speakers account for the city’s greatest proportion of
residents who speak a language other than English (5.5%), but a much smaller percentage
of the city’s LEP population (0.2%).
Figure III-14.
Percent of Residents by Language and Proficiency, 2022
Note: Population numbers refer to the population 5 years and over.
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates.
Figure III-15 shows the percentage of LEP residents by Census tract in Missoula.
Concentrations of residents with limited English proficiency (2.1% or more of a Census
Tract’s population) are dispersed throughout the city, primarily found in the Upper
Rattlesnake, Captain John Mullan, River Road, Southgate Triangle, and South 39th Street
neighborhoods.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 17
Figure III-15.
Percent Limited English Proficiency (LEP) by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of LEP residents (1.4%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
Income and Poverty
In Missoula, the median household income increased by nearly 50% between 2010 and
2022. All other comparison jurisdictions saw increases in median household income over
the same time period, with Billings and the state of Montana experiencing the greatest
increases (69% and 59% increase, respectively). Missoula has the lowest household median
income among comparison jurisdictions—likely due to the presence of the large college
student population.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 18
Figure III-16.
Median Household
Income, 2010 and 2022
Source:
2010 and 2022 ACS 1-year estimates.
In 2022, the proportion of Missoulians living below the poverty level was 9.2%, a decrease
of 7 percentage points from 2010. The state of Montana has the highest poverty rate
among all comparison jurisdictions, approximately 25% higher than the city rate. All other
comparison jurisdictions have seen significant decreases in poverty over the same time
period.
Figure III-17.
Poverty Rates and
Change, 2010 and 2022
Source:
2010 and 2022 ACS 1-year estimates.
Missoula 40,604$ $59,590 47%
Billings 45,941$ $77,711 69%
Missoula County 45,596$ $68,305 50%
State of Montana 42,666$ $67,631 59%
2010 2022
Percent
Change
Missoula 16.6%9.2%-7.4%
Billings 13.8%8.9%-4.9%
Missoula County 14.2%7.9%-6.3%
State of Montana 14.6%12.1%-2.5%
2010 2022
Percent
Change
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 19
Figure III-18 shows the percentage of residents living in poverty by Census tract in
Missoula. Census tracts with more than 21.9% of residents living in poverty are considered
tracts with concentrated poverty. Poverty is mostly concentrated in the city’s centrally
located neighborhoods, specifically the Heart of Missoula (35.4%), the University District
(covering Census Tracts 5.01 and 5.02 (30.1% and 25.5%, respectively)), and the Westside
and Northside neighborhoods.
Figure III-18.
Individual Poverty Rate by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the citywide proportion of individual residents living in poverty (14.6%)
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
Census Tracts with median household incomes greater than the citywide median are
primarily located on the peripheral boundaries of the city, indicated in dark green (Figure
III-19). Census Tract 3 ($31,250), Census Tract 5.01 ($36,563), Census Tract 5.02 ($45,967),
Census Tract 2.04 ($43,200), and Census Tract 7 ($43,548) have the lowest median
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 20
household income in Missoula. These Census Tracts correspond with the following
neighborhoods: Heart of Missoula, University District, Northside/Westside, and Riverfront.
Figure III-19.
Median Household Income by Census Tract, 2022
Note: Median Household Income for the city of Missoula is $59,783.
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates.
Figure III-20 shows the poverty rates and median household income by race and ethnicity
for the city. American Indian and/or Alaska Native and Asian residents, as well as residents
who identify as two or more races, have lower median income than the city overall.
Excluding Asian residents, American Indian and/or Alaskan Native residents and those who
identify as two or more races also experience disproportionate levels of poverty relative to
the city as a whole.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 21
Figure III-20.
Poverty and Median Income by
Race/Ethnicity, Missoula, 2022
Source:
2022 ACS 5-year estimates.
Figure III-21 below shows the poverty rate for additional demographic groups.
Demographic groups with a poverty rate that is higher than the individual poverty rate
(15%) are highlighted in red. Residents who identify as American Indian and/or Alaska
Native (AIAN), residents with a disability, residents that identify as two or more races, and
single mothers have the highest rates of poverty in Missoula. Married households, married
households with children, and Black/African American households have the lowest rates of
poverty.
Figure III-21.
Poverty Rate by Familial
Status, Disability Status,
and Race/Ethnicity,
Missoula, 2022
Source:
2022 ACS 5-year estimates, Root Policy
Research
In every community, there are residents who, for a variety of reasons (debilitating diseases,
and elderly residents living with people who are elderly with ailments) cannot generate
household income through employment, are not capable of being gainfully employed.
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White 13.6%$60,998
Black or African American 3.2%$67,583
American Indian and/or Alaska Native 36%$50,526
Asian 4.7%$52,969
Hispanic 13%$63,894
Two or more races 26.2%$53,218
Poverty
Rate
Median
Income
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 22
These residents generally require long-term public assistance. Income assistance—in the
form of Old Age Pension (OAP), Aid to Needy Disabled (AND), Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits,
Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, and a “preference” for existing public housing and
Section 8 vouchers—are the most realistic strategies for maintaining household income
and limiting the effects of extreme poverty in these situations.
Additionally, different circumstances leading to poverty demand different approaches.
Situational poverty, usually due to job loss, significant illness, or other life-changing events,
can usually be addressed through temporary safety nets (e.g., rent or mortgage assistance,
shelter, childcare subsidies) and access to programs to help a household regain self-
sufficiency.
Generational poverty, usually defined as poverty lasting two generations or longer, is more
difficult to address. Families experiencing generational poverty require broader and long-
term, sustainable supportive services.
Economic segregation. As shown in both Figures III-18 and III-19, Census tracts
located in the central areas experience greater rates of poverty and lower household
median incomes compared to tracts located in areas along the city’s boundaries. The City
of Missoula’s Equity in Land Use audit found that “neighborhoods in Missoula are clearly
segregated by income (Figure III-22).”11 The report describes that neighborhoods zoned
primarily for single-family dwellings are mainly higher income neighborhoods, which are
estimated to only be affordable to 10-15% of households in the city.
Moreover, the greatest proportion of households with income less than $50,000 are found
in Census tracts located in the central areas of Missoula, specifically the Heart of Missoula
(74.8% of households in this tract make less than $50,000), Northside/Westside (58.8%),
University District (55.6%), and River Road (55.6%) neighborhoods. The report goes on to
articulate that “[s]ome neighborhoods may have a disproportionate share of either affluent
or poorer residents compared to the city as a whole. Due to the effects of institutionalized
racism, segregation by class or income is often highly correlated with segregation by race
or ethnicity.”
11 Our Missoula: Equity in Land Use Report, August 2, 2023, page 39.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 23
Figure III-22.
Median Household Income, Missoula, 2020
Source: Our Missoula: Equity in Land Use Report, August 2023, page 41
Racial and ethnic segregation. This section examines racial and ethnic
segregation in Missoula. Typically, a variety of indices are used to quantify segregation and
isolation of different racial and ethnic groups. However, due to the city’s largely non-
Hispanic white population, these indices do not offer a completely accurate picture of the
occurrence of racial and ethnic segregation in the city.
One of the most common measures of segregation used in fair housing studies is the
dissimilarity index (DI), which measures the degree to which two distinct groups are evenly
distributed across a geographic area, usually a county. DI values range from 0 to 100—
where 0 is perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation. The DI represents the
percentage of a group’s population that would have to move for each area in the county to
have the same percentage of that group as the city overall.
A “score” between 0 and 39 indicates low segregation, values between 40 and 54 indicate
moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 indicate high levels of segregation.
As shown in Figure III-23, according to HUD’s AFFH data and mapping tool, the city of
Missoula has had low levels of segregation among all comparison groups over the last
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION III, PAGE 24
twenty years. However, these low DI scores can mostly be attributed to the relatively small
proportion of residents of color in the city compared to their non-Hispanic White
counterparts. For example, even if a dramatic redistribution of the location of residents of
color occurred throughout the city, due to the relatively low proportion of residents of
color overall, this would not significantly alter the city’s current DI “score.”
Figure III-23.
Dissimilarity Index,
2000, 2010, and
2020,
Source:
HUD AFFH-T and Root Policy
Research.
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). HUD
has developed a framework to examine economic opportunity at the neighborhood level,
with a focus on racial and ethnic minorities. That focus is related to the history racial and
ethnic segregation, which, as discussed in the beginning of this section, often limited
economic opportunity.
“Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty,” also known as R/ECAPs, are
neighborhoods in which there are both racial concentrations and high poverty rates.
HUD’s definition of an R/ECAP is:
A Census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-
minority), or for non-urban areas (those outside of “core based statistical areas”), 20
percent, and
A Census tract where the poverty rate is at least either 40 percent or three times the
average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever is lower.
Due to the city’s large non-Hispanic White population, there are no “majority-minority”
Census tracts in Missoula and as a result, there are no Census Tracts designated as
R/ECAPs in the city. However, as described throughout this section, many households of
color are primarily concentrated in Census tracts located in the central area of the city,
which have higher poverty rates and lower median household incomes relative to Missoula
overall.
Comparison Groups
Non-White/White 16 13 17
Black/White 13 11 23
Hispanic/White 12 10 16
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 18 19 23
2000 2010 2020
IV. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 1
SECTION IV.
Access to Opportunity
This section examines Access to Opportunity in education, employment, and
transportation—the opportunity areas identified by stakeholders and residents as being
the most challenging in the city of Missoula. The analysis focuses on disparities in access to
opportunity for persons living in poverty and protected classes. This section draws from
data and maps provided by HUD, independent research conducted to support the Equity
Plan, and findings from the community engagement process.
Primary Findings
Analysis in this section points to gaps in access to opportunity in:
Education. Missoula students have higher levels of proficiency across race and
economic status than peer districts and the state of Montana; however, white students
have substantially higher proficiency rates than all other student groups by race and
income within Missoula schools. Moreover, Indigenous students tend to have lower
high school graduation rates in Missoula, and lower academic achievement levels than
non-Hispanic White students.
Employment outcomes. Education gaps directly translate into employment
gaps. Overall, Indigenous, Black, and Hispanic/Latino residents have the lowest levels
of labor market engagement, as well as the smallest proportions of those with a
college degree (40% for all three groups, respectively) in the city. While these
proportions are much higher compared to national rates, these groups still fall behind
non-Hispanic White Missoulians with a college degree (51%). However, unemployment
rates for these three groups are relatively low (all under 4.4%).
Broadband access. While 96% of households with income above $75,000 have
an internet subscription, only 75% of households earning below $20,000 have an
internet subscription. For low-income households, lack of internet access may limit
their ability to access community resources.
Access to transportation. In focus groups conducted to support this study,
residents and stakeholders expressed mixed reactions about the city’s transportation
system. While many lauded that the system is free for Missoula residents, several
residents and stakeholders articulated a need for stronger connections between bus
routes and amenities, better signage, and safer and more accessible bus stops.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 2
Access to healthy food. Seven Census tracts in the city are identified as having
limited food access, which include the Westside, Northside, River Road, University, and
Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
Opportunity Indicators
To facilitate the Assess to Opportunity analysis, HUD provides “opportunity indices” that
allow comparison of data indicators by race and ethnicity, for households below and above
the poverty line, among jurisdictions, and across regions.
Three geographic areas were analyzed for this section, including:
Missoula CDBG (the same boundaries as the city of Missoula);
Missoula region (the same boundaries as Missoula County); and
The state of Montana.
The HUD approach—specifically the following six indices in the tables—were the starting
point for this Access to Opportunity analysis.
The indices include the:
Low poverty index. This index measures neighborhood exposure to poverty, with
proximity to low poverty areas considered to be an advantage. Higher index scores
suggest better access to economically strong (i.e. low poverty) neighborhoods.
School proficiency index. This index measures neighborhood access to
elementary schools with high levels of academic proficiency within 1.5 miles.
Proficiency is measured by 4th grade scores on state-administered math and science
tests. HUD uses elementary school scores only for this index because they are typically
more reflective of school quality and access at the neighborhood level. Middle and
high schools draw from larger boundaries and, especially in high school, have more
transportation options.
Labor market engagement index. This index measures the employability of
neighborhood residents based on unemployment, labor force participation, and
educational attainment. Higher index scores suggest residents are more engaged in
the labor market.
Jobs proximity index. The jobs proximity index indicates how close residents live to
major employment centers. The higher the index, the greater the access to nearby
employment centers for residents in the area.
To interpret these indices, use the following rule: a higher number is always a
better outcome. The indices should be thought of as an “opportunity score”, rather than a
percentage.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 3
Transit index. The transit index measures use of public transit by low-income
families that rent. The higher the index, the more likely that residents in the area are
frequent users of public transportation.
Low-cost transportation index. This index measures the cost of transportation,
based on estimates of the transportation costs for low-income families that rent.
Higher index values suggest more affordable transportation.
Low poverty index. Figures IV-1 presents the values of the low poverty index for each
jurisdiction’s total population by race and ethnicity. As shown, access to low poverty
neighborhoods varies by race and ethnicity in all communities. The disparity in access to
low poverty neighborhoods is most profound for Indigenous communities in Missoula and
statewide with Asian communities having better access to low poverty neighborhoods.
Figure IV-1.
Low Poverty Index, Total Population
Note: Higher numbers indicate greater access to low poverty neighborhoods.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Low Poverty Index.
Figure IV-2 shows the low poverty index for residents with incomes below the poverty level.
In the city of Missoula and Missoula County, Black households have the least access to
lower poverty neighborhoods while Hispanic/Latino households have the most access to
these same neighborhoods. Statewide, Asian households living below the poverty line have
greater access to lower poverty neighborhoods, while Indigenous households have the
least access.
51
57
52
49
53 52
47
53
47
57 60
54
42
48
2420
30
40
50
60
70
80
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic / Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 4
Figure IV-2.
Low Poverty Index, Population Below the Poverty Line.
Note: Higher numbers indicate greater access to low poverty neighborhoods.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Low Poverty Index.
Census tracts with lower median household income relative to the city’s median household
income are generally located in the central areas of the city (Figure IV-3). Census Tract 3
($31,250), Census Tract 5.01 ($36,563), Census Tract 5.02 ($45,967), Census Tract 2.04
($43,200), and Census Tract 7 ($43,548) have the lowest median household income in
Missoula, which correspond with the Heart of Missoula, University District,
Northside/Westside, and Riverfront neighborhoods. In addition to the Franklin to the Fort
neighborhood, these areas generally have higher proportions of residents of color
compared with other neighborhoods in Missoula.
47
51
46444446
62
58
41
58
53 54
49 50
2120
30
40
50
60
70
80
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic / Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 5
Figure IV-3.
Median Household Income by Census Tract, City of Missoula, 2022.
Note: Median household income is $59,783.
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates and Root Policy Research.
These neighborhoods also have a significant number of renters. The Census tracts that
overlap with the Heart of Missoula (95% of the population are renters), Riverfront (78%),
University District (76%), and Northside/Westside neighborhoods (75%) have the greatest
proportion of renters in the city.
Several stakeholders articulated a significant need for more street and sidewalk
improvements in these areas, particularly the Northside and Westside neighborhoods.
Specific issues included the lack of safe crossings and sidewalks. Stakeholders wanted to
see a better distribution of affordable housing throughout Missoula, with many noting that
affordable housing is concentrated in the Westside, Northside, and Franklin to the Fort
neighborhoods. Additionally, a need for more amenities and stores in these areas was
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 6
cited by multiple stakeholders and residents throughout the community engagement
process.
Access to Quality Education
Publicly supported education and training are key building blocks for a well-functioning
economy. Research published by the Education Law Center shows that education not only
results in billions of dollars of social and economic benefits but an educated population
leads to gainful employment, stable families, and productive residents who are less likely to
commit crimes, place a high demand on the public health care system, and enroll in
welfare assistance programs.1 Public schools have also played an important part in closing
the gap between wealthy and poor students on academic outcomes typically defined by
standardized tests, which helps reduce income inequality.2 Additionally, well-resourced and
highly performing neighborhood schools are integral to community development and can
provide a catalyst for improved neighborhood environments.3
The HUD school proficiency index is based on state math and reading tests administered to
4th graders. Neighborhoods are “scored” based on proficiency ratings of up to three
elementary schools with a 1.5-mile boundary; aggregate scores determine the city or
region’s overall score. This index is used as a starting point for examining access to
education.
School proficiency index. Figure IV-4a presents the values of the school proficiency
index for each jurisdiction by race and ethnicity. In the city, disparities in access to school
proficiency are minimal among racial and ethnic groups. In Missoula County, Asian and
Black households have the greatest access to school proficiency while Indigenous
households have the least access to proficient schools, which aligns with the low poverty
neighborhood index for total population. This disparity in the school proficiency index is
much more significant at the statewide level than in either the county or city.
1 Dana Mitra, ‘Pennsylvania’s Best Investment: The Social and Economic Benefits of Public Education,’ Education Law
Center (June 2008), https://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf.
2 Alexander, K., Public Education and the Public Good. 1997, Social Forces. 76(1): p. 1-30.
3 Moore, Sandra M. and Susan K. Glassman. ‘The Neighborhood and Its School in Community Revitalization: Tools for
Developers of Mixed-Income Housing Communities’. Housing and Urban Development. 2007.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 7
Figure IV-4a.
School Proficiency Index, Total Population.
Note: Higher scores indicate greater likelihood of access to proficient schools.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, School Proficiency Index.
For lower income households in Missoula city, Hispanic/Latino and Asian families have
greater access to proficient schools with minimal difference in access between other racial
and ethnic groups (Figure IV-4b). Statewide, Indigenous students have dramatically less
access to proficient schools.
67
57
53
66
62
49
66
58
47
69
62
57
66
53
22
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic / Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 8
Figure IV-4b.
School Proficiency Index, Population Below the Poverty Line.
Note: Higher scores indicate greater likelihood of access to proficient schools.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, School Proficiency Index.
The HUD-provided index does not fully measure school quality because it is a point-in-time
measurement solely based on standardized test scores. It does not consider student
growth and prior knowledge base. As such, this section also incorporates recent research
on school quality and the drivers of educational inequities.
Disparities in access to K-12 schools. Missoula County Public Schools comprises
nine elementary schools, two middle schools and three high schools within the city of
Missoula. Figure IV-5 shows total enrollment and distribution by race and ethnicity, income,
and housing status for the 14 schools in Missoula County Public schools within Missoula
city. The schools with the largest share of Hispanic/Latino and Indigenous students are
Hawthorne, Lowell and Paxson elementary schools, Meadow Hill Middle and Big Sky High
School. Schools with the highest number of economically disadvantaged students (defined
by free and reduced lunch eligibility) are Franklin, Howell, Lowell and Russell elementary
schools—all accounting for more than 20% of their respective student populations.
Meadow Hill Middle School and Big Sky High School have the highest percentage of
economically disadvantaged students of the upper schools. Franklin and Hawthorne
elementary schools also have the highest percentage of unhoused students.
Children eligible for free and reduced lunch (FRL) are an economic indicator of risk that is
used by educational departments to identify at-risk youth and target educational reform
65
59
52
69 69
50
77
70
44
74
65
56
66
62
24
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic / Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 9
programs as academic achievement gaps are often greatest between students from
different income brackets. Similar to the federal poverty threshold, the FRL threshold is
fixed and does not vary by state or jurisdiction. Currently, children are eligible to receive
free lunches if their families earn less than 130% of the federal poverty threshold, and
reduced lunch prices if earning between 130 and 185% of the poverty threshold.4 This
translates into income levels of roughly $39,000 or less for free lunch eligibility, and
$39,000 to $54,000 for reduced lunch eligibility, both for a family of four.5
Significant barriers to closing the academic gaps between students by race and income are
school composition (high versus low poverty, racially segregated), which is a reflection of
neighborhood composition and school financing. Schools with high concentrations of
economically disadvantaged students and/or with high concentrations of one racial group
impact students negatively across student groups.6 High poverty schools typically have
fewer resources to spread across greater student needs and therefore struggle to progress
students to proficiency. Symptoms of resource-challenged schools include significant
achievement gaps between groups by race and income, high student-to-teacher ratios, and
high student-to-counselor ratios, which have been shown to impact chronic absenteeism—
often a result of housing and home instability.7
4 govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-20/pdf/2019-05183.pdf
5 Paul Tough, in his book “How Children Succeed,” argues that FRL is a weak measure of children in need because of the
wide eligibility income range, an argument that could be applied to many definitions of low income and socioeconomic
status. Children living in families earning $10,000, for example, likely have much greater needs and potentially higher
risks of academic failure than those living in households at the higher end of the threshold ($44,000). These higher risk
factors, according to Tough, include no adult in the household who is consistently employed, mental health, substance
abuse in the household, and potential child abuse and neglect.
Tough further argues that children living in high poverty households also have psychological challenges, many related
to poor parenting, that make the learning environment very challenging. The experience of stress and trauma as a child
can lead to poor executive functioning, difficulty handling stressful situations, poor concentration, difficulty following
directions, and social impairment. These children, therefore, require different interventions and reforms than those at
the “middle class” end of the FRL spectrum.
6 Wells, A. S., Fox, L., & Cordova-Cobo, D. How racially diverse schools and classrooms can benefit all students. The
Education Digest, 82(1), 17. 2016
7 Parzych, Jennifer L., Ph.D., Peg Donohue, Ph.D., Amy Gaesser, Ph.D., and Ming Ming Chiu, Ph.D. ‘Measuring the
Impact of School Counselor Ratios on Student Outcomes”. American Association of School Counselors. February 2019
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 10
Figure IV-5.
Total Enrollment by School District and Race/Ethnicity, Economic and Housing Status, 2021-2022.
Note: K-12 Enrollment.
Source: Montana Department of Public Instruction and Greatschools.org.
School
Chief Charlo K-5 384 4%5%3%2%85%15%4%
Jeanette Rankin K-5 481 3%3%1%3%89%11%2%
Franklin K-5 302 9%5%7%3%77%22%6%
Hawthorne K-5 385 11%5%2%2%79%27%6%
Lewis and Clark K-5 478 5%2%1%*90%14%3%
Lowell K-5 252 11%5%6%1%77%32%6%
Paxon K-5 416 7%8%2%1%81%14%6%
Rattlesnake K-5 449 2%4%1%2%91%10%1%
Russell K-5 345 8%5%2%3%81%24%5%
Washington Middle School 668 5%3%1%2%89%11%1%
Meadow Hill Middle School 500 9%4%2%1%83%16%3%
Big Sky High School 1,137 7%5%2%2%84%16%4%
Hellgate High School 1,210 7%4%1%3%85%11%5%
Sentinal High School 1,278 5%3%3%2%87%8%3%
Distribution
Total
Enrollment Indigenous Unhoused
Hispanic /
Latino Black White
Economically
DisadvantagedAsian
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 11
Educational gaps. Providing access to high quality schools—as well as programming
within schools to prepare students for moderate- and high-paying jobs—are key aspects of
improving education outcomes of low-income children.
Figures IV-6 and IV-7 show the percentage of students in the Missoula K-8 District by race
and income who met or exceeded Montana’s Smarter Balanced Assessment score
expectations for English and math compared to students in Billings, Great Falls, and
statewide. Specifically:
Missoula students have higher levels of proficiency across race and economic status
than peer districts and the state of Montana; however, white students have
substantially higher proficiency rates than all other student groups by race and income
within Missoula schools.
Indigenous students across all geographies have low proficiency rates.
White and economically disadvantaged students perform significantly better in
Missoula than peer communities; however, significant gaps by economic status within
Missoula exist.
Figure IV-6.
Proficiency Rates for English by Race and Ethnicity, Elementary Districts in
Montana, 2021-2022
Note: “FRL” means students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch.
Source: Montana Office of Public Education and Root Policy Research.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 12
Figure IV-7.
Proficiency Rates for Math by Race and Ethnicity, Elementary Districts in
Montana, 2021-2022
Note: “FRL” means students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch.
Source: Montana Office of Public Education and Root Policy Research.
A better measure of school proficiency that captures student base knowledge and progress
over time are growth rates. The Montana Office of Public Education provides data on
elementary and middle school students progressing towards proficiency for both reading
and math (Figure IV-8). Capturing progress towards proficiency is particularly important in
schools with a higher proportion of students who are economically disadvantaged or who
have additional learning needs, such as English Language Learners and Special Education.
In particular, Lowell Elementary stands out with very high progress towards proficiency
rates in both English and math, despite having the highest economically disadvantaged
population in Missoula schools (32%).
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 13
Figure IV-8.
K-8 Students
Showing
Progress
Towards
Proficiency in
Reading and
Math, 2021-2022.
Source:
Montana Office of Public
Instruction.
Figure IV-9 shows the four-year high school graduation rate for the three high schools in
Missoula, as well as the Missoula High School District overall, Billings High School District,
Great Falls High School District and the state of Montana, disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
housing, economic, English language learner, and special education status. Disparities in
graduation rates are apparent across high schools, with Hellgate High School having the
lowest overall graduate rate at 79% and significantly lower graduate rates for Indigenous,
Special Education, economically disadvantaged, and unhoused students.
School
Chief Charlo K-5 52%64%
Jeanette Rankin K-5 43%66%
Franklin K-5 54%46%
Hawthorne K-5 50%46%
Lewis and Clark K-5 44%58%
Lowell K-5 68%82%
Paxson K-5 58%84%
Rattlesnake K-5 56%57%
Russell K-5 53%56%
Washington Middle School 46%49%
Meadow Hill Middle School 55%64%
Progress Towards
Proficiency
Reading Math
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 14
Figure IV-9.
High School Graduation Rates by School, School District, Race/Ethnicity and Student Subgroups, 2021-2022
Note: Four-year graduation rates, An asterisk ( * ) indicates this number has been suppressed for student privacy and security reasons.
Source: Montana Office of Public Education.
School District
Big Sky High School 89%89%*70%*87%*76%78%85%76%
Sentinal High School 90%67%100%73%100%92%*81%92%81%83%
Hellgate High School 79%42%*80%*83%*61%*63%45%
Missoula HS District 86%63%90%74%92%87%*73%73%77%67%
Billings HS District 85%65%77%78%100%88%71%71%76%73%57%
Great Falls HS District 83%61%86%74%*86%86%73%59%70%64%
State of Montana 86%68%67%80%93%89%81%76%67%76%64%
Unhoused
Student Subgroup
SPED ELL FRL
Race/Ethnicity
All Indigenous Black
Hispanic/
Latino
Non-Hispanic
White
Two or More
RacesAsian
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 15
The Montana Office of Public Education also provides data on college preparedness for
recent graduates and the percentage of graduates enrolled in any Montana public college
within 3 months of graduating. Figure IV-10 compares rates across the three Missoula high
schools, Missoula High School District, Billings and Great Falls High School Districts, and the
state of Montana for peer comparison purposes. While Big Sky High School has the highest
rate of students prepared for college, graduates are the least likely to actually attend
college within 3 months of graduation.
Figure IV-10.
College Ready and Enrollment, 2022.
Source: Montana Office of Public Instruction.
63%
54%57%57%
52%
57%
62%
27%
33%33%31%30%33%34%
Big Sky HS Sentinal HS Hellgate HS Missoula HS
District
Billings HS
District
Great Falls HS
District
State of
Montana
College Ready Enrolled
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 16
Access to Employment
Labor market engagement index. Figure IV-11 presents the values of the labor
market engagement index for each jurisdiction by race and ethnicity. Missoula residents’
likelihood of labor engagement is higher than the state of Montana and disparities by race
or ethnicity are smaller between white and Indigenous residents than across the state.
Similar to the indices described above, Indigenous populations have the lowest labor
market engagement statewide.
Figure IV-11.
Labor Market Engagement Index, Total Population
Note: Higher numbers indicate higher levels of labor market engagement.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Labor Market Engagement
Index.
73 71
61
70 70
58
71
69
57
74 72
646663
29
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic / Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 17
Among the population below the poverty line, the trend of disparity between races widens
considerably statewide; however, Missoula stays roughly the same (Figure IV-12). Black
residents below the poverty line are the most engaged in the labor market in both the city
and the region while Asian residents below the poverty line are the most engaged
statewide. Population groups by race in the city and region are very small, which could
account for such differences compared to the state. Similar to the index for the total
population, Indigenous residents living in poverty are the least engaged in the labor market
statewide.
Figure IV-12.
Labor Market Engagement Index, Population Below the Poverty Line
Note: Higher numbers indicate higher levels of labor market engagement.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Labor Market Engagement
Index
70 69
57
77 78
58
76 72
49
74
67
6769
68
30
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 18
Figure IV-13 shows growth of jobs by industry in Missoula County from 2012 to 2022.
Industries with the most significant gains are construction, manufacturing, financial
services, and government. The largest industries are education and health services, driven
primarily by the University of Montana and its two hospitals. Construction gains are
notable, as Missoula undertook a number of large housing development projects in 2022 in
the Sxwtpqyen area, as well as other smaller projects in South Hills and lower Grant Creek.
Additionally, the Scott Street area saw a significant number of income restricted housing
opportunities, including the $42 million Villagio project.8
Also in 2022, Amazon built a shipping warehouse near the Wye which will employ roughly
100 people and began hiring at $16/hour in September 2023. The volume of development
has necessitated an upgrade to transportation infrastructure through a multitude of
projects across the city, which has created additional employment opportunities.
The Downtown Missoula Partnership also reported $12.5 million in investment in
downtown Missoula and 32 new businesses in 2022, with only seven businesses closing
their doors—indicating strong local economic growth.9
Figure IV-13.
Number of
Employees by
Sector, Missoula
County, 2012-2022
Source:
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Figure IV-14 shows average weekly wages by sector and percent change since 2012.
Information, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality sectors
experienced significant wage growth in Missoula County. Wage growth in leisure and
hospitality is critical given that the industry has very low wages and is often seasonal.
8 https://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-county/housing-construction-infrastructure-dominated-growth-in-missoula-in-
2022
9 https://www.missouladowntown.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Business-Activity2022-1.pdf
Sector
Manufacturing 1,794 2,755 54%
Trade 11,379 12,628 11%
Information 973 991 2%
Financial Services 2,446 3,221 32%
Professional and Business Services 6,719 7,272 8%
Education and Health Services 9,771 10,936 12%
Leisure and Hospitality 7,418 8,170 10%
Public Administration 1,783 5,613 215%
Construction 2,389 3,890 63%
2012 2022
Percent
change
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 19
Figure IV-14.
Average Weekly
Wages by Sector,
Missoula County
2012-2022
Source:
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Despite the growth in employment and wages, data on educational attainment suggest
that White workers—who have the highest rates of college graduation—are more likely to
benefit from economic growth while Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous and Black workers will
suffer more from economic declines (Figure IV-15). Half of Missoula’s population 25 years
and over has a college degree, the highest among comparison jurisdictions. This also holds
true for all racial and ethnic groups in Missoula compared to other geographies.
Figure IV-15.
Share of Population with a College Degree, by Race, Ethnicity and
Jurisdiction, 2022
Note: Share of population 25 years and over.
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates.
Academic gaps translate to employment and wage gaps. The Montana Office of Public
Instruction oversees adult learner programs statewide that receive federal grant funding
under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), Title II of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA for alternative high school diploma or GED and
Sector
Manufacturing $36,555 $52,621 44%
Trade $30,798 $47,876 55%
Information $44,480 $80,853 82%
Financial Services $49,668 $76,269 54%
Professional and Business Services $40,532 $69,380 71%
Education and Health Services $40,272 $58,693 46%
Leisure and Hospitality $14,994 $24,200 61%
Public Administration (state)$38,114 $52,932 39%
Construction $41,568 $62,812 51%
2012 2022
Percent
change
Missoula 50%40%40%40%51%50%
Billings 38%8%37%14%40%29%
State of Montana 34%15%30%23%35%30%
United States 36%17%25%20%39%28%
Race/Ethnicity
ALL Indigenous Black
Hispanic/
Latino
Non-Hispanic
White
Two or More
Races
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 20
workforce development).10 These programs are free to qualifying individuals and include
English language learning and citizenship examination preparation allowing residents to
improve career outcomes through postsecondary diploma recovery and job training.
Figure IV-16 shows the unemployment rate by race and ethnicity in Missoula between 2012
and 2022. Significant reduction in the unemployment rate for Indigenous, Black, and
Hispanic/Latino residents over this time period indicates the lingering disproportionate
impact of the Great Recession of 2008.
Figure IV-16.
Unemployment rate
by Race and
Ethnicity, City of
Missoula, 2012 and
2022.
Source:
2012 and 2022 ACS 5-year
estimates.
Commuting. Figure IV-17 below shows the distribution of Missoula’s workforce by
commuting status. The workforce is comprised of all workers who live and/or work in the
city of Missoula. Nearly half of Missoula’s workforce is comprised of in-commuters (44%),
while nearly one in seven workers live in Missoula but commute outside of the city (15%).
Figure IV-17.
Workforce
Commuting
Patterns 2022,
Missoula.
Note:
Workforce is comprised of all
workers who live and/or work in
Missoula City
Source:
Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics (LEHD).
10 https://opi.mt.gov/Families-Students/Student-Resources/Veterans-Adult-Education
Race/Ethnicity
Indigenous 29.3%2.4%-27%
Black 18.2%1.9%-6%
Hispanic / Latino 15.1%4.4%-6%
Non-Hispanic White 7.6%3.6%-6%
Two or More Races 20.0%9.7%-10%
2012 2022
Percentage
point change
43%
15%
41%
In commuters
Out
commuters
Living and
Employed in
Area
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 21
Broadband access. Access to broadband has increasingly become a necessity versus
a luxury. However, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in 2017,
34 million Americans still lacked broadband Internet access (defined as a minimum of a 25
Mbps connection). In particular, remote or rural areas have lower rates of stable and fast
internet access, which is critical for individual connectivity to jobs and education but also
for community economic development. Figure IV-18 shows that ownership of a device
(desktop/laptop, smartphone, tablet) is very high in Missoula, similar to both Billings and
the state.
Although subscription rates are high, and metropolitan areas like Missoula and Billings
have more reliable internet access, connectivity speed remains an issue for a large number
of households in Montana. Montana ranked 49th in Ookla’s speedtest, only ahead of
Wyoming and Alaska. Montana has received $628 million from the federal Broadband
Equity and Access Deployment (BEAD) program and invested $309 million of COVID relief
funds in 62 broadband infrastructure projects throughout the state in 2023. An estimated
18% of Montana residents are either unserved or underserved, mostly in rural
communities.11
In Missoula, 9% of residents do not have access to the internet. Residents making less than
$20,000 are most likely to not have access to the internet, with only 75% of these
households holding internet subscriptions. Conversely, 96% of residents making over
$75,000 have access to the internet. One stakeholder with a local internet company shared
that their company is unable to widely serve lower-income populations in Missoula
because larger companies, like Spectrum, are able to offer more affordable internet
packages. However, these larger companies might not be equipped to serve all housing
units in the city, leaving some households without affordable internet options.
Figure IV-18.
Device Accessibility
and Broadband
Subscription, 2022.
Source:
American Community Survey 2022
1-year estimates.
11 https://connectmt.mt.gov/IIJA/2023.06.04_BEAD-Five-Year-Action-Plan_vSHARE.pdf
Geography
Missoula City 95%91%
Billings City 96%93%
State of Montana 95%89%
Percent with
1 or more
type of device
Percent with
Internet
Subscription
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 22
Transportation Access
Transit index. Figure IV-19 presents the values of the transit index for each jurisdiction
by race and ethnicity. The likelihood of transit use is similar across jurisdictions and there
are small differences by race or ethnicity within the jurisdictions. Missoula has slightly
higher rates of access to transit, likely given that public transportation exists compared to
more rural areas of the state, which are primarily car dependent. There are not any
meaningful differences between races in Missoula, however, Indigenous communities
statewide have much lower transit access.
Figure IV-19.
Transit Index, Total Population
Note: Higher numbers indicate better access to transit.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Transit Index.
Among the population below the poverty line, similar to other indices, the trend of
disparity between races widens considerably statewide (Figure IV-20). While access to
transit for city residents living in poverty is actually greater compared to the city population
overall, Indigenous residents living in poverty have the least transit access statewide.
39
29 32
41
36 37
41
33 34
41
33
38
42
31
24
10
20
30
40
50
60
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic/Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 23
Figure IV-20.
Transit Index, Population Below the Poverty Line
Note: Higher numbers indicate better access to transit.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Transit Index.
Low-cost transportation index. Figure IV-21 presents the values of the low-cost
transportation index for each jurisdiction by race and ethnicity. Low-cost transportation
index scores for the population overall do not vary significantly in the city of Missoula;
however, this widens at the state level, with Indigenous residents having the lowest access
to low-cost transportation.
43
36
31
50 49
42
47
39
31
49
37 32
49
44
23
10
20
30
40
50
60
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic/Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 24
Figure IV-21.
Low-Cost Transportation Index, Total Population
Note: Higher numbers indicate access to lower cost transportation.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Low Cost Transportation
Index.
When examined through the lens of poverty, scores by race and ethnicity in Missoula do
not vary significantly, except for a lower score for white residents (Figure IV-22). At the state
level, Indigenous residents continue to have a lower rate of access to low-cost
transportation.
39
29 32
41
36 37
41
33 34
41
33
38
42
31
24
10
20
30
40
50
60
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic/Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 25
Figure IV-22.
Low-Cost Transportation Index, Population Below the Poverty Line
Note: Higher numbers indicate access to lower cost transportation.
Source: Root Policy Research from the HUD AFFH-T Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, Low Cost Transportation
Index.
Residents and stakeholders expressed mixed reactions about the city’s current
transportation system. Specifically, many residents and stakeholders lauded that the
system is free, particularly for lower-income Missoulians, and provides relatively good
coverage in the central areas of the city. Suggestions for improvement are noted below.
Demand for paratransit services are increasing, particularly for older residents in
Missoula. However, everyone who pays into the system is not able to utilize these
services. One stakeholder shared that paratransit services are only available with ½
mile of fixed transit stops. For residents who don’t live within this radius, they are
unable to take advantage of these services, even though they pay into the system.
Many residents expressed a desire to see paratransit service boundaries expanded.
Many residents wanted to see a stronger connection between transportation routes
and the location of basic life amenities (e.g., grocery stores, health clinics). Other
residents wanted to see transportation routes prioritize connections between
affordable housing developments and locations with several amenities. One resident
wanted to see more centralized services available at transportation hubs.
Generally, residents wanted to see safer and more accessible (and covered) bus stops
around the city, as well as better signage. Several stakeholders and residents also
43
36 31
50 49
42
47
39
31
49
37 32
49
44
23
10
20
30
40
50
60
Missoula CDBG Missoula Region State of Montana
Non-Hispanic White Black Hispanic/Latino Asian Indigenous
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 26
expressed a desire to see more frequent bus service, particularly in the evenings and
during the weekends, for people to access night and swing shift employment
opportunities.
One stakeholder noted that refugee residents are particularly dependent on the public
transit system in Missoula and noted that language barriers can make it difficult for
these populations to utilize the system. They also described a need for more direct
routes and better coverage from where they are able to live and the services they
need.
Additionally, the City’s Pedestrian Needs Assessment completed in the 2019 Pedestrian
Facilities Master Plan revealed that the neighborhoods (Franklin to the Fort, Northside,
Westside and Lewis and Clark) in most in need of pedestrians facilities also have the
highest rates of missing sidewalk and ADA curb ramps.
Healthy Communities
Indicators of a healthy neighborhood include the relative quality of parks and recreation
facilities among neighborhoods, convenient access to grocery stores and healthcare
facilities, and access to healthy food. Below is a summary of stakeholder feedback related
to these indicators.
Parks and recreation. While playgrounds are located generally evenly throughout
the city, there are a lack of public parks in the Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods, as well
as the Westside and Northside neighborhoods (Figure IV-23). Overall, residents and
stakeholders spoke highly of the availability of parks and recreation opportunities
throughout the city.
However, some stakeholders did articulate a need for more recreation centers and
afterschool programs in city schools. One stakeholder noted that Lowell Elementary
receives a grant that subsidizes high-quality childcare through the City’s Parks and
Recreation department and felt this service should be available throughout the city.
Another resident wanted to see more accessible playgrounds around the city so that
children living with disabilities had more options to play.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 27
Figure IV-23.
Location of Public Parks and Playgrounds, Missoula, 2023.
Source: Missoula County Community Health Maps, Public Parks and Playgrounds layer.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 28
Public infrastructure and facilities. Figure IV-24 shows where sidewalk
infrastructure is missing in Missoula. Impacted areas include neighborhoods west of the
railroad line, namely the Westside, Northside, River Road, Franklin to the Fort, Moose Can
Gully, and Farviews/Pattee Canyon neighborhoods.
Residents and stakeholders articulated a variety of improvements to public infrastructure
and facilities, primarily the need for safer walking infrastructure, more lighting, more traffic
calming measures, and safer crossings. Several residents also expressed a desire to see
more public showers and restrooms made available throughout the city, particularly for
unhoused residents. As noted previously in this section, the Westside and Northside
neighborhoods were often mentioned as most in need of these improvements. One
stakeholder shared that the Northside neighborhood is less “well-resourced” in terms of
public amenities and community services. However, this stakeholder added that there has
been a lot of outreach to this neighborhood by the City over the last few years.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 29
Figure IV-24.
Location of Missing Sidewalk Infrastructure, Missoula
Source: Missoula County Community Health Maps, Sidewalks - Missing layer.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 30
Food provision. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides several
metrics to evaluate food access in their Food Access Research Atlas (2019). The USDA
states, “low access to healthy food is defined as being far from a supermarket, supercenter,
or large grocery store ("supermarket" for short). A census tract is considered to have low
access if a significant number or share of individuals in the tract is far from a supermarket.”
Figure IV-25 shows USDA defined food deserts for Census tracts in Missoula. Six Census
tracts in the city (indicated in orange) are estimated to have a significant share of residents
more than a ½ mile from a supermarket, while the Census tract that overlaps with the
University District is considered to have a significant share of residents at least one mile
away from a supermarket.
Figure IV-25.
Food Deserts and Lower Income Census Tracts, Missoula, 2019
Note: Low-income census tracts where a significant number or share of residents is more than 1 mile (green), .5 mile (orange) or 10
miles (rural) from the nearest supermarket.
Source: USDA Economic Research Service and ESRI
Figure IV-26 shows the location of grocery stores, supermarkets, farmers’ markets, and
community gardens. As highlighted above, access to food options is relatively limited in the
Westside, Northside, River Road, University, and Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 31
Figure IV-26.
Location of Grocery Stores, Supermarkets, Farmers’ Markets, and
Community Gardens , Missoula
Note: Pink icons are “Supermarket/Grocery stores”, Green icons are “Farmers’ Markets”, and Leaf icons are “Community Gardens”
Source: Missoula County Community Health Maps, Nutrition layer.
Food insecurity. In Montana, 10% of households experience low or very low food
security, which is lower than the national average.12 Counties with greater Indigenous
populations have much higher rates of food insecurity at roughly 33%. Indigenous
households living on reservations in particular with lower access to jobs and the
12 https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90023/err-256.pdf?v=0
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION IV, PAGE 32
dismantling of traditional indigenous food systems have the highest percentage of food
insecure residents with 43% insecurity.13
The USDA estimates that in 2020, 79% of eligible residents in the state of Montana
participated in the SNAP program.14 Children and seniors are particularly vulnerable to
food insecurity. According to Feeding America data from 2021, Missoula County had a food
insecure rate of 8.9% with 32% of food insecure households not income eligible for SNAP
benefits, creating a considerable gap for providing food to households that are food
insecure. When considering only children under the age of 18, the food insecurity rate
jumps to 10.8% with 44% not eligible for SNAP.15
13 Policy Basics: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Montana Budget & Policy Center
14 Reaching Those in Need: Estimates of State SNAP Participation Rates in 2020, United States Department of
Agriculture, August 2023.
15 https://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2021/senior-60-plus/montana/county/missoula
V. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING
NEEDS
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 1
SECTION V.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
The primary purpose of a disproportionate housing needs analysis is to determine how
access to the housing market and housing choice differ for members of protected
classes. Disproportionate needs analyses can also identify where gaps in housing
markets exist for all residents and facilitate goal-setting and strategic housing planning.
To that end, this section:
1) Analyzes rental housing needs and gaps in attaining homeownership;
2) Identifies where needs differ by protected class;
3) Assesses how these differences affect housing choice. This includes geographic
choice as well as differences in public and private housing options.
4) A separate section reviews zoning ordinances and land use codes for potential
barriers to housing choice.
Primary Findings
The data analysis in this section finds the most severe disproportionate needs in:
Severe cost burden. African American and Indigenous households are much
more likely to be severely cost burdened than non-Hispanic White households.
Based on this measure, these households are approximately 1.5 to 2 times as likely
to experience eviction and houselessness due to inability to keep up with their rent
or mortgage payments.
Homeownership rates. Similarly, large gaps in homeownership exist for
Indigenous and African American households in Missoula; significant gaps exist for
Hispanic households, as well. Only 11% of Indigenous households and 16% of
African Americans own their homes compared to 48% of non-Hispanic White
households. With the exception of African American households in the county,
homeownership rates are higher for all three groups in both Missoula County and
the state.
Displacement. Overall, 27% of Missoula households report moving in the last 5
years against their choice. By race and ethnicity, Indigenous respondents (57%)
were more than twice as likely to experience displacement than Missoula
households overall. Additionally, 50% of single-parent respondents reported recent
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 2
displacement, mainly due to rent increases, while low-income households
(households making less than $25,000) and student respondents were also more
likely to report experiences with displacement.
Access to mortgage loans. Of applicants for mortgage loans in 2022,
Hispanic/Latino and Asian applicants had the highest denial rates (14% each,
respectively). Most often, loan applications are denied due to credit worthiness,
particularly low credit scores or high debt-to-income ratios—suggesting that credit
building programs would be useful to help attain homeownership. While too few
observations were available for most applicants by race and ethnicity, Hispanic
applicants (7%) were almost twice as likely than non-Hispanic White applicants (4%)
to receive a high-priced loan.
Public Housing Authority policy review. A review of the Missoula
Housing Authority’s Affordable Housing Tenant Handbook and Tenant Selection
Plan found that MHA complies with key federal regulations; however, the housing
authority could be more explicit about its compliance. For example, MHA could
provide more information related to VAWA notification, documentation,
confidentiality, and its Emergency Transfer Plan for potential and current tenants.
Additionally, more explicit information could be provided about the process by
which a tenant can request a reasonable accommodation, as well as more
information about how it accommodates potential applicants with special needs.
Indicators of Disproportionate Needs
There is no formal definition or mechanism to measure housing needs, much less
disproportionate needs. In housing market studies, housing needs are typically
measured by:
Cost burden—when a household pays more than 30% of their income in housing
costs including basic utilities and property taxes; and Severe cost burden—when a
household pays more than 50% of their income in housing costs. This is also an
indicator of eviction or foreclosure, and homelessness;
Homeownership rates and access to mortgage loans; and
The cost of housing (rents, purchase prices).
Our focus on disproportionate needs furthers that analysis by:
Identifying the differences in the above housing needs indicators for residents of
various protected classes;
Examining additional factors that affect choice and further economic opportunity,
which is largely informed by the housing and community needs survey and review
of housing policies;
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 3
Analyzing whom the private market serves, if the market is addressing housing
needs of protected classes differently needs, and if discrimination is at play—again,
informed by the housing and community needs survey.
Housing Cost Burden
Figure V-1 shows the percentage of Missoula households that are cost burdened (paying
between 31 and 50% of their income toward housing) and households that are severely
cost burdened (paying more than 50% of their income toward housing) by race and
ethnicity. Citywide, over a third of Missoulians are cost burdened (37%) while just under
a fifth of the population is severely cost burdened (19%).
African American and American Indian/Alaska Native households are disproportionately
impacted by severe cost burden in Missoula. While African Americans make up a
relatively small proportion of the city population, two thirds (67%) experience severe
cost burden. Additionally, over half of American Indian/Alaska Native households
experience cost burden, with 43% severely cost burdened. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic
White, Asian, and Hispanic households all experience cost burden and severe cost
burden at a lower rate than the city overall.
Figure V-1.
Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, Missoula
Source: HUD CHAS dataset. Refer to the Data Documentation for details (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html).
According to 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates, of all occupied
housing units in Missoula, 84% of households making less than $20,000 experience cost
burden. Over two-thirds of households (67%) making less than $50,000 experience cost
burden. Just under a quarter of owner-occupied households (23%) experience cost
burden while almost half of all renter-occupied households (49%) experience cost
burden.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 4
Throughout the community engagement process, low-income families and unhoused
residents were consistently identified as having the greatest housing needs and
challenges, as well as the groups most likely to experience cost burden and severe cost
burden. Many residents talked about the difficulty of finding affordable housing in
Missoula, experiencing housing cost burden, and how housing prices have continued to
“skyrocket” over the last few years. One resident spoke about the pressures of inflation
and cost of living, adding that there are “too many expenses to pay to keep housing.”
Several residents shared that their only source of income is from SSI/SSDI. One resident
shared that they only receive $131 per month through SSI, adding “How can I afford
anything...I just want to feel secure.” Another resident added that they rely on the food
bank for groceries because all their money goes to housing. Several residents shared
that social security payments do not keep up with rising rental costs. One resident
shared that their rent increased from $550 to $800 per month for a subsidized one-
bedroom unit, but their social security payments have remained the same. They added,
“how are people on fixed incomes supposed to afford higher rents?”
Residents identified the lack of affordable housing options as the primary reason that
many low-income households experience cost burden. One resident said that “as a
renter, it’s impossible to live here. I can’t live here, and my friends keep getting pushed
out.” Another resident said that “finding housing as a single parent working full-time is
an almost impossible job. I wish there was more subsidized housing available.”
Residents also wanted to see a better distribution of affordable housing throughout the
city. One resident noted that all the housing “…is being pushed into the Northside
[neighborhood].”
Homeownership Differences
For the majority of households in the U.S., owning a home is the single most important
factor in wealth-building. Homeownership is also thought to have broader public
benefits, which has justified decades of public subsidization. For nearly 100 years, the
federal government has subsidized ownership through the mortgage interest tax
deduction and the secondary mortgage market.1
Yet these incentives for ownership have been in place far longer than the existence of
fair lending and fair housing protections, meaning that the benefits of federal subsidies
for ownership have not been equally realized by all protected classes. This explains
1 Despite the many public and private interventions to expand ownership, the overall U.S. rate has been stubbornly
stagnant. In 2023, 65.7 percent of households were owners, compared to 63.9 in 1990. Contrary to what many U.S.
residents believe, the U.S. does not lead developed countries in homeownership. Instead, the U.S.’ rate of ownership
is similar to that of the United Kingdom (63%) and lower than Canada’s (66.5%).
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 5
some of the reason for ownership disparities today, in addition to the now-illegal
practices of redlining, steering, blockbusting, unfair lending, and discriminatory pricing.2
Figure V-2 below shows homeownership rates by race and ethnicity for the city of
Missoula, Missoula County, and the state of Montana.
In the city of Missoula, Asian households (58%) have the highest rate of
homeownership citywide followed by non-Hispanic White households (48%). In both
Missoula County and the state of Montana, non-Hispanic White households have
the highest rate of homeownership (60% and 71%, respectively).
American Indian/Indigenous households have the lowest rate of homeownership in
both the city of Missoula (11%) and Missoula County (33%); however, nearly half of
all Indigenous households statewide (48%) are homeowners.
Just over 1 in 7 African American households (16%) in both the city of Missoula and
Missoula County are homeowners. Over a quarter of African American households
statewide (27%) own their homes.
A third of Hispanic households (33%) in the city of Missoula own their homes, which
is slightly less than the Hispanic homeownership rate in the county (37%). Nearly
half of Hispanic households statewide (49%) are homeowners.
For residents who identify as two or more races, just over 4 in 10 households (43%)
own homes in the city of Missoula. Nearly half of these households (48%) own
homes in Missoula County, while 6 in 10 households statewide are homeowners.
2 “Steering” refers to the practice of showing home- and apartment-seekers homes only in neighborhoods with
residents of similar races and ethnicities; it is now illegal for real estate agents to engage in steering. “Blockbusting,”
which is also illegal, refers to the practice of real estate agents and builders convincing homeowners to sell their
homes below market because of the fear that minorities could be moving into the neighborhood, and then reselling
those homes to minorities at inflated prices. “Discriminatory pricing” means intentionally charging certain protected
classes more for housing than others and is often a product of steering, blockbusting, subprime lending, and other
illegal practices.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 6
Figure V-2.
Homeownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity, 2022
Source: 2022 ACS 5-year estimates, Root Policy Research.
The community engagement process highlighted that many residents, particularly lower-
income residents, feel discouraged about ever being in a position to buy a home in
Missoula. Several residents articulated that even if they were able to find a better paying
job, there is still a minimal chance that they’ll ever be in a position financially to buy a
home. Residents also noted that because home prices and values keep going up, lower-
income homeowners, specifically seniors and residents living with disabilities, are unable
to pay their property taxes because they live on fixed incomes.
Differences in Housing Challenges and Displacement Experience
Of the 377 resident respondents, 101 (27%) residents reported that they had to move
out of a home/apartment in Missoula when they did not want to move. Of those that
said they had to move in the past five years when they didn’t want to, the most common
reasons articulated by residents included the landlord was selling the home/apartment
(19%), rent increased more than the respondent could pay (16%), and
personal/relationship reasons (9%) Those households3 with the highest displacement
rates include:
American Indian/Alaska Native/Indigenous. Nearly 6 in 10 (57%) respondents
who identify as American Indian/Alaska Native/Indigenous experienced
displacement from a residence in Missoula in the past five years. One in seven
respondents had to move because they lost their job or had their hours reduced.
Other primary reasons behind the displacement included the rent increased more
3 Households reported in this section have at least 20 responses in the Housing and Community Needs Survey.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 7
than the respondent could pay, their landlord was selling the apartment, or career
move/job change.
Single parents. Half of single parent respondents (50%) reported recent
displacement, citing rent increases (16%), their landlord selling the apartment (14%)
or wanting to move back in with their family (10%), or losing their job or having their
hours reduced (10%) as primary reasons for the displacement.
Low-income households. Households with incomes less than $25,000 who
experienced displacement (47%) are more likely than Missoula respondents overall
to cite that the landlord refused to renew their lease (7%) and eviction due to being
behind on the rent (5%) as reasons for displacement.
Students. Nearly half of all students (45%) report recent displacement, with rent
increases, personal/relationship reasons, and the landlord selling their apartment
(15% of student respondents each, respectively) cited as the principal reasons for
their displacement.
Access to Credit
Several factors contribute to the differences in homeownership by race and ethnicity
observed above, including disparities in access to lending. Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (HMDA) data can shed light on the role of access to credit in homeownership
differences by race and ethnicity. HMDA data is collected by the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) which provides data used in the analysis of
mortgage lending practices.
HMDA data include variables such as race, Census tract, loan type, and loan purpose.
While these variables can be used to explain many of the reasons for any lending
disparities (e.g., poor credit history), they do not contain all the factors that are
evaluated by lending institutions when they decide to make a loan to an applicant.
This section uses the analysis of HMDA data to examine disparities in lending and loan
denials across different racial and ethnic groups and income categories, to determine if
loans are being apportioned more favorably to some racial and ethnic groups as
opposed to others.
Loan applications in Missoula. In 2022, there were 2,300 loan applications
made for residential properties in Missoula (Figure V-3). Among these loans, nearly nine
in ten (89%) were conventional loans, 6% were Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
insured loans, and the remaining 5% of loans were Veterans Affairs (VA) guaranteed
loans.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 8
Figure V-3.
Loan Applications
by Loan Type,
Missoula, 2022
Note:
Includes only first lien loans. Does
not include loans for multifamily
properties or non-owner occupants.
n = 2300
Source:
HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root
Policy Research.
Figure V-4 presents the purpose for loan applications in Missoula in 2022. Over half
(53%) of all loan applications were for home purchases while nearly a quarter (25%) were
cash-out refinancing loans. Additionally, 14% were refinancing loans, 5% were home
improvement loans (although cash-out refinancing may have also been intended for
home improvements), and 3% identified other reasons for the loan application.
Figure V-4.
Loan Applications
by Loan Purpose,
Missoula, 2022
Note:
Includes only first lien loans. Does
not include loans for multifamily
properties or non-owner occupants.
n = 2300
Source:
HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root
Policy Research.
Of the loan applications in Missoula in 2022, approximately two-thirds (66%) resulted in
the loan being originated (Figure V-5). Additionally, 16% of applications were withdrawn
by the applicant, 12% were denied, 4% were closed for incompleteness, and 2% of
applications were approved but not accepted by the applicant.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 9
Figure V-5.
Loan Action Taken,
Missoula, 2022
Note:
Includes only first lien loans. Does
not include loans for multifamily
properties or non-owner occupants.
n = 2300
Source:
HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root
Policy Research.
Loan outcomes by race/ethnicity. Figure V-6 presents detailed outcomes of the
loan applications, focusing on the difference in outcomes among racial and ethnic
groups.4
Among applicants by race/ethnicity, American Indian/Alaska Native (76%) and White
(68%) residents have the highest loan origination rates; however, there are 75 times
more applications submitted by White residents compared with American Indian/Alaska
Native residents. Asian residents had an origination rate of 60%, while originations were
the lowest among Hispanic/Latino applicants at 55%.
Denial rates are similar among would-be borrowers by race/ethnicity. Hispanic/Latino
and Asian applicants have the highest denial rates (14% each, respectively), followed
closely by White and American Indian/Alaska Native applicants (12% each, respectively).
Over one in five Hispanic/Latino applicants had their applications withdrawn while Asian
applicants were most likely to have their files closed for incompleteness.
4 Applicants who identified as having one race and either identified their ethnicity as “not-Hispanic or Latino” or had
“ethnicity not available” were assigned racial groups based on the one race identified, while any applicant who
identified their ethnicity as “Hispanic or Latino” and had identified as any other racial category were assigned
“Hispanic.” Only racial or ethnic groups with over 20 total applications were included in the analysis.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 10
Figure V-6.
Outcome of Mortgage Loan Application by Race/Ethnicity, Missoula, 2022
Note: Estimates are not presented for Black or African American and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander groups due to insufficient data. Note that sample sizes are small for American
Indian or American Native and Asian groups. Includes only first lien loans. Data do not include loans for multifamily properties or non-owner occupants. Race categories include non-
Hispanic and ethnicity not provided while the Hispanic or Latino category includes Hispanic or Latino of any race.
Source: HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root Policy Research.
Most often, loan applications are denied due to credit worthiness, particularly low credit scores or high debt-to-income ratios. As
shown in Figure V-7, debt-to-income ratios and incomplete credit applications were the most common reasons provided for loan
denial. Combined, they make up nearly two thirds of all reasons provided for loan denials in Missoula.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 11
Figure V-7.
Reasons for Denial,
Missoula, 2022
Note:
Note: Includes only first lien loans.
Does not include loans for
multifamily properties or non-
owner occupants. Percent
calculated from total reasons given
including multiple reasons for one
applicant.
Source:
HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root
Policy Research.
Figure V-8 presents denial rates based on loan purpose for all Missoula applicants in 2022.
Over a quarter of loan denials (26%) were classified as “other purpose,”5 while just over one
in five loans (21%) denied was a cash-out refinance. Additionally, home improvement and
refinance loans denials each made up 18% of all loan denials, respectively, while home
purchase loans made up 11% of all denials in 2022.
Non-Hispanic White applicants made up 81% of all loan denials in Missoula in 2022. As
such, the distribution of denials by loan purpose of non-Hispanic White applicants is
essentially unchanged from the distribution of all loan denials. Denials by loan purpose are
not shown for other applicants by race and/or ethnicity due to too few observations.
Figure V-8.
Denials by Loan
Purpose, Missoula,
2022
Note: Does not include loans for
multifamily properties or non-
owner occupants. N values
represent total of originated loans,
denied loans, and loans approved
but not accepted. n = 1,842
Source:
HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root
Policy Research.
Figure V-9 shows the geographic distribution of loan denial rates in Missoula by Census
tract. Census tracts with the highest percentage of mortgage loan denial rates within city
boundaries are Census Tract 11 (19%), Census Tract 8.02 (18%), Census Tract 9.01 (17%),
and Census Tract 10.02 (17%), and Census Tract 10.01 (15%). These Census tracts also have
5 HMDA data does not elaborate or give other detail for loans that are designated as “other purpose.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 12
lower median household incomes compared to the city median. These areas correspond
with the Rose Park, River Road, Two Rivers, and Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
Figure V-9.
Mortgage Loan Denial Rates by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Denial rate represents the percentage of denied applications of the total of originated loans, denied loans, and loans
approved but not accepted. Census tracts with fewer than 20 total applications were excluded. Breaks represent 50%, 75%,
and 100% of the overall city proportion of mortgage loan denials (15%). Census Tracts with a “white shading” had insufficient
data to report.
Source: HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root Policy Research.
Beginning in 2004, HMDA data contained the interest rates on higher-priced mortgage
loans. This allows examinations of disparities in high-cost, including subprime, loans
among different racial and ethnic groups. It is important to remember that subprime loans
are not always predatory or suggest fair lending issues, and that the numerous factors that
can make a loan “predatory” are not adequately represented in available data. Therefore,
actual predatory practices cannot be identified through HMDA data analysis. However, the
data analysis can be used to identify where additional scrutiny is warranted, and how
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 13
public education and outreach efforts should be targeted. For the purpose of this section,
“high priced” is defined as a loan with an ARP of more than one and half (1.5%) percentage
points above comparable treasuries.
Overall, 4% of Missoula applicants received high-priced loans in 2022 (Figure V-10). When
broken down by income, 7% of applicants making less than 80% AMI, 5% of applicants
making between 81-120% AMI, and 2% of applicants making over 120% AMI received high-
priced loans.
Similarly, 4% of White applicants received high-priced loans across all income levels. White
applicants making less than 80% AMI were more likely to receive high-priced loans (8%)
than applicants making over 120% of AMI (3%). Aside from Hispanic applicants (7% received
high-priced loans), there are too few observations to report applicants who received high
priced loans by race and ethnicity.
Figure V-10.
High Priced Loans
by Race/Ethnicity,
Missoula, 2022
Note: Note: "High priced" is defined
as a loan with an APR of more than
one and a half (1.5) percentage
points above comparable
treasuries. Percentage is calculated
from total originated loans. Includes
only first lien loans. Does not
include loans for multifamily
properties or non-owner occupants.
Income limits corresponding to the
income breaks in the table are 2022
2-person AMI limits for Missoula as
follows: 80% AMI = $52,240; 100%
AMI = $65,300; 120% AMI = $78,360.
Source:
HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root
Policy Research.
Figure V-11 shows the geographic distribution of the proportion of high-priced loans by
Census tract. Within municipal boundaries, Census Tract 2.06 (6.9%) and Census Tract
10.01(4.5%) have the highest percentage of high-priced loans in the city. These areas
overlap with the Captain John Mullan, Grant Creek, and Franklin to the Fort neighborhoods.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 14
Figure V-11.
Percent High-Priced Loans by Census Tract, Missoula, 2022
Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-owner occupants. “High priced” is defined as a loan with an ARP of
more than one and half (1.5%) percentage points above comparable treasuries. Percentage calculated from total originated
loans. Breaks represent 50%, 100%, and 150% of the overall city proportion of high-priced loans (4%).
Source: HMDA Raw Data 2022 and Root Policy Research.
Alternative financial products. Households who are rejected from traditional or even
higher-cost lending products—or who are unaware of or distrust traditional lenders—use
alternative financial products, many of which carry very high interest rates and inhibit
financial stability and wealth-building.
A cornerstone of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) economic inclusion
(https://www.economicinclusion.gov/whatis/) project is a study of what the FDIC has
identified as unbanked and underbanked households. “Unbanked” households are those in
which no one in the household has a checking or savings account “Underbanked”
households are those who have an account in an insured institution but also use services
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 15
that are likely to charge high or very high rates. These services include checking cashing
institutions, payday loans, “tax refund anticipation” loans, rent-to-own services, pawn shop
loans, and/or auto title loans.
The FDIC studies the prevalence of unbanked and underbanked households every two
years. The latest, 2021, survey found that:
1) 4.5% of U.S. households are “unbanked,” which is the lowest rate since the study
began in 2009. The unbanked rate fell by 0.9 percentage points between 2009 and
2021, which corresponds with an increase of approximately 1.2 million banked
households.
2) Approximately 14% of U.S. households are “underbanked.” This rate has fallen by
4.7 percentage points since 2017.
3) The State of Montana has an unbanked rate of 3%, which has been gradually
declining since 2013.
Figure V-12 shows the state of Montana’s trends in the percentage of unbanked and
underbanked households.
Figure V-12.
Unbanked and
Underbanked Households,
State of Montana, 2009 -
2021
Source:
Multiyear FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and
Underbanked Households.
Unfortunately, the FDIC survey data are not available by household characteristic at the city
level. However, household characteristics are available at the state level and are found in
Figure V-13, which shows that:
Just shy of 3% of White households are unbanked in the state. Data were not available
for Hispanic households or any other racial or ethnic group.
Households with a high school diploma are nearly 12 times as likely to be unbanked
compared to college-educated households.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 16
Households making between $15,000 and $30,000 are almost twice as likely as all
households to be unbanked, while households making less than $15,000 are over four
times as likely to be unbanked.
Households with a person living with a disability are almost six times as likely to be
unbanked compared to other same age households without a disability (25 to 64 years
old).
Figure V-13.
Unbanked Households, State of Montana by Household Characteristics,
2021
Source: 2021 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 17
Housing Access
A growing body of research has bolstered the evidence that where affordable and mixed-
income housing is developed has a long-term impact on the households that occupy that
housing. For example:
Dr. Raj Chetty’s well-known Equality of Opportunity research found positive economic
returns for adults who had moved out of high poverty neighborhoods when they were
children. The gains were larger the earlier children moved.
A companion study by Dr. Chetty examining social mobility isolated the neighborhood
factors that led to positive economic mobility for children. Children with the largest
upward economic mobility were raised in neighborhoods with lower levels of
segregation, lower levels of income inequality, higher quality schools, and greater
community involvement (“social capital”).
A similar study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that when assisted
housing is located in higher quality neighborhoods, children have better economic
outcomes. The study also concluded that because low-income African American
children are more likely than low-income white children to live in assisted housing, the
location of assisted housing in poor quality neighborhoods has a disproportionate
impact on African American children’s long-term economic growth.
This research is counter to years of housing policies and programs that focused on building
large multifamily complexes to house persons living in poverty, often placing these
developments in the least desirable areas in a city. Fortunately, more recent housing policy
activism has focused more intently on remedying the damage done by decades of
intentional segregation. The remaining part of this section examines locational housing
choice.
Location of affordable rental (LIHTC) developments. Figure V-15 shows
the number of units developed using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). According
to the HUD LIHTC property database, Missoula has approximately 915 total units in tax
credit properties with nearly all units designated for low-income households.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 18
Figure V-15 shows a map of publicly supported housing properties using the AFFH data and
mapping tool. The majority of publicly supported housing in Missoula, namely LIHTC
properties, are primarily located in the northern portion of the city, north of S 6th Street.
There are a couple LIHTC properties in the Franklin to the Fort neighborhood, as well as a
few project-based Section 8 properties in the southern portion of the city.
Figure V-15.
Publicly Supported Housing, Missoula
Note: Underbanked definition is based on the following AFS: check cashing, money order, remittance, payday loan, rent-to-own
service, pawn shop loan, refund anticipation loan, and auto title loan.
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool
As the rental market has become more competitive, low-income renters find it increasingly
challenging to find market rate units. Those renters with any type of perceived challenge—
income from a variety of sources, a past eviction, a minor criminal infraction, a need for a
reasonable accommodation—are often passed over for renters who are perceived as
easier tenants. In some cases, these criteria can disproportionately affect certain protected
classes; some of these effects are evident in the resident survey. A sample of responses are
below.
“We are isolating low-income, disabled, and working-class people in high-density
developments away from community—and often near environmental health hazards.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 19
“Low-income housing and shelters are often set away from resources, such as food
pantries, access to public transport, grocery stores, which causes stress and difficulty
for residents in those areas to access resources.”
“The apartment was not accessible and when asked to be in an accessible unit, [I] was
told none were available, although non-handicapped residents were in them.”
“I was told the landlord ‘does not accept the Section 8 voucher.’”
“I felt discriminated against [because of] my income. I felt like because I had low
income or Section 8, I was turned down even more and made to pay double deposit
along with first month’s rent. [It was] close to $5,000 just to get into a place plus all the
application fees, [which were] $20-45 each.”
Housing voucher holders. Currently, 1,169 housing vouchers are currently in use
throughout the city, of which 70% are tenant-based. Non-Hispanic White households are
significantly overrepresented in voucher use relative to their shares of low-income
residents in the city; this is directly due to the proportion of non-Hispanic White residents
in the city (Figure V-16). Black/African American and other race households are also
overrepresented. Conversely, Indigenous, Asian, and Hispanic households are
underrepresented in voucher use relative to their shares of low-income residents in
Missoula.
Additionally, 30% of households utilizing a housing choice voucher in Missoula have at least
one person over the age of 62 while 62% of households with a voucher include a member
living with a disability.
Figure V-16.
Share of Voucher
Holders by Race and
Ethnicity
Note:
Vouchers by race and ethnicity do not
add to total vouchers due to data
disclosure. Vouchers n=1,169.
Source:
Missoula Housing Authority, 2022 ACS
5-year estimates.
Difficulty using vouchers. Residents and stakeholders articulated throughout the
community engagement process how difficult it is to use vouchers. Residents and
stakeholders both described landlords as less likely to take applicants with housing choice
vouchers because of the city’s tight rental market. In addition to having a voucher,
residents and stakeholders describe that people with histories of criminal activity or
eviction, bad credit, and required application fees and deposits were significantly less likely
to find housing.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 20
Residents utilizing housing choice vouchers are more likely to lose them if they aren’t
utilized quickly enough. One resident shared that if you lose your voucher—even if it’s not
your fault that no one will rent to you—you can’t apply for another year. Another resident
described that it took their household two years to get a voucher, however, “once we did
[receive a voucher], it was during COVID and no apartments were available. We had 60
days to find a place and couldn’t and the housing authority refused an extension. So, we
became homeless.”
Waitlist. With the acknowledgement that waiting lists do not reflect the total scale of
community needs, as of September 2023, there were 1,816 families on the Missoula
Housing Authority waitlist, which is approximately 3 years long.
One resident shared during the community engagement process that “getting housing is a
lot harder than it needs to be—there are a lot of requirements, and the onus is on you to
follow up on everything. If you miss one thing, you get dropped to the bottom of the
waitlist.” Another resident shared that they were on the waitlist for the current place
they’re living in, but once they got approved for the unit, there was no follow up. They
added that “there were so many hurdles to jump through and I had to follow up constantly.
It took four months to get into my apartment from the time I was approved for the unit.”
Publicly subsidized housing. Publicly supported housing makes up approximately
4.5% of the overall housing inventory in Missoula, as shown in Figure V-17 below. According
to the HUD LIHTC database, there are approximately 915 low-income units in LIHTC
projects.
Figure V-17.
Share of Housing
Units that are
Publicly Supported
Housing
Source:
Missoula Housing Authority, 2022
ACS 1-year estimates, and HUD
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Properties.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 21
Public Housing Authority Policy Review
The Missoula Housing Authority (MHA) is the largest affordable housing provider in
Missoula. Their mission is, “through creative partnerships and innovative development, the
Missoula Housing Authority provides quality housing solutions for low and middle-income
households in Missoula and surrounding area.” MHA’s portfolio consists of 1,178 rent-
restricted apartments and 1,215 housing vouchers, providing affordable housing to more
than 4,500 very-low, low, and middle-income Missoulians.
Policy and practices review. The review of the Public Housing Authority (PHA)
policies and practices was guided by HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, Chapter 4, Section
4.3 and Chapter 5, Sections 5.2 and 5.4. The results of the review are found below, which
presents where potential fair housing barriers exist based on the findings from the policy
analysis and program review.
1. Complying with Key Federal Regulations.
What is the PHA’s policy for accommodating the needs of women who have experienced
violence (Violence Against Women Act)?
What are the PHA’s policies for considering and making reasonable accommodations? Does
it balance the need for adequate information with resident rights to privacy?
The Housing Authority’s Tenant Handbook includes a section on the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) that articulates the protections for victims. The Handbook could be
more explicit that discretionary approval to provide benefits based solely on the
individual’s statement or other corroborating evidence is allowed—i.e., without
requiring formal documentation of abuse in accordance with 24 CFR 5.2007(b). The
Tenant Selection plan references VAWA in the Unit Transfer Procedure section, but
could provide more information related to notification, documentation, and
confidentiality, as well as MHA’s Emergency Transfer Plan required under VAWA 2013.
MHA’s Tenant Handbook provides an abbreviated section on reasonable
accommodations, including distinguishing between a reasonable accommodation and
reasonable modification, who qualifies to request a reasonable accommodation, and
high-level details of the request process. The Housing Authority could provide more
explicit information on the process of how a tenant can request a reasonable
accommodation. Additionally, MHA could consider providing more explicit information
related to HUD regulations and their own policies related to persons living with
disabilities. For example, MHA could articulate that “MHA’s rules and policies for
persons with disabilities are based on the Fair Housing Act (42,U.S.C.), section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and incorporate guidance from the Joint Statement of
The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), issued May 17, 2004.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 22
2. Evaluating Criminal Histories
What is the PHA’s policy on considering tenants with criminal histories? [HUD has no formal
policy on the length of look back periods, but recommends 5-7 years]
Missoula Housing Authority denies applicants with a household member that has
engaged in any of the following criminal activities:
➢ Record of any felony conviction in any state or federal court within the past
3 years;
➢ Record of a pattern of criminal activity, felony, and/or misdemeanor, over
the last 5 years;
➢ Record of any member of the household’s current use of a controlled or
illegal substance;
➢ Record of any criminal activity indicating a pattern of violence that may
constitute a threat to the health or safety of other individuals including
residents or staff. Violent criminal activity includes any of the activities listed
within Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, in Title 45 of the Montana
Code Annotated.
➢ Record of any conviction or adjudication, other than acquittal for the sale,
distribution or manufacture of any controlled or illegal substance;
➢ Record of any conviction or adjudication, other than acquittal, involving
illegal use or possession of any controlled or illegal substance;
➢ Record of any conviction or adjudication, other than acquittal, for child
abuse, molestation, or negligence involving a child;
➢ Requirement to register as a violent or sexual offender;
➢ Record of felony conviction for assault or any violent act against another
person in the last 10 years.
3. Offering Mobility Counseling
Missoula Housing Authority does not have information related to mobility counseling
on their website.
While not the same type of program, MHA does administer the Family Self-Sufficiency
(FSS) program for current voucher participants, which helps individuals and families
achieve economic self-sufficiency. Heads of household enroll in the Program by
completing an intake form, signing a contract of participation, and working with an FSS
coordinator to develop an Individual Training and Service Plan, which identifies
employment and financial goals for the participant to work on. FSS coordinators work
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 23
with participants throughout the program to identify and eliminate barriers to
participant goals.
4. Promoting Inclusive Tenancy
Does the PHA exhibit patterns of concentrations within developments?
Overall dispersion of residents by race and ethnicity is relatively consistent across
developments.
5. Accommodating Regional Needs
How well do household compositions and wait lists reflect the needs of the broader region?
Voucher holders are slightly more racially and ethnically diverse than the city overall.
6. Preferences and Tenant Selection Policies
What types of preferences exist and do these reflect needs?
Are there any concerns with the Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan (TSAP)?
No preferences are given for applicants on the waitlist. MHA’s resident selection
process is articulated below:
➢ Applications will be considered on a first come/first served basis according
to date of application;
➢ Applicants must satisfy all eligibility requirements for all programs
applicable to the unit they will move into.
➢ Accessible units will be matched with applicant’s needs as stated on the
application or during the interview process.
➢ All applications will be reviewed and either approved or denied by MHA
staff.
➢ MHA will promptly contact successful applicants in order to complete the
leasing process.
7. Accommodating Needs in Applications
How well does the process for applying for public housing or Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
accommodate the needs of Limited English Populations, residents with special needs, and
residents with disabilities?
Missoula Housing Authority strives to accommodate residents with different needs,
including Limited English Proficiency populations, residents with special needs, and
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION V, PAGE 24
residents with disabilities. Once prospective tenants make an appointment, MHA staff
walk through all required paperwork, different requirements for properties, and assess
what level of accommodation the applicant might need. Missoula Housing Authority will
accommodate prospective tenants in need of interpretation services, when requested.
MHA also honors all reasonable accommodation requests. Additionally, MHA designs
all its units to a Type B standard, which is essentially the equivalent to the FHA
guidelines for accessible units.
MHA could make its process of accommodating potential applicants with special needs
more explicit in its Tenant Selection Plan or other appropriate plans. Potential language
to add to its plan(s) include:
➢ “MHA staff must take a variety of steps to ensure that the application
process is accessible to those people who might have difficulty complying
with the standard MHA application process.”
➢ “MHA provides reasonable accommodation as needed for persons with
disabilities to make the application process fully accessible. The facility
where applications are accepted is fully accessible.”
➢ “If requested, MHA will make alternative forms of communication available
to make the application process fully accessible, including but not limited to,
TTD/TTY, sign language interpretation, having material explained orally by
staff, or having a third party to receive, interpret, and explain materials.”
8. Accommodating the Needs of Residents with Disabilities
How are accessible units made available?
Does the PHA promote the availability of accessible housing units to voucher holders?
How are residents with mental illness and behavioral and cognitive challenges
accommodated?
The needs of tenants and applicants for accessible units vary greatly depending on the
type of disability a person lives with. Some tenants and applicants with disabilities
require physical accommodations to units, reasonable accommodation for the
application process, or reasonable accommodation for ongoing housing needs. MHA
provides information on accessible units for all applicants and tenants who request this
information.
MHA also provides transfers to make an accessible unit available for a resident with a
disability. When a non-accessible unit becomes available MHA may transfer a family
living in an accessible unit that does not require accessible features to the vacated unit.
VI. FAIR HOUSING ENVIRONMENT
SECTION VI.
Fair Housing Environment
This section of the City of Missoula Equity Plan assesses private and public barriers to
housing choice within the context of existing fair housing laws, regulations, and guidance.
This analysis is informed by fair housing complaints; legal cases; a review of relevant land
use/public policies and practices; and Missoula’s current fair housing activities.
Primary Findings and Recommendations
According to the housing and community needs survey conducted for this Equity Plan,
Indigenous headed households, students, lower-income households, and households
with a member living with a disability were the most likely to believe they had
experienced housing discrimination when looking for housing in the city in the past 5
years.
HUD reported 11 fair housing complaints in Missoula between 2019 and 2023. Most
complaints submitted to HUD during this period affected individuals with disabilities.
The regulatory review of Missoula’s zoning ordinance did not find any major issues.
Best practices that are not as critical in nature but would be beneficial during the next
update of the code or in text amendments include:
➢ Include a definition of “disability” or “person with disabilities” that aligns with
Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) in the development code. In defining disability, it is important to
include the broad definition that has been interpreted by the courts to apply
to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which includes persons in recovery from
substance abuse challenges and persons with HIV/AIDS.
➢ Establish a standard process for reasonable accommodation requests in the
development code.
➢ Implement residential unit classifications, zone districts, and site design
requirements for alternative housing types (e.g. tiny homes, cottage
housing, courtyard development, micro-homes, and cooperative housing).
➢ Include a statement in the purpose of the zoning ordinance that discusses
fair housing law or include a cross-reference that identifies the adopted
planning documents that discuss and contain policies related to fair
housing.
The City is proactively taking short-term and long-term actions through policy and
zoning updates, community engagement efforts, and fair housing education and
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 2
training opportunities to affirmatively further fair housing in the community. However,
the City’s current Fair Housing webpage could provide more robust information,
including information on the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Montana Human Rights Act,
education and training opportunities, and local resources/organizations that residents
can utilize if they feel like they have experienced housing discrimination.
Legal Framework
Fair housing rights and protections are governed by the federal and state fair housing acts.
Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and
amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, gender/sex, familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act—Amended
(FHAA) covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales, mortgage and
home improvement lending and land use and zoning. Excluded from the FHAA are owner-
occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing units sold or rented
without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and
private clubs that limit occupancy to members and housing for older persons.1
HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the FHAA. HUD investigates the complaints it
receives and determines if there is a “reasonable cause” to believe that discrimination
occurred. If reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an
Administrative Law Judge. Parties to the action can also elect to have the trial held in a
federal court (in which case the Department of Justice brings the claim on behalf of the
plaintiff).2
State ordinance. The State of Montana has a law (“Montana Human Rights Act”) that
prohibits housing discrimination (Montana Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 2, Part 3 –
Discrimination in Housing).3 The state law includes additional protected classes’ marital
status, creed, and age. The Montana Human Rights Bureau (MHRB) enforces the state’s fair
housing law and is charged with enforcing specific state and federal laws that prohibit
unlawful discrimination. The Bureau informally investigates complaints that are filed with
the Department of Labor & Industry’s Human Rights Bureau. Residents who think that have
been discriminated against have only 180 days from when the adverse act occurred to file
a written complaint with the bureau. Additionally, the MHRB also “…provides quality
education and training opportunities to employers, employees, housing providers, tenants,
and all Montana residents.”4
1 “How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws”, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Research, April 2002.
2 Ibid.
3 See https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0490/chapter_0020/part_0030/section_0050/0490-0020-0030-0050.html for the actual text of the law.
4 https://erd.dli.mt.gov/human-rights/
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 3
Course of Action
The City of Missoula’s Community Planning, Development and Innovation Department
provides a webpage on Fair Housing. This webpage, pictured below in Figure VI-1, provides
information on federal fair housing law, links to informational resources on Fair Housing,
and a link to the City’s most recent Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice report.
Figure VI-1.
City of Missoula Fair Housing Webpage
Source: City of Missoula website
Missoula residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in violation of the
Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) or state fair housing laws may report their complaints to the
following entities:
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Montana Human Rights Bureau.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 4
Other entities that are responsible for receiving and investigating complaints of fair
housing discrimination in Missoula include:
Montana Fair Housing.
Additionally, Montana Legal Services Association (MLSA) provides civic legal aid services to
low-income Montanans.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Housing
discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online5; by calling toll free at 1-800-
669-9777; or by contacting the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington
D.C., or the HUD Denver Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
When HUD receives a complaint, HUD will notify the person who filed the complaint and
will normally notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The
complaint will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair
Housing Act.
A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD will try to reach an
agreement between the two parties involved. A conciliation agreement must protect the
filer of the complaint and public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no
further action unless the agreement has been breached. HUD will then recommend that
the Attorney General file suit.
If HUD has determined that a state or local agency has the same housing powers
(“substantial equivalency”) as HUD, they will refer the complaint to that agency and will
notify the complainant of the referral. The Montana Human Rights Bureau is not a
substantially equivalent local agency.
If during the investigative review and legal processes, HUD finds that discrimination has
occurred, the case will be heard in an administrative hearing within 120 days, unless either
party prefers the case to be heard in Federal district court.
If a person needs immediate help to stop a serious problem that is being caused by a Fair
Housing Act violation, HUD may be able to assist as soon as a complaint is filed. HUD may
authorize the Attorney General to go to court to seek temporary or preliminary relief,
pending the outcome of the complaint, if irreparable harm is likely to occur without HUD's
intervention and there is substantial evidence that a violation of the Fair Housing Act
occurred.
5 http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 5
Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB). The Montana Human Rights Bureau
(HRB) is charged with enforcing the state's anti-discrimination laws in the areas of
employment, housing, education, and public accommodations.
The HRB encourages people who believe they have experienced illegal discrimination to
contact their offices at 406-444-2884 or 1-800-542-0807. If the alleged act of discrimination
falls within the jurisdiction of the HRB, those who believed they have experienced illegal
discrimination will schedule a telephone interview with a trained investigator. If the facts of
the incident point to a credible instance of illegal discrimination, the trained investigator
will use the information gathered during the intake call to draft a formal complaint. A
signature by the complainant is required. A formal complaint must be filed with the HRB
within 180 days of the date of the alleged discrimination.
The Human Rights Bureau is a neutral administrative agency throughout this process. The
individual filing the complaint is referred to as the “charging party,” while the business or
entity against whom the complaint is filed is called the “respondent.” Once the complaint
has been filed, the respondent is notified within 10 days.
Before the complaint moves forward through the process, the HRB offers a variety of
options for voluntary resolution of discrimination complaints. Not only can voluntary
resolutions save both parties time and money but negotiations are confidential and most
parties who choose voluntary resolution see their cases successfully resolved. Additionally,
“before or during the informal investigation, if the parties are able to resolve the matter on
their own, then the Human Rights Bureau would ask that the parties provide the Bureau
with a copy of the settlement agreement and a signed withdrawal form…which withdraw[s]
the complaint from the administrative process.”6
If parties voluntary resolve the complaint after a cause finding has been established, HRB
may seek affirmative relief to correct or prevent discrimination. Moreover, “if the parties
reach a voluntary resolution without the participation of the Human Rights Bureau the
Bureau may seek a separate agreement with the Respondent.”7
Once the complaint has been filed, an investigator assigned to the case will begin an
information investigation to determine if illegal discrimination occurred. The Respondent
will receive the opportunity to provide a position statement about the alleged
discrimination, which the Complainant will have the opportunity to review and provide a
rebuttal. As part of the informal investigator, the investigatory might request additional
information, perform an on-site inspection, or hold an in-person fact finding, which is an
informal sit down that provides both the Complainant and Respondent to present their
6 https://erd.dli.mt.gov/human-rights/voluntary-resolution
7 Ibid
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 6
position in the case. The investigator will aim to work with both parties to reach a voluntary
no-fault resolution of the case.
The investigation must be completed within 180 days (120 days in housing cases). If a case
is unable to be resolved, a Final Investigative Report is produced, which summarizes the
investigation and recommends a finding of “reasonable cause”—meaning there is reason
to believe that illegal discrimination occurred— or “no reasonable cause”—meaning the
evidence does not support a finding that illegal discrimination occurred. This report is sent
to both parties.
If a reasonable cause finding is issued, HRB staff will attempt to conciliate the case with
both parties, which may include “…compensation for any losses incurred…modifying any
practices having an adverse effect on protected classes; and taking other affirmative steps
needed to eliminate discrimination.”8 If the parties are unable to conciliate, a public hearing
will be held by the Department of Labor and Industry. As such, “a hearing examiner will
conduct a formal hearing subject to the rules of evidence and procedure, similar to a non-
jury trial in district court. The hearing examiner will issue a Final Agency Decision regarding
whether discrimination occurred. If appropriate, the hearing officer will award monetary
damages, and other affirmative relief. This decision can be appealed to the Montana
Human Rights Commission”9
Montana Fair Housing. Montana Fair Housing’s mission is to promote and ensure
non-discrimination through outreach, education, dispute resolution, and enforcement. The
organization “…investigates allegations of discrimination in housing, counsels victims of
discrimination, and facilitates both the state and federal complaint process. [MFH] also
assists victims of housing discrimination, under specific circumstances, in securing the
representation of counsel when the filing of a complaint in court is deemed the best
option.”10 MFH also maintains a list of housing accessible to people requiring a mobility
device and provides dispute resolution services, upon request. MFH can be contacted
online through its contact form11 or by phone at 1-406-782-2573. The MFH offices are
located at 501 E Front Street, Butte, MT 59701.
Montana Legal Services Association (MLSA). The Montana Legal Services
Association or MLSA, is a statewide organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing the
civil legal rights of, and promoting systemic change for, Montanans living in poverty. MLSA
can be contacted online12 or can be reached by phone at 1-800-666-6899. MLSA has a local
8 https://erd.dli.mt.gov/human-rights/filing-a-complaint/
9 Ibid
10 https://www.montanafairhousing.org/index.php
11 https://www.montanafairhousing.org/contactform.php
12 https://www.mtlsa.org/contact/
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 7
office in Missoula located at 1535 Liberty Lane, Suite 110D. MLSA provides non-criminal
legal information, civic legal aid, and advice for thousands of Montanans each year,
including representing families living in unsafe housing conditions.
Housing Discrimination, Complaints, and Legal Cases
This section provides an overview of residents’ perceptions of discriminatory behavior from
responses to the community survey conducted for this Equity Plan and a review of FHAA
related complaints and legal cases filed in the city since 2019.
Overall, Indigenous headed households, students, and lower income households were the
most likely to believe they had experienced housing discrimination, according to the
housing and community needs survey, and households with a person living with a
disability filed the most complaints during the reporting period. There were 11 fair housing
complaints filed between 2019 and 2023.
Experience with housing discrimination. Nearly four in 10 survey
respondents (38%) believe they or someone they know experienced discrimination when
they looked for housing in Missoula, according to the housing and community needs
survey. Actual complaint data are much lower—indicating that many households who feel
they have experienced discrimination do not file complaints.
The resident survey found that:
Indigenous respondents, respondents with a household incomes less than $25,000,
students and those who experience a disability or have a household member with a
disability were most likely to report that they had experienced housing discrimination.
Higher income households and seniors were least likely to believe they had
experienced housing discrimination in the past.
Nearly 85% who think they experienced housing discrimination when looking for housing
in Missoula say that the incident took place in the past five years, and 51% said that it
occurred over the past year.
Reasons for discrimination. Respondents (n=288) were asked to describe the reasons
they or someone they knew think experienced discrimination when looking for housing to
rent or buy Missoula. These include:
Income/Socioeconomic class (19%)
Race/ethnicity (17%)
Other (10%); included mental illness,
chemical dependency, emotional
support animals, etc.
Disability (10%)
Sexual orientation (7%)
Criminal history (7%)
Age (7%)
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 8
Familial status/children (7%)
Bad credit (5%)
Being unhoused (3%)
Having a housing choice voucher or
other subsidy (3%)
Eviction history (2%)
Religion (<1%)
Examples of how participants described why they thought they were discriminated against
include:
“They moved here from out of state, lived here for a few years to get sober in a transition
home and found it hard to find a rental because of their past; they were a former addict,
they had no credit. I have many moms I work with who can’t get a rental because of their
credit being poor after a divorce, so they live in their cars.”
“A friend of mine attempted to renew their lease and was denied without explanation.
Neighbors who had a closer working relationship with the same landlord said it was
confirmed that their landlord was transphobic, and upset about having a trans tenant and
angry about the flag and signs my friend had displayed (allowed within the conditions of
their lease) on the property. The neighbors also confirmed that they enjoyed my friend as a
neighbor and that any claims by the landlord that they were a bad tenant were untrue. The
neighbors said that despite their personal conservative beliefs, they had no issues with my
friend as a neighbor and were sad that they were pushed out of the unit in this way.”
“Discrimination feels like a part of Missoula's housing stock - whether it is your income, use
of a voucher program, or race/ethnicity. Landlords don't seem to have to care about WHY
they discriminate because there is a net of excuses that are "accepted", even if the origin of
the discrimination lies with a protected class.”
“As a queer married couple, many property management companies call us roommates or
friends. We have not been offered to rent a place and offered to use a closet as a separate
bedroom.”
“Because I’m a single, Indigenous mother.”
“Native last name.”
“I have 4 children. They told me they do not rent to single mothers with so many children.”
“I was told that I did not deserve to have an assistive animal based on my disabling
condition which was described by my physician in an official letter that described my
condition, the reason for my need for an assistive animal, as well as the assistance the
provider was helping me. I was told that I was asking for an assistive animal for attention
and was abusing the system and should be ashamed of myself.”
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 9
“My Muslim neighbors were the only ones in the rental complex not offered a lease
renewal.”
Response to discrimination. When asked what they did about the discrimination, the
most common responses include:
“Nothing—I wasn’t sure what to do” (28%);
“Moved/found another place to live” (23%);
“Nothing—I was afraid of being evicted/harassed. (15%);
“Called/emailed housing authority” (7%); and
“Other” (7%).
For respondents that chose “Other,” a sample of those responses are below:
“No need to call or file a complaint when so many places do this, it is implied to be
‘OK.’”
“This population doesn’t file complaints because most of them have already been
burned by service and judicial systems.”
“She is homeless and continues to be homeless because the woman’s shelter won’t
accept her as a trans woman and she has a criminal record (which should not
disqualify someone from housing.”
“People are intimidated by the large property management [companies] and feel that
it is pointless in the pool of rental candidates.”
“I know of people who did nothing because of lack of education. Some did nothing
because fear, had no where else to go. Some file reports and get harassed. I’ve seen so
many negative responses.”
Fair housing complaints. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) receives and investigates housing complaints. HUD provided data on
intakes between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2023, for this study; HUD reported 11
fair housing complaints in the city of Missoula during this period.
Figure VI-2 shows the number of complaints by protected class affected from 2019 to 2023.
Complaints were most likely to be filed on the basis of disability (10 complaints), followed
by retaliation (2) and race (1). The City’s last Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
was completed in 2014 and analyzed HUD complaint data from 2007 to 2012. Of the 16
complaints filed with HUD during that time period, 13 complaints were filed on the basis of
disability, while two were filed on the basis of race and the other on the basis of familial
status.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 10
Figure VI-3 shows the number of complaints by resolution. Most complaint resolutions
were through no cause determination (5 complaints), followed by complaint withdrawn by
complainant after resolution (2), complaint withdrawn by complainant without resolution
(2), and successful conciliation or settlement (1). One of the complaints did not have a
closure reason listed.
Figure VI-2.
Count of Protected
Classes in all
Complaints, City of
Missoula, 2019-2023
Note:
Complaints can have more than one
protected class.
Source:
HUD
Figure VI-3.
Count of Resolution of Complaints, City of Missoula, 2019- 2023
Source: HUD
Legal cases. To support the complaint analysis, we searched U.S. Department of Justice
for housing and civil enforcement section cases in the city of Missoula. None were
identified at the time of this report.
Land Use, Public Policies, and Practices
The Federal Fair Housing Act’s requirement to affirmatively further fair housing includes
avoiding policies and/or practices that limit the fair housing choice of the individuals and
households protected by the Act.
Land development codes cannot contain standards, definitions, or procedures that result
in differential treatment in housing which can disproportionately affect the classes
protected under the FHA. In addition, land development regulations that increase
development costs, e.g., through density or design requirements that make residential
development overly expensive, can limit the supply of affordable housing. In some
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 11
communities, this has a direct impact on racial and ethnic minorities, larger households
and families with children, and persons with disabilities because these groups are
disproportionately represented among those residing in lower cost housing. Limits or
prohibitions on multifamily housing or restrictions on household occupancy are other
examples of how land development codes can negatively affect the groups protected
under FHA.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability,
defined by ADA as a physical or mental impairment. The ADA requires accessibility in public
places (i.e., open to and used by the public) and also requires that “reasonable
accommodations” be allowed when necessary to permit persons living with disabilities
equal opportunity to enjoy such places. The accessibility provision in the FHAA governs
residential accessibility, and requires that multifamily buildings built after March 13, 1991
have specific accessible design features and be adaptable. In addition, the FHAA ensures
that persons with disabilities have the right to request and be granted modifications to
residential units—as well as local regulations and standards—to make a residence or
building accessible to them.
Common regulatory barriers. Some of the key factors in land development codes
that most commonly result in barriers to fair housing choice and reasonable
accommodation include:
Site standards. Large lots or excessive setbacks between structures or from streets
that can increase development costs, e.g., special infrastructure;
Limits on density. Restriction on or prohibition of multifamily housing; low floor
area ratios (FAR) for multifamily or mixed-use development; or low density
requirements;
Use-specific standards. Special site or operational requirements for group homes
for persons with disabilities that are not required for other residences or groups;
Differences in quality and access to public services. Additional requirements
for infrastructure or essential municipal services not required for other residences or
dwelling units;
Definition of family and occupancy restrictions. Definitions of family or
occupancy limits that prohibit or limit the number of unrelated persons in a
household;
Procedures for development or rezone reviews. Extensive review procedures,
public hearings, or notice requirements for different housing types, housing for
protected classes, or low-income housing;
Housing types. Limits or prohibitions on alternative affordable housing options
such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), modular or manufactured homes, and mixed-
use developments;
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 12
Spacing. Minimum distance between group homes that are not required for other
residences or groups and make development of group homes difficult;
Reasonable accommodations. Regulations inhibiting modifications to housing for
persons with disabilities or their ability to locate in certain neighborhoods; and
Code language. Local land development codes and standards that are not aligned
with federal and state regulations governing fair housing and reasonable
accommodation.
The City of Missoula is currently examining how its current zoning regulations and land use
policy impact housing affordability. As part of the City’s Our Missoula Growth Policy Update,
the City has developed a series of analytical reports to ensure that new development rules
and regulations align with community priorities and City plans. One of those reports, the
Equity in Land Use report, evaluated Missoula’s land use policy and zoning regulations
based on how well they support social equity goals, including advancing housing
affordability and reducing barriers to historically disadvantaged populations from thriving
in the community. The major findings of that report include:
A high share of land is reserved for low density, exclusive single-dwelling housing that
is unaffordable to all but the most affluent households;
A very small share of land allows housing at density levels high enough to deliver
housing affordable to middle and lower income households;
This spatial distribution of zone districts has contributed to, and perpetuates,
segregation along lines of class and race and exclusion of lower income households
from neighborhoods with high economic and educational opportunity.
This spatial distribution of zone districts has also concentrated lower income
households in the same neighborhoods where new development activity is
concentrated, contributing to a higher risk of gentrification and displacement of lower
income households in those neighborhoods.
Additionally, the City of Missoula performed a Code Diagnostic as part of the Our Missoula
Growth Policy Update to evaluate equity issues associated with land use codes and
policies. The analysis drew from a synthesis of policy and regulatory documents, insights
from listening sessions, staff input, and the project team’s analysis regarding Missoula’s
development codes. The analysis found four key findings:
Codes present barriers to housing equity, capacity, and affordability;
Codes present barriers to compatible infill development and limits housing diversity;
Codes do not support mobility and climate policies; and
Codes are difficult to navigate for all users.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 13
Findings from the 2014 Analysis of Impediments. The 2014 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) focused on the following public policies and
actions that impact housing choice:
Public policy impediments
Zoning restrictions on permanently affordable housing developments create a
concentration of affordable housing options in certain areas and limits new affordable
housing development;
Zoning regulations and practices limit the siting and availability of housing for persons
with disabilities;
The inclusion of residential use categories (residential living and group living) in the
Zoning Ordinance may limit the availability of adult living facilities in the City; and
Land use designations and building codes may limit the availability of affordable
housing choices and focus multi-family housing on certain neighborhoods.
Real estate impediments
Shortage of accessible housing units;
Inadequate incentives and increased costs, due to regulations limiting the number of
affordable housing units for families with children;
Possible fair housing violations in real estate advertising; and
Substandard rental housing units available to low income members of protected
classes.
Banking and lending impediments
Credit issues limiting the ability of members of the protected classes to qualify for
homeownership or rental;
Fair housing education and awareness impediments
Lack of awareness of fair housing laws and of a fair housing officer.
Figure VI-4 and VI-5 summarize the impediment findings from the 2014 AI and indicate if
the City addressed the barrier.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 14
Figure VI-4.
Public Sector Findings from the 2014 AI Update
Source: ASK Development Solutions and Root Policy Research.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 15
Figure VI-5.
Public Sector Findings from the 2014 AI Update, continued
Source: ASK Development Solutions and Root Policy Research
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 16
Zoning and land use review. The City of Missoula Zoning Ordinance (the Code)
were reviewed based on a checklist developed by the Region IX HUD office (“Review of
Public Policies and Practices—Zoning and Planning Code). The checklist poses a series of
questions aimed at common zoning regulations that impact fair housing. The questions in
that checklist are consolidated below and used to evaluate the zoning and planning code.
1. Is there a definition of “family” and does it discriminate against group living for
persons with disabilities?
Family is not defined in the Code. This is a best practice—no definition or a “broader”
definition of family increases housing opportunity and flexibility for all residents by
allowing more unrelated people to live together.
2. Are there any occupancy standards or maximum occupancy limits?
No.
3. Is the number of unrelated disabled individuals residing together restricted but
there is no restriction for other persons?
The Code does not restrict the number of unrelated individuals with disabilities living
together. In Table 20.05-1, Uses Allowed in Residential Districts, Group Living, Community
Residential Facility (eight or fewer people), and Community Residential Facility (greater
than nine people) are allowed by right in all residential districts in Missoula.
Under Section 20.105.020, Residential Use Group, Group Living is defined as “Residential
occupancy of a dwelling by other than a “household,” typically providing communal
kitchen/dining facilities. Examples of groups living uses include, but are not limited to,
fraternities, sororities, convents, monasteries, nursing homes, and the following
specific use types: [community residential facility, healthcare facility, and
convent/monastery].”
In the Zoning Ordinance, Community Residential Facility is defined as:
A group, foster, or other home specifically provided as a place of residence service
developmentally disabled or handicapped persons who do not require nursing care;
and as defined by MCA § 76-2-411;
A district youth guidance home service youths in need of supervision, or youths in
need of care or delinquent youths as defined by MCA § 76-2-411, and established
pursuant to the Montana Youth Court Act;
Detention, receiving or shelter homes defined by MCA § 76-2-411, and established
pursuant to the Montana Youth Court Act;
A halfway house operated in accordance with regulations of the Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences for the rehabilitation of alcoholics or drug dependent
persons, pursuant to MCA § 76-2-411;
A licensed adult foster family care home as defined by MCA § 76-2-411; or
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 17
An assisted living facility licensed under MCA § 76-2-411.
Under Section 20.40.070, Group Living, all group living uses, with the exception of
health care facilities and community residential facilities with eight or fewer residents,
are subject to the density standards articulated in the section.
Section 20.40.070.B.1 articulates that “the density of residents in a group living use is
limited to generally approximate and reinforce the density limits that apply in
residential zoning districts. Such limits also help address public facility and service
demands and prevent overcrowding.”
While community residential facilities with more than nine residents are subject to the
density requirements articulated in Section 20.40.070, so are other group living uses,
including but not limited to, fraternities, sororities, convents, and monasteries. As such,
these density requirements do not single out the number of unrelated individuals living
with disabilities that are able to live together.
4. Is “disability” defined and is the definition the same as FHAA?
“Disability” is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
Best practices review. Including a definition of “disability” or “person with
disabilities” that aligns with FHAA and ADA is a best practice. A definition can be
included in Chapter 20.100, Terminology, of the Zoning Code. Those codes with a section
detailing the process to request a reasonable accommodation could be improved by
adding a definitions sub-section that consolidates key words or phrases, including
“disability” or “person with disabilities” for ease of reference. Language could be added
to clarify that the definitions contained in the reasonable accommodation section apply
to all other sections of the zoning or land development code.
In defining disability, it is important to include the broad definition that has been
interpreted by the courts to apply to the Fair Housing Act, which includes persons in
recovery from substance abuse challenges and persons with HIV/AIDS.13
5. Are housing opportunities for persons with disabilities restricted or
mischaracterized as a “boarding or rooming house”?
No.
As noted above, Group Living is defined in Section 20.105.020, Residential Use Group, as
“Residential occupancy of a dwelling by other than a “household,” typically providing
communal kitchen/dining facilities. Examples of groups living uses include, but are not
limited to, fraternities, sororities, convents, monasteries, nursing homes, and the
13 Group Homes: Strategies for Effective and Defensible Planning and Regulation; Connolly, Brian and Merriam, Dwight.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 18
following specific use types: [community residential facility, healthcare facility, and
convent/monastery].”
There are no definitions for “boarding house” or “rooming house” in the Zoning
Ordinance.
6. Does the zoning code allow housing with on-site support services for persons
with disabilities?
Yes, but not explicitly. Section 20.40.120, Residential Support Services, allows residential
support services in the RM2, RM1.5, RM1, and RM0.5 zoning districts in conjunction
with nursing homes, health care facilities, and multi-dwelling buildings. While
residential support services are not allowed in all residential zoning districts, the uses
that are allowed to provide these services do not solely house people living with
disabilities.
7. Are there definitions for “special group residential housing” and if so, do the
definitions align with FHAA.?
Please see the discussion under items three and five above.
8. Is there a process to allow waivers of zoning and building code regulations for
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities?
The process for granting reasonable accommodations for persons living with
disabilities is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Best practices review. A best practice is to establish a standard process for
reasonable accommodation requests. Some codes identify typical requests, such as a
setback waiver for wheelchair ramps, as administrative in nature when it does not
exceed a certain amount. Such requests are processed the same as any other building
permit. Other reasonable accommodation requests are processed with a more detailed
administrative review using criteria that comply with FHAA and ADA. This clarifies how
a reasonable accommodation is reviewed and removes such requests from
consideration under procedures and criteria that do not fit the circumstances of the
request. When the reasonable accommodation request does not qualify for
administrative review, a review before an appointed body can be used. However, the
same criteria for deciding the request must be used:
➢ Whether the person to be accommodated has a disability;
➢ Whether the modification requested is reasonably necessary to
accommodate that disability; and
➢ Whether the modification would fundamentally and unreasonably alter the
nature or purposes of the zoning ordinance. The burden is on the
municipality to prove this would occur.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 19
The International Building Code (IBC) allows appeal of decisions of the building official
and decisions can be made based on “alternate equivalency” to meeting the IBC
requirement. The building code does not tie the determination of an alternative to the
physical characteristics of the property or building, making the standard appeal process
available to process requests for reasonable accommodation. Examples may include
lower sink heights to accommodate a person in a wheelchair, or special positioning of
grab bars to accommodate different types of disabilities.
9. Are public hearings required for exceptions to land use codes for disabled
applicants but no hearing is required for all other applicants?
Please see discussion under item three above.
10. Are mixed-uses allowed and is housing for persons with disabilities and other
protected classes permitted where mixed-use is allowed?
Yes. With the exception of the Residential Manufactured Housing Park (RMH) district,
mixed-use buildings are permitted by right in all residential districts. Additionally,
mixed-use buildings, as well as group living uses, community residential facilities with 8
or fewer individuals, and community residential facilities with 9 or more individuals, are
all permitted by right in all business and commercial districts. Mixed-use buildings and
group living uses are also allowed by right in the M1R district.
11. What types of residential land uses are allowed and what standards apply?
As articulated in Section 20.05.010.B, “Missoula’s residential (R) zoning districts are
primarily intended to create, maintain and promote a variety of housing opportunities
for individual households and to maintain and promote the desired physical character
of existing and development neighborhoods.”
a. Is there variety in allowed single-family and multi-family residential land uses?
Yes, a range of housing types are allowed in the city’s residential zone districts, as
well as commercial and business districts. The residential building types allowed in
the city’s residential districts include:
➢ Detached house, defined as, “A principal building that contains only one
principal dwelling unit and that is located on a single parcel with private
yards on all sides of the building.”
➢ Lot line house, defined as, “A principal building containing one dwelling unit
located on a single parcel that is not attached to any other dwelling units.
The building is shifted to one side of the parcel so that there is a more
usable side yard on one side of the house and very little or no private yard
on the other side.”
➢ Townhouse, defined as, “A residential building containing multiple dwelling
units, each located on its own parcel or TED ownership unit with a common
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 20
or abutting wall along shared property lines or TED ownership unit
boundaries. Each dwelling unit has its own external entrance.”
➢ Two-unit house, defined as, “A residential building containing two dwelling
units, both of which are located on a single parcel (also referred to as a
“duplex” or “two-flat”). The dwelling units are attached and may be located
on separate floors or side-by-side.”
➢ Multi-dwelling house, defined as, “A residential building containing three to
six dwelling units that share common walls and/or common floors/ceilings.
Multi-dwelling houses appear as large detached houses and have only one
entrance visible from the street.”
➢ Multi-dwelling building, defined as, “A residential building containing three
or more dwelling units (other than a three+ townhouse multi-dwelling
house) that share common walls and/or common floors/ceilings. Multi-
dwelling buildings are typically served by one or more private or common
building entrances.”
➢ Mixed-use building, defined as, “A building that houses residential uses in
combination with nonresidential uses.”
➢ Accessory dwelling unit, defined as, “A separate dwelling unit within a
detached house or a separate dwelling unit that occupies an accessory
building that shares a parcel with a detached house. As the name implies,
accessory dwelling units are an accessory use to the principal use of the
property (i.e., a detached house).” Accessory dwelling units are allowed only
on parcels occupied by a single detached house or lot line house.
The Zoning Ordinance also articulates several different development options
(Section 20.05.040, Development Options), including:
➢ Conventional development, defined as, “Any development that is not part
of an approved cluster or conservation development.”
➢ Cluster and conservation development, defined as, “Options [that] are
intended to encourage development designs…that are more efficient and
provide more open space and greater natural resource protection than
convention development designs.”
➢ Permanently affordable development (three or more dwelling unit
project), defined as, “Allowing smaller parcel size and other modified
building standards in exchange for up to 50% of the project developed as
permanently affordable for residents….”
Best practices review. A best practice is to incorporate residential unit
classifications, zone districts, and site design requirements for alternative housing
types (e.g. tiny homes, cottage housing, courtyard development, micro-homes, and
cooperative housing). This minimizes delay in the approval process, reduces costs,
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 21
and educates zoning and building officials and the entire community about these
housing types and who it will serve.
b. Do densities and development standards (lot size, height, etc.) support low- and
middle-income housing options?
The Zoning Ordinance includes 16 residential zoning districts with varying densities,
locations, and requirements. The code includes regulations of the permitted
residential structures for each zoning category and outlines the building code
regarding density, footprint, building height and setback requirements. Multifamily
dwellings, including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and sixplexes, are restricted to
the densest districts. Accessory dwelling units are allowed only on parcels occupied
by a single detached house or lot line house, which are allowed by right in all
residential districts. This allows for gentle density as discussed below in best
practices.
Best practices review. Consideration for a process to allow smaller lot sizes and
dwelling unit sizes may be merited to provide additional affordable housing options
for this housing type. A best practice is to allow flexibility for “gentle density” such
as duplexes to triplexes, to accommodate demand for missing middle housing,
promote economic integration, and meet current preferences in housing. Some
communities allow these densities if the units carry a level of affordability (e.g., 80-
120% AMI to facilitate middle income ownership).
c. Are accessory dwelling units (ADU) allowed?
Yes. Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all residential districts, but only on
parcels occupied by a single detached house or lot line house.
The ADU offers an alternative housing type that may permit a household to age in
place, make a home affordable to a family, and increase housing options for lower-
income one and two-person households.
d. Is design review required for multi-family housing or group living?
Design requirements and performance standards including minimum unit size, site
landscaping, parking, etc. are specified for all residential zone districts and do not
appear to be especially stringent for multifamily or group living facilities.
e. Are there special site improvement standards for certain types of housing?
As stated above, there are design requirements and performance standards for all
residential uses.
12. Does the zoning code describe any areas as exclusive?
There are no zoning districts described as exclusive in the Zoning Ordinance.
13. Are there restrictions for senior housing and if so, do the restrictions comply with
Federal law on housing for older persons?
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 22
See discussion in item three on group homes for seniors.
14. Is senior housing a specific land use and if so, is a special or conditional use
permit required but is not required for single-family or multi-family residential
uses?
As described in item three, group living, community residential facilities (with 8 or fewer
people), and community residential facilities (with 9 or more people) are all listed as
land uses under the Residential Use category. All three uses are permitted by right in all
residential zoning districts.
15. Is a conditional or special use review permit required for housing for persons
with disabilities but is not required for single-family or multi-family residential
uses?
No.
16. Are there any references to fair housing or a statement about fair housing in the
zoning code?
No.
Best practices review. A best practice is to include a statement in the purpose of the
zoning ordinance that discusses fair housing law or to include a cross-reference that
identifies the adopted planning documents that discuss and contain policies related to
fair housing.
17. Are there specific references to the accessibility requirements of FHAA or ADA in
the development codes?
No.
Best practices review. It is a best practice to include references to the FHAA or ADA
accessibility requirements in the code.
a. Are there minimum standards for handicap parking for multi-family housing?
The Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly articulate minimum standards for
handicap parking. However, Section 20.60.070, Accessible Parking (for People with
Disabilities), states that “accessible parking facilities must be provided in accordance
with Accessibility Code requirements through the City Building Division.” Ordinance
3669 (2020) articulates that the Building Division will administer ADA requirements
through the International Building Code (IBC).
b. Are there standards for accessible routes (e.g., sidewalks and access through
parking lots)?
The Zoning Ordinance states, “Multi-dwelling residential, commercial, industrial and
mixed use development shall provide pedestrian walkways. A system of pedestrian
walkways is required to connect each primary use structure on a site to the
following: adjacent public sidewalks, on-site parking lots or parking structures,
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 23
other on-site primary use structures, bicycle storage areas, and common outdoor
use areas. The pedestrian walkway system must comply with Municipal Code
requirements.”
Jurisdictional review. Stakeholders consulted in the development of this Equity Plan
expressed concerns with zoning and regulatory barriers to affordable housing
development in Missoula’s Zoning Ordinance. Root conducted a high level review of
barriers to address these concerns. The following best practices are aimed at improving
local zoning regulations and policies to promote the construction of affordable housing in
jurisdictions.
Provide flexible residential uses. Several stakeholders emphasized the need for
more diverse housing types to be allowed throughout the city. A best practice is to
incorporate residential unit classifications, zone districts, and site design requirements
for alternative housing types (e.g. tiny homes, cottage housing, courtyard
development, micro-homes, and cooperative housing). This minimizes delay in the
approval process, reduces costs, and educates zoning and building officials and the
entire community about these housing types and who it will serve.
Expedite the process. Several stakeholders described the City’s permitting process as
long and frustrating. Additionally, a couple of stakeholders felt that more awareness
for City Council around how the cost of construction and the “ins and outs” of the
entitlement process would be beneficial for “speeding up” the process. Expedited
permitting is not available in some jurisdictions for affordable housing developments.
The entitlement process is perceived by stakeholders to be onerous and lengthy in
some cases and anecdotal information indicated the process takes a minimum of 18
months to navigate. Expediting the permitting process for affordable housing is
common in different states and is considered a best practice for encouraging
affordable housing construction cost effectively.
Increase local resources for housing. Stakeholders expressed the need for increased
commitments for affordable housing in municipal and county budgets. Numerous
stakeholders lauded the creation of the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and
applauded the resources being put into it. However, there was a sense that more
resources are needed. A handful of stakeholders wanted the City to consider using
publicly-owned land for the development of affordable housing.
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 24
City of Missoula Fair Housing Activities
Fair housing activities since 2014. This section provides a summary of fair
housing activities undertaken by the City since their last AI in 2014.
A Place to Call Home: Meeting Missoula’s Housing Needs. In June 2019, the
Missoula City Council adopted A Place to Call Home: Meeting Missoula’s Housing Needs, the
first citywide housing policy adopted in Missoula. The housing policy attempts to both spur
and harness the market to better provide housing at a wide range of entry points, and to
ensure that all Missoulians can obtain safe and decent homes. A Place to Call Home
organizes over two dozen specific policy recommendations into four strategies:
Track and analyze progress for continuous improvement;
Align and leverage existing funding resources to support housing;
Reduce barriers to new supply and promote access to affordable homes; and
Partner to create and preserve affordable homes.
Our Missoula Growth Policy. Spurred by the passage of the Montana Land Use
Planning Act (MLUPA) that requires cities with more than 5,000 people to adopt new land
use plans, zoning, and subdivision codes, the City of Missoula is currently developing Our
Missoula, the City’s Growth Policy. While many of the values and vision articulated in the
City’s current growth policy are still relevant, several issues, including social, cultural, and
racial inequities; housing shortages; rising housing costs; and the accelerating effects of
climate change, are not captured in the current vision. As part of the growth policy update,
the City conducted an “Equity in Land Use” audit to identify how the City’s current codes
and policies are falling short in supporting social equity goals and addressing community
needs. Recommendations for effectively advancing equity through land use policy and
regulations to explore in future phases of the project include:
Distributing opportunities for affordable housing types broadly throughout the city;
Enabling density levels that open up the possibility for smaller, more affordable units;
Avoiding concentrated upzoning in vulnerable neighborhoods;
Providing zoning incentives for income-restricted affordable housing;
Focusing regulations more on the form of buildings, less on the number of units in the
building; and
Designing reforms that increase opportunities for adding amenities and services
within a walkable distance of all households.
Community Solutions to Housing Development. In January 2023, the City of
Missoula prepared a memo reflecting concerns from community members related to
housing displacement, specifically regarding the prevalence of acquisitions of mobile home
courts and naturally occurring affordable housing. Beginning in February 2022, staff
CITY OF MISSOULA EQUITY PLAN SECTION VI, PAGE 25
engaged with over 300 residents through listening sessions, individual meetings, and
meetings with providers. Out of this process, recommendations related to fair housing
materialized, specially for City staff to work with community organizations to host Fair
Housing and Landlord Tenant training opportunities for residents, service providers, and
property management/owners. As a result, the City is holding its first Fair Housing
Workshop for Tenants in 2024 to teach residents about their rights under the Fair Housing
Act, how to recognize discrimination, and what to do if they have experienced
discrimination.
Accessory dwelling units. In October 2020, the City adopted an update to its zoning
code, which included changes to standards and restrictions on accessory dwelling units
(ADUs). On the heels of the City’s adopted housing policy, which recommends use of ADUs
in order to provide affordable and accessible housing that can be easily distributed
throughout the city, the zoning ordinance update now reflects that ADUs are allowed by
right in all residential zoning districts within the city limits. ADUs provide a wide range of
benefits, including supplemental income to finance-burdened homeowners, affordable
housing options for students and young families, a type of residential infill that is
compatible with existing neighborhoods, and the ability for families to provide live-in
options for aging parents or adult children needing extra care or services.