Understanding Whom  

the LIHTC Serves

Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units 

as of December 31, 2015

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  |  Office of Policy Development and Research

Understanding Whom the LIHTC Serves 

Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of  

December 31, 2015 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

March 2018 

Contents 

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 

II. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Data Submissions .................................................................................... 5 

III. Assessing Completeness of 2015 Tenant Data ......................................................................................... 6 

A. States Submitting Tenant Data ........................................................................................................... 6 

B. Properties in the Tenant Data ............................................................................................................ 6 

C. LIHTC Rent-Restricted Units ............................................................................................................... 7 

D. Household Members .......................................................................................................................... 8 

IV. Race and Ethnicity of Tenants ................................................................................................................... 9 

V. Disability Status ....................................................................................................................................... 11 

VI. Family Composition and Age ................................................................................................................... 14 

VII. Annual Household Income ...................................................................................................................... 16 

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments ....................................................................................................................... 19 

IX. Use of Rental Assistance ......................................................................................................................... 21 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 LIHTC Data Submissions ................................................................... 2 

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases ............. 3 

Table 3. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at Certification ......... 4 

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household ...................................................................................... 10 

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members .................................................................................... 12 

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members ........................................................................ 13 

Table 7. Family Composition: Households With Children and Elderly Members ......................................... 15 

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income ...................................................................................... 17 

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI ......................................................................... 18 

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income .............................................................. 20 

Table 11. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance ...................................... 22 

Table 12. Use of Federal Rental Assistance Programs in LIHTC Units ........................................................... 23

i 

I.  

Introduction 

In 2008, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), which, among other things, requires each housing finance agency (HFA) that administers the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) to submit certain demographic and economic information on tenants in LIHTC units to the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) according to standards determined by the 

Secretary of HUD. HERA specifically requires HFAs to submit to HUD information concerning race, 

ethnicity, family composition, age, income, use of rental assistance, disability status, and monthly rental payments of households residing in LIHTC properties. This report represents the third annual data release of information collected under this mandate. More detailed background of this data collection is available in the original report,  Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012, which is available on huduser.gov.  

Most of the information presented in this document was col ected by the administering state HFAs as part of program compliance enforcement. Although tenant income and rent information are collected in accordance with specific program rules, some HFAs have not fully adopted HUD’s standards for col ecting demographic information. Thus, although income and rent information were collected across HFAs using fairly uniform standards and definitions, the demographic information was not standardized and, for some HFAs, not collected at all. 

Finally, HUD’s administrative responsibility in the LIHTC Program is strictly limited to the designation of Difficult Development Areas, or DDAs, and Qualified Census Tracts, or QCTs. HUD is not involved in enforcing the statutory or regulatory compliance of LIHTC properties unless HUD subsidies are present. 

HUD’s col ection of tenant data, although required by statute, is not used in program administration. 

This report represents the fourth public release of information under the HERA mandate. Although the information reported here is not inclusive of all tenants served by the LIHTC, it provides a useful picture of the program’s beneficiaries. The information presented within was received by HUD in the fall of 2016 

and includes tenants in LIHTC units as of December 31, 2015. Table 1 highlights the differences between the 2014 and 2015 data submissions. Tables 2 and 3 provide an assessment of property, unit, and tenant coverage by state, indicating completeness across the reporting categories. The remaining tables present the information as required by HERA, with additional information on completeness as warranted. 

 1 

Table 1. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 LIHTC Data Submissions 

LIHTC Properties PIS Database

LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

2014 Data

2015 Data

Difference 2014-2015

2014 Data

2015 Data

Difference 2014-2015

State

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Alabama

644

33,710

657

34,305

13

595

668

35,235

626

33,554

-42

-1,681

Alaska

96

3,670

96

3,670

0

0

106

1,108

32

1,203

-74

95

Arizona

361

27,722

375

28,718

14

996

363

28,440

366

28,610

3

170

Arkansas

492

23,200

500

23,490

8

290

391

17,222

457

20,064

66

2,842

California

3,634

287,804

3,841

303,979

207

16,175

3,219

260,741

3,477

276,780

258

16,039

Colorado

539

36,603

552

37,950

13

1,347

485

31,164

477

29,938

-8

-1,226

Connecticut

332

20,182

359

22,450

27

2,268

231

15,607

243

17,623

12

2,016

Delaware

122

7,334

239

14,459

117

7,125

125

6,973

126

7,114

1

141

District of Columbia

159

19,216

168

20,274

9

1,058

261

16,555

272

14,573

11

-1,982

Florida

1,302

178,909

1,323

180,894

21

1,985

1,029

149,986

1,060

152,625

31

2,639

Georgia

940

89,546

945

90,895

5

1,349

484

40,001

807

58,187

323

18,186

Guam

7

587

7

588

0

1

7

587

7

595

0

8

Hawaii

86

7,626

176

15,664

90

8,038

83

7,831

102

8,215

19

384

Idaho

205

8,533

246

10,357

41

1,824

204

8,284

215

8,935

11

651

Illinois

1,090

83,338

1,149

87,179

59

3,841

1,096

60,226

262

7,844

-834

-52,382

Indiana

648

42,695

656

42,915

8

220

424

28,009

593

38,510

169

10,501

Iowa

514

20,262

527

20,926

13

664

487

18,512

502

19,544

15

1,032

Kansas

479

21,625

491

21,840

12

215

3,221

20,013

3,158

20,243

-63

230

Kentucky

780

28,683

847

31,613

67

2,930

530

13,715

534

14,451

4

736

Louisiana

776

43,702

1,020

56,180

244

12,478

538

27,566

606

31,651

68

4,085

Maine

203

7,052

213

7,387

10

335

185

6,646

191

6,868

6

222

Maryland

448

41,577

448

41,577

0

0

370

33,026

411

36,628

41

3,602

Massachusetts

880

62,244

909

64,076

29

1,832

634

45,414

692

50,412

58

4,998

Michigan

1,041

64,776

1,067

67,205

26

2,429

1,052

64,889

1,009

61,518

-43

-3,371

Minnesota

872

41,148

1,026

52,982

154

11,834

731

33,285

758

34,297

27

1,012

Mississippi

662

34,289

685

35,432

23

1,143

538

28,537

552

30,012

14

1,475

Missouri

1,713

60,692

1,721

61,219

8

527

861

34,321

964

43,802

103

9,481

Montana

189

5,797

194

5,976

5

179

184

5,313

50

1,551

-134

-3,762

Nebraska

335

11,223

343

11,517

8

294

329

10,859

333

10,919

4

60

Nevada

231

23,174

335

32,880

104

9,706

195

19,560

197

18,398

2

-1,162

New Hampshire

208

7,494

211

7,689

3

195

176

5,540

194

6,711

18

1,171

New Jersey

626

44,837

1,075

82,676

449

37,839

431

25,983

494

33,863

63

7,880

New Mexico

311

19,600

311

19,600

0

0

216

14,447

232

15,433

16

986

New Yorka

2,859

174,891

2,905

180,333

46

5,442

1,540

124,488

1,472

124,658

-68

170

North Carolina

1,425

57,079

1,498

63,288

73

6,209

923

50,222

963

36,885

40

-13,337

North Dakota

176

5,300

180

5,296

4

-4

173

5,210

173

5,402

0

192

Ohio

1,551

100,449

1,584

102,578

33

2,129

1,120

72,162

1,177

78,201

57

6,039

Oklahoma

531

26,506

531

26,506

0

0

398

17,990

410

19,904

12

1,914

Oregon

589

34,310

610

35,328

21

1,018

268

15,718

352

20,542

84

4,824

Pennsylvania

1,075

49,133

1,077

49,242

2

109

1,016

47,640

984

47,243

-32

-397

Puerto Rico

207

18,944

213

19,510

6

566

197

17,528

201

18,062

4

534

Rhode Island

158

10,376

161

10,548

3

172

170

10,525

171

10,672

1

147

South Carolina

553

29,858

586

31,221

33

1,363

505

25,890

532

28,953

27

3,063

South Dakota

228

8,124

232

8,276

4

152

165

6,192

169

6,317

4

125

Tennessee

578

47,602

578

47,602

0

0

511

39,782

530

42,384

19

2,602

Texas

2,051

223,702

2,144

234,173

93

10,471

1,539

176,511

1,609

185,117

70

8,606

Utah

354

19,074

362

19,470

8

396

332

16,401

356

19,227

24

2,826

Vermont

258

5,877

263

5,960

5

83

247

5,885

256

6,174

9

289

U.S. Virgin Islands

24

1,076

24

1,076

0

0

23

892

27

1,251

4

359

Virginia

958

84,438

973

85,631

15

1,193

911

77,700

938

81,982

27

4,282

Washington

937

71,068

937

71,068

0

0

827

62,340

476

32,240

-351

-30,100

West Virginia

261

11,919

270

12,475

9

556

240

10,682

246

11,274

6

592

Wisconsin

878

30,046

933

27,912

55

-2,134

791

34,266

483

21,147

-308

-13,119

Wyoming

94

4,066

95

4,093

1

27

94

3,859

94

3,957

0

98

Total

36,790 2,423,175

38,988 2,581,222

2,198

158,047

36,516 1,937,538

33,879 1,942,323

-2,637

4,785  

HERA = Housing and Economic Recovery Act. LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. PIS = LIHTC properties placed in service database. 

Note: The 2014 data are identical to those reported in  Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2014 and do not include information on properties placed in service prior to 2015 that was reported with the 2015 PIS data collection. 

a  Neither the 2014 nor 2015 totals include tenant data from one of New York City’s suballocators, the Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD). 

 2 

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases 

2015 LIHTC Properties PIS Database

2015 LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

Properties 

Units in Matched 

Properties 

Units in Matched 

All Active  All Active  Matched to HERA              Properties                

All Active  All Active 

Matched to PIS                        

Properties                  

State

Properties

Units

(%)

(%)

Properties

Units

(%)

(%)

Alabama

657

34,305

85.1

85.8

626

33,554

88.8

87.4

Alaska

96

3,670

18.8

24.0

32

1,203

56.3

75.6

Arizona

375

28,718

94.4

94.9

366

28,610

95.4

96.1

Arkansas

500

23,490

83.0

80.7

457

20,064

89.9

88.3

California

3,841

303,979

80.1

81.5

3,477

276,780

86.7

86.2

Colorado

552

37,950

83.3

80.5

477

29,938

94.3

93.1

Connecticut

359

22,450

61.6

73.2

243

17,623

84.8

85.5

Delaware

239

14,459

96.7

96.9

126

7,114

99.2

99.7

District of Columbia

168

20,274

67.3

64.5

272

14,573

75.7

78.6

Florida

1,323

180,894

76.5

81.0

1,060

152,625

93.9

93.8

Georgia

945

90,895

59.9

63.8

807

58,187

81.9

82.3

Guam

7

588

100.0

100.0

7

595

100.0

100.0

Hawaii

176

15,664

89.8

86.5

102

8,215

95.1

96.4

Idaho

246

10,357

99.2

99.4

215

8,935

99.5

99.8

Illinois

1,149

87,179

7.9

8.9

262

7,844

88.5

74.1

Indiana

656

42,915

84.9

84.8

593

38,510

93.3

94.9

Iowa

527

20,926

94.5

97.3

502

19,544

99.2

99.7

Kansas

491

21,840

80.0

80.2

3,158

20,243

80.3

81.0

Kentucky

847

31,613

67.3

77.0

534

14,451

98.9

99.6

Louisiana

1,020

56,180

67.2

74.6

606

31,651

94.9

95.4

Maine

213

7,387

87.3

91.0

191

6,868

95.8

97.1

Maryland

448

41,577

64.1

61.0

411

36,628

68.1

70.1

Massachusetts

909

64,076

62.8

68.0

692

50,412

79.6

80.7

Michigan

1,067

67,205

89.7

87.0

1,009

61,518

94.2

93.5

Minnesota

1,026

52,982

78.7

82.2

758

34,297

92.3

94.0

Mississippi

685

35,432

76.4

84.5

552

30,012

91.7

92.6

Missouri

1,721

61,219

54.6

76.9

964

43,802

94.7

93.7

Montana

194

5,976

23.2

26.1

50

1,551

88.0

97.5

Nebraska

343

11,517

97.1

98.5

333

10,919

100.0

100.0

Nevada

335

32,880

74.0

72.4

197

18,398

100.0

100.0

New Hampshire

211

7,689

89.1

89.8

194

6,711

94.3

94.3

New Jersey

1,075

82,676

56.5

56.3

494

33,863

97.0

97.2

New Mexico

311

19,600

52.1

59.8

232

15,433

69.8

76.2

New Yorka

2,905

180,333

47.4

63.5

1,472

124,658

91.4

90.4

North Carolina

1,498

63,288

70.0

90.0

963

36,885

99.8

99.8

North Dakota

180

5,296

84.4

87.9

173

5,402

88.4

89.6

Ohio

1,584

102,578

72.3

76.6

1,177

78,201

93.5

93.8

Oklahoma

531

26,506

65.9

63.1

410

19,904

84.1

81.4

Oregon

610

35,328

52.6

56.2

352

20,542

90.3

92.1

Pennsylvania

1,077

49,242

83.5

88.5

984

47,243

90.3

92.0

Puerto Rico

213

19,510

93.9

94.0

201

18,062

99.5

99.8

Rhode Island

161

10,548

99.4

99.8

171

10,672

98.2

99.1

South Carolina

586

31,221

81.2

83.2

532

28,953

85.5

85.8

South Dakota

232

8,276

67.7

72.8

169

6,317

91.1

93.5

Tennessee

578

47,602

90.7

90.8

530

42,384

98.9

98.8

Texas

2,144

234,173

70.8

75.2

1,609

185,117

93.4

93.5

Utah

362

19,470

97.2

99.2

356

19,227

98.9

98.9

Vermont

263

5,960

95.8

96.2

256

6,174

98.0

97.4

U.S. Virgin Islands

24

1,076

87.5

85.3

27

1,251

77.8

75.9

Virginia

973

85,631

94.9

97.7

938

81,982

95.6

97.1

Washington

937

71,068

1.6

4.1

476

32,240

74.8

0.0

West Virginia

270

12,475

80.0

75.2

246

11,274

87.4

85.9

Wisconsin

933

27,912

55.0

55.7

483

21,147

98.1

99.3

Wyoming

95

4,093

98.9

99.3

94

3,957

100.0

100.0

Total

38,988

2,581,222

68.7

73.2

33,879

1,942,323

83.1

89.7

HERA = Housing and Economic Recovery Act. LIHTC = low-income housing tax credit. PIS = LIHTC properties placed in service database. 

a  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

 3 

Table 3. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at 

Certification  Household Size 

at Certification 

Less Than Reported                  

Equals Reported                  

Greater Than Reported         

Not Reported

Hous

                  ehold Size at Certification                                                             

Household Size at Certification                                 

Household Size at Certification                                

Total            

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

0.0

3.0

91.7

5.2

100.0

Alaskaa

52.2

1.3

44.7

1.7

100.0

Arizona

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

Arkansas

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.5

100.0

California

2.1

1.5

96.2

0.3

100.0

Colorado

0.0

0.5

99.2

0.3

100.0

Connecticut

3.3

2.0

94.7

0.0

100.0

Delaware

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

District of Columbiaa

41.4

7.0

50.7

0.9

100.0

Floridaa, b

2.9

63.7

33.4

0.0

100.0

Georgia

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Guam

0.2

6.7

85.5

7.6

100.0

Hawaii

1.9

0.2

97.9

0.0

100.0

Idaho

2.9

0.7

95.5

0.9

100.0

Illinoisa

81.9

0.3

17.3

0.5

100.0

Indiana

0.0

5.6

88.4

6.0

100.0

Iowa

5.8

0.5

93.4

0.2

100.0

Kansasa

8.5

40.5

51.1

0.0

100.0

Kentucky

0.0

6.8

86.5

6.6

100.0

Louisiana

0.0

0.4

99.2

0.3

100.0

Maine

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.5

100.0

Maryland

3.5

0.4

96.1

0.0

100.0

Massachusetts

2.6

0.6

96.9

0.0

100.0

Michigan

4.4

0.0

95.0

0.6

100.0

Minnesota

19.4

4.2

75.7

0.6

100.0

Mississippi

6.6

0.4

92.5

0.5

100.0

Missouri

5.8

0.1

93.9

0.2

100.0

Montana

4.8

0.0

95.1

0.1

100.0

Nebraska

6.2

0.4

92.8

0.5

100.0

Nevada

4.3

0.0

95.4

0.3

100.0

New Hampshire

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

New Jersey

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

New Mexico

0.0

2.2

97.6

0.2

100.0

New Yorka

42.3

2.0

55.1

0.5

100.0

North Carolina

6.2

5.2

82.2

6.5

100.0

North Dakotaa, b

5.9

43.2

50.9

0.0

100.0

Ohio

0.0

4.1

91.1

4.9

100.0

Oklahoma

6.9

0.0

92.9

0.2

100.0

Oregon

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

Pennsylvania

0.3

0.0

95.2

4.5

100.0

Puerto Rico

2.0

0.0

97.9

0.1

100.0

Rhode Island

0.0

0.0

98.9

1.1

100.0

South Carolina

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

South Dakota

0.0

0.0

99.8

0.2

100.0

Tennessee

0.0

3.0

92.2

4.8

100.0

Texasa, b

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Utah

3.9

0.0

95.9

0.1

100.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

99.1

0.9

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

3.2

0.0

96.8

0.0

100.0

Virginia

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

Washington

0.0

1.8

92.8

5.4

100.0

West Virginia

6.5

0.1

93.4

0.0

100.0

Wisconsin

0.0

0.4

96.1

3.5

100.0

Wyoming

5.1

0.0

94.5

0.4

100.0

Total

14.9

6.7

77.3

1.1

100.0  

a  Alaska, Illinois, and Texas reported household size at certification for less than one-half of its tenants. The District of Columbia, Kansas, New York, and North Dakota reported household size at certification for approximately 50 percent to 55 percent. 

b  Florida, North Dakota, and Texas provided information for only one household member. 

c  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

 4 

II.  

Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Data Submissions 

Table 1 provides a comparison of HUD’s 2014 and 2015 property and tenant data to provide a basic 

understanding of how the data presented in this report compare with data in the previous report. The 2014 data presented in table 1 are identical to those reported in  Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2014 and do  not include updated information on properties placed in service prior to 2015 

that was reported with the 2015 LIHTC properties placed in service (PIS) data collection. 1 The changes between 2014 and 2015 all represent  net changes in either total properties or total units. 

In aggregate, a net increase of 2,198 active properties containing 158,047 units was recorded in HUD’s 2015 LIHTC PIS database compared with the 2014 version. For the HERA-mandated tenant data, a net 

additional 4,785 units were reported in the 2015 data compared with the number in the 2014 data. The increase reflects both an increase in the stock of LIHTC units—that is, those placed in service in 2015—

and newly reported information on units not submitted in the previous collection. The highlighted rows in the last four columns indicate states whose total  unit counts are lower in the 2015 HERA data than in the 2014 data. 

1 HFAs reported 249 LIHTC properties placed in service in 2014 with the 2015 properties. These properties were not previously reported. 

 5 

III.   Assessing Completeness of 2015 Tenant Data 

The LIHTC is administered by 66 state-level and, in limited instances, substate allocating HFAs (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as “states”). 2 Several states separate administrative functions among multiple state agencies or local subal ocators. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New York separate functions related to the allocation of tax credits and the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds between two agencies. Compliance for all properties in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts, however, is conducted by a single agency in each state. Illinois, Minnesota, and New York allow local suballocators to award LIHTCs in certain cities or counties. The city of Chicago has authority to award credits and administer the program within city limits. New York City and several northern counties3 receive subal ocations from New York State. Minnesota allows seven local governments4 to allocate tax credits. 5 

A.   States Submitting Tenant Data 

HUD requests tenant data and property characteristics from the 64 agencies that conduct program 

compliance. 6 One of the HFAs administering the LIHTC in New York City, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD), did not submit 2014 or 2015 tenant information. LIHTC 

Properties under the purview of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) are, therefore, not included in the following summary tables. The following sections explain how the submitted information may be incomplete for each of the states. 

B.   Properties in the Tenant Data 

HUD’s collection of LIHTC tenant data applies to all active LIHTC properties, including those in the extended-use period. Many states, however, were unable to submit information for all active properties for several reasons. First, most states simplify or decrease the stringency of compliance rules after Year 15, which lessens or eliminates certain information otherwise collected for compliance. For example, annual income recertifications may no longer be required, because the Next Available Unit Rule does not apply during the extended-use period. Thus, states may not have previously maintained compliance 

information for properties in the extended-use period. Second, some states previously accepted Tenant Income Certification (TIC) forms from smaller properties in hard copy as opposed to electronically, because independent owners, who may not have the ability to submit electronically, manage many of these properties. Converting or hand entering the information into electronic compliance and reporting systems requires considerable time, and some states were not able to complete this type of labor-intensive work. Third, HERA permits states to forgo annual income recertification of tenants if 100 

percent of a building’s units are income or rent restricted. Income information from tenants in these 2 This total includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Aside from its use of the Tax Credit Exchange Program, or TCEP, in 2009, American Samoa does not actively administer the LIHTC Program and is not counted here. 

3 The Development Authority of the North Country administers the LIHTC Program in Jefferson, Lewis, and St. 

Lawrence Counties, New York. 

4 Dakota and Washington Counties and the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, Rochester, Saint Cloud, and Saint Paul each receive a portion of the state allocation. 

5 The subal ocators in Minnesota monitor for compliance and, beginning with the 2015 data, report tenant and property data directly to HUD. 

6 The District of Columbia and Massachusetts al ocating agencies conduct compliance for their bond-issuing agencies. 

 6 

properties, therefore, may not be available or, if available, may not be current. To present an appropriate comparison, HUD’s tabulation of income relies on incomes certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016. 7 

One method of assessing the completeness of each state’s HERA-mandated tenant data is to compare the total number of properties the data contain with the number of properties reported to HUD through its LIHTC PIS data collection, 8 summarized in table 2. The time period covered in HUD’s PIS data collection is consistent with the tenant collection and currently includes properties placed in service through 2015. 

HUD’s PIS database also has known undercounting, primarily for the most recently collected placed-in-service years. 9 In addition, the PIS database also fails to correctly identify some properties that are no longer monitored for program compliance, which inflates the true number of properties in service. 

Hence, the databases are not expected to be 100 percent complete, and, from the data available to HUD, it is not possible to provide a definitive assessment of completeness based on one number. Rather, comparisons across the two sources of data suggest areas in which issues of incomplete data, in either data source, may be larger. 

Overall, 38,988 properties were reported as in service and monitored for LIHTC compliance in 2015. State HFAs, however, submitted tenant information for 33,879 properties. 10 As expected, most states reported more properties in 2015, some with large increases. Georgia reported almost twice as many properties in its 2015 tenant data. Several states—Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin—reported fewer units than in their previous submission. These changes are shown in table 1. 

C.   LIHTC Rent-Restricted Units 

The HERA-mandated collection of LIHTC tenant data is intended to include all rent-restricted LIHTC units. 

Because HUD’s PIS data include primarily only property address and, in only limited cases, building address, it is not possible to match actual units between the two data sets. Instead, table 2 sums the number of units from matched  properties in the PIS database and reported units from matched properties in the tenant collection. Across al  states, 2.581 million active LIHTC units are in HUD’s PIS 

database. State HFAs, however, reported data on tenants in 1.942 million units through the HERA-

mandated tenant submission to HUD. Almost nine-tenths (89.7 percent) of the units reported in the HERA data are in properties also in the PIS database. 

Although information is submitted on a unit basis, the information in this report focuses primarily on households or individual members, such as heads of household. The difference between reported units and total number of households is the number of vacant units. The vacancy rate of reported units was approximately 4 percent. 

7 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2015, some states provided the most recent income certification information, which was from 2016. 

8 HUD annual y collects information on LIHTC properties placed in service during the previous calendar year. This information is available from https://lihtc.huduser.gov/.  

9 In addition to underreporting because of technicalities of determining placed-in-service status, several states (Alaska, New Mexico, and Tennessee) did not submit information in certain recent years. See the database at 

https://lihtc.huduser.gov/ for years of nonreporting. 

10 Properties are identified in the tenant data based on property name, property identification number (or PIN), city, and state. 

 7 

The aggregate count of reported units increased slightly to 1.942 million units compared with 1.938 

million units in the 2014 data, reflecting better overall reporting. 11 Georgia, Indiana, and Oregon provided more than one-third more units in their 2015 submissions than for 2014. Several states, most notably Illinois, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin, submitted considerably fewer units than in their previous submissions. The decreases were general y due to fewer properties being reported. 

D.   Household Members 

Much of the information required by HERA focuses on households or individual household members. As required by HERA, HUD requests household-level information, such as rent and income, and individual member information, such as race, ethnicity, and disability status. In addition, HUD requests information on a household member’s age and relationship to the head of the household, both of which can be used to determine household composition, which is a HERA-required reporting category. One state, Texas, provided data for only one member per household, reported as the head of the household. 12 In addition, not al  states reported all certified household members when reporting on individual household members, which affects the extent to which their data can be used to report on all tenants versus all households. 

Completeness of data reporting for some analyses, such as tabulations of household composition, is difficult to assess in states with incomplete data on all household members. Hence, for tables presenting information on individuals as opposed to households, it is important to have some sense of the coverage of household members. 

States do provide information on household size, which is used to determine the maximum applicable income limit during household income certification. When all household members are included, 

household size equals the number of household members for whom data are submitted. Table 3 

compares household size at certification with the number of household members actual y reported in the tenant data. The first column reports the share of households for which household size at certification was not reported; that is, households for which HUD is unable to determine whether al  household members are included in the tenant data. Reporting of household size is quite complete overall; household size is missing in 14.9 percent of al  reported households, but about two-thirds of those are households in Texas. With the exception of Alaska, the District of Columbia, Il inois, New York, and Texas—which did not report household size for at least two-fifths of its reported households—and Florida, North Dakota, and Texas—which provided information for only one household member per unit13—this variable can be used to assess the completeness of household members in the tenant data. 

11 This total includes both vacant and occupied units. 

12 The reporting of the head of household in the LIHTC Program is merely for reference and is unrelated to status reported on individual income returns. 

13 North Dakota reported two members per household for 231 of their 4,723 reported households. No reported household in North Dakota contained information for more than two members. 

 8 

IV.   Race and Ethnicity of Tenants 

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests race according to standards set by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and also used by HUD’s rental assistance and multifamily housing programs. 

Although most of the information requested on the HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form is required and necessary for program compliance by the state HFAs, race and ethnicity are not. Before the HERA-mandated HUD collection, many states did not collect any race or ethnicity information, whereas others collected similar information using categories or standards different from those established by HUD. The incorporation, or modification, of race and ethnicity into states’ TIC forms caused a delay in their ability to report this information to HUD. This delay was caused, in part, by the process of amending the state TIC 

forms to request this information but also by the need to collect this new information from all LIHTC 

tenants. Many states did not have this information already incorporated in their TIC forms, unlike compliance items such as income and rent. 

Race and ethnicity are requested for each household member. As explained in the previous section, data submitted at the individual level suffer from underreporting of properties, units, and household 

members. Further, in accordance with fair housing laws, tenants are not required to report their race or ethnicity. Four states—Alaska, Illinois, Montana, and Washington—submitted information for less than approximately one-third of their active LIHTC property stock. Totals for New York are less than 

approximately one-half of its active LIHTC stock, primarily because HUD did not receive information for LIHTC tenants monitored by the New York City HPD, which accounts for a significant portion of 

unreported units for New York State. 

Among the households and units reported, many suffered from an underreporting of household 

members. Recal  from table 3 that less than one-half of all states reported all members, or nearly all members, of each  reported LIHTC household, and eight states, highlighted in gray, submitted all household members for less than approximately one-half of their  reported occupied units. The underreporting of household members across states led to the decision to include only tabulations of heads of household for race and ethnicity and for several other tabulations presented subsequently in this report. 14 

Table 4 shows the percentage of reported heads of household for whom race and ethnicity were 

submitted to HUD. The first column repeats the percentage of properties reported from table 2 to 

provide perspective on the completeness for the entire active LIHTC stock in each state. 15 Three states—

Florida, Ohio, and Texas—did not provide race or ethnicity information for any heads of household. 16 In addition, North Dakota and Pennsylvania reported race and ethnicity for only 4.9 and 4.3 percent, respectively, of occupied units. Kentucky and Maine were the only other states to report this information for less than one-half of its reported households. 

14 Included in these tabulations are household members who are not reported as heads but are the only reported household members. Also, if a head of household is not indicated, the first member reported on the submitted form is included in these tabulations. 

15 For example, although the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation submitted both race and ethnicity data for 80.2 

percent of reported heads of household, the tenant data for Alaska include only 18.8 percent of its LIHTC stock. 

16 Texas collects race and ethnicity information according to different standards. For Texas state tabulations, see 

https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/docs/16-HSR.pdf.  

 9 

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household 

NOT HISPANIC

Native Hawai an 

Properties 

White 

Black or African 

Asian 

American Indian  and Other Pacific  Other (including 

Hispanic 

Race or 

Reported          Alone         American Alone                            

Alone      and Alaska Native  Islander Alone              

Multiple Race)                 

(Any Race) Ethnici

                 ty Not 

Total           

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alone         (%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Reported (%)

(%)

Alabama

85.1

25.8

52.8

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.5

20.1

100.0

Alaska

18.8

45.6

9.5

6.6

18.0

5.6

0.6

4.4

9.8

100.0

Arizona

94.4

31.5

10.1

0.8

6.4

0.3

1.8

33.9

15.3

100.0

Arkansas

83.0

39.4

47.3

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.9

2.7

8.7

100.0

California

80.1

20.3

13.9

10.8

0.8

0.4

2.0

31.1

20.7

100.0

Colorado

83.3

30.8

8.8

1.3

0.6

0.2

3.2

21.8

33.4

100.0

Connecticut

61.6

32.0

26.5

0.8

0.4

0.2

1.5

26.4

12.2

100.0

Delaware

96.7

25.0

64.8

0.7

0.6

0.2

0.9

7.2

0.6

100.0

District of Columbia

67.3

2.0

67.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.5

3.7

25.6

100.0

Floridaa

76.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Georgia

59.9

16.0

63.8

1.1

0.1

0.1

1.3

2.5

15.2

100.0

Guam

100.0

3.0

0.7

28.7

0.2

66.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

100.0

Hawaii

89.8

15.3

1.7

28.8

0.3

22.7

7.9

6.8

16.4

100.0

Idaho

99.2

72.9

1.8

1.1

1.5

0.2

0.9

9.2

12.2

100.0

Illinois

7.9

14.4

65.5

3.9

2.0

0.1

0.5

5.1

8.5

100.0

Indiana

84.9

46.9

35.4

0.0

0.2

0.1

1.0

1.0

15.4

100.0

Iowa

94.5

55.5

11.8

1.1

0.5

0.1

0.8

2.8

27.4

100.0

Kansas

80.0

46.1

16.1

0.6

0.6

0.1

6.2

3.8

26.4

100.0

Kentucky

67.3

20.8

17.4

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.3

0.2

61.0

100.0

Louisiana

67.2

10.4

52.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

1.9

9.4

26.2

100.0

Maine

87.3

32.7

0.9

0.1

0.6

0.0

0.5

11.6

53.5

100.0

Maryland

64.1

22.5

53.3

1.9

0.3

0.2

1.0

6.2

14.7

100.0

Massachusetts

62.8

31.3

18.2

5.6

0.3

0.1

1.8

28.6

14.1

100.0

Michigan

89.7

37.3

28.4

0.5

0.3

0.0

1.2

1.8

30.5

100.0

Minnesota

78.7

31.7

24.1

1.9

2.3

0.1

0.5

1.8

37.5

100.0

Mississippi

76.4

17.7

65.5

0.4

0.1

0.0

1.4

0.8

13.9

100.0

Missouri

54.6

50.2

32.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

1.5

1.8

13.8

100.0

Montana

23.2

72.4

1.0

0.4

3.1

0.1

1.6

3.3

18.2

100.0

Nebraska

97.1

41.9

15.4

0.4

0.9

0.1

1.2

4.7

35.4

100.0

Nevada

74.0

37.4

13.5

1.8

0.6

0.7

1.8

15.7

28.4

100.0

New Hampshire

89.1

46.0

1.3

0.3

0.1

0.0

3.3

16.0

32.9

100.0

New Jersey

56.5

22.3

36.2

1.0

0.2

0.1

1.2

9.6

29.5

100.0

New Mexico

52.1

17.8

2.8

0.5

7.5

0.1

3.2

43.7

24.3

100.0

New Yorkb

47.4

16.8

26.9

2.1

0.3

0.1

0.5

18.8

34.5

100.0

North Carolina

70.0

25.0

49.7

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.0

3.1

20.6

100.0

North Dakotaa

84.4

5.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

94.1

100.0

Ohio

72.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Oklahoma

65.9

60.1

19.5

0.6

6.9

0.3

2.3

3.4

7.0

100.0

Oregon

52.6

12.6

2.4

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.4

33.4

50.0

100.0

Pennsylvaniaa

83.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.3

94.7

100.0

Puerto Rico

93.9

2.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

83.4

14.1

100.0

Rhode Island

99.4

43.0

10.0

0.7

1.0

0.1

2.4

24.1

18.6

100.0

South Carolina

81.2

19.9

61.0

0.3

0.2

0.0

1.2

2.7

14.6

100.0

South Dakota

67.7

33.5

3.2

0.7

11.4

0.1

2.6

7.2

41.3

100.0

Tennessee

90.7

36.9

49.0

0.5

0.2

0.1

1.1

1.3

10.8

100.0

Texasa

70.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Utah

97.2

41.4

2.1

1.0

0.7

0.6

1.3

8.6

44.3

100.0

Vermont

95.8

38.6

2.5

0.9

0.1

0.0

3.0

24.2

30.5

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

87.5

0.5

41.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

12.7

45.1

100.0

Virginia

94.9

19.1

43.7

1.8

0.2

0.1

2.7

10.3

22.2

100.0

Washingtona

1.6

40.4

11.1

5.5

1.9

1.0

1.6

10.8

27.7

100.0

West Virginia

80.0

75.8

13.8

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.4

1.4

8.2

100.0

Wisconsin

55.0

58.6

12.9

1.0

1.3

0.1

0.7

4.1

21.3

100.0

Wyoming

98.9

62.4

3.0

0.5

2.5

0.4

1.1

7.8

22.4

100.0

Total

68.7

21.2

21.5

2.5

0.7

0.3

1.2

11.4

41.4

100.0

a  Shaded states submitted al  household members for less than one-half of their reported occupied units. 

b  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

10 

V.   Disability Status 

Tenant disability status is collected in accordance with the Fair Housing Act’s definition of handicapped. A tenant’s response, or nonresponse, does not affect the tenant’s ability to claim disability benefits or to request handicapped-accessible features in the LIHTC unit. The Fair Housing Act defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. Definitions of physical and mental impairment are in  24 CFR 100.201. In compliance with the Fair Housing Act, tenants are not required to respond to this question. 

Before the HERA data collection mandate, few states collected tenant disability status for the head of household or other household members. Thus, nearly al  HFAs had to amend their TIC forms to request this information, which delayed their ability to report to HUD. Missing data or data coverage of disability status were similar to those for race and ethnicity, neither of which are used for programmatic purposes. 

Similar to all LIHTC tenant data, this information suffers from potential incomplete coverage of 

properties, units, and household members. As explained previously, data from three states—Alaska, Georgia, and New Jersey—included a fairly small percentage of their active LIHTC properties. In addition, the reported information for some states did not contain all household members, further limiting HUD’s ability to report disability status. 

Table 5 provides household-level information on the presence of at least one disabled tenant per 

household. The first column, Properties Reported, repeats data from table 2. This column is included to enhance understanding of the coverage of properties in the state data. Florida and North Dakota 

provided disability status for only the head of household. Further, Kansas reported disability status for less than 20 percent of their reported households, and Texas did not report disability status for any household members. 

Table 6 reports disability status at the individual household member level. The first column, Properties Reported, repeats data from table 2. The second column, All Household Members Reported, contains 

data from table 5. The last two columns present strictly individual-level information, beginning with the share of reported individuals in that state for whom disability status is reported. The underreporting mentioned previously for table 5 also applies to table 6 and likely biases the estimate of disabled individuals downward from the actual percentage. 

11 

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members 

Al  Household Members  Disability Status Reported for  At least One Member 

Properties Reported

Reporteda                                       

At Least One Member             Reported as Disabled                               

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

84.0

91.7

100.0

6.2

Alaska

17.7

84.7

96.8

18.2

Arizona

96.1

99.6

100.0

9.6

Arkansas

72.6

99.5

100.0

12.4

California

77.2

88.5

90.7

11.9

Colorado

85.7

75.7

84.2

4.4

Connecticut

62.3

92.9

91.5

12.9

Delaware

93.4

100.0

100.0

4.1

District of Columbia

75.5

39.8

55.8

6.2

Floridab

77.5

32.8

100.0

3.2

Georgia

38.5

100.0

100.0

1.3

Guam

100.0

68.8

92.3

1.4

Hawaii

91.9

96.0

95.4

6.8

Idaho

99.5

97.3

99.8

26.8

Illinois

65.6

80.6

98.7

4.2

Indiana

63.1

84.1

100.0

11.0

Iowa

94.0

98.8

89.3

11.4

Kansasd

79.3

45.0

7.3

23.7

Kentucky

66.7

83.7

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

67.1

99.0

100.0

3.8

Maine

89.2

99.6

100.0

18.3

Maryland

66.1

94.4

95.1

8.1

Massachusetts

64.0

95.8

96.0

21.4

Michigan

95.3

98.9

74.8

10.3

Minnesota

75.2

78.8

93.4

7.7

Mississippi

75.1

99.1

90.0

8.7

Missouri

51.2

99.4

93.8

10.1

Montana

95.2

97.5

98.9

16.7

Nebraska

97.3

98.8

96.3

10.1

Nevada

76.6

99.7

86.9

10.9

New Hampshire

84.6

99.5

100.0

7.7

New Jersey

35.8

100.0

100.0

4.4

New Mexico

62.4

97.2

100.0

6.4

New Yorkc

46.7

68.5

70.4

17.0

North Carolina

65.5

63.0

95.5

14.7

North Dakotab

89.2

52.5

45.5

0.0

Ohio

70.5

92.4

100.0

5.7

Oklahoma

64.6

99.4

96.8

10.4

Oregon

44.5

99.6

100.0

11.1

Pennsylvania

87.7

94.7

10.1

11.0

Puerto Rico

94.7

99.9

100.0

6.7

Rhode Island

98.7

96.5

100.0

33.9

South Carolina

79.6

99.7

100.0

5.0

South Dakota

67.1

99.7

100.0

12.6

Tennessee

88.2

92.0

100.0

10.6

Texasd

70.6

38.8

0.0

0.0

Utah

93.8

99.8

93.2

7.5

Vermont

91.1

98.9

100.0

15.2

U.S. Virgin Islands

87.5

93.2

95.4

2.7

Virginia

95.8

99.6

100.0

5.7

Washington

0.9

99.2

72.5

30.2

West Virginia

82.0

93.8

94.1

20.3

Wisconsin

89.2

95.4

85.2

11.6

Wyoming

100.0

99.6

88.2

13.4

Total

69.5

80.4

80.6

9.5

a  The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. 

b  Florida and North Dakota provided disability status for only the head of household. 

c  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

d  Kansas reported disability status for less than one-half of reported households. Texas did not report disability status at all. 

12 

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members 

Al  Household 

Disability Status              

Properties Reported                

Members Reporteda                             is Reported                                      

Reported as Disabled                 

State

(%)

(% of Households)

(% of Individuals)

(% of Individuals)

Alabama

85.1

91.7

100.0

3.4

Alaska

18.8

44.7

97.8

8.9

Arizona

94.4

99.6

100.0

4.5

Arkansas

83.0

99.5

100.0

7.0

California

80.1

96.2

92.6

5.3

Colorado

83.3

99.2

100.0

2.0

Connecticut

61.6

94.7

94.7

8.6

Delaware

96.7

100.0

100.0

2.2

District of Columbia

67.3

50.7

65.5

3.7

Floridab

76.5

33.4

100.0

3.5

Georgia

59.9

100.0

100.0

0.9

Guam

100.0

85.5

99.7

0.2

Hawaii

89.8

97.9

94.6

3.4

Idaho

99.2

95.5

98.8

13.0

Illinois

7.9

17.3

95.3

9.1

Indiana

84.9

88.4

100.0

5.3

Iowa

94.5

93.4

86.8

6.4

Kansas

80.0

51.1

14.4

5.4

Kentucky

67.3

86.5

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

67.2

99.2

100.0

2.7

Maine

87.3

99.5

100.0

9.4

Maryland

64.1

96.1

96.4

6.7

Massachusetts

62.8

96.9

96.8

13.0

Michigan

89.7

95.0

75.5

6.4

Minnesota

78.7

75.7

94.1

4.6

Mississippi

76.4

92.5

90.4

3.8

Missouri

54.6

93.9

90.2

6.4

Montana

23.2

95.1

99.8

10.8

Nebraska

97.1

92.8

85.4

5.1

Nevada

74.0

95.4

91.9

6.5

New Hampshire

89.1

99.7

100.0

6.0

New Jersey

56.5

100.0

100.0

2.4

New Mexico

52.1

97.6

100.0

3.8

New Yorkc

47.4

55.1

78.5

9.7

North Carolina

70.0

82.2

96.6

9.8

North Dakotab

84.4

50.9

39.8

0.0

Ohio

72.3

91.1

99.9

2.6

Oklahoma

65.9

92.9

92.3

5.2

Oregon

52.6

99.7

100.0

7.7

Pennsylvaniad

83.5

95.2

6.7

6.7

Puerto Rico

93.9

97.9

100.0

3.2

Rhode Island

99.4

98.9

100.0

19.5

South Carolina

81.2

99.7

100.0

3.0

South Dakota

67.7

99.8

100.0

5.6

Tennessee

90.7

92.2

100.0

4.6

Texasd

70.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Utah

97.2

95.9

93.4

5.1

Vermont

95.8

99.1

100.0

9.1

U.S. Virgin Islands

87.5

96.8

96.0

1.1

Virginia

94.9

99.6

100.0

3.2

Washington

1.6

92.8

71.5

15.9

West Virginia

80.0

93.4

96.1

10.9

Wisconsin

55.0

96.1

79.3

6.7

Wyoming

98.9

94.5

88.9

6.4

Total

68.7

77.3

86.2

5.3

a  Reported household members equal reported “Household Size at Certification.”  

b  Florida and North Dakota provided disability status for only the head of household.  

c  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

d  Pennsylvania reported disability status for less than 10 percent of household members. Texas did not report disability status for any household members. 

13 

VI.   Family Composition and Age 

Many states use the LIHTC to address affordable housing shortages for families and seniors, specifically. 

Thus, family composition and age are reported together, highlighting households with children and elderly members, in table 7. 

HUD determines family composition based on the age of household members and the relationship to the head of household. HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests relationship to head and date of birth for each household member. Relationship to head is used for program income determination, 

because income from certain household members does not count toward annual household income. 17 

Some states did not collect date of birth for all LIHTC tenants before the HERA mandate, instead opting to collect number of household members by age group. Thus, although similar information was collected, this information also required a change in some states’ TIC forms. HUD uses the date of birth to 

determine the age of tenants as of the reporting date, December 31, 2015. The relationship to head of household is used to identify the head for households that are headed by an elderly person. 

Identifying the presence of children and seniors in households requires having valid dates of birth for all household members. As reported previously, to determine whether all household members are reported, HUD compared the number of reported members for whom date of birth and other information is 

requested with the reported household size at certification. The first three columns of table 7 provide information on data coverage of household members and date of birth. Florida and Texas did not provide dates of birth, preventing calculation of age. The first column represents the number of households in which the reported number of members equals size at certification. The second and third columns 

provide reporting rates for date of birth for heads of household and all members, respectively. North Dakota provided dates of birth for only a smal  percentage of reported household members, preventing the calculation of a reliable estimate. Tabulations for this state were suppressed. 

17 For example, income of live-in aides and earned income of dependents do not affect income eligibility. 

14 

Table 7. Family Composition: Households With Children and Elderly Members 

Al  Household 

Valid Date of Birth Provided for

At Least One 

At Least One 

Reported Head of 

Members Reporte

Hea

d                d of Household          Al  Reported Members         Member < 18          Member >= 62                 

Household >= 62                     

State

(% of Households)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

91.7

100.0

100.0

40.3

25.6

25.1

Alaska

44.7

96.6

97.8

40.4

26.0

24.9

Arizona

99.6

99.9

99.8

47.2

27.2

26.3

Arkansas

99.5

99.3

99.4

41.1

26.3

25.8

California

96.2

97.6

98.8

38.5

37.2

35.5

Colorado

99.2

99.0

99.3

38.9

25.6

24.8

Connecticut

94.7

92.7

95.8

29.3

39.9

39.0

Delaware

100.0

99.3

92.9

40.2

27.7

27.1

District of Columbia

50.7

85.9

91.3

28.1

24.2

23.5

Florida

33.4

Data Not Reported

Georgia

100.0

97.5

93.4

36.2

29.2

28.6

Guam

85.5

99.2

99.6

81.8

10.4

5.0

Hawaii

97.9

95.5

97.7

33.4

46.2

44.3

Idaho

95.5

97.6

98.4

38.4

28.6

28.0

Illinois

17.3

93.5

95.8

26.5

39.8

39.3

Indiana

88.4

99.9

99.8

40.0

26.4

25.8

Iowa

93.4

94.2

96.4

30.0

30.6

30.0

Kansas

51.1

91.5

92.1

18.7

29.8

29.7

Kentucky

86.5

99.2

98.7

34.6

27.9

27.8

Louisiana

99.2

98.1

98.4

44.8

24.3

23.6

Maine

99.5

99.6

99.8

31.4

40.5

39.6

Maryland

96.1

96.0

97.4

27.3

44.9

44.2

Massachusetts

96.9

96.3

97.9

32.9

35.8

34.6

Michigan

95.0

95.6

97.0

29.1

35.4

34.9

Minnesota

75.7

93.0

90.7

36.2

22.8

22.0

Mississippi

92.5

93.4

96.6

46.7

17.4

16.9

Missouri

93.9

94.2

96.3

29.4

31.7

31.3

Montana

95.1

95.2

96.8

23.7

34.9

34.5

Nebraska

92.8

93.7

96.5

37.6

27.6

27.0

Nevada

95.4

95.6

97.5

28.7

42.2

41.4

New Hampshire

99.7

99.0

99.3

34.1

41.2

40.1

New Jersey

100.0

91.3

86.4

25.8

42.6

41.9

New Mexico

97.6

97.5

98.8

44.3

21.3

20.5

New Yorkb

55.1

65.7

75.5

20.1

25.6

24.9

North Carolina

82.2

93.2

95.7

34.4

32.4

31.9

North Dakota

50.9

0.1

0.1

Data Suppressed c

Ohio

91.1

98.9

99.3

36.2

32.1

31.5

Oklahoma

92.9

93.0

95.6

35.7

32.3

32.0

Oregon

99.7

100.0

99.9

33.2

31.4

30.7

Pennsylvania

95.2

95.4

97.2

27.6

46.7

46.1

Puerto Rico

97.9

98.0

98.7

41.4

37.8

37.4

Rhode Island

98.9

100.0

99.9

24.6

43.6

42.8

South Carolina

99.7

99.8

99.8

47.9

24.2

23.6

South Dakota

99.8

99.5

99.7

48.8

24.3

23.7

Tennessee

92.2

100.0

99.9

45.7

20.7

19.9

Texas

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

95.9

96.1

94.9

40.2

18.5

17.8

Vermont

99.1

99.5

99.6

27.9

41.8

40.9

U.S. Virgin Islands

96.8

96.3

98.1

56.0

17.6

16.3

Virginia

99.6

99.8

99.8

42.1

26.8

25.8

Washington

92.8

90.3

91.3

27.5

33.3

33.4

West Virginia

93.4

93.3

96.0

34.9

25.3

24.6

Wisconsin

96.1

97.9

98.5

23.3

46.9

46.4

Wyoming

94.5

94.9

96.9

41.8

24.2

23.9

Total

77.3

77.7

86.7

28.7

26.2

25.5

a  The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. 

b  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

c  Too few dates of birth were reported to provide a reliable estimate. 

15 

VII.   Annual Household Income 

Household income is a central part of LIHTC tenant qualification and ongoing compliance. To qualify for tax credits, owners of LIHTC properties must elect to maintain maximum income-qualifying limits of either 50 or 60 percent of Area Median Gross Income (AMGI). LIHTC property managers must submit 

detailed household income information to the administering HFA at tenant move-in and annually. To certify household income, states collect detailed income information for each household member on the state’s TIC forms. The HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests the same income information as collected by states for compliance, although HUD requires only total annual household income. HUD does not require the submission of components of household income such as earned income or income from assets. HUD’s form also does not require the submission of income for each household member. Because income limits can vary by property depending on the percentage of AMGI an owner elects to enforce, state TIC forms and the HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form also request the applicable income limit and maximum percentage of AMGI for each unit. 

Although all states receive household income information for compliance, not all states maintained this information electronically before HERA reporting requirements, especially for properties in the extended-use period that have less strict income certification rules. These looser reporting rules and lack of data maintenance hindered the abilities of some HFAs to provide annual household income and related 

income limit information for all households. Because program rules do not require annual recertification for all units, HUD also requests the income certification date. The income tabulations in this report include only household incomes reported for 2014, 2015, or 2016.18 This method will exclude some units in properties with 100 percent low-income units and some properties in their extended-use period, because annual recertifications are not required. 

Table 8 shows the median reported income of households and the distribution of income. In terms of data coverage, total annual household income was reported with certifications dates of 2014, 2015, or 2016 for 79.8 percent of households. Texas did not report income certification dates, and Alaska, Il inois, Kansas, and New York reported income certified in these years for less than one-half of households. 

Comparing household income across states does not account for differences in cost of living and, 

therefore, provides a somewhat skewed comparison. Comparing household income with AMGI provides a more informative assessment and also provides measures of income more directly relevant for LIHTC 

Program eligibility. HUD, however, does not request AMGI and, to make this comparison, the AMGI must either be determined by address or derived from information provided on the LIHTC Tenant Data 

Collection Form, specifical y the percentage of income or rent restriction (50 or 60 percent of AMGI) and the applicable income limit for each unit. The distribution provided in this report uses the latter method because it yielded a larger sample on which the distribution could be calculated. 

As shown in table 9, household annual income, certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016, was reported for 79.8 

percent of units, but income plus the information needed to calculate AMGI was provided for only 73.8 

percent of units. Although some of the units excluded from this calculation had incomes certified before 2014, most of these units were excluded because of missing the income limit or income restriction. 

Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Texas, and Wisconsin did not provide the necessary information to make the calculation for any of their reported units. 

18 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2015, some states, primarily Kentucky, provided the most recent income certification information, which was 2016. 

16 

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income Households with Reported Annual Income Properties 

Income 

Median 

$5,001 to 

$10,001 to  $15,001 to 

Reported                

Reporte

In

d             come               

<= $5,000                         

$10,000                         

$15,000                         

$20,000                         

> $20,000                         

State

(%)

(%)

($)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Total

Alabama

85.1

94.9

15,991

7.0

18.8

20.0

21.8

32.4

100.0

Alaskaa

18.8

47.2

24,225

0.9

2.1

6.2

26.8

64.1

100.0

Arizona

94.4

99.9

18,218

6.1

14.7

16.3

18.6

44.4

100.0

Arkansas

83.0

95.6

14,088

8.4

23.9

20.9

18.5

28.3

100.0

California

80.1

91.1

19,732

3.1

5.8

26.5

15.6

48.9

100.0

Colorado

83.3

98.1

21,466

4.9

13.8

13.3

13.9

54.0

100.0

Connecticut

61.6

94.1

17,901

3.7

19.8

16.0

13.9

46.6

100.0

Delaware

96.7

99.4

18,470

6.2

15.6

16.8

16.3

45.1

100.0

District of Columbia

67.3

92.6

21,933

11.1

17.9

11.1

8.0

51.9

100.0

Florida

76.5

82.9

23,154

3.6

10.0

10.5

14.0

61.9

100.0

Georgia

59.9

90.1

17,588

7.0

15.7

17.9

17.3

42.1

100.0

Guam

100.0

55.3

27,383

5.5

1.2

5.2

10.9

77.2

100.0

Hawaii

89.8

96.9

22,911

2.6

15.5

13.4

12.7

55.9

100.0

Idaho

99.2

96.4

14,959

20.1

15.2

17.2

18.4

29.2

100.0

Illinoisa

7.9

15.2

19,205

6.1

18.9

16.8

16.1

42.1

100.0

Indiana

84.9

99.0

16,824

10.0

15.5

17.8

18.3

38.3

100.0

Iowa

94.5

94.2

17,663

12.3

13.8

15.7

16.2

42.1

100.0

Kansasa

80.0

35.8

17,400

3.7

17.6

20.0

18.5

40.1

100.0

Kentucky

67.3

100.0

9,036

34.3

22.8

17.3

11.6

14.0

100.0

Louisiana

67.2

80.0

14,824

8.9

24.3

17.5

17.6

31.7

100.0

Maine

87.3

97.5

14,976

6.7

20.0

20.6

17.8

34.9

100.0

Maryland

64.1

95.1

21,383

3.5

15.9

14.1

13.3

53.1

100.0

Massachusetts

62.8

96.5

16,292

4.4

12.3

28.2

14.7

40.5

100.0

Michigan

89.7

95.6

14,756

9.4

22.1

19.5

17.2

31.9

100.0

Minnesota

78.7

44.2

17,996

8.7

14.9

17.2

13.2

46.1

100.0

Mississippi

76.4

93.4

14,612

14.3

18.9

18.0

19.0

29.8

100.0

Missouri

54.6

94.2

16,477

8.5

18.5

18.4

16.4

38.3

100.0

Montana

23.2

95.2

15,778

6.6

19.4

21.1

18.3

34.5

100.0

Nebraska

97.1

93.8

17,535

13.4

12.4

16.0

16.4

41.8

100.0

Nevada

74.0

95.7

18,768

4.8

11.0

18.5

20.4

45.3

100.0

New Hampshire

89.1

84.7

18,712

3.2

14.8

18.2

16.9

46.9

100.0

New Jersey

56.5

98.6

21,812

4.6

13.3

13.1

14.0

55.0

100.0

New Mexico

52.1

93.2

17,448

6.9

18.3

15.9

18.5

40.4

100.0

New Yorka, b

47.4

45.7

16,342

4.5

20.6

19.8

15.0

40.1

100.0

North Carolina

70.0

87.6

14,040

8.3

20.2

21.9

18.6

31.0

100.0

North Dakota

84.4

94.1

17,076

9.6

16.5

17.4

15.1

41.4

100.0

Ohio

72.3

97.1

12,348

18.1

23.1

18.2

15.7

25.0

100.0

Oklahoma

65.9

93.1

13,766

12.4

21.9

20.8

20.3

24.6

100.0

Oregon

52.6

97.3

15,555

6.8

21.9

19.4

15.3

36.6

100.0

Pennsylvania

83.5

98.1

15,289

11.2

20.8

18.2

17.5

32.2

100.0

Puerto Rico

93.9

98.0

5,622

46.7

29.3

16.6

5.1

2.3

100.0

Rhode Island

99.4

99.6

13,729

6.6

28.5

20.6

14.8

29.5

100.0

South Carolina

81.2

95.4

14,400

10.4

18.8

19.7

17.9

33.2

100.0

South Dakota

67.7

99.2

16,989

10.5

16.1

16.4

15.4

41.5

100.0

Tennessee

90.7

100.0

15,365

14.4

17.9

16.7

16.4

34.6

100.0

Texasa

70.8

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

97.2

96.1

21,000

5.6

12.7

14.1

14.5

53.1

100.0

Vermont

95.8

95.6

15,635

3.0

20.6

21.5

17.5

37.4

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

87.5

96.2

18,720

17.2

13.8

12.6

9.2

47.2

100.0

Virginia

94.9

99.3

20,328

7.1

13.8

12.8

12.4

53.9

100.0

Washington

1.6

99.9

16,521

5.2

19.8

16.3

14.9

43.8

100.0

West Virginia

80.0

91.2

13,143

10.3

26.6

20.4

17.1

25.6

100.0

Wisconsin

55.0

100.0

18,178

9.9

9.8

19.4

17.9

43.1

100.0

Wyoming

98.9

94.9

21,722

4.8

10.8

14.6

14.9

54.9

100.0

Total

68.7

79.8

17,470

8.0

15.4

18.6

15.8

42.2

100.0

a  Alaska, Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Texas reported household income for less than 50 percent of reported households. For most households, income was reported without the certification date. This report only includes incomes certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016 in the tabulations. 

b  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

17 

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI 

Incomeb, Income Limit 

Total Household Annual Income as Percent of Dervied Area Median Gross Income (AMGI)a

Properties 

Income 

and Income Restriction 

Great than 

Reported                

Reportedb                

Reporte

0                 

d                                         0.1 to 30.0                

30.1 to 40.0                

40.1 to 50.0                

50.1 to 60.0                

60.0                 Total                 

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

85.1

94.9

0.0

Data Not Reported

Alaska

18.8

47.2

94.9

0.0

36.7

24.7

17.1

12.8

8.7

100.0

Arizona

94.4

99.9

14.4

0.6

35.2

17.6

16.8

12.9

17.0

100.0

Arkansas

83.0

95.6

3.1

1.7

37.7

16.2

17.9

13.4

13.1

100.0

California

80.1

91.1

96.2

0.0

46.4

18.2

14.9

10.3

10.3

100.0

Colorado

83.3

98.1

7.7

0.8

31.5

17.4

18.3

14.1

18.0

100.0

Connecticut

61.6

94.1

79.3

0.0

55.8

16.0

12.2

9.0

7.0

100.0

Delaware

96.7

99.4

99.9

1.0

42.0

18.0

16.6

11.2

11.2

100.0

District of Columbia

67.3

92.6

68.7

3.6

51.4

12.3

12.1

11.1

9.4

100.0

Florida

76.5

82.9

100.0

0.5

18.0

16.6

24.1

27.9

13.0

100.0

Georgia

59.9

90.1

100.0

1.7

31.2

19.3

18.0

14.3

15.5

100.0

Guam

100.0

55.3

100.0

3.0

16.1

20.1

19.5

31.0

10.3

100.0

Hawaii

89.8

96.9

98.5

0.0

44.4

16.6

14.9

12.3

11.9

100.0

Idaho

99.2

96.4

86.1

14.0

27.9

19.0

20.6

10.9

7.6

100.0

Illinois

7.9

15.2

15.6

1.1

22.0

18.8

28.5

17.2

12.4

100.0

Indiana

84.9

99.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Iowa

94.5

94.2

100.0

7.6

37.5

19.6

17.2

14.1

3.9

100.0

Kansas

80.0

35.8

0.0

Data Not Reported

Kentucky

67.3

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Louisiana

67.2

80.0

2.5

3.4

44.6

17.0

13.1

9.0

13.0

100.0

Maine

87.3

97.5

40.8

3.6

49.7

16.2

12.8

9.2

8.5

100.0

Maryland

64.1

95.1

87.7

0.0

45.1

19.1

17.1

12.2

6.5

100.0

Massachusetts

62.8

96.5

92.6

0.0

63.4

13.2

10.2

7.4

5.7

100.0

Michigan

89.7

95.6

100.0

2.9

48.3

18.2

14.5

9.7

6.3

100.0

Minnesota

78.7

44.2

53.1

5.0

50.6

15.9

13.5

10.4

4.5

100.0

Mississippi

76.4

93.4

100.0

5.2

39.2

18.2

18.3

14.4

4.6

100.0

Missouri

54.6

94.2

100.0

2.4

41.8

18.3

16.3

12.9

8.3

100.0

Montana

23.2

95.2

100.0

3.2

41.4

20.2

17.7

13.5

4.1

100.0

Nebraska

97.1

93.8

100.0

9.6

36.5

18.3

18.2

13.3

4.2

100.0

Nevada

74.0

95.7

100.0

1.6

33.7

23.0

20.0

14.3

7.4

100.0

New Hampshire

89.1

84.7

39.0

1.8

40.4

21.3

16.3

10.5

9.8

100.0

New Jersey

56.5

98.6

99.9

0.7

42.3

18.8

16.8

10.4

10.9

100.0

New Mexico

52.1

93.2

6.6

1.3

37.7

17.2

19.9

12.2

11.7

100.0

New Yorkc

47.4

45.7

91.7

0.1

54.3

16.7

13.1

9.4

6.5

100.0

North Carolina

70.0

87.6

86.9

0.0

45.1

19.9

16.8

10.9

7.3

100.0

North Dakota

84.4

94.1

100.0

3.3

47.0

17.9

15.3

10.8

5.7

100.0

Ohio

72.3

97.1

96.1

7.1

48.0

17.0

13.8

8.7

5.4

100.0

Oklahoma

65.9

93.1

100.0

2.1

46.4

20.3

18.0

10.0

3.2

100.0

Oregon

52.6

97.3

7.9

1.5

43.8

18.8

16.0

9.2

10.7

100.0

Pennsylvania

83.5

98.1

95.6

2.7

50.0

21.0

14.5

7.9

3.9

100.0

Puerto Rico

93.9

98.0

100.0

9.6

58.4

11.8

9.8

7.1

3.4

100.0

Rhode Island

99.4

99.6

13.8

7.9

47.5

14.6

12.0

7.8

10.2

100.0

South Carolina

81.2

95.4

22.2

0.8

45.7

19.5

13.8

10.3

9.8

100.0

South Dakota

67.7

99.2

24.5

2.5

35.7

18.2

15.6

10.9

17.2

100.0

Tennessee

90.7

100.0

97.9

3.2

42.0

16.5

16.2

13.9

8.2

100.0

Texas

70.8

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

97.2

96.1

100.0

2.1

35.1

19.2

18.2

14.6

10.8

100.0

Vermont

95.8

95.6

52.0

0.9

48.8

20.0

13.6

8.2

8.3

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

87.5

96.2

100.0

0.0

37.5

13.3

13.0

15.7

20.5

100.0

Virginia

94.9

99.3

14.9

1.6

45.6

18.6

14.8

10.3

9.1

100.0

Washington

1.6

99.9

100.0

1.2

41.6

20.7

18.3

10.9

7.1

100.0

West Virginia

80.0

91.2

82.2

0.0

49.5

19.6

14.3

9.6

6.9

100.0

Wisconsin

55.0

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wyoming

98.9

94.9

100.0

1.7

38.3

20.4

18.8

11.2

9.6

100.0

Total

68.7

79.8

73.8

1.9

42.6

17.9

16.3

12.7

8.7

100.0

AMGI = Area Median Gross Income. 

a  AMGI was derived by dividing the income limit by percent income restriction. 

b  Income certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016. 

c  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

18 

VIII.   Monthly Rental Payments 

A critical goal of the LIHTC Program is to provide affordable housing by limiting the share of a household’s income paid in rent, referred to as rent burden. The LIHTC Program restricts the maximum rent that can be charged for a unit to 30 percent of either 50 or 60 percent of AMGI, according to that chosen by the developer during the application process. Although the LIHTC Program sets a maximum rent, actual rents are often less and can fluctuate with market conditions. Unlike in most housing programs, income and rent limits are set for the unit, do not vary directly with tenant income, and may exceed 30 percent of income at qualification. In addition, after a tenant has qualified for a unit based on the unit’s income limits, increases or decreases in a tenant’s household income do not result in corresponding changes in rent paid. The combination of these factors may result in the share of a household’s income spent on rent varying substantially from 30 percent. 

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests components of gross rent, which include tenant-paid rent, utility allowance, and other nonoptional charges. Table 10 shows the distribution of gross rent as a percentage of annual household income. To calculate this distribution, both household income and rent must be provided. As in the previous section, this section includes only household incomes certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016. The first column of table 10 lists the percentage of occupied units with both annual household income and gross rent. Overall, 78.5 percent of reported units included both income certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016 and rent. Alaska, Il inois, Kansas, Minnesota, and New York reported this 

information for only a smal  portion of their households. Texas did not report income certification date, which was necessary to make the calculation.  

19 

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income 

Tenant Paid Rent as % of Total Annual Household Income

Household Incomea and 

50.1 or 

Unable to 

Rent Reported                    0                          

0.1 to 30.0                          

30.1 to 40.0                          

40.1 to 50.0                          

Greater                          

Calculateb                          Total                  

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

94.9

8.4

61.5

17.2

6.5

5.3

1.2

100.0

Alaskac

47.1

1.2

85.9

8.5

3.0

1.4

0.0

100.0

Arizona

92.2

0.0

52.2

25.4

12.8

9.0

0.5

100.0

Arkansas

87.6

0.0

68.5

16.2

7.3

7.5

0.5

100.0

California

91.1

0.9

55.0

20.4

11.5

12.3

0.0

100.0

Colorado

95.0

0.0

49.6

26.6

12.5

10.3

1.0

100.0

Connecticut

94.1

4.3

69.7

13.8

6.1

6.0

0.0

100.0

Delaware

99.4

8.1

70.9

11.7

3.6

4.8

1.0

100.0

District of Columbia

92.6

8.0

59.9

15.6

5.0

7.4

4.1

100.0

Florida

81.4

2.3

39.9

34.1

14.2

9.2

0.4

100.0

Georgia

90.1

8.6

58.3

18.1

7.4

6.0

1.7

100.0

Guam

55.3

5.2

61.7

17.3

7.3

5.5

3.0

100.0

Hawaii

96.9

1.4

66.1

16.1

7.7

8.6

0.0

100.0

Idaho

96.4

2.4

45.8

19.6

8.4

7.0

16.8

100.0

Illinoisc

15.2

3.9

55.6

21.2

9.3

7.4

2.5

100.0

Indiana

99.0

6.9

55.5

21.4

8.0

7.4

0.8

100.0

Iowa

94.2

3.6

54.9

19.2

7.2

7.5

7.6

100.0

Kansasc

35.8

4.6

68.1

15.2

6.2

5.2

0.6

100.0

Kentucky

100.0

74.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.2

100.0

Louisiana

70.3

0.0

61.6

19.8

8.8

9.2

0.6

100.0

Maine

92.3

0.0

64.4

18.6

8.1

7.0

1.9

100.0

Maryland

95.1

3.6

56.7

20.9

9.9

8.9

0.0

100.0

Massachusetts

96.5

2.2

76.6

11.4

3.9

5.9

0.0

100.0

Michigan

95.6

5.7

60.3

16.3

7.1

7.7

2.9

100.0

Minnesotac

44.2

3.0

60.9

16.9

7.8

8.7

2.7

100.0

Mississippi

93.4

11.7

52.5

17.0

7.4

6.3

5.2

100.0

Missouri

94.2

7.5

68.6

13.1

4.6

3.8

2.4

100.0

Montana

95.2

2.1

53.1

22.7

10.1

8.7

3.2

100.0

Nebraska

93.8

4.5

58.4

15.5

5.3

6.7

9.6

100.0

Nevada

95.7

3.0

40.7

26.0

16.1

12.7

1.6

100.0

New Hampshire

81.4

0.0

63.4

17.8

7.8

9.7

1.2

100.0

New Jersey

98.6

3.1

62.0

16.9

7.8

9.5

0.7

100.0

New Mexico

88.5

0.0

49.1

24.8

13.2

11.9

0.9

100.0

New Yorkc, d

45.5

1.5

63.9

17.2

6.1

11.2

0.1

100.0

North Carolina

81.3

0.0

68.6

16.4

6.8

8.2

0.0

100.0

North Dakota

94.1

3.1

58.6

16.6

7.2

11.3

3.3

100.0

Ohio

97.1

9.9

55.3

14.7

5.8

6.9

7.3

100.0

Oklahoma

93.1

9.6

59.6

16.8

6.3

5.6

2.1

100.0

Oregon

91.3

0.0

57.8

17.8

10.1

13.2

1.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

98.1

4.3

65.1

13.7

5.4

4.9

6.5

100.0

Puerto Rico

98.0

23.4

60.6

3.8

1.6

1.0

9.6

100.0

Rhode Island

95.6

0.0

84.8

6.2

2.6

4.2

2.1

100.0

South Carolina

84.0

0.0

65.3

17.4

8.0

8.6

0.7

100.0

South Dakota

86.5

0.0

67.6

16.3

5.9

8.5

1.6

100.0

Tennessee

100.0

12.1

55.6

17.3

6.0

5.6

3.5

100.0

Texasc

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

96.1

2.3

53.7

22.4

9.9

9.7

2.1

100.0

Vermont

91.9

0.0

72.1

13.1

7.1

7.1

0.7

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

96.2

23.6

56.1

11.8

4.5

4.1

0.0

100.0

Virginia

92.0

0.0

52.3

24.8

10.9

11.5

0.5

100.0

Washington

99.9

1.8

54.0

20.7

11.6

10.6

1.2

100.0

West Virginia

91.2

8.2

68.7

11.1

4.7

7.3

0.0

100.0

Wisconsin

100.0

2.0

48.0

22.5

11.5

8.7

7.3

100.0

Wyoming

94.9

2.4

62.7

19.0

7.4

6.8

1.7

100.0

Total

78.5

4.5

56.7

19.3

8.7

8.6

2.1

100.0

LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. 

a  Includes only households with income certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016. 

b  Ratio of tenant-paid rent to household income could not be calculated because total annual household income equals $0. 

c  Alaska, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, and New York reported this information for only a small portion of their households. Texas did not report income certification date, which was necessary to make the calculation. 

d  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

20 

IX.   Use of Rental Assistance 

As shown in table 9, two-thirds of LIHTC households earn less than 40 percent of AMGI, yet federal maximum unit rents are established to be affordable for households at 50 or 60 percent of AMGI. Various types of rental assistance—both project- and tenant-based assistance from HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state programs—may partially fill this gap. HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests the amount of rental assistance received for a unit. 

Table 11 shows the use of rental assistance from all sources—federal, state, local, and nonprofit organizations—for reported LIHTC tenants. Fourteen states19 did not report any households that did not receive rental assistance—that is, households receiving $0 of rental assistance—but did report a large percentage of households with an unknown status; that is, the amount of rental assistance was reported as missing. Although these states could not confirm, it is likely that Not Reported in table 11 for these states, and possibly others, actually represents households that did not receive any rental assistance. 

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form also requests the programmatic source for federal rental 

assistance, which is shown in table 12. Inconsistencies between the amount of federal rental assistance received and the reported source of rental assistance prevent a confident determination on the 

completeness of this information. The first column in table 12 provides the percentage of units that received federal rental assistance; that is, the reported amount of federal rental assistance was greater than $0. The second column shows the percentage of units for which the HFA identified the 

programmatic source of federal rental assistance. For most states, the source of federal rental assistance was reported, indicating that the household received assistance, for more units than for which a positive amount was provided. The 17 states20 highlighted in gray in table 12 did not report the source of federal rental assistance for any households. 

19 Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia. 

20 Florida, Guam, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

21 

Table 11. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance 

Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance

Properties Reported

Not

                  Reported                

$0                               > $0                             Total                               

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

85.1

0.0

56.8

43.2

100.0

Alaska

18.8

28.7

9.5

61.8

100.0

Arizona

94.4

78.1

0.0

21.9

100.0

Arkansas

83.0

48.7

0.0

51.3

100.0

California

80.1

2.0

60.1

37.9

100.0

Colorado

83.3

70.1

0.0

29.9

100.0

Connecticut

61.6

3.2

43.0

53.7

100.0

Delaware

96.7

0.0

44.3

55.7

100.0

District of Columbia

67.3

24.2

34.1

41.7

100.0

Florida

76.5

100.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Georgia

59.9

0.0

63.4

36.6

100.0

Guam

100.0

52.4

23.5

24.0

100.0

Hawaii

89.8

1.9

59.0

39.1

100.0

Idaho

99.2

4.6

59.4

36.0

100.0

Illinois

7.9

24.2

23.5

52.2

100.0

Indiana

84.9

0.0

58.6

41.4

100.0

Iowa

94.5

0.0

60.9

39.1

100.0

Kansas

80.0

0.0

62.9

37.1

100.0

Kentucky

67.3

0.0

50.7

49.3

100.0

Louisiana

67.2

59.4

0.0

40.6

100.0

Maine

87.3

40.4

0.0

59.6

100.0

Maryland

64.1

3.4

58.0

38.5

100.0

Massachusetts

62.8

2.5

29.0

68.4

100.0

Michigan

89.7

0.0

49.5

50.5

100.0

Minnesota

78.7

5.7

46.0

48.2

100.0

Mississippi

76.4

0.0

47.8

52.2

100.0

Missouri

54.6

0.0

55.2

44.8

100.0

Montana

23.2

0.0

55.4

44.6

100.0

Nebraska

97.1

0.0

59.6

40.4

100.0

Nevada

74.0

0.0

76.7

23.3

100.0

New Hampshire

89.1

45.0

0.0

55.0

100.0

New Jersey

56.5

0.0

61.3

38.7

100.0

New Mexico

52.1

65.3

0.0

34.7

100.0

New Yorka

47.4

71.0

7.8

21.2

100.0

North Carolina

70.0

53.6

0.0

46.4

100.0

North Dakota

84.4

0.0

88.0

12.0

100.0

Ohio

72.3

0.0

39.9

60.1

100.0

Oklahoma

65.9

0.0

48.9

51.1

100.0

Oregon

52.6

58.8

0.0

41.2

100.0

Pennsylvania

83.5

0.0

47.1

52.9

100.0

Puerto Rico

93.9

0.0

35.4

64.6

100.0

Rhode Island

99.4

23.0

0.0

77.0

100.0

South Carolina

81.2

56.9

0.0

43.1

100.0

South Dakota

67.7

54.9

0.0

45.1

100.0

Tennessee

90.7

0.0

56.6

43.4

100.0

Texas

70.8

47.5

16.5

36.1

100.0

Utah

97.2

0.0

73.3

26.7

100.0

Vermont

95.8

45.8

0.0

54.2

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

87.5

3.2

76.4

20.4

100.0

Virginia

94.9

60.7

0.0

39.3

100.0

Washington

1.6

61.4

2.5

36.1

100.0

West Virginia

80.0

6.5

38.1

55.3

100.0

Wisconsin

55.0

0.0

70.2

29.8

100.0

Wyoming

98.9

0.0

67.3

32.7

100.0

Total

68.7

28.9

33.2

37.9

100.0

LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. 

a  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

22 

Table 12. Use of Federal Rental Assistance Programs in LIHTC Units 

Source of Federal Rental Assistance

Reported 

Source of 

Amount of 

Federal Rental 

HUD Multi-Family 

HUD Section 8 

HUD Housing Choice 

HUD Project-

USDA Section 521 

Federal Rental 

Assistance 

Project-Based Rental 

Moderate 

Public Housing 

HOME Rental  Voucher (HCV), Tenant- Based Voucher 

Rental Assistance 

Other Federal 

Assistance > $01                            

Reported

Assi

2                             stance (PBRA)                               

Rehabilitation                               

Operating Subsidy                               

Assistance                               

Based                               (PBV)                               

Program                               

Rental Assistance                                

Total                               

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

5.1

41.0

12.3

0.0

0.0

0.2

15.6

0.0

12.5

59.3

100.0

Alaska

27.5

8.9

0.0

77.6

22.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Arizona

0.0

5.5

14.0

61.1

0.0

0.1

6.9

5.7

12.2

0.0

100.0

Arkansas

0.0

12.6

2.7

84.5

0.1

0.0

7.4

5.2

0.1

0.0

100.0

California

24.7

27.2

18.4

0.2

1.2

0.1

23.1

25.3

9.7

22.1

100.0

Colorado

19.6

2.2

0.0

81.8

0.5

0.2

5.6

10.0

2.0

0.0

100.0

Connecticut

34.6

44.6

19.9

2.3

1.9

0.1

29.9

31.0

0.8

14.3

100.0

Delaware

24.0

24.6

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

District of Columbia

18.1

14.4

5.3

1.9

0.0

0.0

41.1

51.7

0.0

0.0

100.0

Florida

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Georgia

18.1

20.2

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Guam

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Hawaii

32.0

30.7

35.8

3.8

0.1

0.0

13.9

24.4

6.5

15.5

100.0

Idaho

11.9

12.2

13.4

0.6

0.0

0.3

5.1

9.8

53.3

17.7

100.0

Illinois

35.0

12.4

42.7

15.8

2.0

0.0

8.7

7.2

0.0

23.6

100.0

Indiana

41.9

41.2

30.1

0.0

8.6

0.2

5.7

0.0

9.3

46.1

100.0

Iowa

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Kansas

38.6

37.1

31.6

12.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

35.5

11.3

9.4

100.0

Kentucky

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Louisiana

0.0

5.5

4.0

36.3

0.0

0.0

12.1

1.5

46.0

0.0

100.0

Maine

0.0

9.0

0.0

78.0

0.0

0.0

20.8

1.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Maryland

25.6

32.1

23.0

5.2

0.2

0.1

17.3

24.0

1.5

28.8

100.0

Massachusetts

47.3

57.5

29.7

1.7

0.3

0.2

18.9

34.9

0.5

13.8

100.0

Michigan

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Minnesota

26.7

35.5

30.6

5.1

1.1

0.0

29.2

27.4

2.5

4.0

100.0

Mississippi

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Missouri

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Montana

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Nebraska

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Nevada

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Hampshire

0.0

3.1

20.4

61.6

0.0

0.0

0.5

8.5

9.0

0.0

100.0

New Jersey

23.3

24.7

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

New Mexico

0.0

9.1

0.0

99.7

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

100.0

New York

10.6

3.5

8.4

5.4

0.0

0.0

41.4

9.2

0.0

35.6

100.0

North Carolina

39.5

39.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

46.8

0.0

0.0

53.2

100.0

North Dakota

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Ohio

57.2

59.9

42.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.4

0.0

4.3

45.8

100.0

Oklahoma

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oregon

0.0

7.7

0.5

4.8

21.4

0.3

69.6

3.0

0.4

0.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

34.2

24.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

99.8

0.0

0.0

100.0

Puerto Rico

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Rhode Island

0.0

2.2

0.8

7.2

36.9

5.5

19.9

28.8

0.8

0.0

100.0

South Carolina

0.0

1.7

1.2

41.8

4.6

0.0

39.0

3.4

10.0

0.0

100.0

South Dakota

0.0

3.2

4.5

95.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Tennessee

48.4

43.4

1.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

35.6

0.0

6.8

56.0

100.0

Texas

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Vermont

0.0

6.7

2.4

88.6

0.0

0.0

2.4

6.5

0.0

0.0

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

14.8

11.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.9

70.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Virginia

0.0

4.6

8.9

83.8

4.0

0.1

1.7

1.1

0.5

0.0

100.0

Washington

34.0

33.1

35.4

0.0

0.0

6.9

42.4

2.0

11.6

1.6

100.0

West Virginia

49.1

51.8

19.3

2.7

0.4

0.1

20.5

16.3

25.0

15.7

100.0

Wisconsin

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wyoming

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Total

16.9

17.0

20.4

10.9

1.0

0.3

18.7

16.9

6.0

25.7

100.0  

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher Program. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. PBRA = Project-Based Rental Assistance. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

a  Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development. 

23 

March 2018

Document Outline

Cover

Title Page

Contents

List of Tables

I. Introduction

II. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Data Submissions

III. Assessing Completeness of 2015 Tenant Data

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

B. Properties in the Tenant Data

C. LIHTC Rent-Restricted Units

D. Household Members

IV. Race and Ethnicity of Tenants

V. Disability Status

VI. Family Composition and Age

VII. Annual Household Income

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments

IX. Use of Rental Assistance