Good Business and Good Policy: 

Finding the Right Ways to Serve the Affordable Mortgage Market 

Homeownership is a source of pride and a mark of achievement and satisfaction 

for many Americans—an important part of the “American Dream.” Yet while policy 

makers and researchers have described ways in which homeownership improves financial and social opportunities, 

some studies suggest that these benefits are less attainable for households with lower-incomes. For the past several 

decades, advocates of homeownership have focused on extending homeownership opportunities to lower-income 

households, and the resulting availability of new mortgage products has created thousands of first time homeowners. 

Yet further research is necessary to determine the specific lending practices that can create the greatest possible 

benefits for both the mortgage industry and low- and moderate-income (LMI) homeowners. Such research is 

particularly important in light of the current mortgage foreclosure crisis, as millions of homeowners have lost or face 

the possibility of losing their homes due to unsustainable mortgages, and the mortgage industry is suffering as a 

result. 

 

 The Center for Community Capital at the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conducts 

research in order to find a key balance between good 

business and good policy for the affordable mortgage 

market. For the past 7 years, the Center has 

undertaken research on loans made to LMI borrowers 

through a groundbreaking partnership between Self--

Help (a leading Community Development Financial 

Institution), the Ford Foundation, and Fannie Mae; 

this partnership is known as “The Community 

Advantage Program” (CAP). The program grew out 

of Self-Help‟s goal of creating a secondary market for 

affordable mortgage loans, and the Ford Foundation 

and Fannie Mae have provided the capital and 

capacity to make Self-Help‟s vision a reality. 

 Launched in 1998, CAP had two objectives: to 

help tens of thousands of low-income households 

build wealth through homeownership and to show 

that lending to low-income homeowners presents an 

acceptable level of risk. By 2003, the program 

exceeded its initial $2 billion goal, and the 

participating organizations decided to expand it 

indefinitely. The commitment of the Ford 

Foundation, Fannie Mae, and Self-Help presents an 

unparalleled investment in affordable mortgage 

lending that has generated substantial positive 

outcomes for nearly 47,000 homeowners nationwide. 

 CAP also provides a unique opportunity for 

evaluating the benefits and costs of affordable 

mortgage lending for both homeowners and mortgage 

practitioners. Analysis of CAP‟s success will enable 

the industry to determine the best affordable 

mortgage lending practices. In recognition of this 

opportunity, the Ford Foundation commissioned the 

Center for Community Capital to conduct a longterm evaluation of CAP. Two main goals guide this 

study: First, the Center is tracking data on the entire 

portfolio of 46,475 loans to evaluate the viability of 

the LMI market from a business standpoint. Second, 

the Center is analyzing the effects of homeownership 

on the households themselves; over a period of seven 

years, we are conducting in-depth interviews with a 

panel of homeowners and a comparison panel of 

renters, matched by location and income. Through 

analysis of this unique and extensive data set, the 

Center will provide crucial information about how 

best to serve the LMI market in a way that is both 

profitable from a business standpoint and beneficial 

to the homeowners themselves. 

_____________________________________ 

CCC‟s research aims to produce 

recommendations for policy and 

practice that are based on rigorous 

analysis of data, make good business 

sense, and enable LMI households to 

enjoy fully the benefits of 

homeownership. 

_______________________________________ 

 

Research Design 

 

The Center for Community Capital tracks data on all 

CAP loans (currently 46,475) to understand the 
UNC Center for Community Capital - CAP Evaluation

Research supported by the Ford Foundation

2

intricate relationship between loan product, borrower 

and property characteristics, and loan performance. 

Our database includes origination information and 

monthly payment records and is supplemented with 

credit data, updated property values, and census 

characteristics. 

For a unique and in-depth look at 

homeownership among low- and moderate-income 

households, the Center also follows a panel of 

homeowners (initially 3,7431) over a seven year 

period following purchase of a home financed by a 

CAP loan. We conduct six annual interviews with 

this panel of CAP borrowers. For purposes of 

comparison, the Center also tracks a companion panel 

of renters (initially 1,531) over a similar time period. 

The renters panel allows us to isolate tenure effects 

and to closely examine the transition from rental to 

ownership. Our study‟s large number of participants 

and panel design offer a unique opportunity to 

explore both the performance of CAP loans and the 

financial and social impacts of homeownership on 

individual households. 

The CAP study is innovative in several ways. 

First, we have access to a quantity of loan-level 

mortgage information that is rarely available. Second, 

ours is the first such dataset focusing specifically on 

low- and moderate-income homebuyers. In particular, 

the mortgages were all made as part of Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) or affordable programs, 

and we expect to generalize our findings to those 

lending practices. Third, the panel enables us to 

merge loan performance data with household 

characteristics, providing both an extensive data set 

and an in-depth understanding of important 

household variables. Fourth, our renters‟ panel serves 

not only as a comparison group but also as its own 

informative database. The renters‟ panel allows us to 

investigate which renters transition into 

homeownership, what events play a role in this 

transition, and how people experience this change. 

 

1 As was expected and as is common in panel data 

collection, we have experienced some panel attrition, 

particularly among those respondents who are less

educated, male, and Hispanic. We have employed 

retention efforts such as field tracing and incentives, 

but we do anticipate some attrition bias to persist in 

subsequent survey years. We are developing nonresponse and post-stratification weighting to 

minimize the impact of attrition bias.

Finally, our surveys are extensive and consistent: each 

wave of surveys builds on the last, expanding 

knowledge gained from previous questions and 

continuing our longitudinal analysis. 

What data are we gathering through our panel 

interviews? Through a series of 45 minute interviews 

conducted by phone or in-person, we inquire about 

homeowners‟ type of employment, family, income, 

and employment status. The table below shows the 

various survey modules and the schedule for their 

administration. In the baseline survey, we collected 

information about the home purchase experience, and 

we have followed up with questions 

PANEL SURVEY MODULES

All Waves Demographics, Income, Employment, 

Intent to Own (renters only), Decision

to move (movers only) 

2003-only 

owners 

Home purchase experience, 

Pre-purchase counseling 

2004 Social Capital, Parenting 

2005 Wealth & Assets, Savings, Intent to 

own (renters), New mortgages (move 

& refi only)

2006 Financial Literacy, Savings behavior, 

Energy Costs, Sense of Community

2007 Repeat 2004 modules, Medical costs, 

Credit scores

2008 Repeat 2005 modules

2009 Economic Challenges

about moving, refinancing, and repayment difficulties. 

In a series of waves, we have asked about money 

management, decisions to save, and the use of credit. 

In 2005, and again in 2008 (the most recently 

completed wave of survey data collection), we 

conducted in-depth reviews of household assets and 

liabilities. We also inquire about community 

participation, parenting, volunteering, and 

neighborhood satisfaction in order to gain a better 

understanding of the social impacts of homeownership. Overall, our surveys are providing useful 

information about what factors can enable

homeowners and lenders to work together for their 

mutual benefit. 
UNC Center for Community Capital - CAP Evaluation

Research supported by the Ford Foundation

3

CAP and the Mortgage Market

 

 The Center‟s evaluation of CAP is particularly 

important in light of trends in the mortgage market. 

In an industry once characterized as failing to serve 

lower-income and minority households and, more 

recently, as flooding that market with unaffordable 

and poorly designed products, CAP stands out as a 

success story. CAP has served lower-income 

borrowers using products that are profitable, 

effective, and beneficial to new LMI homeowners.

Historically, banks and secondary market 

investors have been reluctant to provide financing to 

higher-risk borrowers, and a large population of 

lower-income and minority households has lacked 

equal access to mortgage credit. The Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA), passed by Congress in 

1977, encouraged banks to accommodate a whole 

new tier of households previously not eligible for 

conventional, prime home loans. Lenders developed 

new, one-off mortgage products that allowed 

thousands of households to obtain mortgages

(Quercia, McCarthy, Wachter 2003). However, these 

mortgages did not conform to the necessary 

requirements for sale to the government-sponsored 

enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and 

so they lacked a secondary market outlet. As a result, 

banks found themselves holding large portfolios of 

“non-conforming” CRA loans on their books, which 

often constrained them from being able to offer more 

of these affordable loans.

In the early 1990‟s, Self-Help began to 

recognize the limited options that originators faced in 

trying to provide affordable mortgages for lowerincome households. Self-Help also knew from its 

own direct lending experience that loans to lowincome households performed quite well. In 1994, 

Self-Help began to purchase non-conforming loans, 

creating a local secondary market for affordable loans 

in North Carolina. Yet though Self-Help‟s 

nonconforming loan portfolio revealed minimal 

losses, it lacked the long-term funds necessary to 

sustain this program on a national scale. 

In 1992, Congress established affordable 

housing goals that required the GSEs to serve lowerincome communities more actively (Fannie Mae 

2005). In the late 1990s, Fannie Mae made a trillion 

dollar commitment to expanding lending services to 

underserved communities. In 1998, these developments brought Self-Help, Fannie Mae, and the Ford 

Foundation together to create CAP. A generous Ford 

Foundation grant provided risk capital, while Fannie 

Mae brought the capacity that allowed Self-Help to 

expand its impact. 

Since the launch of CAP in 1998, mortgage 

lending guidelines among participants have grown 

more flexible, expanding possibilities for 

homeownership. (Quercia, McCarthy, Wachter 

2003) Indeed, it would seem the industry has, in 

many ways, accepted Self-Help‟s proposition that 

flexibility in making loans to low-income and 

minority families is good business. Beginning in 2003 

or 2004, however, another important trend emerged 

in the mortgage industry: the rapid expansion of the 

sub-prime mortgage market and, along with it, of 

“predatory lending.” The phrase refers to mortgages 

made under exploitative terms, loans typically based 

on collateral rather than on the borrower‟s ability to 

repay. While innovative mortgage products increase 

access to credit for LMI borrowers, predatory lending 

can devastate families and communities and thus 

needs urgent attention from policy makers (Quercia, 

Stegman, & Davis, 2004). 

________________________________

CAP has helped thousands of lowto-middle income and minority 

households build wealth through 

sustainable homeownership.

 _______________________

In contrast, CAP models how mortgage lending 

can be extended to and benefit lower-income 

populations. Our research reveals that, among 

borrowers with similar credit characteristics, those 

with subprime loans are three to five times more 

likely to default than those with CRA-type loans 

provided through CAP. This finding emphasizes that 

mortgage features like adjustable interest rates, 

prepayment penalties, and broker originations are 

likely to lead borrowers into default, while LMI 

borrowers with safe products can sustain their 

mortgages.

During its first 8 years, only 2% of CAP loans 

were charged off. This period saw strong property 

appreciation, no doubt contributing to CAP‟s 

performance. However, it remains to be seen how 
UNC Center for Community Capital - CAP Evaluation

Research supported by the Ford Foundation

4

these loans fare in the current soft real estate market. 

We have been collecting CAP data during a time of 

unprecedented housing appreciation followed by an 

abrupt and devastating downturn related to 

unsustainable lending practices. Housing prices and 

sales peaked in the first quarter of 2006 but have 

declined ever since. In 2007, mortgage delinquencies 

began a rapid upward climb, and since the start of 

2007 the number of foreclosures has tripled (Center 

for Responsible Lending 2009). The Ford 

Foundation has extended CAP analysis in order to 

asses the impacts of the housing downturn on 

borrowers and gauge how CAP respondents are 

dealing with the economic crisis. 

A Closer Look at Homeownership 

 

Our study of CAP is helping to clarify the 

relationship between homeownership and various 

financial and social outcomes. Prior research has 

revealed both financial and social benefits to 

homeownership, and yet certain claims about these 

benefits remain hotly contested. This is particularly 

true in the case of LMI households. The financial 

benefits of owning a home are well known: 

homeownership has been shown to play a large role in 

wealth generation and accumulation, an especially 

significant factor for LMI households since a home 

might be their only source of wealth. The U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(2006) found that lower-income homeowners were as 

likely as other households to experience the financial 

gains of homeownership through house appreciation. 

In addition, research has revealed some of the social 

benefits of homeownership, such as positive impacts 

on children, higher satisfaction with one‟s home and 

neighborhood, and greater physical and psychological 

health (HUD 2006). HUD also showed that the 

children of LMI homeowners are more likely than 

children of LMI renters to experience social impacts 

such as greater educational benefits and employment 

success. 

However, other studies have posited that the 

financial and social benefits of homeownership do 

not necessarily extend to households of all incomes. 

McCarthy, Van Zandt, and Rohe (2000; 2001) 

investigated the economic and social benefits of 

homeownership across varying income groups. They

found that certain benefits are available to households 

of all incomes, while others, such as homeowner tax 

benefits, are denied to low-income households under 

the U.S. housing finance system. The authors 

conclude that further research needs to be conducted 

on the conditions under which housing is a good 

investment, and future research must place an 

emphasis on the sustainability of homeownership for 

LMI families. 

The Center for Community Capital is 

addressing this need for further research on the 

benefits and risks of homeownership for LMI 

households. Three of our research categories focus 

specifically on analysis of issues related to potential 

benefits of homeownership; these issues include

Home Equity, Wealth and Assets, Tenure and 

Mobility Choices, Financial Literacy, and Social 

Impacts. 

The Center is using CAP data to explore the 

relationship between HOME EQUITY and 

household wealth. Analysis of CAP panel data has 

revealed that homes purchased with a CAP loan 

between 1999 and 2003 appreciated at an average 

annual rate of 2.3% between the time of purchase and 

January 2009, more than the Dow Jones Index and 

the prevailing average rate on a six-month CD. The 

initial investment by the median CAP panel borrower 

of $1,947 has grown to $19,681. Gains vary 

according to length of home tenure and geographic 

region, but for all borrowers, the median annual

equity gain has been 39%. Even families with weak

credit histories or who were new to the credit system 

have been able to build significant wealth through 

homeownership. In addition, families who fell behind 

in payments and came close to default generally 

accumulated enough equity for preventative servicing 

and creative approaches to help them retain their 

homes. The Center‟s research thus reveals that 

sustainable homeownership has proven a solid 

investment for this low- and moderate-income 

population. 

We are also analyzing the effects of 

homeownership on the WEALTH AND ASSETS of 

LMI borrowers. Wealth data gathered in 2005 and 

2008 reveals that the median net worth of CAP 

owners increased from $36,999 in 2005 to $53,983 

in 2008. Home equity was a driving force behind 

this increase; between 2005 and 2008, owners‟ 

median home equity rose from $8,025 to $26, 223. 

Owners‟ liquid wealth grew from $3,426 in 2005 to 

$5,100 in 2008. Additionally, a greater percentage of 
UNC Center for Community Capital - CAP Evaluation

Research supported by the Ford Foundation

5

CAP owners are saving over time. In 2005, 43% of 

owners reported having saved in the 12 months 

preceding the survey, while by 2008 this increased to 

54%.

However, because household wealth is generally 

a prerequisite for homeownership, lower-income 

households might not be able to access this 

opportunity to build wealth through equity. CAP is 

an effort to broaden access to homeownership as a 

means of wealth creation. Through its analysis of 

CAP data, the Center is helping to determine the 

exact relationship between homeownership and 

wealth by attention to several influential factors: the 

process by which renters become owners, the financial 

and social outcomes of the decision to move, the 

effect of homeownership on access to affordable 

credit, the impact of household debt on wealth and 

assets, and the intent of households to save and the 

process through which they do so. 

Our research has revealed several trends related 

to how RENTERS BECOME OWNERS. 

Through 2008, 18% of our rental panel had 

transitioned to homeownership. Those renters with 

the strongest intentions to own were the most likely 

to purchase a home within a year, suggesting that 

strong intentions help renters achieve homeownership 

despite challenges. However, intentions to own were 

less associated with home purchases for minority 

renters, and lower-income renters and renters in areas 

with greater poverty or home appreciation rates were 

less likely to purchase homes. Thus, even for renters 

with intentions to own, financial and social forces 

pose challenging constraints.

In our analysis of DECISIONS TO MOVE,

we found that low-income and minority households 

are less likely to move and more likely to purchase a 

new rather than lived-in home when they do move. 

Such results suggest that these households may 

exhibit stronger attachments to homeownership once 

it is achieved. Comparing these patterns of tenure 

and mobility among CAP borrowers to those of the 

larger population proves challenging. However, our 

analysis offers a more complex picture of LMI 

homeowners‟ experiences by separating tenure choice 

and mobility as two distinct decisions, rather than 

coupling the purchase of a new home and the return 

to renting as “the transition out of homeownership.” 

The deregulation of financial services has placed 

increased responsibility on consumers in terms of 

managing their personal finances. Consumers must 

enhance their FINANCIAL LITERACY in order to 

decide how much credit they can afford and to 

evaluate the terms of different mortgage products. 

The Center‟s interviews of CAP borrowers ask a 

series of questions related to financial literacy; these 

concern unsolicited offers to refinance mortgages, 

whether or not borrowers applied for loans from such 

lenders, and whether or not the offer was accepted. 

Such data allow us to identify suspected predatory 

lending and to determine the financial literacy of 

borrowers and the effects of financial literacy on 

mortgage loan delinquency and default.

A related issue is borrowers‟ use of 

MORTGAGE BROKERS to refinance. Given the 

central role that mortgage brokers played in the 

growth of the subprime industry, policy makers are 

increasingly attentive to the potential for steering by 

mortgage brokers. Our research suggests that 

borrowers who refinanced through mortgage brokers 

were more likely to report both that the refinance was 

solicited and that the terms changed at closing, as well 

as lower levels of overall satisfaction with the 

refinance.

Our research also aims to examine the SOCIAL 

IMPACTS of homeownership. Researchers have 

posited that a homeowner‟s longer tenure in a 

neighborhood and increased stake in a community‟s 

vitality affect neighborhood satisfaction, civic 

engagement, political participation, sense of 

community, collective efficacy, and parenting 

behavior. However, existing research fails to consider 

self-selectivity bias; it has been unclear whether 

homeownership increases social benefits or whether 

people in more satisfying social situations are more 

likely to purchase homes. Our evaluation of CAP 

accounts for selectivity bias and examines the 

processes by which social benefits accompany 

homeownership. We have found that homeowners in 

economically disadvantaged neighborhoods are more 

active in local politics than both renters in similar 

areas and homeowners in more affluent areas. Further, 

renters who become homeowners become more likely 

to join local civic groups. Homeowners also have 

wider social networks than renters, partially as a result 

of their increased involvement in civic groups. 

Finally, we have found that LMI homeowners are 

more likely than LMI renters to engage in positive 

parenting practices, experience neighborhood 

satisfaction, and have greater social capital. 

 
UNC Center for Community Capital - CAP Evaluation

Research supported by the Ford Foundation

6

Sustainable Industry Practices 

 

The Center for Community Capital‟s evaluation 

of CAP has important implications not only for LMI 

homeowners or potential homeowners, but also for 

industry stakeholders. The Center intends to provide 

hard evidence to lenders, policy makers, and the 

secondary mortgage market that lower-income 

borrowers are indeed bankable and profitable. Our 

analysis of CAP data will offer industry practitioners 

an in-depth look at the various factors that influence 

loan performance in the affordable market. Several of 

our research topics address industry concerns, 

including Drivers of Default, Trigger Events, 

Prepayment, Home-ownership Education and 

Counseling, Loan Servicing, Loss Mitigation, 

Bankruptcy, and the Changing Role of Community 

Reinvestment Lending.

From the early stages of our research we have 

been analyzing DRIVERS OF DEFAULT. We have 

confirmed that origination credit score, current LTV, 

and mortgage interest rate relative to market rate are 

leading predictors of default for CAP borrowers. By 

introducing panel variables, we are able to identify the 

role of such factors as emergency assets, 

unemployment spells, and lack of health insurance. 

We have consistently found that race is not a 

significant variable. 

Longitudinal panel data collection allows us to 

explore how certain TRIGGER EVENTS or 

dramatic changes such as divorce or separation, job 

loss, reduced income, and unexpected expenses affect 

the risk of default. We are using CAP data to 

analyze the impact of such events on loan 

performance. The Center has found that the 

experience of trigger events is not uncommon for 

CAP borrowers. We are developing an option-based 

model of mortgage delinquency that explores how 

changes in household characteristics impact the 

decision to stop payment or to prepay. We merge 

data on trigger events with loan performance data in 

order to compare prior repayment history to 

repayment history after a major event.

Our research adds to evidence that affordable 

mortgages (in the case of CAP, prime mortgages 

geared towards LMI households) have slower 

PREPAYMENT rates than other conventional 

mortgages. This is particularly true in times of 

interest rate volatility, when investors are most 

concerned with the probability of early payment. 

From an industry perspective, then, affordable 

mortgages are of value to investors in terms of their 

diminished prepayment risk. Moreover, we find 

several specific characteristics of affordable mortgages 

that affect prepayment speed, including equity, credit 

score, income and liquid assets, and racial and ethnic 

attributes of borrowers.

We are also filling gaps in research on 

preventive servicing and loss mitigation techniques, 

particularly in the context of sustaining 

homeownership among lower-income households. 

The last 15 years have seen a ten-fold increase in 

funding for HOMEOWNERSHIP EDUCATION 

AND COUNSELING, from $3.5 million in 1990 

to $40 million in 2005 (Hornburg 2004). The 

Center‟s research expands the few recent studies on 

homeownership counseling by examining the effects 

of different counseling methods on loan performance, 

as well as the joint impact of pre- and post-purchase 

counseling. For example, we found that intensive, 

classroom based homeownership education and 

counseling programs were effective in improving 

homeowners‟ abilities to evaluate mortgage products 

and terms, as people in these programs were more 

responsive to the potential benefits and costs of 

prepayment. Further, new research suggests that prepurchase homeownership counseling increases the 

extent to which participants search for and compare 

alternative mortgage products.

We have found that LOAN SERVICING

methods can impact performance. Specifically, after 

we control for loan and borrower characteristics, the 

likelihood that a mildly-delinquent borrower will fall 

further behind varies significantly across servicers. 

Our findings suggest a need for policy makers to 

incorporate preventive servicing into affordable 

homeownership programs. 

In examining serious delinquencies, we find that 

only 29% of CAP loans reaching 90-day delinquency 

end in foreclosure. In examining the factors and 

conditions that affect the outcomes of serious 

delinquencies, we find significant evidence that welltimed, situation-appropriate, intensive LOSS 

MITIGATION counseling increases the probability 

of curing a delinquency. 

We are also assessing the impact of 

BANKRUPTCY on CAP homeowners and renters. 

We know when our respondents file for bankruptcy, 

and we are investigating whether or not filing for 
UNC Center for Community Capital - CAP Evaluation

Research supported by the Ford Foundation

7

Chapter 13 bankruptcy helps prevent foreclosure. 

We are also exploring the effect of household and 

exogenous shocks that may precede bankruptcy, statelevel effects of bankruptcy, and the impact of 

bankruptcy on credit scores. 

Buttressing all of this research is the finding that 

loans originated through CAP often substitute for 

subprime originations. In documenting the 

CHANGING ROLE OF COMMUNITY 

REINVESTMENT LENDING, our research 

suggests that CAP loans have increasingly served as 

alternatives for subprime originations during the 

subprime industry‟s growth. For instance, our 

estimates imply that, for every 100 CAP loans 

originated between 2004 and 2006, roughly 67 fewer 

high-cost loans were originated. 

In sum, the Center for Community Capital‟s 

research will offer new and crucial insights for 

mortgage industry stakeholders, including lenders,

investors, servicers, and credit enhancers. The Center

hopes to document for stakeholders the lending 

practices that can serve their own best interests while 

also sustaining and increasing beneficial 

homeownership opportunities for the LMI market. 

Our policy and practice recommendations will make 

good business sense for the mortgage industry. They 

will also meet the needs of LMI homeowners, who 

deserve the same benefits that sustainable 

homeownership offers families of higher incomes. 

 

References 

Center for Responsible Lending. http://www. 

responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/. 

6/2/2009.

Fannie Mae. “Housing Solutions.” 2005. 

http://www.fanniemae.com.

Hornburg, Steven P. “Strengthening the Case for 

Homeownership Counseling: Moving Beyond „A 

Little Bit of Knowledge.‟” Joint Center for Housing 

Studies at Harvard University. December 2004.

McCarthy, George, Shannon Van Zandt, and William 

Rohe. “The Economic Benefits and Costs of 

Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the 

Research.” Research Institute for Housing 

American Working Paper. May 2001. 

Quercia, Roberto G., George W. McCarthy, and Susan M. 

Wachter. “The Impacts of 

Affordable Lending Efforts on Homeownership 

Rates.” Journal of Housing Economics 12:1 

(March 2003): 29-59. 

Quercia, Roberto G., Michael A. Stegman, and Walter R. 

Davis. “Assessing the Impact of North 

Carolina's Predatory Lending Law.” Housing 

Policy Debate, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2004): 573-601. 

Rohe, William M., George McCarthy, and Shannon Van 

Zandt. “The Social Benefits and Costs of 

Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the 

Research.” Research Institute for Housing 

American Working Paper. May 2000.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

“The Homeownership Experience of LowIncome and Minority Families.” February 2006.