Header Image for Print
Dataset Banner Image

A Picture of Subsidized Households General Description of the Data and Bibliography


* Before printing, please set your printer to 'landscape' format, since some tables below are quite wide.

General Description of the Data
Bibliography


Report Overview

This report and the accompanying data file sketch a picture of subsidized households across the United States. Each line in the detailed data is identified by key numbers and letters which are explained in "Meaning of Codes." In the body of this report, information is spread across two facing pages. Column headings are printed vertically, and are explained more fully in the "Meaning of Codes" section.

Earlier data are available for 1977 and 1993-97 (see bibliography). Differences show better coverage, more than true change.

Program Overview

The U.S. government has subsidized housing for renters with low incomes since the Housing Act of 1937. All programs covered in this report offer subsidies to reduce rents. Households generally pay rent equal to 30% of their incomes, after deductions,(1) and the Federal government pays the rest. To enter the programs, people must have incomes below an income limit, which varies by household size and location. They apply, and wait until their name rises to the top of the waiting list for the limited number of subsidized units available. Most of the programs are paid for by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The bibliography lists reports which have more information on particular programs. Some more detail is in the "Description of Major Programs" section.

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is a program of the Internal Revenue Service, where landlords obtain tax benefits for renting to low income households.

In Public and Indian Housing, local and tribal governments get HUD money to build and operate housing. The housing is owned by the government.

In Section 8 Certificates+Vouchers, local and state governments get money to pay to private landlords to supplement the rent that low income households pay. The housing is owned by the private landlord. The household may move and take the subsidy with them, if they are able to search for and find a rental they like better (so these programs are often called "tenant based" or "finders keepers"). The difference between Certificates and Vouchers is primarily that Certificates have a maximum rent which the unit may not exceed. This maximum is published by HUD, the "Fair Market Rent," set by HUD at roughly the 40th percentile of the rents of adequate quality units in the area. Vouchers have no specific maximum, but the low income household has to pay any excess over the Fair Market Rent.(2)

In all the other programs the housing is owned by private landlords who apply for HUD subsidies. The subsidies pay the difference between tenant rents and total costs. These are called private subsidized projects (or "project based"). The main such program is Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (this section was added in 1974). An older program is Section 236 of the National Housing Act (added in 1968), which has the distinction of requiring households to pay full operating costs and cover what the landlord's mortgage costs would be if the interest rate were one percent ("basic rent"). This requirement keeps out many low income households, who cannot afford the rent, so Section 8 subsidies have been added to two thirds of the Section 236 units (LMSA "Section 8 Loan Management Set Aside"). These LMSA units have the more usual rule that tenants pay 30% of their adjusted income. Data do not reliably distinguish LMSA households from others, so we only distinguish projects with LMSA, not the units.

This report does not cover other subsidies, such as Rehabilitation grants, Homesteading, Rural Housing Service (formerly Farmers Home Administration), etc., unless they also receive subsidies mentioned above, like Section 8.

Sources & Dates

Data on households were sent by agencies and landlords to HUD, and were summarized by HUD. Data on the number of units available and units occupied are from HUD's own administrative records. For Public, Indian, Certificates+Vouchers, Moderate Rehabilitation, all data are the most recent as of 5/98. For private projects, data on households are more recent, 7/98, but units in 7/98 are estimated from a 9/95 file. Tax credit households are from 1996; units & bedrooms are 12/94.

Number of Housing Units

The report and data file cover about four and a half million HUD-subsidized housing units, and a third of a million housing units assisted by Low Income Housing Tax Credits, for a total of nearly five million subsidized housing units. About a quarter are in Public Housing projects. Another quarter have Section 8 Certificates or Vouchers, which let participants choose their own rental units in the private market. About a fifth of the subsidized units are in the Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs. The other units are divided among various other programs, primarily Section 236 and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Some projects have a mix of subsidized and unsubsidized units; just the subsidized units are counted here.

Basic Counts

  Subsidized Housing Units Available* % of US Total % Occupied % Reported Average Months since Report % With Geography % Represented by Weights % Moved in the Past Year Number of People
  per Unit Total (000s)
U.S. Total 4,838,978 100 96 84 8 84 92 13 2.3 10,684
Indian Housing 72,885 2 99 39 16 21 51 11 3.6 260
Public Housing 1,300,493 27 90 84 8 91 92 11 2.4 2,809
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 1,391,526 29 99 87 8 72 97 15 2.7 3,720
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 107,609 2 99 68 9 66 95 25 2.2 234
S.8 New+Substantial Rehabilitation 894,330 18 98 88 7 96 92 12 1.6 1,402
S.236 447,466 9 96 79 9 98 92 15 2.1 902
Other Subsidy 292,584 6 96 74 9 90 82 15 2.4 674
Housing Tax Credit 332,085 7 99

76

2.2 700
* Double counting has been eliminated wherever possible, so each housing unit is counted only once, even if it receives more than one subsidy.

Percent Occupied

Occupancy rates are only collected for Public Housing. We assume plausible levels of occupancy in other programs for purposes of calculating the completeness of reporting (see "Meaning of Codes" section).

Percent Reported

Household data are reported for 84% of occupied units (so we have 16% missing data). The major programs (Public Housing, Certificates+Vouchers, Section 8 New+Substantial Rehabilitation) have the highest reporting, from 84-88%. Indian Housing has only 39% reporting. In Tax Credits no reporting is required. A few items are available from Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program (GAO 1997, see Bibliography). When the reporting rate is below 80%, data may be unrepresentative. Below 33%, we suppress the data as being meaningless. This cutoff is arbitrary; it lets us include some national data on Indian Housing. (We also suppress data on small neighborhoods and buildings, with less than 11 subsidized households reported, to protect confidentiality.) All households are still included in the national summaries.

Average Months since Report

HUD requires households to be reported annually, on a flow basis, so for good recent data the average time since data were reported would be about 7 months. Larger averages mean recent data have not been received, or large errors have been made so that some of the recent records have not yet been accepted into the system.

Percent with Geography

We lack good data on location for 16% of the units. These are not always the same units where we lack household data. This count is based on addresses good enough to calculate latitude. Other items may be more or less complete.

Percent Represented

The summaries are weighted to adjust for partial reporting in any project: households reported are assumed to be representative of other occupied units in the same project (or program and agency for Certificates+Vouchers and Moderate Rehabilitation). This assumption is not always correct, though it is more accurate than raw program counts. There is no weighting to represent the 8% of units in projects that did not report at all. If far too few households were reported in a project or program, the weight was not allowed to exceed 5, to avoid great discrepancies in weights, and resulting variance in the final data. On Certificate+Voucher tract summaries the weight was limited to 1.49 to avoid implying that two or more households moved to the same remote tract, when we only have one report from it.

Percent Moved in Past Year

Turnover is significant in all programs (caused by death, rising incomes & other changes) and highest in Moderate Rehabilitation.

Average People per Unit

There is variation from 1.6 people per household in Section 8 New, where many households are elderly, to 3.6 people in Indian Housing, where many are couples and middle aged working people.

Total People Subsidized

This number is the number of people per household, times the percent occupied, times the units available.

Organization of the Data

We provide data for the whole country, states, housing agencies, Census tracts (neighborhoods)(3) and housing projects (buildings). Note the smallest groups are neighborhoods and buildings: individual households are not shown, to protect their privacy. The following table shows the number of data records available. For example there are nine major summaries, for the eight programs and their total. Project records are present in some programs, and tract records in others.

Number of Records

  Total Major Program Records* Special Summary Records* State Records* Housing Agency Records** Project Records Tract Records
All Records 192,310 9 58 460 6,580 49,173 136,030
Records that are Totals across Programs 61,332 1 13 55

61,263
Indian Housing 3,146 1 9 31 192 2,913
Public Housing 17,309 1 9 54 3,200 14,045
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 77,434 1 9 55 2,602
74,767
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 649 1 9 53 586

S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 15,238 1 3 55
15,179
S.236 4,279 1 2 52
4,224
Other Subsidy 3,424 1 4 52
3,367
Housing Tax Credit 9,499 1
53
9,445

* Records are printed in this report

** This report prints agency records for agencies with 500 or more units. All other records are available on Internet.

Rent, Income, and Age


Rent per Month Spending per Month Household Income Majority of Income is from: Income Mix: % of Average Income % if Local Median Age of Head or Spouse, whichever is older
per Household $000s per person $000s % $1-4,999 % $20,000 or More Wages Welfare % 24 or Less % 62 or More % 85 or More
U.S. Total 209 412 9.5 4.1 17 6 27 15 67 25 10 32 5
Indian Housing 249 252 17.0 4.7 12 29 53 12 79
5 15 1
Public Housing 193 349 9.1 3.8 20 6 25 15 75 25 10 32 4
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers 217 471 9.6 3.6 17 6 32 20 62 24 8 17 2
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 167 547 7.8 3.5 27 3 27 25 67 20 17 17 1
S.8 New + Substant.Rehab. 196 493 9.1 5.7 11 3 14 7 51 26 7 60 10
S.236 261 253 11.0 5.2 14 8 37 12 62 28 14 34 5
Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP 204 341 10.0 4.2 24 11 40 18 82 26 17 22 2
Housing Tax Credit

13.3 6.2 10 17


37


Rent per Month

Average rents paid by households range narrowly in most programs from $193 to $217. These rents include estimates by each housing agency of tenant-paid utilities. Rents are lower in Moderate Rehabilitation, because of those households' low incomes. Rents are higher in Section 236, because of the high "basic rent" that many households have to pay (see "Program Overview"), and in Indian Housing, because of the households' higher incomes. Rents in Indian Housing do not fully mirror their relatively higher incomes, since most Indian Housing is Mutual Ownership, with a distinct calculation for household cost (shown on form 50058 at the end of this report).

Spending per Month

These figures on current spending do not reflect what it would cost to expand any particular program. For example Public Housing costs appear low, since HUD paid off the construction costs several years ago. New Public Housing would cost much more than the average current spending, since construction costs would have to be paid. Also low spending can reflect high incomes of occupants, as in Indian Housing, not necessarily management efficiency.

For Section 8, total spending is calculated for each household (from the rent calculation form 50058 or 50059) and averaged, so averages do vary in each tract and agency. In Certificates+Vouchers and Moderate Rehabilitation our estimate also includes the 8% administrative fee. We are not able to estimate or include the spending on vacant units.

For Public & Indian Housing, we only include 1996 operating and modernization spending, since the construction costs have already been paid (the long term bonds were paid off a few years ago), and opportunity cost is not available. Drug Elimination Grants and other smaller grant programs are not covered.

Operating subsidy to all agencies, and modernization funding to large agencies (generally over 250 units), is distributed every year by formula so we use the actual funding obligations.

For smaller agencies modernization funding is competitive, and they do not receive it every year, so the actual funding for any agency in one year would not reflect average long term spending. As an approximation we found the average modernization funding per unit, and multiplied this average by the units in each agency to estimate the long term expected value of modernization spending. A higher fraction of Indian agencies receive modernization than of other agencies, so we calculated the average separately for Indian and non-Indian agencies.

Then in each agency, for this summary, total spending in Public and Indian Housing was averaged per occupied unit per month, without differentiating among projects. In fact some receive more or less than average each year.

Income

Income per household is highest in Indian Housing. Income per person is highest in Section 8 New, because of the small household sizes of its elderly households, and Tax Credits, because of moderately high incomes with moderately small households. This is total income, without subtracting the adjustments that are used in calculating rent. However some types of income are not counted at all by HUD and are not included here, such as scholarships and earnings of minors.

The welfare category in this report is intended to cover TANF (formerly AFDC(4) ) and General Assistance, but not Supplemental Security Income (SSI). A portion of welfare income may not be identified in the 1998 file, because of changes in the welfare programs. The main welfare program has changed its name from AFDC to TANF, and the main data collection form during this period did not identify TANF. Some TANF income may have been placed under "Other nonwage," or other categories which are not counted as welfare here, or the source of income may have been left blank. In particular it is curious that while the percent elderly did not change from 1996 to 1998, the percent receiving pensions and Social Security rose, as did the percent in Other nonwage. Thus the apparent drop in welfare since the 1996 report may reflect data problems, as well as better coverage of many projects, instead of true change. It will always be hard to measure a national program with 20-30 local names, as both TANF and General Assistance have.

Income Mix

Income mix is expressed as a percent of the average income. The larger the percent, the more income mix there is.(5) The national income mix is widest in Public and Indian Housing and in the "Other Subsidy" projects. These programs serve a wide range of incomes across the country. The mix is narrowest in Section 8 New, where most households are elderly, living on Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI); these incomes vary little between or within projects. Some Section 8, 236 and "Other Subsidy" projects have unsubsidized households, who are not counted in this report, and extend the income mix. The surroundings of Certificates+Vouchers likewise include unsubsidized higher income households. Figures here include different household sizes, without adjustment, so some mix is due to larger households typically having (and needing) more income than smaller households.

These figures reflect the spread of incomes in each program, across the country, including high and low income areas. The mix is usually narrower in any one project or neighborhood. To understand why most local figures are smaller than the national figure, consider an example of two equal-sized projects: one where everyone has $20,000 income, and another where everyone has $5,000. The mix is zero in each project, but the combined mix is quite wide (60%). National figures are not averages of local figures, but measure the overall national mix. The following table does give average mix, from projects and tracts with enough reporting (i.e. the ones with data shown in the data file). Public and Indian Housing still have a wider mix of incomes in their projects than most, but not by much. They serve a wide range of incomes across the country, but not so wide in each project.

Number of Units, by Income Mix in Project (in Tract for Certificates + Vouchers)

  Total Up to 19% 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80% or more Median Mix Average Mix
Total 3,514,000 10,000 736,000 1,536,000 964,000 269,000 53 54
Indian Housing 27,000 18 2,000 13,000 11,000 2,000 59 59
Public Housing 1,115,000 1,000 162,000 426,000 328,000 198,000 58 59
Certificates+Vouchers 958,000 1,000 76,000 572,000 288,000 21,000 54 55
New + Substant. Rehab. 795,000 7,000 375,000 260,000 133,000 20,000 41 45
Section 236 389,000 387 91,000 177,000 107,000 13,000 52 52
Other Subsidy 230,000 1,000 29,000 88,000 97,000 15,000 59 58

Income as Percent of Local Median.

In this file we compare the income of each subsidized household, to the adjusted local median income. (The median income of families in each metropolitan area and each non-metropolitan county is estimated regularly by HUD, because it is used in setting income limits for housing subsidies.) For example if the adjusted local median income is $30,000, then a subsidized household with $10,000 income has 33% of adjusted local median income.(6)

The figures here are average ratios for each project, census tract, agency, state, etc. One could also have sorted the households in each project, etc., and found the median ratio, which would have been somewhat smaller.

Age of Head.

Section 8 New has by far the highest concentration of elderly, 60%. Public Housing and Section 236 are next at 32–34%, and the other programs are 15–22%. It may be noted that 5% of subsidized households (about 230,000) have a head or spouse age 85 or older, which gerontologists term the "very old."

Disabilities, Minorities, Bedrooms


Head or Spouse has Disability % Minority % Black % Hispanic % Native American % Asian or Pacific Islander Average Difference between Agency & Project (in % Minority) Number of Bedrooms
As % of under Age 61 and Younger As % of Age 62 and Older 0-1 3 or More
U.S. Total 23 35 58 39 15 1 3
44 24
Indian Housing 9 29 91 1 0 89 0
8 80
Public Housing 24 30 69 47 19 0 2 13 50 26
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers 23 41 58 40 15 1 2 15 25 34
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 24 37 67 43 21 1 2
46 16
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab. 37
38 24 11 0 3
71 9
S.236 14
53 36 13 1 5
43 19
Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP 14
71 54 12 1 4
31 26
Housing Tax Credit

47 33 11


44 14

Disabilities.

Many people in the programs have disabilities. Overall a fifth of the non-elderly have disabilities. Also, a third of the elderly have disabilities, but this is not necessarily surprising; many of us develop disabilities as we age. The definition includes mental and physical disabilities; for a summary of the definition, see the last page of form 50058 at the back of this report.

Minorities.

Overall, 58% of households are minorities (39% Black, 15% Hispanic, 1% Native American, 3% Asian). Indian Housing of course is almost entirely minority (for a recent description of Indian Housing see Kingsley et al. 1996). The lowest minority rate, 38%, is in Section 8 New projects.

The Average Difference column measures separation between minority and white subsidized households. The larger the number, the more separately subsidized whites & minorities live from each other. The scale is from 0 to 50. It is a broad indicator, and more detailed analysis with individual racial and ethnic groups can be done (Goering et al. 1995).

For each Public Housing project, "Average Difference" is the difference between: (a) % minority for the project, and (b) overall % minority for Public Housing at the agency. We average the figures from each project to have a total for each agency, state or other area.(7) Averages for states and the United States exclude agencies with under 5% or over 95% minority, or only one project, since differences are not meaningful in such agencies.

In Public Housing, households are assigned to projects by the housing agency.(8) Thus racial differences would not be expected in projects, except by chance, or by households of one race moving out of or refusing to move into particular projects . The 13% national figure is a mix of random variation in some agencies, current practices, and past segregation patterns.(9) It may be useful in reviewing a particular agency to notice whether its figure is above or below this national average, but no particular figure proves discrimination. Particular practices at individual agencies need to be studied before any conclusions can be drawn.

For Certificates+Vouchers, which do not have projects, "Average Difference" is based on the location of subsidized households in Census tracts: For each Census tract we take the difference between: (a) % minority among Certificate+Voucher holders in the tract, and (b) overall % minority among Certificate+Voucher holders at the agency. For averages we exclude tracts with 10 or fewer households reported, since tracts with so few subsidized households have little chance of matching the agency average. Averages for states and the United States also exclude agencies with under 5% or over 95% minority, or only one tract, since differences are not meaningful in such agencies.

This average difference is not the difference between subsidized households and the whole tract, but that can easily be calculated, since the tract's % minority is shown near the end of the record (and summarized in the next table). The difference shown above is the difference between subsidized households in the tract and subsidized households in the agency.

The average difference happens to be 13 points in Public Housing and 15 in Certificates+Vouchers. The similar averages do not mean the programs operate in the same manner. As the next table shows, Certificate+Voucher holders live in neighborhoods with many fewer minorities than Public Housing tenants: 41% minority on average, compared to 59%. The measure on the table above is different: Minority and white Certificate+Voucher holders live in different neighborhoods from each other to some degree. This difference reflects that households often lived in racially disparate neighborhoods before they applied to the programs. Some stayed in place. Others moved, but not far (Léger and Kennedy 1990). Thus the minority and white subsidized households do not end up equally distributed in the same neighborhoods as each other. We do know from the next table that Certificate+Voucher holders end up in more integrated neighborhoods than Public Housing tenants. But there is still a difference in the locations of white and minority Certificate+Voucher holders.

The average difference is limited by the percent minority in the agency: for example some large agencies are nearly all minority and can only have small differences among projects. An agency that is 5% or 95% minority can have an average difference as high as 9, while an agency that is 20% or 80% minority can have an average difference as high as 32. A 50% minority agency can have an average difference as high as 50.

One could use numerous other statistics to summarize racial differences among projects or Census tracts.

Social Conditions


% Both Spouses and Children % No Spouse, with Children % Female Head % Over-housed: More Bedrooms than People % With Utility Allowance Their Average Utility Allowance Average Months Since Moved in Average Months on Waiting List Surrounding Census Tracts
% in Poverty % Minority % Single Family Owners
U.S. Total 6 41 79 8 67 67 72 21 26 45 34
Indian Housing 33 37 58 25 75 138
41


Public Housing 6 39 76 7 43 50 80 11 36 59 26
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers 8 56 84 9 90 83
28 20 41 40
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 6 46 74 5 78 69
15 29 53 30
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab. 3 20 77 3 68 50 70
21 34 36
S.236 7 37 75 9 51 53 65
21 40 33
Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP 7 47 77 10 58 52 66
28 55 32
Housing Tax Credit

64




21 37 40

Marriage and Children.

Couples with children are not common, except in Indian Housing, since they tend to have more income than elderly and single parents. The first two columns above can be added to count all households with children. These figures are based on age, so they include foster children, nephews, grandchildren; anyone under 18. Female heads are common, since they include most households with no spouse present, as well as most elderly.

Overhousing.

The extent of over-housing may limit access for large households. It results partly from households that are not relocated to smaller units when their children grow up and leave.

Fuel and Utilities.

Utility allowances are given when individual metering and billing are used, so they show the extent of individual metering. The size of the allowance is estimated by each Housing Agency to reflect typical bills. Households may actually spend more or less.

Length of Stay.

For some programs we have length of time since the household moved in. It averages 6 years (72 months), with little variation. The average total stay of households, until they move out or die, is twice this span, or 12 years.(10)

Waiting List.

Time on waiting lists varies more than length of stay, from 11 months in Public Housing, to 28 months in Certificates+Vouchers and 41 months in Indian Housing. This is the average waiting time for people moving in. These tend to be in the higher priority categories ("preferences"), which give them the shortest waits. The average wait for people remaining on the waiting list is longer.

Neighborhoods.

To describe the neighborhoods of these households, we show three types of information for the Census tracts surrounding them. The figures on the Census tract include the subsidized households there, so large projects can dominate or overwhelm the neighborhood figures. Tax Credit projects return to the discussion here, since we do have most of their addresses, and can describe their neighborhoods, even though they do not have to report on their occupants.

A Census tract is an area averaging 1,500 homes, chosen by local communities in cooperation with the Census Bureau, as an area that is somewhat homogeneous socio-economically. In low density areas Census tracts cover large land areas, so they are broader than the common idea of a neighborhood.

The programs divide into two groups, based on their neighborhoods' poverty and minority composition. The Public Housing, Moderate Rehabilitation, and Other subsidy projects are in neighborhoods with high average poverty, 28-36%, and high minority rates, 53-59%.

On the other hand, Certificate+Voucher holders find neighborhoods which are like the ones found by landlords of Section 8 New, Section 236 and Tax Credit projects: average poverty rates of 20-21% and average minority rates of 34-41%. Even these neighborhoods have much higher poverty and minority rates than most of the country (13% poor and 24% minority). Remembering that over half of Certificate+Voucher holders are single parents with children, they would need substantial child care and transportation during their search process, in order to search widely outside the neighborhoods they know.

To provide a different view of these neighborhoods, we show the percent of households in the neighborhood that own single family detached homes. This measure splits the programs into the same two groups as poverty and minority rates do, though not as strongly. Public Housing, Moderate Rehabilitation, and Other subsidy projects are in neighborhoods with low single family homeownership rates of 26-32%. The other programs are in neighborhoods with slightly higher homeownership rates, 33-40%. The national average is 53% (owners of single family detached homes as percent of all households), though the national average for neighborhoods of low rent units is lower.. Analysis of Local Data

Analysis of Local Data

The preceding pages commented almost entirely on the numbers which can be found directly in the national summary records. Since the report and data file include state summaries as well as the national ones, the reader can readily find similar data for each state.

The data file also has local records for individual housing agencies, projects and neighborhoods. In the following tables we count some of those records, and show some of the patterns that can be found.

If the reader wants summaries for individual counties, cities, or metropolitan areas, the local records can also be summarized to provide those. The reader would need to add together either (1) all project records and also agency summaries for Certificates+Vouchers and Moderate Rehabilitation, or (2) the tract records that are summaries across all programs. The first method will generally have less missing data, because it often puts agencies in the right county, even when their tenants could not be individually geo-coded. In agencies with county code 888 (serving multiple counties) the specific tract records for Certificates+Vouchers can be used instead. There will be some missing data in any case, as discussed in the "Basic Counts" section. Areas vary in the completeness of their data, but most areas have fairly complete data in this file. For larger cities, the level of missing data in Public Housing and Certificates+Vouchers can be found readily in the lists of large agencies in the body of this report.

Number of Subsidized Units, by Percent Poor in Tract


Total 0-9% Poor 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40% or more
Total 3,899,000 735,000 1,091,000 753,000 543,000 777,000
Indian Housing 3,000 396 1,000 1,000 1,000 179
Public Housing 997,000 67,000 160,000 177,000 174,000 419,000
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 1,175,000 263,000 410,000 254,000 145,000 104,000
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 793,000 211,000 244,000 144,000 93,000 101,000
S.236 424,000 95,000 136,000 83,000 54,000 55,000
Other Subsidy 254,000 36,000 60,000 48,000 44,000 65,000
Housing Tax Credit 252,000 63,000 78,000 46,000 32,000 34,000

Number of Subsidized Units, by Percent Minority in Tract


Total 0-19% Minority 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% 80% or more
Total 3,899,000 1,419,000 622,000 441,000 377,000 1,040,000
Indian Housing 3,000 2,000 1,000 416 213 143
Public Housing 997,000 222,000 116,000 108,000 110,000 442,000
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 1,175,000 469,000 207,000 143,000 119,000 237,000
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 793,000 390,000 136,000 75,000 56,000 137,000
S.236 424,000 163,000 82,000 53,000 40,000 85,000
Other Subsidy 254,000 61,000 38,000 34,000 31,000 90,000
Housing Tax Credit 252,000 113,000 42,000 26,000 22,000 49,000

Distribution of Neighborhoods.

These two tables count the subsidized households by some characteristics of their tracts. Note that the total units are lower than in other tables, since we lack some addresses and cannot put them into tracts.

The first table confirms that much Public Housing is in tracts with high poverty rates, as mentioned on the previous page. Other programs tend to be in less poor tracts.

Similarly Public Housing tends to be in minority tracts. 'Other Subsidies' are in minority tracts almost as much, but the remaining programs tend to be in tracts with fewer minorities. Fairly few units are in the tracts that are nearly 50-50 white and minority. Indeed the country has fairly few such tracts in general.

Number of Subsidized Units, by Concentration in Tract


Total Subsidized Units Subsidized Units Have: Their Tracts Have:*
Average Income % Elderly % Minority % Minority % Poor
Total Subsidized are: 3,900,000 9,580 33% 58% 45% 25%
Up to 9% of Tract 1,592,000 9,561 32 45 28 16
10-19% of Tract 1,001,000 9,477 37 52 40 22
20-29% of Tract 437,000 9,390 35 65 54 29
30-39% of Tract 234,000 9,338 31 72 63 35
40-49% of Tract 158,000 9,607 31 77 69 39
50% or more 479,000 10,128 30 87 84 51
Median % of Tract 13%

*Weighted average, weighted by the number of subsidized units present

Spatial Concentration.

The data file has a summary record for each Census tract. There are about 61,000 Census tracts in the country, with a 1990 population of 250 million. Subsidized housing is in about 50,000 Census tracts, with a 1990 population of 210 million. Many of these tracts have no subsidized projects, and only a few Certificates+Vouchers, which households can take to any unit with a moderate rent. Even Certificates+Vouchers are fairly concentrated, because of households' preferences, and a lack of transportation and child care to permit a wide search in a reasonable time. The data file allows one to compare all tracts, with and without various kinds of subsidies.

We have tallied subsidized units by some of the characteristics of their tracts. Note that, as on the previous page, the total units are lower than in other tables, and some statistics differ, since we lack some addresses and cannot place them in tracts. Furthermore this table, like all tables in the report, is based on the public summary file, so it does not have data where few households were reported, and data were suppressed. The rate of concentration ranges widely as a percent of the homes in the tract, but the median subsidized unit is in a tract that is 13% subsidized.

Incomes and ages of subsidized households do not vary consistently based on the level of subsidy concentration in the tract. However the highest incomes are in the most concentrated tracts. These tend to be in large cities, where incomes of subsidized households tend to be higher than average. The oldest households are in tracts where 10–29% of households are subsidized (perhaps reflecting the presence of small elderly projects).

Minority and poverty rates vary more. Minorities tend to be in tracts with high concentrations of subsidized housing: there are high minority rates both in the subsidized housing and in the tract as a whole when subsidy concentration is high. Also the tracts with a lot of subsidized housing tend to have high poverty rates (as expected, since subsidized units are included in the poverty count for the tract, and raise the poverty rate).

The following table shows similar data, with the point of view changed, from the perspective of subsidized units, to the perspective of the total population of these Census tracts. Eighty-five percent of people in the United States live in Census tracts where there is some subsidized housing.

U.S. Population, by Concentration of Subsidized Units

 

Total People Their Tracts Have:*
% Minority % Poor
Total Subsidized are: 247,098,000 24 13
None in Tract 36,205,000 13 9
Up to 9% of Tract 184,252,000 23 13
10-19% of Tract 18,252,000 42 22
20-29% of Tract 4,431,000 56 29
30-39% of Tract 1,631,000 65 35
40-49% of Tract 875,000 71 39
50% or more 1,451,000 84 50
Median % of Tract 1%

*Weighted average, weighted by the total population present, subsidized or not

Number of Agencies and Projects, by Size of Agency


Number of Agencies Number of Projects # Tracts
Total Indian Housing Public Housing Certificates + Vouchers Indian Housing Public Housing Certificates + Vouchers
Total 4,418 192 3,200 2,602 2,913 14,045 74,767
1-99 Total Units in HA 1,639 43 1,191 525 147 1,793 2,290
100-299 Units in HA 1,265 74 862 754 643 2,375 7,289
300-499 Units in HA 523 33 372 409 509 1,510 6,101
500-999 Units in HA 473 28 359 416 730 1,819 10,137
1,000-2,999 Units in HA 266 10 211 250 420 1,697 10,764
3,000-4,999 Units in HA 170 3 136 168 245 1,872 15,264
5,000-9,999 Units in HA 48 1 41 47 219 1,084 8,897
10,000-29,999 Units in HA 30 0 24 30 0 1,093 10,385
30,000 or More Units in HA 4 0 4 3 0 802 3,640

Size of Agency.

The body of the report shows the number of subsidized housing units and their characteristics by size of agency. The table above counts the number of agencies and projects. There are relatively few large agencies, but they have most of the units.

We count agencies based on total units in all programs. If we had counted the number of units in any one program, there would have been slightly fewer large agencies and more small ones. When an agency has more than one numeric code, we do count each code separately. The 1996 report tried to group them, in order to count each agency only once. The multiple codes happen primarily in state-wide agencies, which have a different code for each HUD office they work with.

Number of Subsidized Units and Projects, by Size of Project

 

Total Project Size
1-49 Subsidized Units 50-99 Subsidized Units 100-199 Subsidized Units 200-499 Subsidized Units 500-999 Subsidized Units 1,000 or More Subsidized Units
Total Units 3,350,000 617,000 763,000 1,002,000 657,000 159,000 152,000
Number of Projects 48,836 27,232 11,184 7,651 2,458 241 70
Indian Housing 73,000 48,000 19,000 6,000 1,000 0 0
Number of Projects 2,709 2,352 306 48 3 0 0
Public Housing 1,310,000 165,000 234,000 311,000 322,000 131,000 146,000
Number of Projects 13,913 6,565 3,531 2,414 1,140 196 67
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 894,000 198,000 271,000 320,000 100,000 3,000 3,000
Number of Projects 15,179 8,339 3,937 2,493 404 4 2
S.236 447,000 29,000 97,000 189,000 121,000 9,000 3,000
Number of Projects 4,224 965 1,370 1,389 484 15 1
Other Subsidy 293,000 33,000 78,000 104,000 67,000 10,000 0
Number of Projects 3,367 1,189 1,120 787 255 16 0
Housing Tax Credit 332,000 145,000 63,000 72,000 46,000 6,000 0
Number of Projects 9,445 7,823 920 520 172 10 0

Size of Projects.

Most projects are small, under 50 units. But most units are in larger projects, those with 100 or more units. The smallest projects are common in all programs, while the very largest projects are primarily in Public Housing. This table omits the 336 Public and Indian projects in the data file with zero units, since they are usually not really separate projects (see "Units" in the "Meaning of Codes" section).

Housing Sub-programs


Unique Projects Actual Project Records Total Units Subsidized Units *LMSA/RAPSUP Units
TOTAL 22,767 31,479 1,609,394 1,605,378 462,691
S.8 New & Sub. Rehab. Projects 9,843 10,102 649,840 645,824 1,315
New & Sub. Rehab. Units


644,509
LMSA/RAPSUP Units


1,315 1,315
202/8 4,648 4,648 223,699 223,699 0
202/811 685 685 17,545 17,545 0
S.236 4,224 10,381 439,183 439,183 292,644
Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) 1,049 1,700 102,872 102,872 47,183
LMSA, not 236 nor BMIR 1,505 3,141 112,132 112,132 112,132
LMSA, hard to classify 175 175 9,417 9,417 9,417
Property Disposition 638 647 54,706 54,706 0

* LMSA/RAPSUP = Loan Management Set-Aside, Rental Assistance Program, and Rent Supplements

Multiple Subsidies.

Privately owned projects in some programs can have multiple subsidies. This table shows how we have categorized the subsidy records at HUD, matching on FHA and Section 8 project numbers to avoid double-counting. The number of subsidized units here is slightly less than in other tables, since active projects with zero units in the files are counted as zero here, but their size is estimated for other tables.

Most LMSA/RAPSUP units are in Section 236 and BMIR projects, which are subsidized anyway. The remainder are added to the subsidized count. A few can even be in Section 8 New projects, where Section 8 only subsidizes part of the project, and LMSA can be provided to help the other units if the project runs into difficulty.

There is still a limited amount of double-counting in the figures, since Vouchers may be used in Section 236 projects, and Section 8 may be used in Tax Credit projects, and we do not yet subtract out the overlap.

Number of Records by State

  Total Agency+Other Summary Records Project Records Tract Records
Indian Housing Public Housing S.8 New + Substantial Rehab S.236 Other Subsidy Housing Tax Credit Certificates + Vouchers Totals of All Programs
Total 192,310 7,107 2,913 14,045 15,179 4,224 3,367 9,445 74,767 61,263
U.S. Summaries 67 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AK 788 34 355 47 22 9 9 11 111 190
AL 3,526 245 8 614 267 48 24 257 1,001 1,062
AR 2,144 202 0 264 219 35 50 70 711 593
AZ 2,572 73 331 119 104 40 19 49 1,027 810
CA 18,133 260 154 728 1,139 584 226 274 8,910 5,858
CO 3,020 106 28 172 234 62 45 59 1,335 979
CT 2,876 105 9 206 240 81 96 68 1,237 834
DC 572 12 0 62 79 36 32 8 151 192
DE 488 19 0 39 54 7 7 21 166 175
FL 7,243 226 24 425 392 128 116 153 3,331 2,448
GA 4,547 234 0 882 275 122 71 226 1,267 1,470
GQ 18 8 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0
HI 890 16 0 61 67 20 6 13 442 265
IA 2,220 118 1 119 276 36 21 88 777 784
ID 844 28 39 21 107 20 11 70 279 269
IL 7,477 202 0 807 597 105 132 424 2,369 2,841
IN 3,674 119 0 201 318 140 116 105 1,292 1,383
KS 2,136 145 14 177 257 49 40 127 643 684
KY 3,340 177 0 335 349 62 85 212 1,123 997
LA 3,337 232 5 351 151 52 67 252 1,122 1,105
MA 6,709 216 1 291 463 189 107 177 3,934 1,331
MD 3,178 68 0 191 288 101 56 203 1,120 1,151
ME 1,500 70 25 76 247 17 9 98 574 384
MI 7,952 221 46 322 461 237 212 277 3,626 2,550
MN 4,325 216 92 304 529 94 54 211 1,595 1,230
MO 4,808 202 0 285 394 85 86 773 1,735 1,248
MS 1,911 80 22 269 231 32 50 124 522 581
MT 1,019 36 201 47 69 29 19 41 291 286
NC 5,099 204 25 436 723 71 63 581 1,514 1,482
ND 807 64 84 36 144 11 12 39 185 232
NE 1,556 144 31 170 182 19 18 158 388 446
NH 995 48 0 67 140 19 7 30 418 266
NJ 5,959 189 0 340 348 124 85 68 2,867 1,938
NM 1,507 91 249 100 75 20 33 98 451 390
NV 958 35 106 50 42 17 14 41 384 269
NY 14,347 316 20 589 933 300 129 171 7,031 4,858
OH 8,007 158 0 538 765 246 292 467 2,679 2,862
OK 3,405 168 494 215 124 53 54 163 1,142 992
OR 2,310 70 20 138 217 70 56 195 817 727
PA 8,524 219 0 728 620 158 74 763 2,795 3,167
RI 1,137 64 0 123 136 38 15 41 485 235
RQ 731 102 0 338 180 21 24 47 19 0
SC 2,551 92 0 258 237 50 63 94 903 854
SD 960 77 171 42 152 23 56 92 150 197
TN 4,136 145 0 505 371 66 84 421 1,323 1,221
TQ 13 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
TX 11,910 609 9 1,021 426 171 262 672 4,694 4,046
UT 1,226 45 34 72 78 16 9 45 527 400
VA 4,009 80 0 199 287 122 56 191 1,401 1,673
VQ 52 9 0 32 4 0 0 7 0 0
VT 665 31 0 34 132 6 3 31 247 181
WA 3,800 99 140 256 262 80 115 213 1,483 1,152
WI 4,378 198 125 212 536 80 56 356 1,475 1,340
WV 1,506 81 0 98 168 13 13 67 593 473
WY 448 28 50 24 58 10 8 3 105 162

Number of Subsidized Units, by State and Program

  Total Indian Housing Public Housing Certificates + Vouchers Moderate Rehabilitation S.8 New + Substantial Rehabilitation S.236 Other Subsidy Housing Tax Credit
Total 4,838,857 72,764 1,300,493 1,391,526 107,609 894,330 447,466 292,584 332,085
AK 12,297 5,867 1,629 2,642 0 892 642 238 387
AL 95,466 155 44,592 19,831 1,613 13,748 5,234 1,555 8,738
AR 52,309 0 15,156 18,545 67 7,861 2,955 3,880 3,734
AZ 51,040 13,704 7,046 15,183 684 6,199 3,726 1,641 2,857
CA 411,758 2,791 45,707 204,339 8,318 61,028 53,433 20,953 15,189
CO 53,565 545 9,109 17,364 2,050 11,787 7,068 2,631 3,011
CT 81,433 60 18,321 24,541 2,207 16,046 10,229 7,768 2,261
DC 34,180 0 11,267 5,943 1,271 6,190 4,447 3,905 1,157
DE 12,660 0 3,373 2,733 153 3,830 709 563 1,299
FL 184,820 483 43,852 61,758 8,430 25,756 18,469 11,928 14,144
GA 135,546 0 54,998 31,150 1,248 17,242 13,008 7,375 10,525
GQ 2,229 0 751 1,423 5 50 0 0 0
HI 19,562 0 5,262 7,208 58 2,591 2,205 1,587 651
IA 38,329 20 4,797 13,671 644 11,688 3,133 1,469 2,927
ID 13,836 817 831 4,893 185 3,497 820 399 2,394
IL 219,268 0 77,835 42,047 5,860 47,047 12,575 16,837 17,067
IN 94,452 0 17,976 25,386 961 21,251 14,999 9,864 4,015
KS 39,790 412 9,358 7,567 178 9,082 3,209 3,324 6,660
KY 80,722 0 24,198 20,940 1,206 18,259 6,531 5,807 3,781
LA 93,056 74 31,515 23,656 2,114 11,789 6,131 6,613 11,164
MA 158,750 18 34,478 41,399 4,524 36,171 20,497 12,806 8,857
MD 97,584 0 24,662 22,440 2,907 17,870 14,749 5,737 9,219
ME 27,526 549 4,154 9,454 1,176 7,308 1,655 624 2,606
MI 148,892 1,026 26,697 28,134 1,222 40,604 23,287 17,019 10,903
MN 95,033 2,028 21,684 25,243 769 23,841 10,243 4,348 6,877
MO 105,083 0 20,088 32,897 3,143 21,151 8,277 7,142 12,384
MS 55,289 816 15,483 13,812 830 11,932 3,234 4,260 4,922
MT 19,309 5,575 2,068 3,923 803 2,621 2,222 1,099 998
NC 123,498 1,095 39,436 39,491 2,368 20,969 6,750 5,318 8,071
ND 15,999 2,850 1,913 5,284 517 3,146 859 384 1,046
NE 31,054 775 7,413 10,176 674 5,606 1,789 835 3,786
NH 19,134 0 4,345 6,172 284 4,938 1,969 366 1,060
NJ 148,237 0 45,235 39,630 3,253 36,780 11,762 7,620 3,957
NM 28,874 2,993 4,917 10,199 467 3,173 1,968 2,449 2,708
NV 20,672 1,982 4,579 5,715 831 2,234 1,676 1,354 2,301
NY 492,394 574 197,021 141,826 10,741 81,455 38,397 15,822 6,498
OH 223,876 0 56,145 54,877 4,916 46,368 26,041 18,624 16,905
OK 69,800 12,702 13,187 18,090 2,719 6,709 4,744 3,894 7,755
OR 50,402 652 6,171 22,371 1,400 7,364 3,375 1,832 7,237
PA 218,186 0 78,654 49,633 4,265 45,714 19,999 6,631 13,290
RI 35,843 0 10,084 7,101 525 11,963 3,591 903 1,676
RQ 110,022 0 57,107 17,833 3,898 18,388 4,511 4,328 3,957
SC 61,541 0 16,820 16,459 1,826 12,877 5,030 4,938 3,591
SD 20,687 6,052 1,685 3,287 618 3,582 1,099 2,130 2,234
TN 113,897 0 42,565 22,966 1,689 21,647 8,530 8,007 8,493
TQ 273 0 0 81 0 192 0 0 0
TX 279,660 240 66,222 94,989 5,612 27,519 21,871 27,304 35,903
UT 16,363 466 2,212 6,602 723 3,339 859 402 1,760
VA 108,243 0 22,905 25,820 4,378 23,298 14,697 6,754 10,391
VQ 4,916 0 4,280 192 163 124 0 0 157
VT 10,939 0 1,834 4,282 257 3,045 292 279 950
WA 76,063 3,519 16,884 25,279 803 9,871 5,349 6,340 8,118
WI 83,599 2,618 13,840 21,163 877 25,502 6,278 3,509 9,812
WV 34,441 0 7,436 12,442 1,014 9,030 1,891 1,004 1,624
WY 6,460 1,360 716 1,333 165 2,186 452 224 78


Bibliography on Subsidized Tenants

Order #, where given, is at HUD User, 800-245-2691, 202-708-3178, TDD 800-877-8674.

SuDoc# is a numbering system used at government depository libraries.

Within each section items are in chronological order.

Related Data Files

A Picture of Subsidized Households in the 1970s. codebook & data file order # HUD-8112, by Paul Burke. HUD, July 1997. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households in Public & Indian Housing for each project in 1976-77. It also has budget data for individual line items of housing agencies' income & expenses in 1971-76. It was prepared around 1979, but not issued until 1997.

Family Data on Public & Indian Projects, 1993, order # AVI-27, by Paul Burke. HUD, November 1993. This is an earlier version of A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996, prepared on a comparable basis, also with data on individual projects & agencies. It excludes Section 8, FHA & Tax Credits.

A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996. 11 volumes & data file, order # HUD-7611 to HUD-7621, by Paul Burke. HUD, December 1996. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households for the US, each State, each housing agency, project & Census tract (all tracts are in the data file, but only tracts with many subsidized units are in the books). It includes Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA & Tax Credit projects. It also includes geographic data such as latitude, longitude and zip code. Volume 11, the national summary, uses latitudes and longitudes to provide colored thematic maps for selected areas.

A Picture of Subsidized Households in 1997. 1 summary volume & a more detailed data file, order # HUD-8562, by Paul Burke. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households for the US, each State, each housing agency, project & Census tract. It includes Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA & Tax Credit projects. It also includes geographic data such as latitude, longitude and zip code. The printed volume has totals for the nation, States and housing agencies with 500 or more units.

A Picture of Subsidized Households in 1998. 1 summary volume & a more detailed data file, by Paul Burke. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households for the US, each State, each housing agency, project & Census tract. It includes Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA & Tax Credit projects. It also includes geographic data such as latitude, longitude and zip code. The printed volume has totals for the nation, States and housing agencies with 500 or more units.

Subsidized Housing Projects' Geographic Codes, form HUD-951, order # AVI-1004, HUD, 1996. HUD project numbers with names and as many addresses per project as we could find; coded in early 1996 with: latitude, longitude, 9-digit Zip codes, Census block, tract, Congressional District, place, Minor Civil Division (town in New England) or Census Civil Division, County, MSA. More geographic detail than A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996, 1997, 1998, but no data on occupants, and addresses not as complete as in Picture 1997, 1998.

Development and Analysis of the National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Database, order # HUD-7306, AVI-60 HUD, 1996. Report analyzes data from 1992-94, but database goes back to 1987, when the program began. Includes some additional data on the same Tax Credit projects in A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996, 1997, 1998.

Basic Documents

Housing in the Seventies order # HUD-968. Government Printing Office, 1974, especially chapter 4, "Suspended Subsidy Programs." SuDoc# HH1.2:H81/47 at government depository libraries

Housing in the Seventies, Working Papers, 2 volumes, order # HUD-1429 and HUD-1430. Government Printing Office, 1976. SuDoc# HH1.2:H81/51V1-2 at government depository libraries

Justification of the Estimates, volumes on Office of Housing, Office of Public & Indian Housing (formerly Office of Housing Management). HUD, Budget Office, annual.

Statistical Yearbook 1966 to 1979. HUD & Government Printing Office. SuDoc# HH1.38:966 through HH1.38:979 at government depository libraries

Programs of HUD. HUD, annual.

Researcher's Guide to HUD Data order # HUD-223, second edition. HUD, July 1978, especially chapter 9, "Occupants of Subsidized & FHA Housing."

Researcher's Guide to HUD Data order # HUD-3846, third edition. HUD, August 1984, especially chapters 8.3 and 9.3, "Data on Individual Tenants."

Specialized Documents

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Revised Edition 1975 by Statistical Policy Division, Office of Management & Budget. Government Printing Office, 1975. Criteria, definitions, lists of areas. SuDoc# PREX2.2:M56/975 at government depository libraries. Useful only for historical comparisons.

Lower Income Housing Assistance Program, order # HUD-817. HUD, 1978.

"Analysis of the Data Quality of the Section 8 Tenant Characteristics Data Base," by Office of Program Planning & Evaluation. HUD San Francisco Regional Office, May 1979.

"Trends in Subsidized Housing 1974-1981", order # HUD-3034, by Paul Burke. HUD, March 1984.

Recipient Housing in the Housing Voucher and Certificate Programs, order # HUD-5597, by Mireille Léger & Stephen Kennedy, Abt Associates. HUD, May 1990.

"Report on Subsidized Tenants," Appendix C in HUD Annual Report 1988. HUD, 1990. An earlier & very brief version of Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units, based on the 1987 American Housing Survey.

"Report on Subsidized Tenants," Appendix C in HUD Annual Report 1989. HUD, 1991. Data for selected samples in various areas, from the same data base as this report, & from research samples.

"Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Tenants," Appendix C in HUD Annual Report 1990. HUD, 1992. A very brief summary of Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units, based on the 1989 American Housing Survey.

Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989, order # HUD-5961, by Connie Casey. HUD, March 1992. This has data (from sample interviews in the American Housing Survey) on the housing & neighborhood quality of the units people live in. Only about 33% complete for Public Housing and 50% complete for private subsidized projects, because of inability to match addresses. Similar books forthcoming for 1991 and 1993.

"Revised Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas in the 1990's" in Federal Register volume 55, 1990, March 30, p. 12154 (corrections published: April 10 p. 13357, April 30 p. 18055, and May 10 p. 19688)

The Assessment of the HUD-Insured Multifamily Housing Stock, Final Report, v. 1, Current Status, order # HUD-6261, by James E. Wallace, Abt Associates, September 1993.

Location and Racial Composition of Public Housing in the United States, order # HUD-6557, by John Goering, Ali Kamely & Todd Richardson. HUD, March 1995.

Assisted Housing Quality Control, order # HUD-7219, by Suzanne Loux, Mary Sistek & Frank Wann. HUD, 1996. Measures errors in the form 50058 & 50059 data used in this report (though not using income matching to detect unreported sources of income). The largest dollar errors come from not getting income verifications on earnings & pensions, and, more surprisingly, not using verified amounts even when they are obtained. Net errors in rent average $4 underpayment per month per household.

Housing Problems and Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives, order # HUD-7173, by G. Thomas Kingsley, Maris Mikelsons & Carla Herbig, Urban Institute. HUD, May 1996.

Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program, GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55. U.S. General Accounting Office, March 1997.

Footnotes

(1) See calculations on the data collection forms printed at the end of this report.

(2) Sometimes local governments set a payment standard lower than the Fair Market Rent.

(3) For neighborhoods we use areas defined by the Census Bureau. A Census tract is a compact area averaging about 1,500 households. We lack addresses for about 16% of subsidized housing units, so they cannot be placed in neighborhoods, and thus the neighborhood totals are underestimates.

(4) TANF means Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. This is a national name, but many states use unique names for their versions of TANF. AFDC means Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

(5) This is the coefficient of variation, which is the standard deviation of income, as a percent of the average income. The standard deviation measures dispersion: how far each household's income is from the average income. Incomes that are far above or below average have large effects, since the differences are squared before being averaged. In a normal distribution two thirds of cases are within ±1 standard deviation of the average. For example in Public Housing, the standard deviation of household income is $6,800, which is 75% of the average household income, $9,100, as shown.

(6) The terms family and household here have specific meanings. The local median income is based on both subsidized and unsubsidized families. Families include only people living together who are related by blood, marriage or adoption; people living alone are not used for establishing median incomes. They all are included in the broader term household and all are of course eligible for subsidy, so when writing about people living in subsidized units, we use the broad term households. There is also another sense of family, as opposed to elderly households, which was once a common distinction in HUD programs. We avoid that usage, since we now have many non-elderly single people in HUD programs. When we want to indicate households where the head and spouse are under age 62, we use the term non-elderly.

(7) For example an agency where every project has the same % minority, has zero difference in each project, and zero average difference for the agency as a whole. An agency with 80 blacks in one project and 80 whites in the other has the maximum difference of 50 points. Such an agency is 50% minority. Therefore the difference between the black project and the agency is: 100% minus 50%. The difference between the white project and the agency is: 0% minus 50%. Difference is measured in absolute value, so the average difference is 50 points. Racial separation can also be measured in other ways.

(8) Tenant assignment in Public Housing is a complex subject. In general over the past 20 years, households were placed on an agency-wide waiting list in order of their federal and local "preferences" and their date and time of application. ("Preference" is a priority category, like homelessness.) When a housing unit became available, it was offered to the household at the top of the waiting list, regardless of minority status (unless for example an effort was being made to overcome proven discrimination in the past). If they turned down the unit offered (they typically got one or three chances), they went to the bottom of the waiting list.

(9) HUD enforces the federal fair housing acts, which prohibit discrimination in federally assisted and most private housing.

(10) Mathematically this doubling comes from the fact that data forms are submitted evenly throughout each person's stay. Therefore the average data form submitted is half-way through the average stay.

(11) The file is delimited ASCII, with double quotes around text fields (i.e., the fields "name," "code" and "tract"), and commas separating all fields, so they can be read directly by most programs. At the same time the file is in fixed format, so it can be read by programs that need fixed formats. We have kept the records short, in order to have workable amounts of information, reasonable file sizes, and software compatibility (for example Lotus for DOS is limited to 240).