Understanding Whom the

LIHTC Program Serves:

Tenants in LIHTC Units

as of December 31, 2012

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

Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves:

Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012

Michael K. Hol ar

December 2014

Message From the Assistant Secretary

It is my pleasure to present this report, Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves: Tenants in

LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012. As mandated through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act

(HERA) of 2008, state agencies administering the Low-‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program are

now required to submit demographic and economic data on LIHTC tenants to the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research has been

working with states to develop a process for compiling, transmitting, and now releasing the tenant data.

This report marks the first release of those national data on LIHTC tenants.

Getting to this point has required a tremendous effort from states, whose existing data and compliance

systems needed to change to accommodate a standardized and electronic system of data submission. In

addition, HERA requires the col ection and submission of new data, requiring new col ection efforts and

creating additional burden on states. At the same time, HUD needed to develop a completely new

system for receiving and processing such data. HERA authorized $6 mil ion to support the creation of

this new system, but funding was never appropriated. In the absence of those resources, states and

HUD managed the development of these new systems within existing resources and through an iterative

and cooperative process. The National Council of State Housing Agencies (the membership organization

for agencies administering the LIHTC Program) has been an invaluable partner as we have worked with

states to improve processes (ours and theirs) and improve data. Each year, the quality and coverage of

the data improve. The preparation of this report surfaced numerous data issues that states have already

begun addressing, which wil be reflected in higher quality data next year.

Although it is not possible to name al the staff at al the housing finance agencies who worked to provide

these data to HUD, I would like to acknowledge the team at HUD who contributed to the production of

this report. I am particularly grateful for Mike Hol ar, who authored this report, and Shanti Karimsetti, who

provided invaluable assistance tabulating the data. I also thank Alastair McFarlane, Danilo Pel etiere, and

Lydia Taghavi for providing valuable input throughout the production of this report.

This report provides summary tables of state tenant data received for tenants as of December 2012.

There are numerous caveats on the coverage of these data, which are far from complete in some states,

or for some specific variables, as discussed in section IV. Each table in the report is structured to provide

readers with the information needed to make informed decisions about where the coverage and data

are best, both in terms of which states and which variables.

That said, LIHTC is a critical tool for creating and preserving affordable rental housing for low-‐income

households, and this report is a first of many steps in an effort to better understand those whom the

LIHTC Program serves. I thank all those who worked to make this report possible and whose continuing

commitment wil refine it to better help policy and practice in the future.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

ii

Contents

I.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

II. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 2

A. Overview of the Low-‐Income Housing Tax Credit Program ............................................................. 2

B. Tenant Income Certification ............................................................................................................ 2

C. Qualified Al ocation Plans ................................................................................................................ 2

D. HUD’s Col ection of LIHTC Properties Placed in Service .................................................................. 3

III. Standards and Definitions for HERA-‐Mandated Tenant Information Col ection ................................. 4

IV. Completeness of 2013 Tenant Data .................................................................................................... 5

A. States Submitting Tenant Data ........................................................................................................ 5

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

C. Units ................................................................................................................................................. 9

D. Household Members ....................................................................................................................... 9

V. HUD’s 2013 Col ection of LIHTC Tenant Information ........................................................................ 12

A. Race by Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................ 12

B. Disability Status ............................................................................................................................. 14

Households ................................................................................................................................... 14

Household Members .................................................................................................................... 16

C. Family Composition and Age ......................................................................................................... 18

D. Household Income ......................................................................................................................... 20

E. Monthly Rental Payments and Use of Rental Assistance .............................................................. 26

Monthly Rental Payments ............................................................................................................ 26

Use of Rental Assistance ............................................................................................................... 28

VI. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 30

iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases ........ 7

Table 2. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at Certification ..... 10

Table 3. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household .................................................................................. 13

Table 4. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members ................................................................................ 15

Table 5. Disability Status of Individual Household Members .................................................................... 17

Table 6. Family Composition: Households With Children and Elderly Members ...................................... 19

Table 7. Distribution of Annual Household Income ................................................................................... 22

Table 8. Total Annual Household Income Compared With AMGI ............................................................. 24

Table 9. Gross Rent As Percentage of Annual Household Income ............................................................ 27

Table 10. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance ................................... 29

Table A1. Distribution of Income for Al HUD-‐Assisted Housing, December 31, 2012 .............................. 30

iv

I.

Introduction

The Low-‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program provides tax credits to developers of affordable

rental housing. The tax credits are provided during the first 10 years of a minimum 30-‐year compliance

period during which rent and income restrictions apply. The LIHTC Program, although established in the

U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC), is structured such that state-‐allocating agencies administer most

aspects of the program, including income and rent compliance, with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

providing oversight and guidance. Local administration allows states to address affordable housing

needs specific to their populations.

As part of state compliance enforcement, each state has developed its own version of the Tenant Income

Certification (TIC) form, which requests information from property managers to ensure that tenants meet

LIHTC Program household income limits and property managers are setting rents within LIHTC Program

maximum limits. In addition to col ecting income and rent information, many states have also col ected

demographic information, each according to their own standards and for their own uses. Thus, although

income and rent information was collected across states using fairly uniform standards and definitions, the

demographic information was not standardized and, in some states, not collected at all.

In 2008, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), requiring each state housing

finance agency (HFA) that administers the LIHTC Program 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 specifical y 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.

HERA also authorized $6 mil ion to support the creation and operation of this new tenant data col ection

effort, but those resources were never appropriated.

After a public comment period, consultation with the affected state HFAs, and approval by the U.S.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), HUD published the required data submission standards in

early 2010. HUD’s published standards were based primarily on standards recommended by the

National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) to the state LIHTC-‐administering agencies for their

determination of tenant qualification. Although HUD’s standards were similar to those used by most

state housing agencies, the process of incorporating changes; col ecting the new information; and

modifying states’ abilities to col ect, maintain, and transmit the information to HUD electronically took

several years. During the first several annual col ections, few states were able to submit information

from a majority of properties, units, or tenants.

This report represents the first public release of information under the HERA mandate. Although the

information reported here is not inclusive of all tenants served by the LIHTC Program, HUD believes it

provides a useful picture of the program’s beneficiaries. The information presented within was received

by HUD in the fal of 2013 and includes tenants in LIHTC units as of December 31, 2012. Sections II and III

provide background on the LIHTC Program and the HERA mandate. Because this report addresses the

first release of tenant data, and data completeness is an issue for some states and some variables,

section IV provides an assessment of property, unit, and tenant coverage by state. Section V then

provides a discussion of the submitted economic and demographic data required under HERA.

1

II. Background

A. Overview of the Low-‐Income Housing Tax Credit Program

The LIHTC Program was established in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and enacted as Section 42 of the IRC.

The program replaced tax provisions that al owed owners of rental housing, including passive investors,

to deduct operating losses against other income, which encouraged reduced rental rates. LIHTCs are

provided to the owners of rental properties to finance construction or substantial rehabilitation of rental

properties. In return, property owners must maintain federal y set income and rent restrictions for a

minimum of 30 years. The tax credits, which are taken over a period of 10 years, are determined based

on the construction or rehabilitation costs of a rental property so that the present value of the tax

credits are equal to either 70 or 30 percent of these costs. Owners can obtain the tax credits either

through a competitive HFA-‐administered process or through the use of state-‐issued private activity

bonds. Owners may begin claiming the tax credits after the property1 is placed in service and the

administering state HFA confirms the property is in compliance with IRS requirements.

HUD’s administrative responsibility in the LIHTC Program is strictly limited to the designation Difficult

Development Areas (DDAs) and Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs)2. HUD is not involved in the 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.

B. Tenant Income Certification

The information required by HUD and tabulated in this report, as part of the HERA-‐mandated data

col ection, is also collected on state TIC forms, which property owners must provide to the administering

HFA to demonstrate compliance with program rent and income rules. TIC forms currently are state

specific. Most, if not all, states col ect information using their TIC forms in addition to that required by

IRS rules and tax statutes.

C. Qualified Allocation Plans

The LIHTC statute requires HFAs to maintain plans, cal ed Qualified Al ocation Plans (QAPs), explaining

how the LIHTC Program wil be administered in each state. QAPs include a state’s method for al ocating

its share of LIHTCs and procedures for monitoring compliance. Although the LIHTC statute does not

require QAPs to include the submission of HERA-‐mandated tenant information as a criterion for

compliance, many states include the provision of this information as a component of compliance. This

provision is pertinent primarily for demographic information, such as race, ethnicity, and disability

status, because income, rent, and other categories required by HERA are necessary to monitor

compliance with other program rules.

1 Tax credits technical y are awarded to buildings rather than properties.

2 Developers who locate LIHTC properties in DDAs or QCTs are eligible for 30 percent more tax credits than

otherwise al owed.

2

D. HUD’s Collection of LIHTC Properties Placed in Service

In addition to collecting information on tenants in LIHTC units, HUD annually collects characteristics of

LIHTC properties placed in service (hereafter, PIS data). HUD began this property-‐level data collection in

1999 and, although state participation remained voluntary, all states participated each year. Before the

passage of HERA in 2008, HUD contracted with Abt Associates Inc. to col ect the information directly

from each HFA. This method enabled each HFA to provide the requested information in the most

convenient format for each agency. Although the information was often provided in Excel spreadsheets

preformatted by Abt, some agencies provided hard copies of the requested information, which required

hand entry by Abt. After the passage of HERA and the mandate to col ect data on al tenants in LIHTC

units, HUD revised the PIS data submission process and began requiring electronic submission through

the same process as established for the tenant data. This revision required HFAs to produce XML-‐

formatted3 files and to submit the files directly to HUD.

3 XML, or eXtensible Markup Language, is a commonly used format that al ows for the transfer of structured data.

3

III. Standards and Definitions for HERA-‐Mandated Tenant Information Collection

HERA requires HUD to establish standards and definitions for the mandated data submission. To

minimize the burden on state HFAs, HUD adopted a modified version of the NCSHA’s model TIC form,

which serves as the basis for most state TIC forms used to ensure compliance with program income and

rent restrictions. In accordance with the statute, HUD relies on established program standards and

definitions to reduce reporting burden on states and property managers.

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests information for eight broad categories. Part I of the

form (Development Data) requests information describing the property and unit, such as property

name, address, unit number, number of bedrooms, and program identifying codes. Part II (Household

Composition) requests the HERA-‐required demographic information for each household member,

including race, ethnicity, disability status, and date of birth. Information from these sections, in addition

to information from HUD’s LIHTC PIS data col ection, enables HUD to determine the completeness of the

information received.

Parts III (Gross Annual Income) and IV (Income from Assets) request information on household income,

which is col ected by state agencies to confirm program eligibility and enforce compliance rules.

Although states collect annual income and income from assets for each household member, HUD

requires reporting of only total household income. Part V (Determination of Income Eligibility) requests

information indicating which federal income restriction the household meets. The LIHTC Program

requires owners to reserve rent-‐restricted units for households at or below either 50 or 60 percent of

Area Median Gross Income (AMGI). Properties that agree to maintain lower income restrictions indicate

that information as wel , although the poor coverage of those data prohibits their inclusion in this

report.

Part VI (Monthly Rent) requests information about various components of monthly rent, including

tenant payments and monthly rental assistance. Part VII (Student Status) requests information about

the household’s student exception if al occupants are ful -‐time students, an occurrence that, in general,

is prohibited in the LIHTC Program. The final section, Part VIII (Program Type), requests information

about whether the unit complies with the occupancy requirements of the HOME and other federal

affordable housing programs (applicable for units receiving other funding).

4

IV. Completeness of 2013 Tenant Data

Information on tenants in rent-‐restricted LIHTC units as of December 31, 2012, was col ected in the fal

of 2013. As required by statute, the information was submitted to HUD by state HFAs, which col ect and

maintain the data as part of program compliance. Although data quality and completeness have

improved with each submission year, because of a variety of issues discussed subsequently, the data

submitted by states varied in completeness in terms of properties and units reported and, within those

units, household members. To the extent that coverage is low in any particular state, the characteristics

of reported tenants may not be representative of the ful population served by the LIHTC Program in

that state. This section of the report provides information on coverage to aid the reader in interpreting

the data used throughout this report.

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

The LIHTC Program is administered by 60 state-‐level and, in limited instances, substate allocating housing

finance agencies.4 Several states separate administrative functions between multiple state agencies or

local suballocators. The District of Columbia and the states of Massachusetts and New York separate

functions related to the al ocation of tax credits and the issuance of tax-‐exempt private activity bonds

between two agencies. Compliance for al properties in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts,

however, is conducted by a single agency in each state. Illinois, New York, and Minnesota 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 counties5 receive

suballocations from New York State. Minnesota allows seven local governments to allocate tax credits,6

although the state conducts compliance.

HUD requests tenant data and property characteristics from the 60 agencies that conduct program

compliance (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as “states”). All states provided tenant data in response

to HUD’s request except the District of Columbia and New Mexico. None of the suballocators in Il inois

or New York, however, submitted tenant data to HUD.7 Thus, tabulations for those two states provide

only a partial understanding of the LIHTC Program and are representative of their LIHTC stocks excluding

Chicago and New York City, respectively. The fol owing sections explain how the submitted information

may be incomplete for each of the states.

4 This total includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. Aside from the use of the Tax

Credit Exchange Program in 2009, American Samoa does not actively administer the LIHTC Program and is not

counted here.

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

Lawrence Counties, New York.

6 Dakota and Washington Counties and the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, Saint Cloud, Saint Paul, and Rochester

each receive a portion of the state allocation.

7 The District of Columbia, New Mexico, and the New York City Housing Development Corporation have submitted

2013 tenant data.

5

B. Properties in the Tenant Data

HUD’s col ection of LIHTC tenant data applies to all active LIHTC properties, including those in the

extended-‐use period. Many states were unable to submit information for all active properties, however,

for several reasons. First, many states simplify or decrease the stringency of compliance rules after

Year 15, which lessens or eliminates certain information otherwise col ected 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.8 Second, some states previously

accepted Tenant Income Certification forms from smal er properties in hard copy as opposed to

electronically because many of these properties are managed by independent owners who may not

have the ability to submit electronical y. 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, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act permits

states to forgo annual income recertification of tenants if 100 percent of a building’s units are income or

rent restricted.9 Income information from tenants in these properties, therefore, may not be available

or, if available, may not be current. As explained subsequently, in order to present an appropriate

comparison, HUD’s tabulation of income excludes incomes not certified in 2011 or 2012.10

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 col ection,11 summarized in table 1. The time period covered in HUD’s PIS data

col ection is consistent with the tenant col ection and currently includes properties placed in service

through 2012. HUD’s PIS database also has known undercounting, however, primarily for the most

recently col ected placed-‐in-‐service years.12 Hence, neither database is 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 where

issues of incomplete data (in either data source) may be larger.

8 Massachusetts did not submit tenant data for properties in the extended-‐use period for this reason but plans to

do so in future submissions.

9 Annual recertification is not needed in this case because the Next Available Unit Rule does not apply, and the

program al ows tenants to remain in rent-‐restricted units if household income increases after initial certification to

exceed income limits. Some states, however, require recertification for at least 1 additional year.

10 In a few states, some incomes were certified in early 2013, and these data are also included.

11 As discussed in section II.D, HUD annual y col ects information on LIHTC properties placed in service during the

previous calendar year. This information is available from http://lihtc.huduser.org/.

12 In addition to underreporting because of technicalities of determining placed-‐in-‐service status, several states

(Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West

Virginia) did not submit any information in recent years. See the database at http://lihtc.huduser.org/ for years of

nonreporting.

6

Table 1. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases

2012 PIS Database

2012 LIHTC HERA-‐Mandated Tenant Data

In Both Databases

Matched to

Matched to Properties Not

Matched to

Matched to Properties Not

All Active

HERA Data All Active HERA Data Matched to

All Active

PIS Data All Active

PIS Data Matched to

Active

Active

State

Properties

(%)

Units

(%)

HERA Data

Properties

(%)

Units

(%)

PIS Data

Properties

Units

Alabama

705

47.1

35,936

28.7

368

355

93.5

11,651

88.6

23

332

10,320

Alaska

90

20.0

3,469

19.9

73

19

94.7

704

97.9

1

18

689

Arizona

373

71.3

28,192

64.1

96

295

90.2

21,984

82.2

29

266

18,075

Arkansas

607

63.4

28,444

58.6

194

396

97.2

17,284

96.5

11

385

16,680

California

3,018

82.3

240,434

72.0

463

2,666

93.2

204,956

84.5

182

2,484

173,122

Colorado

444

77.3

28,549

55.9

99

402

85.3

23,605

67.6

59

343

15,948

Connecticut

307

69.1

18,028

57.4

115

235

90.2

13,536

76.5

23

212

10,354

Delaware

123

90.2

7,147

84.9

12

115

96.5

6,349

95.6

4

111

6,067

District of Columbia

124

N/A

17,850

N/A

124

Data Not Reported

N/A

Florida

1,068

72.8

148,304

72.0

283

964

80.7

144,398

74.0

186

778

106,839

Georgia

1,018

64.0

95,050

47.9

424

689

94.6

52,474

86.8

37

652

45,537

Guam

5

100.0

433

100.0

0

5

100.0

433

100.0

0

5

433

Hawaii

72

91.7

6,490

54.2

6

72

91.7

6,330

55.6

6

66

3,517

Idaho

189

100.0

7,698

100.0

8

215

87.9

8,443

91.2

15

189

7,698

a

Illinois

1,197

42.4

75,150

32.9

658

515

98.4

25,342

97.6

8

507

24,725

Indiana

578

63.3

37,792

28.4

247

442

82.8

13,258

81.1

76

366

10,749

Iowa

594

70.0

21,641

64.0

174

469

88.7

17,498

79.2

53

416

13,859

Kansas

604

74.3

28,175

61.0

137

467

96.1

21,052

81.6

18

449

17,173

Kentucky

736

74.7

24,203

80.6

177

562

97.9

20,750

94.0

12

550

19,509

Louisiana

1,049

38.2

56,693

33.4

571

432

92.8

20,352

93.1

31

401

18,943

Maine

187

64.2

6,306

70.6

67

122

98.4

4,720

94.3

2

120

4,452

Maryland

694

62.0

59,832

45.9

285

454

94.7

34,735

79.1

24

430

27,464

Massachusetts

750

66.9

50,774

60.4

239

580

86.6

39,917

76.8

78

502

30,653

Michigan

1,274

67.9

70,000

64.3

388

1,008

85.8

62,276

72.2

143

865

44,990

Minnesota

626

40.7

27,500

33.9

356

378

67.5

16,159

57.8

123

255

9,334

Mississippi

572

88.6

31,585

85.7

64

512

99.0

27,450

98.7

5

507

27,084

Missouri

1,561

47.9

53,680

56.8

789

946

79.1

44,106

69.1

198

748

30,499

Montana

210

81.9

6,047

82.1

36

175

98.3

5,227

94.9

3

172

4,963

Nebraska

239

97.5

6,970

96.8

3

317

73.5

10,413

64.8

84

233

6,750

Nevada

206

69.4

20,207

74.5

58

208

68.8

22,125

68.1

65

143

15,063

New Hampshire

183

51.9

6,648

30.4

88

157

60.5

5,040

40.2

62

95

2,024

New Jersey

671

33.2

43,815

39.4

446

461

48.4

33,128

52.2

238

223

17,278

New Mexico

229

N/A

12,686

N/A

229

Data Not Reported

N/A

New Yorka

2,459

34.2

128,433

39.4

1,571

1,017

82.7

64,329

78.6

176

841

50,574

North Carolina

1,294

72.0

52,474

91.7

333

938

99.4

48,410

99.4

6

932

48,096

North Dakota

171

93.6

5,198

92.7

10

162

98.8

4,886

98.7

2

160

4,821

Ohio

1,081

71.9

75,170

73.9

289

794

97.9

56,831

97.7

17

777

55,524

Oklahoma

460

57.4

22,970

51.6

193

378

69.8

18,371

64.6

114

264

11,864

Oregon

536

5.4

30,942

2.2

507

35

82.9

800

85.3

6

29

682

Pennsylvania

858

88.9

34,298

95.0

89

987

77.3

45,231

72.1

224

763

32,592

Puerto Rico

200

76.5

17,598

71.0

38

175

87.4

14,741

84.8

22

153

12,501

Rhode Island

187

64.7

10,958

63.8

62

164

73.8

10,007

69.9

43

121

6,994

South Carolina

698

44.0

33,916

39.5

364

358

85.8

15,452

86.7

51

307

13,404

South Dakota

202

69.3

6,991

70.4

60

181

77.3

6,550

75.1

41

140

4,921

Tennessee

909

45.9

53,477

62.8

469

427

97.7

34,032

98.7

10

417

33,576

Texas

1,860

51.4

176,720

62.8

809

1,488

64.2

170,443

65.1

532

956

110,997

Utah

370

84.6

19,122

80.3

53

319

98.1

15,392

99.8

6

313

15,360

Vermont

241

55.2

5,277

53.0

107

232

57.3

5,442

51.4

99

133

2,797

Virgin Islands

24

79.2

1,324

64.2

5

22

86.4

1,011

84.1

3

19

850

Virginia

827

75.5

71,995

74.2

183

846

73.8

73,838

72.3

222

624

53,411

b

Washington

996

1.5

68,139

11.8

747

67

22.4

23,552

34.2

52

15

8,059

West Virginia

267

79.0

10,725

78.1

64

234

90.2

9,947

84.2

23

211

8,375

Wisconsin

766

58.1

24,326

80.7

306

462

96.3

20,659

95.0

17

445

19,630

Wyoming

98

67.3

4,360

43.7

37

89

74.2

2,751

69.2

23

66

1,905

All reported areas

34,807

58.9

2,160,141

57.3

13,573

24,008

85.4

1,578,370

78.4

3,488

20,509

1,237,724

HERA = Housing and Economic Recovery Act. LIHTC = low-‐income housing tax credit. N/A = not applicable. PIS = LIHTC Properties Placed in

Service database.

a Does not include tenant data from subal ocators in Il inois or New York.

b Property names for properties in Washington’s tenant data were submitted primarily as Building Identification Numbers, precluding an

accurate match.

Notes: The five columns under the heading 2012 PIS Database represent the number of active properties and rent-‐restricted units reported in

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) PIS database and the percentage of those properties (and

corresponding units) matched to properties submitted through the HERA-‐mandated LIHTC Tenant Data Col ection Form. The five columns

under the heading 2012 LIHTC HERA-‐Mandated Tenant Submission represent the number of properties and rent-‐restricted units submitted

through the LIHTC Tenant Data Col ection Form and the percentage of those properties (and corresponding units) matched to properties

reported through HUD’s LIHTC PIS data collection. The last two columns, under the heading In Both Databases provide the number of

properties (and corresponding units) reported in both HUD’s PIS database and the LIHTC tenant database.

7

Table 1 excludes properties identified as no longer monitored for LIHTC compliance. In the nation,

34,807 properties are reported as active in the LIHTC Program in HUD’s PIS database. Through the

tenant data col ection, state HFAs submitted information for 24,008 properties. The difference between

these two counts may be explained, in addition to the reasons previously stated, in part from the PIS

database’s incorrect categorization of some LIHTC properties as active if states have not updated the

property’s activity status with HUD, producing an inflated account of the active LIHTC properties. This

factor is hard to distinguish from underreporting in the tenant data.

To produce a more informed account of properties reported through the HERA-‐mandated tenant

submission, HUD matched the two sets of data using property name and program-‐specific identification

numbers.13 The results of this matching are also reported in table 1. Overall, 58.9 percent of active

properties in HUD’s PIS database could be matched to properties submitted through the HERA-‐mandated

tenant data col ection.14 Some of this relatively low overal match rate reflects nonreporting of the District

of Columbia, the state of New Mexico, and the cities of Chicago and New York. Among states that reported

for al al ocating agencies, the match rate was slightly higher, at 61.5 percent, with large variation across

states. Only 5 states have matching rates of 90 percent or higher and most states (35, excluding Il inois and

New York) have matching rates below 75 percent. These varying match rates provide an indication of the

completeness of the tenant data for each state, driven by the factors cited previously.

In addition to suffering from incompleteness, however, matching rates from the PIS database to HERA-‐

mandated tenant data may suffer from poor matching, in part because of changes in property names since

they were original y placed in service and first reported to HUD’s PIS database. To the extent that poor

matching is an issue, a state would have a low matching rate in both directions, meaning that a similarly

large share of properties in the tenant data would not be matched to HUD’s PIS data (also reported in

table 1). For example, Nevada had nearly identical matching rates of 69 percent and nearly identical

numbers of properties across both databases. In this case, the low match rate of PIS properties to the

tenant data need not suggest incomplete tenant data. On the other hand, although poor matching may

explain a small portion of Tennessee’s 45.9 percent PIS match to tenant data, given that nearly 98 percent

of properties in the Tennessee tenant data were successful y matched to PIS data, it cannot be a large

factor. Of the properties submitted through the HERA tenant data col ection, national y, 85.4 percent were

matched to properties in the PIS database, much higher than the 58.9 percent of PIS properties matched

to the tenant data.

As mentioned previously, the matching rate between the two datasets varied widely across the states. The

tenant submissions from one-‐third of states had property matching rates above 90 percent, providing

confidence that nearly al the active LIHTC properties in those states are in the HUD PIS database. On the

other hand, about one-‐third matched between 50 and 75 percent of properties from their HERA-‐

mandated tenant data to the PIS data. In those cases, it is less clear that the PIS data are nearly complete.

13 HUD used property names, addresses, state-‐assigned Project Identification Numbers, and IRS-‐required Building

Identification Numbers to match the PIS and tenant datasets.

14 Note that this percentage indicates that at least one unit from the property was submitted in the tenant

submission and does not imply that al units within the matched properties were provided.

8

Hence, the PIS database may not provide an accurate benchmark for assessing the completeness of the

tenant data (the main focus of table 1). As mentioned previously, however, incomplete matching also

contributes to these lower rates and is a factor when interpreting data coverage.

C. Units

The HERA-‐mandated col ection of LIHTC tenant data is intended to include all income-‐ or rent-‐restricted

LIHTC units. Because HUD’s PIS data include only property address and not unit address, it is not

possible to match actual units. Instead, table 1 sums the number of units from matched properties in

the PIS database and reported units from matched properties in the tenant col ection. Across al states,

2.160 mil ion active LIHTC units are in HUD’s PIS database. State HFAs, however, reported data on

tenants in 1.578 mil ion units15 through the HERA-‐mandated tenant submission to HUD. The number of

units in matched properties is 1.237 mil ion.

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 5 percent.

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. However, 11 states

provided data for only one household member, usual y reported as the head of the household.16 In addition,

not al states reported al 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 al households. For

some analyses, such as reporting household composition, this factor 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 maximum applicable income

limit determination during household income certification. When al household members are included,

household size equals the number of household members for whom data are submitted. Table 2 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 overal ; household size is missing in only 0.3

percent of households. With the exception of Alaska, which did not report household size for any

households, this variable can be used to assess the completeness of household members in the tenant data.

15 This total includes both vacant and occupied units.

16 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.

9

Table 2. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at Certification

Occupied Units With Reported Number of Household Members

Household Size at Certification

Less Than Reported

Equals Reported

Greater Than Reported

Not Reported Household Size at Certification Household Size at Certification Household Size at Certification

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

0.0

4.5

85.8

9.7

Alaska

100.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

0.3

1.2

97.7

1.2

Arkansas

0.0

0.0

99.2

0.8

California

0.2

0.1

99.5

0.4

Colorado

0.0

6.0

84.6

9.4

Connecticuta

0.0

48.5

51.4

0.0

Delaware

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Floridaa

0.0

66.6

33.4

0.0

Georgia

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Guam

0.5

1.9

96.6

1.4

Hawaiia

0.0

53.2

46.8

0.0

Idaho

6.7

1.2

94.5

4.2

Illinoisb

0.0

18.1

79.2

2.6

Indiana

0.0

3.2

56.4

40.4

Iowa

0.0

4.2

95.5

0.3

Kansas

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Kentucky

5.0

5.6

91.7

2.6

Louisiana

0.0

1.5

98.0

0.5

Maine

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.5

Marylanda

0.0

42.6

57.4

0.0

Massachusettsa

0.0

51.7

48.3

0.0

Michigan

0.0

0.0

99.0

1.0

Minnesotaa

0.1

60.7

39.2

0.1

Mississippi

0.0

0.9

98.6

0.5

Missouri

0.0

1.1

98.5

0.4

Montana

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

Nebraska

0.0

1.4

97.8

0.8

Nevada

0.0

0.7

98.9

0.4

New Hampshire

0.0

0.0

99.3

0.7

New Jersey

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorkb

3.5

19.7

79.5

0.7

North Carolina

0.0

25.3

74.7

0.0

North Dakotaa

0.0

47.0

53.0

0.0

Ohio

0.3

0.3

91.8

7.9

Oklahoma

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

Oregon

0.0

0.0

99.9

0.1

Pennsylvania

0.0

0.0

99.9

0.1

Puerto Rico

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

Rhode Island

0.0

0.0

98.1

1.9

South Carolina

0.0

0.0

99.8

0.2

South Dakota

0.0

0.3

99.4

0.3

Tennessee

0.0

1.8

95.9

2.3

Texasa

0.0

61.2

38.8

0.0

Utah

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

99.0

1.0

Virgin Islandsa

0.0

74.3

25.7

0.0

Virginia

0.0

0.1

99.3

0.7

Washington

0.0

12.2

87.8

0.0

West Virginiaa

0.0

49.6

50.4

0.0

Wisconsin

0.0

1.3

98.5

0.2

Wyominga

0.0

55.1

44.9

0.0

All reported areas

0.3

19.1

79.6

1.2

a Connecticut, Florida, Hawai , Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming

submitted information for head of household only.

b Does not include tenant data from subal ocators in Il inois or New York.

10

Across al reported households, 79.6 percent of household records included information for the same

number of household members as household size, so reported on all household members. Most of the

remaining reported households, 19.1 percent, included information for less than the reported

household size at certification, suggesting incomplete coverage of household members, and 1.2 percent

reported more household members than present at certification.

Household member information from 11 states was incomplete for more than 40 percent of reported

households, usual y because information was reported for only the head of the household.17 These

states are shaded gray in table 2. The complete coverage of household members wil be relevant for

tables reporting demographic and compositional characteristics, in particular the presence of children,

seniors, and household members who are disabled.

In addition to varying in terms of coverage (for example, whether al properties, units, or tenants are

included), completeness also varies across the requested information, such as race, disability status, age,

or use of rental assistance. The presentation of each set of information is accompanied by an account of

missing data for the variables relevant for that table. In general, data are most complete for information

that states have historical y col ected as part of LIHTC Program compliance; newer items that do not

affect program eligibility may have lower coverage and may well not have been reviewed by states

before submitting to HUD. HUD performs data quality checks and communicates directly with states to

address data issues, which usual y occurs through the next year’s submission of data.

17 Alaska could not be evaluated because, although the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation submitted multiple

members per household, it did not provide household size at certification.

11

V. HUD’s 2013 Collection of LIHTC Tenant Information

A. Race by Ethnicity

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests race according to standards set by OMB and also

used by HUD’s rental assistance and multifamily housing programs. Although most of the information

requested on the HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Col ection Form is required and necessary for program

compliance by the state housing finance agencies, race and ethnicity are not. Before the Housing and

Economic Recovery Act-‐mandated HUD col ection, many states did not col ect any race and ethnicity

information, and others collected similar information using different categories or standards. 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 al low-‐

income housing tax credit tenants because many states did not have this information, unlike compliance

information such as income and rent, for any tenants.

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.

Restating information presented in section IV, seven states (Alaska, Il inois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New

Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington) submitted information for a fairly small percentage of their

active LIHTC property stock. Also, as previously mentioned, HUD did not receive information for LIHTC

tenants in Chicago or New York City, accounting for the bulk of unreported units for their states.

For the households and units reported, many suffered from an underreporting of household members.

Recal from table 2 that few states reported al members of each LIHTC household, and eight states

(Florida, Hawai , Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming) submitted

all household members for less than one-‐half of their reported occupied units. The underreporting of

household members across states lead to the decision to include only tabulations of heads of household

for race and ethnicity and several other tabulations presented subsequently in this report.18

Table 3 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 1 in order

to provide perspective on the completeness for the entire active LIHTC stock in each state.19 Two states,

North Dakota and Texas, did not provide race or ethnicity information for any heads of household.20 In

addition, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington did not provide sufficient information on both

race and ethnicity to include in tabulations for this report.

18 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.

19 For example, although the Alaska HFC submitted both race and ethnicity data for 92.2 percent of reported heads

of household, the tenant data for Alaska includes only 20.0 percent of its LIHTC stock.

20 Texas col ects race and ethnicity information according to different standards. For Texas state tabulations, see

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-‐center/docs/12-‐HSR.pdf.

12

Table 3. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household

Non-‐Hispanic

American Indian

Native Hawaiian

Race or

Properties

White

Black or African

Asian

and Alaska Native and Other Pacific Other (Including Hispanic

Ethnicity Not

Reported Alone American Alone Alone

Alone Islander Alone Multiple Race) (Any Race) Reported

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

47.1

18.1

32.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.7

48.4

100.0

Alaska

20.0

39.4

14.2

3.6

25.3

4.1

0.0

5.6

7.8

100.0

Arizona

71.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Arkansas

63.4

43.4

49.3

0.4

0.3

0.3

1.4

2.6

2.3

100.0

California

82.3

19.8

12.1

8.1

0.5

0.4

1.5

27.1

30.5

100.0

Colorado

77.3

34.3

10.1

1.8

0.9

0.2

1.5

19.5

31.6

100.0

Connecticut

69.1

31.1

22.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

1.5

23.7

20.6

100.0

Delaware

90.2

26.5

60.5

0.5

0.5

0.2

1.2

6.9

3.6

100.0

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

72.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Georgia

64.0

16.7

64.6

1.2

0.2

0.1

1.2

2.6

13.5

100.0

Guam

100.0

6.0

1.4

26.4

0.2

63.9

0.2

0.2

1.4

100.0

Hawaii

91.7

13.8

1.1

24.9

0.6

17.7

3.0

5.8

33.2

100.0

Idaho

100.0

67.1

1.3

0.8

1.5

0.2

0.7

7.4

21.0

100.0

Illinoisa

42.4

35.6

25.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

1.1

3.1

34.6

100.0

Indiana

63.3

47.9

38.6

0.0

0.3

0.2

1.2

0.7

11.1

100.0

Iowa

70.0

43.4

10.2

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.8

2.2

42.2

100.0

Kansas

74.3

53.6

18.6

0.7

0.5

0.1

2.1

2.4

22.1

100.0

Kentucky

74.7

83.2

16.5

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Louisiana

38.2

12.4

62.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

4.5

1.2

19.4

100.0

Maine

64.2

75.4

8.4

1.1

1.1

0.1

3.5

1.6

8.9

100.0

Maryland

62.0

19.1

40.8

1.4

0.3

0.1

0.6

5.7

32.0

100.0

Massachusetts

66.9

28.1

16.6

4.9

0.3

0.0

1.1

25.9

23.0

100.0

Michigan

67.9

31.7

26.6

0.5

0.3

0.0

0.8

1.8

38.2

100.0

Minnesota

40.7

53.4

30.3

2.4

2.5

0.2

0.8

3.3

6.9

100.0

Mississippi

88.6

12.6

65.3

0.5

0.2

0.1

1.9

0.8

18.7

100.0

Missouri

47.9

48.8

32.8

0.4

0.2

0.1

1.5

1.9

14.4

100.0

Montana

81.9

69.7

0.8

0.4

9.0

0.1

1.7

2.7

15.6

100.0

Nebraska

97.5

37.5

14.5

0.5

0.6

0.1

1.5

4.1

41.2

100.0

Nevada

69.4

31.9

13.2

1.5

0.5

0.6

2.0

19.8

30.5

100.0

New Hampshire

51.9

66.0

3.1

0.6

0.2

0.0

16.0

3.8

10.2

100.0

New Jersey

33.2

21.3

35.6

0.8

0.3

0.1

0.8

7.8

33.3

100.0

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorka

34.2

27.2

18.6

0.6

0.1

0.1

0.5

8.1

44.7

100.0

North Carolina

72.0

29.8

58.9

0.6

1.0

0.3

0.0

3.7

5.8

100.0

North Dakota

93.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Ohio

71.9

34.7

37.3

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.1

2.2

25.3

100.0

Oklahoma

57.4

56.5

20.3

0.5

6.6

0.2

2.8

4.3

8.8

100.0

Oregon

5.4

68.0

5.2

1.4

1.4

0.3

1.9

8.8

13.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

88.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.9

95.1

100.0

Puerto Rico

76.5

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

84.3

15.2

100.0

Rhode Island

64.7

54.8

14.4

0.7

1.3

0.1

3.2

17.3

8.1

100.0

South Carolina

44.0

22.1

59.2

0.3

0.2

0.0

1.3

3.3

13.6

100.0

South Dakota

69.3

53.6

3.9

0.8

17.7

0.2

3.9

2.2

17.8

100.0

Tennessee

45.9

35.4

46.4

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.4

17.0

100.0

Texas

51.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Utah

84.6

42.4

2.1

0.9

1.0

0.6

2.0

4.7

46.3

100.0

Vermont

55.2

79.8

3.1

1.2

0.3

0.0

10.1

1.4

4.0

100.0

Virgin Islands

79.2

0.9

55.8

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.4

13.0

29.8

100.0

Virginia

75.5

23.0

47.2

2.3

0.4

0.1

4.8

7.7

14.4

100.0

Washington

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

West Virginia

79.0

79.9

14.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

1.2

4.1

100.0

Wisconsin

58.1

51.0

20.6

1.0

1.5

0.1

0.6

3.9

21.4

100.0

Wyoming

67.3

52.6

1.3

0.2

1.1

0.1

0.2

6.2

38.3

100.0

All reported areas

58.9

23.4

21.4

1.8

0.5

0.2

1.1

8.1

43.5

100.0

a Does not include tenant data from suballocators in Illinois or New York.

13

The six states mentioned with insufficient data and the two states that did not report tenant data—the

District of Columbia and New Mexico—are presented in gray in table 3. Overall, the combination of race

and ethnicity were not provided for 43.5 percent of reported heads of household, either because the

tenant chose not to respond or the data were not col ected. Nearly one-‐fourth (23.4 percent) of

reported LIHTC heads of household are non-‐Hispanic/White and slightly more than one-‐fifth (21.4

percent) are non-‐Hispanic/Black. Slightly less than one-‐tenth (8.1 percent) of heads are Hispanic.

Although other minority categories represent less than 4 percent nationwide, they comprise a

significant percentage in certain states. For example, non-‐Hispanic/Asian heads of household account

for one-‐fourth of LIHTC heads in Guam and Hawai . Non-‐Hispanic/Native Hawai an and Other Pacific

Islander heads also comprise a significant share in Guam and Hawaii. Non-‐Hispanic/American Indian and

Alaska Native heads of household represent one-‐fourth of the households in Alaska and 17.7 percent in

South Dakota.

B. 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 substantial y 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 found 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 col ection mandate, few states col ected tenant disability status for the head of

household or other household members. Thus, nearly all 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 was similar to those for race and ethnicity, both of which are newly collected information that is

not 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 seven states (Alaska, Il inois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and

Washington) covered a fairly small percentage of their active LIHTC properties. In addition, the District

of Columbia and New Mexico, and suballocators in Chicago and New York City, did not submit any

tenant data. The reported information for most states did not contain al household members, further

limiting HUD’s ability to report disability status.

Households

Table 4 provides household-‐level information on the presence of at least one disabled tenant. The first

column (Percent of Properties Reported) repeats data from table 1. This column is included to enhance

understanding of the coverage of properties in the state data. Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming—

highlighted in gray—provided disability status for only the head of household.21

21 For reporting purposes, a household member who is not reported as the head of household, but who is the only

reported member in the unit, is considered the head of household in tabulations.

14

Table 4. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members

All Household Disability Status Reported for

At Least One Member

Properties Reported

Members Reporteda

At Least One Member

Reported As Disabled

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

47.1

85.8

100.0

8.4

Alaska

20.0

Data Not Reported

99.4

20.7

Arizona

71.3

97.7

100.0

16.3

Arkansas

63.4

99.2

100.0

8.3

California

82.3

99.5

93.3

7.0

Colorado

77.3

84.6

82.9

2.5

Connecticut

69.1

51.4

100.0

6.3

Delaware

90.2

100.0

100.0

3.4

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

72.8

33.4

100.0

0.0

Georgia

64.0

100.0

100.0

1.4

Guam

100.0

96.6

98.8

1.2

Hawaii

91.7

46.8

100.0

3.5

Idaho

100.0

94.5

96.6

20.4

Illinoisb

42.4

79.2

100.0

3.3

Indiana

63.3

56.4

99.9

9.7

Iowa

70.0

95.5

68.7

6.7

Kansas

74.3

100.0

100.0

5.6

Kentucky

74.7

91.7

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

38.2

98.0

100.0

2.5

Maine

64.2

99.5

100.0

12.4

Maryland

62.0

57.4

100.0

4.1

Massachusetts

66.9

48.3

100.0

10.0

Michigan

67.9

99.0

61.7

4.3

Minnesota

40.7

39.2

98.9

8.3

Mississippi

88.6

98.6

71.1

5.7

Missouri

47.9

98.5

82.9

6.3

Montana

81.9

99.7

98.3

15.6

Nebraska

97.5

97.8

83.1

5.4

Nevada

69.4

98.9

88.4

5.5

New Hampshire

51.9

99.3

100.0

5.4

New Jersey

33.2

100.0

100.0

3.7

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorkb

34.2

79.5

58.0

12.5

North Carolina

72.0

74.7

100.0

12.3

North Dakota

93.6

53.0

75.2

0.0

Ohio

71.9

91.8

19.0

5.7

Oklahoma

57.4

99.7

68.4

5.0

Oregon

5.4

99.9

100.0

7.8

Pennsylvania

88.9

99.9

7.7

7.7

Puerto Rico

76.5

99.6

100.0

4.7

Rhode Island

64.7

98.1

100.0

30.8

South Carolina

44.0

99.8

100.0

2.1

South Dakota

69.3

99.4

100.0

8.9

Tennessee

45.9

95.9

100.0

6.2

Texas

51.4

38.8

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

84.6

100.0

100.0

3.2

Vermont

55.2

99.0

100.0

15.4

Virgin Islands

79.2

25.7

100.0

1.6

Virginia

75.5

99.3

100.0

3.9

Washington

1.5

87.8

29.7

19.0

West Virginia

79.0

50.4

100.0

18.6

Wisconsin

58.1

98.5

89.3

10.5

Wyoming

67.3

44.9

100.0

9.1

All reported areas

58.9

79.6

76.1

6.4

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

b Does not include tenant data from subal ocators in Il inois or New York.

15

Overal , approximately three-‐fourths of reported households include disability status for at least one

household member. The reporting of disability status, however, varied across states. Nearly one-‐half

of states (27) reported disability status for at least one member of each household, and more than one-‐

half (37 states) reported this information for more than 90 percent of households. Four states (Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington), however, reported this information for fewer than 30 percent of

their reported households.

The data quality of disability status, however, remains the most uncertain of al the required

information. For example, Florida, Kentucky, and North Dakota reported disability status for at least

one household member across al or most LIHTC households. None of their tenants were reported as

disabled, however. This discrepancy could be in part a result of the underreporting of al household

members, which is 33.4 percent for Florida and 53.0 percent in North Dakota; underreporting of units

may also play a role. With al the coverage and data quality caveats in mind, 6.4 percent of reported

LIHTC households in the nation have at least one disabled member. Excluding Florida, Kentucky, and

North Dakota, 7.3 percent of reported LIHTC households in the nation have at least one disabled

member.

Considerable variation among states is evident in each of these statistics. It is not clear, however,

whether all this variation reflects true differences in populations served or data issues. In particular,

state disability rates several times larger than the national average may reflect true variation in who is

served or may be because of underreporting in many states with particularly low shares of households

containing a disabled member. Alaska (20.7 percent), Arizona (16.3 percent), Idaho (20.4 percent),

Rhode Island (30.8 percent), Washington (19.0 percent), and West Virginia (18.6 percent) reported

serving the highest percentages of households with at least one reported disabled member.

Household Members

Table 5 reports disability status at the individual household member level. The first column (Percent of

Properties Reported) repeats data from table 1. The second column (Al Household Members Reported)

contains data from table 4. The last two columns present strictly individual-‐level information, beginning

with the share of reported individuals in that state for whom disability status is known. Overall,

disability status is reported for 77.7 percent of reported individuals in the tenant data. For these people,

4.4 percent are reported as disabled. As discussed previously, data quality is a concern for several states.

Florida, Kentucky, and North Dakota did not report any tenants as disabled. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and

Washington reported a very high percentage of tenants as disabled but reported on less than 30 percent

of tenants. In fact, Ohio and Pennsylvania reported on disability status for less than 10 percent of

tenants. These outliers do not have a great effect on the national total, however. Excluding al 6 of

these states from the national total yields a national disability rate of LIHTC tenants of 4.3 percent.

Finally, the 11 states that reported information for only the head of household are highlighted in gray.

16

Table 5. Disability Status of Individual Household Members

All Household Members Individuals For Whom Disability

Properties Reported

Reporteda

Status Is Reported Reported As Disabled

State

(%)

(% of Households)

(% of Individuals)

(% of Individuals)

Alabama

47.1

85.8

100.0

4.2

Alaska

20.0

Data Not Reported

97.2

7.9

Arizona

71.3

97.7

100.0

6.7

Arkansas

63.4

99.2

100.0

4.1

California

82.3

99.5

91.6

3.2

Colorado

77.3

84.6

85.4

1.4

Connecticut

69.1

51.4

95.8

6.3

Delaware

90.2

100.0

100.0

1.7

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

72.8

33.4

94.0

0.0

Georgia

64.0

100.0

100.0

0.8

Guam

100.0

96.6

96.9

0.3

Hawaii

91.7

46.8

98.0

3.5

Idaho

100.0

94.5

90.8

10.9

Illinoisb

42.4

79.2

100.0

2.3

Indiana

63.3

56.4

99.9

4.6

Iowa

70.0

95.5

67.7

5.7

Kansas

74.3

100.0

100.0

3.1

Kentucky

74.7

91.7

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

38.2

98.0

100.0

1.2

Maine

64.2

99.5

100.0

6.6

Maryland

62.0

57.4

96.2

4.1

Massachusetts

66.9

48.3

97.3

10.0

Michigan

67.9

99.0

60.3

4.1

Minnesota

40.7

39.2

96.6

8.4

Mississippi

88.6

98.6

71.1

3.7

Missouri

47.9

98.5

82.8

4.4

Montana

81.9

99.7

98.4

9.0

Nebraska

97.5

97.8

82.1

3.5

Nevada

69.4

98.9

86.9

3.3

New Hampshire

51.9

99.3

100.0

2.7

New Jersey

33.2

100.0

100.0

2.2

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorkb

34.2

79.5

66.7

13.5

North Carolina

72.0

74.7

96.0

6.9

North Dakota

93.6

53.0

75.9

0.0

Ohio

71.9

91.8

9.7

30.1

Oklahoma

57.4

99.7

68.4

4.0

Oregon

5.4

99.9

100.0

3.4

Pennsylvania

88.9

99.9

4.5

100.0

Puerto Rico

76.5

99.6

100.0

2.3

Rhode Island

64.7

98.1

100.0

18.7

South Carolina

44.0

99.8

100.0

1.1

South Dakota

69.3

99.4

100.0

4.0

Tennessee

45.9

95.9

100.0

3.1

Texas

51.4

38.8

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

84.6

100.0

100.0

1.4

Vermont

55.2

99.0

100.0

9.3

Virgin Islands

79.2

25.7

98.3

1.6

Virginia

75.5

99.3

100.0

1.9

Washington

1.5

87.8

26.3

42.5

West Virginia

79.0

50.4

93.9

18.6

Wisconsin

58.1

98.5

86.2

8.0

Wyoming

67.3

44.9

94.9

9.1

All reported areas

58.9

79.6

77.7

4.4

a Reported household members equal reported household size at certification.

b Does not include tenant data from suballocators in Il inois or New York.

17

C. Family Composition and Age

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 (for example, all income of live-‐in aides and earned income of

dependents) does not count toward annual household income. Some states did not collect date of birth

for al LIHTC tenants before the HERA mandate, instead opting to col ect number of household members

by age group. Thus, although similar information was col ected, this information also required a change

in some states’ TIC forms.

Many states use the LIHTC Program to address affordable housing shortages for families and seniors

specifical y. Thus, family composition and age are reported together, highlighting households with

children and elderly members. HUD reports family composition based on age of household members

and the relationship to the head of household. The LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests date of

birth and relationship to head of household for each tenant in an LIHTC unit. The date of birth is used to

determine the age of tenants as of the reporting date, December 31, 2012. The relationship to head of

household is used primarily to identify the head for elderly-‐headed households.22

Identifying the presence of children or seniors in households requires having valid dates of birth for all

household members. As reported previously, in order to determine whether al 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 6 provide information on data coverage of household members and date of birth. All or most

household members were reported for nearly two-‐thirds of states. In addition, nearly two-‐thirds of

HFAs submitted complete or nearly complete information on date of birth for al household members.

Overal , in 68 percent of reported units, date of birth was provided for at least one household member.

22 Although relationship to head of household could be used to identify children of the household head, this

variable suffers from the same coverage issues as date of birth.

18

Table 6. Family Composition: Households With Children and Elderly Members

Valid Date of Birth Provided for

All Household

At Least One

At Least One

Reported Head of

Members Reported Head of Household Al Reported Members

Member < 18 Member >= 62 Household >= 62

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

85.8

99.5

99.4

40.8

28.1

27.3

Alaska

Not Reported

99.8

98.8

52.5

25.0

23.1

Arizona

97.7

98.9

97.9

48.9

24.3

22.6

Arkansas

99.2

97.0

96.1

42.3

25.1

23.8

California

99.5

99.5

98.9

41.3

35.9

33.7

Colorado

84.6

93.3

92.4

38.2

27.3

25.8

Connecticut

51.4

Data Not Reported

Delaware

100.0

99.8

92.9

42.3

32.9

26.0

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

33.4

Data Not Reported

Georgia

100.0

97.5

91.9

37.1

32.2

26.6

Guam

96.6

98.6

95.9

80.0

12.7

6.5

Hawaii

46.8

Data Not Reported

Idaho

94.5

97.5

92.9

39.6

28.9

24.7

Illinoisa

79.2

68.9

68.9

Data Suppressed b

30.8

30.6

Indiana

56.4

99.9

99.3

44.3

23.7

23.0

Iowa

95.5

100.0

99.4

31.8

28.5

27.5

Kansas

100.0

96.6

82.2

26.4

41.4

28.5

Kentucky

91.7

98.2

96.7

39.4

27.0

25.8

Louisiana

98.0

92.6

92.3

48.7

16.9

16.1

Maine

99.5

96.9

96.6

34.1

35.9

34.6

Maryland

57.4

Data Not Reported

Massachusetts

48.3

Data Not Reported

Michigan

99.0

100.0

98.3

31.6

36.1

34.4

Minnesota

39.2

96.5

96.5

Data Suppressed b

18.6

18.6

Mississippi

98.6

99.8

99.2

51.8

16.8

15.9

Missouri

98.5

100.0

99.2

32.8

31.7

30.7

Montana

99.7

99.9

99.3

31.6

34.8

34.5

Nebraska

97.8

99.9

98.5

40.0

27.6

25.8

Nevada

98.9

100.0

99.6

35.3

36.2

34.8

New Hampshire

99.3

95.9

95.5

38.8

35.2

34.0

New Jersey

100.0

94.1

87.7

27.1

47.8

42.1

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorka

79.5

51.1

50.7

Data Suppressed b

22.9

22.3

North Carolina

74.7

99.6

98.2

37.4

32.8

31.1

North Dakota

53.0

Data Not Reported

Ohio

91.8

91.4

44.3

Data Suppressed b

73.9

32.0

Oklahoma

99.7

99.3

98.3

39.5

32.4

31.3

Oregon

99.9

99.7

99.6

34.4

23.7

22.8

Pennsylvania

99.9

99.9

99.7

30.5

47.4

46.7

Puerto Rico

99.6

100.0

99.3

44.2

38.9

38.0

Rhode Island

98.1

99.3

99.1

25.3

42.8

41.9

South Carolina

99.8

98.7

98.3

44.1

25.3

24.6

South Dakota

99.4

85.2

84.4

44.3

20.5

19.4

Tennessee

95.9

100.0

99.5

47.3

18.3

17.6

Texas

38.8

Data Not Reported

Utah

100.0

95.7

83.0

35.2

29.4

17.0

Vermont

99.0

98.8

98.5

27.3

42.0

40.9

Virgin Islands

25.7

Data Not Reported

Virginia

99.3

98.3

97.3

41.6

25.8

24.1

Washington

87.8

44.5

43.6

Data Suppressed b

16.6

15.4

West Virginia

50.4

Data Not Reported

Wisconsin

98.5

93.8

93.7

23.9

41.3

40.5

Wyoming

44.9

Data Not Reported

All reported areas

79.6

90.2

86.3

36.4c

32.7

28.6

a Does not include tenant data from suballocators in Il inois or New York.

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

c Does not include Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Washington.

19

Nine states, however, did not submit date of birth for any household members: Connecticut, Florida,

Hawai , Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In addition, North

Dakota reported date of birth for less than 0.1 percent of reported tenants. Minnesota reported

information for only the head of household, limiting the usefulness of the calculated family composition

statistics. Each of these states has indicated it wil provide this information in its next tenant data

submission to HUD.

Table 6 shows the percentage of reported households with children (members under 18 years old),

elderly members (those 62 years and older), and elderly heads of household. Overal , more than one-‐

third (36.4 percent) of reported LIHTC households had at least one member under 18 years old. Most

states have between 25 and 50 percent of households with at least one member under 18 years old,

with Guam (80.0 percent), Alaska (52.5 percent), and Mississippi (51.8 percent) being the only states in

which more than 50 percent of LIHTC households have a child.

Nearly 33 percent of reported LIHTC households have an elderly member, and more than one-‐fourth

(28.6 percent) of reported LIHTC households have a head of household at least 62 years old. The

percentage of reported heads of households who are 62 years of age or older, in general, is similar to,

although slightly lower than, the overall percentage of elderly LIHTC household members in each state.

More than 40 percent of reported LIHTC units in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and

Wisconsin have an elderly head. Eight states23 reported elderly headed households for fewer than 20

percent of LIHTC units.

D. 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 AMGI.24 LIHTC property managers must submit detailed household income

information to the administering HFA at tenant move in and annually.25 To certify household income,

states col ect 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

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.

23 Guam, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.

24 During the state-‐allocation process, owners may commit to lower income limits, usual y 30 or 40 percent of

AMGI.

25 Program rules waive the federal annual income certification requirement for tenants in properties that are 100

percent low-‐income or rent-‐restricted units. Some states choose to recertify al tenants.

20

Although al states receive household income information for compliance, not al states maintained

this information electronical y before HERA reporting requirements, especial y 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 al units, HUD also requests the income certification date. The income tabulations in

this report include only household incomes reported for 2011 or 2012, with the exception of tabulations

for Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Puerto Rico because a large percentage of their

households were submitted with certifications early in 2013. This method wil exclude some units in

properties that are 100 percent low income and some properties in their extended-‐use period, because

annual recertifications are not required.

Table 7 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 2011 or 2012 (or

2013 in states noted previously) for 91.3 percent of households. Although most states provided income

for more than 85 percent of reported households, many of the states that reported income for more

than 95 percent of reported households provided information for only about one-‐half of their LIHTC

properties. For example, Il inois provided household income for 100 percent of their reported

households but reported only 42.4 percent of LIHTC properties in the state.

21

Table 7. Distribution of Annual Household Income

Households With Reported Annual Income

Properties

Income

$5,001 to

$10,001 to

$15,001 to

Reported Reporteda Median <= $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 > $20,000

Total

State

(%)

(%)

($)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

47.1

74.6

15,589

4.7

20.9

21.9

21.8

30.8

100.0

Alaska

20.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

71.3

58.7

16,547

5.7

19.4

19.0

18.2

37.7

100.0

Arkansas

63.4

96.4

13,180

9.6

26.1

21.0

18.0

25.3

100.0

California

82.3

93.8

18,630

4.5

6.9

25.9

16.6

46.1

100.0

Colorado

77.3

100.0

17,225

8.6

18.8

15.6

15.1

41.8

100.0

Connecticut

69.1

100.0

19,188

5.0

19.1

14.1

13.7

48.0

100.0

Delaware

90.2

99.8

16,095

9.2

18.8

18.3

16.3

37.3

100.0

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

72.8

91.2

22,241

3.5

9.8

11.4

16.1

59.3

100.0

Georgia

64.0

97.0

16,990

7.0

17.1

18.3

17.9

39.7

100.0

Guam

100.0

63.9

26,919

10.2

2.6

4.9

10.2

72.2

100.0

Hawaii

91.7

100.0

20,934

2.7

17.1

14.4

13.2

52.6

100.0

Idaho

100.0

90.2

15,832

4.8

19.9

21.2

21.7

32.4

100.0

Illinoisb

42.4

100.0

15,707

8.9

19.5

18.8

18.6

34.2

100.0

Indiana

63.3

100.0

15,860

12.1

17.2

17.5

18.3

34.9

100.0

Iowa

70.0

99.8

16,533

16.7

13.9

15.0

15.2

39.2

100.0

Kansas

74.3

99.0

16,640

7.6

17.3

18.9

19.4

36.7

100.0

Kentucky

74.7

97.7

8,769

32.5

22.6

16.3

12.4

16.2

100.0

Louisiana

38.2

91.4

14,560

13.6

21.2

16.4

17.9

30.9

100.0

Maine

64.2

96.5

15,380

6.6

21.3

20.8

17.5

33.8

100.0

Maryland

62.0

100.0

21,063

4.9

15.6

13.4

13.2

52.8

100.0

Massachusetts

66.9

100.0

15,244

5.0

23.0

21.1

13.5

37.4

100.0

Michigan

67.9

100.0

14,256

10.0

23.1

19.6

17.3

30.1

100.0

Minnesota

40.7

69.0

18,252

8.1

17.5

14.9

13.9

45.4

100.0

Mississippi

88.6

99.4

13,987

16.2

19.9

17.4

18.6

27.9

100.0

Missouri

47.9

93.6

16,016

10.5

18.1

17.9

17.1

36.4

100.0

Montana

81.9

100.0

14,996

6.3

22.4

21.4

20.0

30.0

100.0

Nebraska

97.5

99.2

17,014

17.4

11.6

14.3

16.8

39.9

100.0

Nevada

69.4

99.9

18,403

4.1

12.6

18.7

20.8

43.7

100.0

New Hampshire

51.9

89.8

17,484

17.2

12.1

14.1

13.2

43.5

100.0

New Jersey

33.2

99.2

19,800

7.4

14.7

13.9

14.5

49.4

100.0

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorkb

34.2

76.3

15,971

8.0

20.2

18.5

15.8

37.5

100.0

North Carolina

72.0

95.9

14,398

7.5

22.6

22.4

18.8

28.8

100.0

North Dakota

93.6

100.0

16,853

8.2

17.4

18.6

15.9

39.8

100.0

Ohio

71.9

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oklahoma

57.4

99.5

13,083

13.0

22.9

22.4

20.2

21.5

100.0

Oregon

5.4

94.4

15,515

17.5

16.1

15.0

16.3

35.1

100.0

Pennsylvania

88.9

99.7

14,692

10.5

21.1

19.7

18.2

30.5

100.0

Puerto Rico

76.5

99.9

5,587

46.4

31.2

15.4

5.0

2.1

100.0

Rhode Island

64.7

99.9

13,212

7.9

28.2

20.9

15.4

27.6

100.0

South Carolina

44.0

97.3

15,612

7.3

19.6

20.4

20.7

32.0

100.0

South Dakota

69.3

99.1

15,006

15.4

17.2

17.4

15.7

34.3

100.0

Tennessee

45.9

100.0

14,341

14.9

19.8

17.4

17.1

30.8

100.0

Texas

51.4

96.9

18,089

9.3

15.7

14.2

17.9

43.0

100.0

Utah

84.6

96.6

18,530

8.3

15.4

15.2

16.3

44.7

100.0

Vermont

55.2

99.0

15,707

3.4

22.7

21.2

17.4

35.2

100.0

Virgin Islands

79.2

100.0

17,998

17.2

12.5

11.7

13.5

45.2

100.0

Virginia

75.5

99.6

21,452

7.3

13.7

12.3

12.9

53.9

100.0

Washington

1.5

100.0

9,576

12.8

39.3

23.8

11.8

12.3

100.0

West Virginia

79.0

100.0

12,252

11.3

28.5

21.5

16.5

22.3

100.0

Wisconsin

58.1

100.0

18,457

5.1

14.6

17.5

18.9

43.8

100.0

Wyoming

67.3

100.0

20,494

4.9

11.9

14.9

16.7

51.6

100.0

All reported areas

58.9

91.3

17,066

8.6

16.6

18.0

16.5

40.3

100.0

a Percentage of reported households in which income was certified in 2011 or 2012. Tabulations for Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and

Puerto Rico also include income certified in 2013.

b Does not include tenant data from subal ocators in Il inois or New York.

22

The overall median annual income was $17,066, although the median income varied considerably across

states. The median was below $10,000 for Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and Washington. The low reporting

of properties in Washington may indicate that this median and the income distribution are not

representative of al LIHTC households in that state. The median household income exceeded $20,000 in

Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, and Wyoming. The reporting for these states was relatively

complete, indicating the medians and income distributions for these states are representative.

To aid in comparison with other housing programs, the distribution of household income in table 7 relies

on the same categories used for HUD programs.26 About one-‐fourth of reported households earned less

than $10,000. As indicated by the median incomes, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and Washington had the

highest percentages of reported household incomes under $10,000. Approximately 60 percent of

reported households nationwide earned less than $20,000. More than one-‐half of reported households

in Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, and Wyoming earned more than $20,000. See the

appendix for a similar table on HUD-‐assisted households for each state. Median income in HUD-‐assisted

housing national y is $10,272.27

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 8, household annual income, certified in 2011 or 2012, was reported for more than

90 percent of units. Although some of the units excluded from this calculation had incomes certified

before 2011, the overwhelming majority of these units were excluded because of missing the income

certification date. States with particularly low reporting of household income and certification dates are

Alaska (no certification dates), Arizona (no certification dates), and Ohio (certifications dates before

2011).

26 Recal that the LIHTC Program is not a HUD program.

27 See table A1 in the Appendix.

23

Table 8. Total Annual Household Income Compared With AMGI

Income,b Income Limit Total Annual Household Income as Percent of Derived Area Median Gross

Properties

Income

and Income Restriction

0.1% to

30.1% to 40.1% to 50.1% to 60.0% or

Reported Reportedb

Reported

0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Greater

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

47.1

74.6

72.5

0.1

38.9

21.1

15.9

14.0

10.1

100.0

Alaska

20.0

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

71.3

58.7

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arkansas

63.4

96.4

0.0

Data Not Reported

California

82.3

93.8

80.6

1.4

52.7

18.6

13.0

8.5

5.9

100.0

Colorado

77.3

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Connecticut

69.1

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Delaware

90.2

99.8

99.8

1.9

48.0

18.8

15.9

9.0

6.4

100.0

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

72.8

91.2

83.4

0.4

20.9

18.9

25.6

25.5

8.7

100.0

Georgia

64.0

97.0

97.0

1.2

35.7

20.1

18.8

14.0

10.1

100.0

Guam

100.0

63.9

63.0

3.4

15.6

19.8

21.0

38.9

1.1

100.0

Hawaii

91.7

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Idaho

100.0

90.2

73.8

0.9

36.3

23.3

20.5

12.3

6.7

100.0

Illinoisc

42.4

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Indiana

63.3

100.0

99.9

0.8

39.4

20.5

20.7

13.1

5.6

100.0

Iowa

70.0

99.8

99.8

0.0

47.5

18.1

16.1

14.1

4.2

100.0

Kansas

74.3

99.0

99.0

2.0

39.6

20.7

19.4

13.8

4.5

100.0

Kentucky

74.7

97.7

0.0

Data Not Reported

Louisiana

38.2

91.4

0.0

Data Not Reported

Maine

64.2

96.5

0.0

Data Not Reported

Maryland

62.0

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Massachusetts

66.9

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Michigan

67.9

100.0

100.0

0.0

53.7

17.8

13.9

9.0

5.5

100.0

Minnesota

40.7

69.0

67.5

0.0

51.3

17.5

15.6

12.1

3.5

100.0

Mississippi

88.6

99.4

99.4

0.0

46.7

18.2

17.0

13.2

4.9

100.0

Missouri

47.9

93.6

93.6

0.0

45.3

18.8

16.1

12.9

6.9

100.0

Montana

81.9

100.0

100.0

0.0

45.4

21.2

18.2

11.5

3.7

100.0

Nebraska

97.5

99.2

99.2

0.0

45.5

17.7

17.6

14.9

4.5

100.0

Nevada

69.4

99.9

99.9

0.0

38.4

22.6

18.4

13.5

7.1

100.0

New Hampshire

51.9

89.8

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Jersey

33.2

99.2

99.2

2.4

47.5

18.9

14.9

8.6

7.6

100.0

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorkc

34.2

76.3

75.1

4.1

49.3

17.6

14.3

8.3

6.5

100.0

North Carolina

72.0

95.9

84.2

0.0

46.4

20.1

16.7

10.7

6.2

100.0

North Dakota

93.6

100.0

100.0

0.0

45.9

18.8

16.0

12.3

7.0

100.0

Ohio

71.9

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oklahoma

57.4

99.5

99.5

0.0

47.5

20.2

15.9

10.2

6.2

100.0

Oregon

5.4

94.4

0.0

Data Not Reported

Pennsylvania

88.9

99.7

99.7

5.4

49.3

20.1

14.0

8.2

3.1

100.0

Puerto Rico

76.5

99.9

99.9

0.0

68.4

11.6

9.3

7.1

3.7

100.0

Rhode Island

64.7

99.9

0.0

Data Not Reported

South Carolina

44.0

97.3

0.0

Data Not Reported

South Dakota

69.3

99.1

0.0

Data Not Reported

Tennessee

45.9

100.0

99.7

3.5

45.0

17.2

15.7

12.7

6.0

100.0

Texas

51.4

96.9

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

84.6

96.6

96.5

3.0

33.9

19.7

20.7

14.9

7.7

100.0

Vermont

55.2

99.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Virgin Islands

79.2

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Virginia

75.5

99.6

0.0

Data Not Reported

Washington

1.5

100.0

99.9

2.8

75.3

13.3

6.1

1.5

1.0

100.0

West Virginia

79.0

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wisconsin

58.1

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wyoming

67.3

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

All reported areas

58.9

91.3

54.7

1.3

44.8

18.7

16.5

12.4

6.3

100.0

AMGI = Area Median Gross Income. HH = household.

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

b Percentage of reported households the incomes of which were certified in 2011 or 2012. Tabulations for Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana,

and Puerto Rico also include income certified in 2013.

c Does not include tenant data from suballocators in Il inois or New York.

24

The third column in table 8 shows the percentage of units that reported the three pieces of information

necessary to calculate the distribution of LIHTC households by income level relative to AMGI: annual

household income, the applicable income limit for the unit, and the applicable percentage income

restriction. AMGI is derived using the income limit and percentage income restriction. As noted

previously, although AMGI could be determined based on a unit’s address, address reporting was

insufficient for too many units to attempt this type of match.28 Missing data on income limit or

percentage income restriction reduced the number of states for which HUD could calculate income

distribution.

Data sufficient to calculate household annual income as a percentage of AMGI were provided for

28 states. The distribution across states is fairly consistent. Between one-‐third and one-‐half of LIHTC

households in these states earn less than 30 percent of AMGI. Many of these households may wel

receive monthly rental assistance (see table 10), although data coverage of monthly rental assistance

prevents a complete understanding. The states with the highest percentage of reported LIHTC

households with incomes less than 30 percent of AMGI are Washington (2.8 percent with no annual

income and 75.3 percent with positive income below 30 percent of AMGI), Minnesota (51.3 percent

with positive income below 30 percent of AMGI), and New York (4.1 percent with no annual income

and 49.3 percent with positive income below 30 percent of AMGI).

The percentage of households earning more than 30 percent of AMGI, but less than the federal

maximum for initial qualification of 60 percent, accounts for nearly one-‐half of reported LIHTC

households. The households in this range are almost equally divided in the three groups shown in

table 8: 30.1 to 40.0 percent of AMGI, 40.1 to 50.0 percent of AMGI, and 50.1 to 60.0 percent of AMGI.

The lowest of these three groups (30.1 to 40.0 percent of AMGI) includes slightly more households,

indicating that the LIHTC Program serves many households at income levels wel below the program’s

federal maximum of 60 percent of AMGI.

Unlike many demand-‐side housing subsidy programs that reduce benefits to households whose incomes

increase above applicable income limits, the LIHTC Program al ows households to remain in rent-‐

restricted units and pay low-‐income rents regardless of household income.29 The final column of table 8

shows the percentage of reported households with incomes above 60 percent of AMGI. In general,

fewer than 10 percent of reported households have annual incomes in this range. Note that data errors

in any of the three components needed to derive AMGI could contribute to these results.

28 To ease the reporting burden on HFAs, HUD requests address information as reported to the IRS. The IRS,

however, requires only a property address, which is insufficient for geocoding scattered-‐site properties.

29 Program rules require households to qualify initially under applicable program income limits. If a tenant’s

income increases to more than 140 percent of AMGI, then the building’s next available market-‐rate unit must be

rent restricted and leased to an income-‐qualified household.

25

E. Monthly Rental Payments and Use of Rental Assistance

Monthly Rental Payments

A critical goal of the LIHTC Program is to provide affordable housing, limiting the share of a household’s

income paid in rent, or 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 the level chosen by the

developer during the application process.30 Although the LIHTC Program sets a maximum rent, actual

rents are often less and can fluctuate with market conditions. Unlike 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, once qualified for a unit based on the unit’s income limits,

increases or decreases in a tenant’s household income does 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 substantial y from 30 percent.

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Col ection Form requests components of gross rent, which includes tenant-‐

paid rent, utility al owance and other nonoptional charges. Table 9 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 2011 or 2012. The first column of table 9 lists the percentage of occupied units with both annual

household income and gross rent. Overal , 90.3 percent of reported units included both income and

rent. Insufficient data from two states, Alaska and Ohio, prevented calculations. Income certification

dates were missing for households in Alaska. Income for Ohio’s households did not include al

components of annual household income and the certification dates were mostly before 2011. Arizona

was the only other state in which income and rent were reported for less than 60 percent of

households.

30 States may impose additional restrictions during the allocation and selection processes.

26

Table 9. Gross Rent As Percentage of Annual Household Income

Tenant-‐Paid Rent As Percentage of Total Annual Household Income

Household Incomea

Unable To

and Rent Reported

0 0.1 to 30.0 30.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 50.0 50.1 or Greater Calculateb

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

74.6

7.2

64.1

15.7

6.8

6.2

0.1

100.0

Alaska

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

58.7

0.8

43.2

22.6

14.7

18.0

0.6

100.0

Arkansas

89.2

0.0

70.2

14.7

6.5

7.1

1.5

100.0

California

93.8

0.8

51.4

20.0

12.7

13.6

1.4

100.0

Colorado

100.0

3.4

54.0

20.8

10.0

8.9

2.9

100.0

Connecticut

100.0

4.5

66.6

15.1

6.3

6.2

1.3

100.0

Delaware

99.8

8.6

66.3

13.2

4.2

5.8

1.9

100.0

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

90.2

2.4

37.7

33.8

14.9

10.8

0.4

100.0

Georgia

97.0

9.4

56.8

18.0

7.8

6.8

1.2

100.0

Guam

63.9

11.3

65.8

11.7

4.1

1.9

5.3

100.0

Hawaii

100.0

1.0

68.1

14.7

7.4

8.3

0.5

100.0

Idaho

89.7

3.1

54.2

21.8

10.1

9.8

1.0

100.0

Illinoisc

100.0

4.9

58.7

16.3

7.2

9.6

3.4

100.0

Indiana

100.0

5.9

58.2

20.3

7.4

7.4

0.8

100.0

Iowa

99.8

0.0

57.7

16.8

6.3

19.2

0.0

100.0

Kansas

99.0

5.6

60.6

17.9

6.8

7.0

2.1

100.0

Kentucky

97.8

77.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.5

100.0

Louisiana

83.9

0.0

52.0

22.4

8.6

11.8

5.2

100.0

Maine

94.3

0.0

62.9

19.3

7.3

8.0

2.5

100.0

Maryland

100.0

4.2

54.5

20.6

9.8

9.4

1.4

100.0

Massachusetts

100.0

1.7

75.4

12.0

4.2

5.8

1.0

100.0

Michigan

100.0

0.0

63.7

16.4

7.8

12.1

0.0

100.0

Minnesota

68.9

3.1

62.7

17.3

7.4

9.5

0.0

100.0

Mississippi

99.4

0.0

63.3

16.5

6.9

13.3

0.0

100.0

Missouri

93.6

0.0

75.6

12.1

4.5

7.7

0.0

100.0

Montana

100.0

0.0

66.0

17.2

7.0

9.8

0.0

100.0

Nebraska

99.2

0.0

62.5

13.7

4.9

18.9

0.0

100.0

Nevada

99.9

0.0

48.6

23.8

14.5

13.2

0.0

100.0

New Hampshire

87.6

0.0

47.8

18.3

9.4

13.1

11.4

100.0

New Jersey

99.2

3.6

60.3

16.1

7.6

10.1

2.4

100.0

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorkc

75.1

1.1

59.9

16.3

7.1

12.0

3.7

100.0

North Carolina

87.8

0.0

68.6

16.6

7.0

7.9

0.0

100.0

North Dakota

100.0

0.0

67.3

16.4

6.7

9.6

0.0

100.0

Ohio

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oklahoma

99.5

0.0

70.0

15.1

6.3

8.6

0.0

100.0

Oregon

91.1

0.0

33.1

20.7

11.3

20.4

14.4

100.0

Pennsylvania

99.7

5.1

65.2

13.8

5.6

4.9

5.4

100.0

Puerto Rico

99.9

0.0

85.2

4.4

1.6

8.8

0.0

100.0

Rhode Island

97.2

0.0

84.1

6.3

2.5

3.8

3.3

100.0

South Carolina

90.3

0.0

59.9

21.1

9.0

8.8

1.2

100.0

South Dakota

90.3

0.0

64.7

14.8

5.8

9.6

5.1

100.0

Tennessee

100.0

10.8

58.0

16.2

6.0

5.5

3.5

100.0

Texas

96.9

6.2

46.9

25.0

10.6

9.8

1.4

100.0

Utah

96.6

3.1

50.9

21.0

10.1

11.9

3.1

100.0

Vermont

97.9

0.0

70.8

14.4

7.0

7.1

0.8

100.0

Virgin Islands

100.0

25.6

56.7

10.5

4.3

2.8

0.1

100.0

Virginia

93.6

0.0

49.9

24.8

11.1

13.3

0.9

100.0

Washington

99.7

3.8

84.4

5.5

1.4

2.1

2.9

100.0

West Virginia

100.0

7.3

66.7

12.0

5.3

7.6

1.1

100.0

Wisconsin

100.0

2.2

51.6

24.4

11.5

8.3

2.0

100.0

Wyoming

100.0

2.8

60.4

19.6

7.4

8.9

0.9

100.0

All reported areas

90.3

3.9

55.7

19.6

9.1

10.0

1.8

100.0

a Percentage of reported households in which income was certified in 2011 or 2012. Tabulations for Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and

Puerto Rico also include income certified in 2013.

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

c Does not include tenant data from subal ocators in Il inois or New York.

27

More than one-‐half of reported LIHTC households in the nation do not face an affordable rent burden—

that is, they pay less than 30 percent of household income in rent—and three-‐fourths spend no more

than 40 percent of their income on rent, but 10 percent are severely burdened—that is, pay more than

50 percent of annual household income for rent. Although the distribution is similar for most states,

LIHTC households in several states are considerably more burdened. In Oregon, whereas 33.1 percent

of reported LIHTC households pay less than 30 percent of income toward rent, 20.4 percent of reported

LIHTC households are severely rent burdened and pay at least one-‐half of their income for rent. At the

other extreme, more than 80 percent of LIHTC households in Rhode Island, Washington and Puerto

Rico do not have an affordable rent burden. The final column of table 9 shows the percentage of

households with reported annual incomes of $0, preventing the calculation of rent to household

income. Although this percentage is fairly low for most states, more than one-‐fourth of reported

households in Kentucky had an annual income of $0. Oregon (14.4 percent) and New Hampshire

(11.4 percent) also reported more than 10 percent of households with $0 of annual income.

Use of Rental Assistance

As stated previously, more than one-‐half 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. This gap may partially be fil ed by various types of rental assistance—both project-‐ and tenant-‐

based assistance from HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state programs. HUD’s LIHTC

Tenant Data Collection Form requests the amount of rental assistance received for a unit. The most

recent col ection of tenant data also requires the source of rental assistance, but it is not included in this

report because many HFAs were unable to provide this detail. Thus, the fol owing information includes

rental assistance for al sources: federal, state, local, and nonprofit organizations, both unit and

household based.

Table 10 shows the use of rental assistance for reported LIHTC tenants. Overal , use of rental assistance

was not indicated for one-‐third of reported tenants (31.5 percent). Reporting, however, varied

significantly by state; 23 states provided amount of rental assistance for al reported households,

whereas 7 states did not provide an indication of rental assistance for any reported tenants.

For households for which this information was reported, slightly more than one-‐half either receive

tenant-‐based rental assistance or reside in a unit receiving rental assistance. Focusing on the 23 states

with complete reporting on use of rental assistance, most show similar usage, with roughly one-‐half of

reported households receiving some form of assistance. Mississippi (60.4 percent of households) and

Puerto Rico (71.7) reported the highest percentages of LIHTC households receiving rental assistance.

Nevada (23.4 percent) and Utah (30.1 percent) had the lowest percentages of LIHTC households

receiving monthly rental assistance. The use of rental assistance correlates with the percentage of

households earning less than 30 percent of AMGI in table 7. Mississippi (46.7 percent) and Puerto Rico

(68.7 percent) had relatively high percentages of households earning below this threshold, whereas

Nevada (38.4 percent) and Utah (36.9 percent) had among the lowest percentages.

28

Table 10. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance

Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance

Properties Reported

Not Reported

$0

> $0

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

47.1

0.0

60.4

39.6

Alaska

20.0

0.0

57.3

42.7

Arizona

71.3

12.9

65.6

21.4

Arkansas

63.4

48.7

0.0

51.3

California

82.3

0.1

63.4

36.5

Colorado

77.3

78.7

0.0

21.3

Connecticut

69.1

100.0

0.0

0.0

Delaware

90.2

0.0

46.4

53.6

District of Columbia

Data Not Reported

Florida

72.8

72.0

9.8

18.1

Georgia

64.0

0.0

61.5

38.5

Guam

100.0

74.0

0.2

25.7

Hawaii

91.7

100.0

0.0

0.0

Idaho

100.0

29.3

37.4

33.3

Illinoisa

42.4

0.0

56.5

43.5

Indiana

63.3

0.0

57.9

42.1

Iowa

70.0

0.0

59.1

40.9

Kansas

74.3

0.0

59.4

40.6

Kentucky

74.7

0.0

53.5

46.5

Louisiana

38.2

63.7

0.0

36.3

Maine

64.2

40.3

0.0

59.7

Maryland

62.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

Massachusetts

66.9

100.0

0.0

0.0

Michigan

67.9

0.0

49.2

50.8

Minnesota

40.7

46.3

53.7

0.0

Mississippi

88.6

0.0

39.6

60.4

Missouri

47.9

0.0

54.1

45.9

Montana

81.9

0.0

49.4

50.6

Nebraska

97.5

0.0

58.8

41.2

Nevada

69.4

0.0

76.6

23.4

New Hampshire

51.9

52.6

0.0

47.4

New Jersey

33.2

0.0

59.7

40.3

New Mexico

Data Not Reported

New Yorka

34.2

71.7

8.5

19.8

North Carolina

72.0

50.5

0.0

49.5

North Dakota

93.6

0.0

100.0

0.0

Ohio

71.9

2.5

42.3

55.2

Oklahoma

57.4

0.0

46.2

53.8

Oregon

5.4

76.3

0.0

23.7

Pennsyvania

88.9

0.0

45.1

54.9

Puerto Rico

76.5

0.0

28.3

71.7

Rhode Island

64.7

81.7

0.0

18.3

South Carolina

44.0

59.4

0.0

40.6

South Dakota

69.3

63.7

0.0

36.3

Tennessee

45.9

0.0

49.9

50.1

Texas

51.4

50.6

10.8

38.6

Utah

84.6

0.0

69.9

30.1

Vermont

55.2

36.4

0.0

63.6

Virgin Islands

79.2

100.0

0.0

0.0

Virginia

75.5

64.1

0.0

35.9

Washington

1.5

0.1

12.9

87.0

West Virginia

79.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

Wisconsin

58.1

0.0

63.4

36.6

Wyoming

67.3

100.0

0.0

0.0

All reported areas

58.9

31.5

32.4

36.0

LIHTC = low-‐incoming housing tax credit.

a Does not include tenant data from subal ocators in Il inois or New York.

29

VI. Appendix

Table A1. Distribution of Income for All HUD-‐Assisted Housing, December 31, 2012

Annual Household Income

Total Number of

$5,001 to

$10,001 to

$15,001 to

Reported

Median <= $5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000 > $20,000

Total

State

Households

($)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

85,007

8 ,728

21.5

36.0

21.2

11.8

9.5

100.0

Alaska

7,777

1

5,378

10.0

8.0

29.4

24.1

28.5

100.0

Arizona

38,503

9 ,288

18.6

35.3

22.3

11.9

11.9

100.0

Arkansas

47,127

9 ,095

16.0

40.5

23.8

12.2

7.6

100.0

California

457,615

1

1,003

7.9

15.1

41.8

16.2

19.0

100.0

Colorado

58,052

9 ,419

16.1

37.4

22.5

12.9

11.1

100.0

Connecticut

72,903

1

2,276

10.5

29.6

21.2

15.4

23.2

100.0

Delaware

11,737

1

1,009

13.9

30.1

23.7

15.1

17.2

100.0

District of Columbia

23,256

9 ,381

18.9

33.7

17.6

10.0

19.9

100.0

Florida

182,256

9 ,180

15.3

38.8

20.8

12.3

12.8

100.0

Georgia

125,926

9 ,096

20.5

34.3

21.5

12.3

11.4

100.0

Guam

3,158

9 ,426

37.9

13.4

14.4

15.2

19.1

100.0

Hawaii

17,947

1

2,324

7.3

32.8

21.1

13.6

25.2

100.0

Idaho

11,850

9 ,733

13.5

38.2

25.3

13.2

9.8

100.0

Illinois

197,861

9 ,780

16.9

34.1

20.1

14.2

14.7

100.0

Indiana

81,227

9 ,096

23.2

31.8

23.1

12.9

9.1

100.0

Iowa

37,130

1

0,608

12.1

34.0

28.4

15.3

10.3

100.0

Kansas

31,730

1

0,500

13.5

33.5

25.8

14.6

12.6

100.0

Kentucky

76,761

8 ,616

22.2

36.9

21.0

10.7

9.1

100.0

Louisiana

82,763

9 ,094

16.2

38.6

20.4

13.2

11.5

100.0

Maine

25,218

1

0,699

8.6

36.5

27.1

14.8

13.0

100.0

Maryland

87,752

1

1,061

11.6

33.6

20.5

13.4

21.0

100.0

Massachusetts

179,867

1

2,696

6.5

28.9

25.2

15.3

24.1

100.0

Michigan

134,969

9 ,744

15.5

35.9

23.3

13.9

11.4

100.0

Minnesota

85,246

1

1,136

12.0

31.8

25.0

15.1

16.1

100.0

Mississippi

51,313

8 ,688

20.9

37.8

21.1

11.9

8.4

100.0

Missouri

84,166

9 ,384

20.1

33.5

23.6

12.5

10.4

100.0

Montana

12,312

9 ,948

15.6

34.8

25.6

13.7

10.3

100.0

Nebraska

25,568

1

1,040

14.7

29.5

26.8

15.7

13.3

100.0

Nevada

21,495

9 ,780

20.2

31.1

22.5

12.3

13.9

100.0

New Hampshire

20,264

1

3,070

4.5

27.1

28.1

19.2

21.1

100.0

New Jersey

154,001

1

2,300

9.0

30.3

22.0

15.1

23.6

100.0

New Mexico

22,303

8 ,928

15.9

40.1

23.9

11.4

8.8

100.0

New York

555,909

1

3,065

4.9

32.9

20.9

14.6

26.8

100.0

North Carolina

119,332

8 ,820

21.6

35.8

22.5

11.5

8.7

100.0

North Dakota

10,832

1

0,866

13.9

30.5

27.2

14.7

13.6

100.0

Ohio

212,065

8 ,616

25.0

34.7

20.5

11.6

8.3

100.0

Oklahoma

50,475

8 ,868

23.8

34.8

21.5

11.6

8.3

100.0

Oregon

51,033

9 ,336

10.7

43.3

24.1

12.0

10.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

200,947

1

0,716

12.8

33.9

23.7

15.3

14.3

100.0

Puerto Rico

101,396

2 ,760

65.2

21.5

7.6

3.8

1.9

100.0

Rhode Island

35,480

1

1,877

8.5

32.6

23.8

16.0

19.0

100.0

South Carolina

59,333

8 ,724

24.4

33.5

21.6

11.8

8.8

100.0

South Dakota

12,358

1

0,213

17.6

31.3

26.2

13.9

11.0

100.0

Tennessee

98,969

8 ,640

23.8

34.3

22.1

11.2

8.6

100.0

Texas

260,140

9 ,129

18.1

36.7

20.4

12.6

12.3

100.0

Utah

17,604

9 ,696

16.4

35.4

23.5

13.0

11.8

100.0

Vermont

11,790

1

2,025

3.7

34.8

26.8

16.7

18.0

100.0

Virgin Islands

5,037

1

0,128

29.3

20.3

15.2

9.7

25.5

100.0

Virginia

95,630

9 ,876

18.5

32.1

21.0

12.5

16.0

100.0

Washington

83,576

9 ,744

11.8

39.4

23.7

11.9

13.2

100.0

West Virginia

31,068

8 ,616

20.1

39.5

21.8

11.7

6.9

100.0

Wisconsin

69,754

1

1,357

9.1

32.1

28.9

16.7

13.2

100.0

Wyoming

5,218

1

0,917

13.5

31.5

25.7

15.3

14.0

100.0

Total

4,643,006

1

0,272

15.2

32.1

23.8

13.5

15.4

100.0

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Notes: Household data reported in the Public and Indian Housing Information Center, or PIC, and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification

System, or TRACS, datasets. Excludes data from American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands and includes data from areas,

such as Chicago and New York City, not reported in low-‐incoming housing tax credit tables.

30