Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units

as of December 31, 2013

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

Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units

as of December 31, 2013

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

March 2016

Contents

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

II. Comparison of 2012 and 2013 Data Submissions ................................................................................. 2

III. Assessing Completeness of 2013 Tenant Data ..................................................................................... 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of 2012 and 2013 LIHTC Data Submissions .................................................................. 3

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases ............ 4

Table 3. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at Certification ....... 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii

I. Introduction

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

finance agency (HFA) that administers the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) to submit certain

demographic and economic information on tenants in LIHTC units to the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) according to standards determined by the Secretary of HUD. HERA

specifically requires HFAs to submit to HUD information concerning race, ethnicity, family composition,

age, income, use of rental assistance, disability status, and monthly rental payments of households

residing in LIHTC properties. This report represents the second annual data release of information

collected under this mandate. Detailed background of this data collection and a summary of LIHTC

tenants as of December 31, 2012, are available in the report Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program

Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012, which is available on huduser.gov.

Most of the information presented in this document was col ected by the administering state HFAs as

part of program compliance enforcement. Although tenant income and rent information are collected in

accordance with specific program rules, some states have not ful y adopted HUD’s standards for

collecting demographic information. Thus, although income and rent information were col ected across

states using fairly uniform standards and definitions, the demographic information was not standardized

and, in some states, not collected at all.

Finally, HUD’s responsibility in administering LIHTCs is strictly limited to the designation of Difficult

Development Areas, or DDAs, and Qualified Census Tracts, or QCTs. HUD is not involved in the

compliance of LIHTC properties unless HUD subsidies are present. HUD’s collection of tenant data,

although required by statute, is not used in program administration.

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

information reported here is not inclusive of all tenants served by LIHTCs, HUD believes it provides a

useful picture of the program’s beneficiaries. The information presented within was received by HUD in

the fall of 2014 and includes tenants in LIHTC units as of December 31, 2013. Table 1 highlights the

differences between the 2012 and 2013 data submissions. Tables 2 and 3 provide an assessment of

property, unit, and tenant coverage by state, indicating completeness across the reporting categories.

The remaining tables present the information as required by HERA with additional information on

completeness as warranted.

1

II.

Comparison of 2012 and 2013 Data Submissions

Table 1 provides a comparison of HUD’s 2012 and 2013 property and tenant data to provide a basic

understanding of how the data presented in this report compare with data in the previous report. The

2012 data presented in table 1 are identical to those reported in Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program

Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012, and do not include updated information on properties placed in service prior to 2013 that was reported with the 2013 LIHTC properties placed in

service (PIS) data col ection. 1 The changes between 2012 and 2013 al represent net changes in either total properties or total units.

In aggregate, there was a net increase of 481 active properties containing 125,876 units in HUD’s 2013

LIHTC PIS database compared with the 2012 version. The highlighted rows in the first four columns

indicate states whose total property counts are lower in the 2013 data than in the 2012 data. These

decreases solely reflect an effort to improve identification of properties that are no longer monitored for

LIHTC compliance. Thus, these decreases indicate an improvement in data quality and better facilitate data

matching. For several states, however, large decreases in the number of tenants reported offset the

improvement in matching, which is shown in table 2.

For the HERA-mandated tenant data, a net additional 153,870 units were reported in the 2013 data

compared with the 2012 data. The increase reflects both an increase in the stock of LIHTC units, i.e.

those placed in service in 2013, and newly reported information on units not submitted in the previous

collection. This increase is also boosted by the reporting for the first time of units in the District of

Columbia, New Mexico, and one of New York City’s al ocating agencies, the New York City Housing

Development Corporation (HDC). The highlighted rows in the last four columns indicate states whose

total unit counts are lower in the 2013 HERA data than in the 2012 data.

1 HFAs reported 1,456 LIHTC properties placed in service prior to 2013 with the 2013 properties. Most of these newly reported properties were placed in service in 2012 (691) or 2011 (522).

2

Table 1. Comparison of 2012 and 2013 LIHTC Data Submissions

LIHTC Properties PIS Database

LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

2012 Data

2013 Data

Difference 2012–2013

2012 Data

2013 Data

Difference 2012–2013

State

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units

Alabama

705

35,936

709

36,208

4

272

355

11,651

325

13,452

– 30

1,801

Alaska

90

3,469

90

3,469

0

0

19

704

44

1,773

25

1,069

Arizona

373

28,192

376

28,653

3

461

295

21,984

341

26,450

46

4,466

Arkansas

607

28,444

578

28,447

– 29

3

396

17,284

389

17,084

– 7

– 200

California

3,018

240,434

3,313

263,806

295

23,372

2,666

204,956

2,831

224,698

165

19,742

Colorado

444

28,549

454

29,556

10

1,007

402

23,605

472

30,086

70

6,481

Connecticut

307

18,028

307

18,029

0

1

235

13,536

222

15,174

– 13

1,638

Delaware

123

7,147

137

7,900

14

753

115

6,349

124

6,825

9

476

District of Columbia

124

17,850

134

17,888

10

38

Not Reported

151

15,048

2012 Not Reported

Florida

1,068

148,304

1,265

177,304

197

29,000

964

144,398

998

147,269

34

2,871

Georgia

1,018

95,050

991

93,950

– 27

– 1,100

689

52,474

643

50,232

– 46

– 2,242

Guam

5

433

5

433

0

0

5

433

5

433

0

0

Hawaii

72

6,490

74

6,727

2

237

72

6,330

77

6,730

5

400

Idaho

189

7,698

201

8,402

12

704

215

8,443

214

8,166

– 1

– 277

Illinoisa

1,197

75,150

1,301

84,418

104

9,268

515

25,342

286

17,813

– 229

– 7,529

Indiana

578

37,792

748

46,354

170

8,562

442

13,258

496

45,796

54

32,538

Iowa

594

21,641

615

22,850

21

1,209

469

17,498

468

17,374

– 1

– 124

Kansas

604

28,175

496

23,627

– 108

– 4,548

467

21,052

474

20,711

7

– 341

Kentucky

736

24,203

726

23,658

– 10

– 545

562

20,750

478

12,081

– 84

– 8,669

Louisiana

1,049

56,693

885

48,742

– 164

– 7,951

432

20,352

355

17,922

– 77

– 2,430

Maine

187

6,306

197

6,673

10

367

122

4,720

167

6,142

45

1,422

Maryland

694

59,832

369

35,201

– 325

– 24,631

454

34,735

414

35,392

– 40

657

Massachusetts

750

50,774

734

49,868

– 16

– 906

580

39,917

609

43,062

29

3,145

Michigan

1,274

70,000

1,302

72,690

28

2,690

1,008

62,276

1,027

63,250

19

974

Minnesota

626

27,500

808

36,815

182

9,315

378

16,159

689

33,313

311

17,154

Mississippi

572

31,585

580

32,105

8

520

512

27,450

529

27,567

17

117

Missouri

1,561

53,680

919

43,314

– 642

– 10,366

946

44,106

916

41,525

– 30

– 2,581

Montana

210

6,047

210

6,058

0

11

175

5,227

182

5,313

7

86

Nebraska

239

6,970

330

10,858

91

3,888

317

10,413

329

10,978

12

565

Nevada

206

20,207

184

19,247

– 22

– 960

208

22,125

215

24,182

7

2,057

New Hampshire

183

6,648

177

6,484

– 6

– 164

157

5,040

163

5,181

6

141

New Jersey

671

43,815

631

46,065

– 40

2,250

461

33,128

462

31,835

1

– 1,293

New Mexico

229

12,686

334

22,423

105

9,737

Not Reported

209

14,115

2012 Not Reported

New Yorka

2,459

128,433

2,724

170,626

265

42,193

1,017

64,329

1,320

106,092

303

41,763

North Carolina

1,294

52,474

1,375

57,352

81

4,878

938

48,410

906

48,506

– 32

96

North Dakota

171

5,198

171

5,167

0

– 31

162

4,886

168

5,092

6

206

Ohio

1,081

75,170

1,419

92,047

338

16,877

794

56,831

595

36,776

– 199

– 20,055

Oklahoma

460

22,970

475

23,537

15

567

378

18,371

391

18,247

13

– 124

Oregon

536

30,942

543

31,505

7

563

35

800

153

7,147

118

6,347

Pennsylvania

858

34,298

817

31,936

– 41

– 2,362

987

45,231

947

43,926

– 40

– 1,305

Puerto Rico

200

17,598

204

18,047

4

449

175

14,741

182

15,804

7

1,063

Rhode Island

187

10,958

161

10,297

– 26

– 661

164

10,007

168

10,355

4

348

South Carolina

698

33,916

537

29,363

– 161

– 4,553

358

15,452

478

23,121

120

7,669

South Dakota

202

6,991

160

5,862

– 42

– 1,129

181

6,550

150

5,087

– 31

– 1,463

Tennessee

909

53,477

925

53,925

16

448

427

34,032

478

36,822

51

2,790

Texas

1,860

176,720

1,967

187,151

107

10,431

1,488

170,443

1,483

170,555

– 5

112

Utah

370

19,122

366

19,050

– 4

– 72

319

15,392

304

15,551

– 15

159

Vermont

241

5,277

245

5,340

4

63

232

5,442

237

5,591

5

149

U.S. Virgin Islands

24

1,324

24

1,363

0

39

22

1,011

23

1,072

1

61

Virginia

827

71,995

873

76,800

46

4,805

846

73,838

866

74,035

20

197

Washington

996

68,139

1,006

69,070

10

931

67

23,552

760

36,387

693

12,835

West Virginia

267

10,725

232

10,660

– 35

– 65

234

9,947

229

10,428

– 5

481

Wisconsin

766

24,326

795

24,705

29

379

462

20,659

450

21,038

– 12

379

Wyoming

98

4,360

89

3,992

– 9

– 368

89

2,751

85

3,636

– 4

885

Total

34,807

2,160,141

35,288

2,286,017

481

125,876

24,008

1,578,370

25,677

1,732,240

1,669

153,870

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

Note: The 2012 data are identical to those reported in Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012, and do not include information on properties placed in service prior to 2013 that was reported with the 2013 PIS data collection.

a 2012 totals do not include tenant data from Il inois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or either of New York City’s two subal ocators, the New York City Housing Development Corporation or Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD). 2013 totals do not include tenant data from the Chicago Department of Planning and Development or the New York City HPD.

3

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

2013 LIHTC Properties PIS Database

2013 LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

Properties

Units in

Properties

Units in

Matched to

Matched

Matched to

Matched

All Active

All Active

HERA

Properties

All Active

All Active

PIS

Properties

State

Properties

Units

(%)

(%)

Properties

Units

(%)

(%)

Alabama

709

36,208

38.6

41.4

325

13,452

95.4

94.8

Alaska

90

3,469

21.1

26.9

44

1,773

43.2

56.4

Arizona

376

28,653

84.0

84.6

341

26,450

92.7

94.2

Arkansas

578

28,447

64.2

61.0

389

17,084

92.0

91.1

California

3,313

263,806

72.6

72.7

2,831

224,698

84.0

82.7

Colorado

454

29,556

85.0

84.5

472

30,086

81.4

80.0

Connecticut

307

18,029

55.0

67.4

222

15,174

74.8

74.3

Delaware

137

7,900

78.1

80.7

124

6,825

90.3

92.7

District of Columbia

134

17,888

44.0

47.5

151

15,048

58.3

53.8

Florida

1,265

177,304

78.2

84.5

998

147,269

95.5

97.5

Georgia

991

93,950

52.7

60.3

643

50,232

91.6

91.6

Guam

5

433

100.0

100.0

5

433

100.0

100.0

Hawaii

74

6,727

86.5

82.0

77

6,730

83.1

79.9

Idaho

201

8,402

86.1

84.2

214

8,166

85.0

87.2

Illinoisa

1,301

84,418

20.9

24.7

286

17,813

92.0

93.2

Indiana

748

46,354

46.8

47.4

496

45,796

78.4

78.0

Iowa

615

22,850

66.3

72.1

468

17,374

88.0

88.6

Kansas

496

23,627

96.8

96.7

474

20,711

96.8

96.3

Kentucky

726

23,658

63.5

72.9

478

12,081

94.8

96.0

Louisiana

885

48,742

36.8

41.7

355

17,922

88.2

88.1

Maine

197

6,673

79.7

88.2

167

6,142

93.4

95.2

Maryland

369

35,201

73.7

68.1

414

35,392

66.7

68.4

Massachusetts

734

49,868

60.5

65.4

609

43,062

71.8

72.8

Michigan

1,302

72,690

66.7

74.3

1,027

63,250

83.0

82.3

Minnesota

808

36,815

62.9

63.1

689

33,313

70.1

68.5

Mississippi

580

32,105

87.1

90.5

529

27,567

95.1

95.9

Missouri

919

43,314

74.1

78.5

916

41,525

74.3

67.8

Montana

210

6,058

82.9

90.4

182

5,313

94.5

96.2

Nebraska

330

10,858

90.9

93.5

329

10,978

90.9

91.1

Nevada

184

19,247

79.9

82.3

215

24,182

67.9

69.0

New Hampshire

177

6,484

50.8

53.6

163

5,181

55.2

60.0

New Jersey

631

46,065

32.5

35.6

462

31,835

44.4

44.7

New Mexico

334

22,423

59.9

70.7

209

14,115

87.1

90.4

New Yorka

2,724

170,626

34.1

47.2

1,320

106,092

67.3

67.3

North Carolina

1,375

57,352

66.5

84.5

906

48,506

98.3

98.8

North Dakota

171

5,167

88.3

90.5

168

5,092

89.9

90.3

Ohio

1,419

92,047

37.1

36.6

595

36,776

89.4

90.1

Oklahoma

475

23,537

56.8

51.7

391

18,247

68.3

63.7

Oregon

543

31,505

22.5

20.8

153

7,147

79.7

78.6

Pennsylvania

817

31,936

65.7

73.7

947

43,926

56.4

53.6

Puerto Rico

204

18,047

66.7

61.0

182

15,804

70.3

61.6

Rhode Island

161

10,297

98.8

98.9

168

10,355

97.0

97.2

South Carolina

537

29,363

72.4

69.6

478

23,121

80.5

79.5

South Dakota

160

5,862

84.4

83.6

150

5,087

88.7

87.4

Tennessee

925

53,925

54.1

74.9

478

36,822

100.0

100.0

Texas

1,967

187,151

50.1

58.5

1,483

170,555

64.9

61.3

Utah

366

19,050

76.8

81.2

304

15,551

93.1

94.0

Vermont

245

5,340

44.9

42.7

237

5,591

46.0

42.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

24

1,363

79.2

76.7

23

1,072

82.6

79.1

Virginia

873

76,800

73.8

72.4

866

74,035

74.0

72.8

Washington

1,006

69,070

75.3

3.5

760

36,387

11.7

4.7

West Virginia

232

10,660

81.9

80.1

229

10,428

83.0

80.0

Wisconsin

795

24,705

51.6

47.0

450

21,038

87.8

87.9

Wyoming

89

3,992

75.3

75.1

85

3,636

78.8

79.0

Total

35,288

2,286,017

59.3

62.0

25,677

1,732,240

78.4

77.7

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

Note: The PIS Properties Matched to HERA column is not consistent with the reported matching rate in the 2012 LIHTC data. The previous matching rate contained a calculation error, dividing the number of HERA properties by the number of matched PIS properties. In limited cases, this error led to an overestimate of matched properties because some multiphase properties were listed twice in the HERA data but once in the PIS data.

a Does not include tenant data from Il inois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

4

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

Less Than Reported Household Equals Reported Household

Greater Than Reported

Certification Not Reported

Size at Certification

Size at Certification

Household Size at Certification Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

0.0

3.6

91.1

5.3

100.0

Alaskaa

100.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

Arkansas

0.0

0.0

99.4

0.6

100.0

California

3.3

0.6

95.9

0.2

100.0

Colorado

0.0

4.9

76.7

18.4

100.0

Connecticuta

99.7

0.0

0.3

0.0

100.0

Delaware

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

District of Columbiaa

50.2

4.3

44.5

1.0

100.0

Floridab

5.1

63.0

32.0

0.0

100.0

Georgia

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Guam

3.7

1.4

93.3

1.6

100.0

Hawaiia

97.5

0.0

2.4

0.1

100.0

Idaho

5.2

0.6

93.3

0.8

100.0

Illinoisc

0.0

3.2

85.1

11.7

100.0

Indiana

0.0

3.0

56.6

40.3

100.0

Iowa

0.0

1.9

97.9

0.2

100.0

Kansas

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Kentucky

10.2

2.3

85.7

1.8

100.0

Louisiana

0.0

1.0

98.6

0.4

100.0

Maine

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

Marylanda

99.6

0.0

0.4

0.0

100.0

Massachusettsa

100.0

Data Not Reported

Michigan

0.0

0.5

98.9

0.6

100.0

Minnesotab

0.9

56.9

42.2

0.0

100.0

Mississippi

0.0

0.4

99.1

0.4

100.0

Missouri

0.0

0.7

99.0

0.3

100.0

Montana

4.3

0.0

95.5

0.2

100.0

Nebraska

5.8

1.1

92.7

0.4

100.0

Nevada

5.1

0.0

80.6

14.2

100.0

New Hampshire

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.4

100.0

New Jersey

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

New Mexico

0.1

3.0

96.4

0.5

100.0

New Yorkc

6.6

18.4

74.5

0.5

100.0

North Carolina

5.1

28.1

66.8

0.0

100.0

North Dakotab

0.0

47.9

52.1

0.0

100.0

Ohio

6.0

0.2

41.4

52.3

100.0

Oklahoma

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

Oregon

0.0

0.0

99.8

0.2

100.0

Pennsylvania

0.3

0.0

94.9

4.7

100.0

Puerto Rico

0.0

0.0

99.8

0.2

100.0

Rhode Island

0.0

0.0

98.0

2.0

100.0

South Carolina

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

South Dakota

0.0

0.4

99.3

0.3

100.0

Tennessee

0.0

3.3

91.9

4.8

100.0

Texasb

0.2

61.7

38.2

0.0

100.0

Utah

0.0

3.4

94.6

2.0

100.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

98.9

1.1

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islandsa

100.0

Data Not Reported

Virginia

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.5

100.0

Washington

0.0

2.4

97.6

0.0

100.0

West Virginiaa

100.0

Data Not Reported

Wisconsin

0.0

1.3

95.3

3.4

100.0

Wyoming

0.0

0.4

99.2

0.3

100.0

Total

8.8

15.2

72.7

3.3

100.0

a Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia did not report household size for all or nearly all households. The District of Columbia reported household size at certification for only one-half of its tenants.

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

c Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

Calculation note: In the previous report, the last three columns of this table summed to 100 percent. In table 3, al four columns sum to 100 percent.

5

III.

Assessing Completeness of 2013 Tenant Data

LIHTCs are administered by 60 state-level and, in limited instances, substate al ocating HFAs. 2 Several states separate administrative functions among multiple state agencies or local subal ocators. 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 all

properties in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts, however, is conducted by a single agency in each

state. Il inois, Minnesota, and New York al ow local suballocators to award LIHTCs in certain cities or

counties. The city of Chicago has authority to award credits and administer the program within city limits.

New York City and several northern counties3 receive subal ocations from New York State. Minnesota al ows seven local governments4 to al ocate tax credits, although the state reports the tenant and property data for the entire state. 5

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

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

compliance (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as “states”). HFAs administering LIHTCs in the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and the cities of Chicago and New York did not submit 2012 tenant information.

The 2013 data include, for the first time, data from the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and one of New

York City’s suballocators, the New York City HDC. The Chicago Department of Planning and Development

and the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) did not submit 2013

data and, therefore, are not included in the following summary tables. The following sections explain how

the submitted information may be incomplete for each of the states.

B. Properties in the Tenant Data

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

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

for several reasons. First, most states simplify or decrease the stringency of compliance rules after Year 15, which lessens or eliminates certain information otherwise 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. Second, some states previously accepted Tenant

Income Certification (TIC) forms from smaller 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

2 This total includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Aside from its use of the Tax Credit Exchange Program, or TCEP, in 2009, American Samoa does not actively administer LIHTCs and is not counted here.

3 The Development Authority of the North Country administers the LIHTCs in Jefferson, Lewis, and St. Lawrence Counties, New York.

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

5 The suballocators in Minnesota monitor for compliance and report tenant and property data to the state HFA.

Beginning in the fal of 2016, however, the subal ocators wil begin reporting directly to HUD.

6

submit electronically. Converting or hand-entering the information into electronic compliance and reporting systems requires considerable time, and some states were not able to complete this type of

labor-intensive work. Third, HERA permits states to forgo annual income recertification of tenants if

100 percent of a building’s units are income or rent restricted. Income information from tenants in these

properties, therefore, may not be available or, if available, may not be current. To present an

appropriate comparison, HUD’s tabulation of income relies on incomes certified in 2012, 2013, or 2014. 6

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, 7 summarized in table 2. The time period covered in HUD’s PIS data collection is consistent with the tenant collection and currently includes properties placed in service

through 2013. HUD’s PIS database also has known undercounting, primarily for the most recently

collected placed-in-service years. 8 In addition, the PIS database also fails to correctly identify some properties that are no longer monitored for program compliance, which inflates the true number of

properties in service. Hence, 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.

Overall, 35,288 properties were reported as in service and monitored for LIHTC compliance in 2013.

State HFAs, however, submitted tenant information for 25,677 properties. 9 As expected, most states reported more properties in 2013, some with large increases. Alaska and Oregon both reported at least

twice as many properties in their 2013 tenant data, and Minnesota nearly doubled its reporting. Several

states reported fewer properties than in their previous submission, most notably Georgia, Illinois,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. These changes are shown in table 1.

C. LIHTC Rent-Restricted Units

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

units. Because HUD’s PIS data include primarily only property address and, in only limited cases, building

address, it is not possible to match actual units between the two data sets. Instead, table 2 sums the

number of units from matched properties in the PIS database and reported units from matched

properties in the tenant collection. Across all states, 2.286 million active LIHTC units are in HUD’s PIS

database. State HFAs, however, reported data on tenants in 1.732 million units through the HERA-

mandated tenant submission to HUD. More than three-fourths (77.7 percent) of the units reported in

the HERA data are in properties also in the PIS database.

6 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2013, some states provided the most recent income certification information, which was 2014.

7 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/.

8 In addition to underreporting because of technicalities of determining placed-in-service status, several states (Alaska, Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico) did not submit information in certain recent years. See the database at http://lihtc.huduser.org/ for years of nonreporting.

9 Properties are identified in the tenant data based on property name, property identification number, city, and state.

7

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.

The aggregate count of reported units increased to 1.732 million units compared with 1.578 million

units in the 2012 data, reflecting better overall reporting. 10 About 70,000 units of this increase were the first-time reporting from the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and the New York City HDC. Alaska,

Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington provided considerably more units in their submissions

than for 2012. Several states, most notably Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Dakota, submitted fewer

units than in their previous submissions. The decreases were generally due to fewer properties

reported.

D. Household Members

Much of the information required by HERA focuses on households or individual household members. As

required by HERA, HUD requests household-level information, such as rent and income, and individual

member information, such as race, ethnicity, and disability status. In addition, HUD requests information

on a household member’s age and relationship to the head of the household, both of which can be used to

determine household composition, which is a HERA-required reporting category. Four states (Florida,

Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas), however, provided data for only one member per household, usually

reported as the head of the household.11 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 the maximum applicable

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

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

size at certification with the number of household members actual y reported in the tenant data. The first

column reports the share of households for which household size at certification was not reported; that is,

households for which HUD is unable to determine whether all household members are included in the tenant

data. Reporting of household size is quite complete overal ; household size is missing in 8.8 percent of all reported households. With the exceptions of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, the

Virgin Islands, and West Virginia—which did not report household size for all or nearly all households—and

Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas—which provided information for only one household member

per unit—this variable can be used to assess the completeness of household members in the tenant data. In

addition, the District of Columbia reported this information for only one-half of its households.

10 This total includes both vacant and occupied units.

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

8

IV.

Race and Ethnicity of Tenants

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests race according to standards set by the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget and also used by HUD’s rental assistance and multifamily housing programs.

Although most of the information requested on the HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form is required

and necessary for program compliance by the state HFAs, race and ethnicity are not. Before the HERA-

mandated HUD col ection, many states did not col ect any race or ethnicity information, while others

collected similar information using categories or standards different from those established by HUD. The

incorporation, or modification, of race and ethnicity into states’ TIC forms caused a delay in their ability to report this information to HUD. This delay was caused in part by the process of amending the state

TIC forms to request this information but also by the need to col ect this new information from all LIHTC

tenants. Many states did not have this information already incorporated in their TIC forms, unlike

compliance items such as income and rent.

Race and ethnicity are requested for each household member. As explained in the previous section, data

submitted at the individual level suffer from underreporting of properties, units, and household members.

Further, in accordance with fair housing laws, tenants are not required to report their race or ethnicity.

Seven states—Alabama, Alaska, Il inois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Oregon—submitted

information for less than approximately one-third of their active LIHTC property stock. Totals for Il inois

and New York are lower primarily because HUD did not receive information for LIHTC tenants monitored

by the Chicago Department of Planning and Development or the New York City HPD, which account for a

significant portion of unreported units for their respective states.

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

Recal from table 3 that less than one-half of al states reported al members of each LIHTC household, and

12 states, highlighted in gray, 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 for several other tabulations presented

subsequently in this report. 12

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

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

provide perspective on the completeness for the entire active LIHTC stock in each state. 13 Four states, Florida, North Dakota, Texas, and Washington, did not provide race or ethnicity information for any

heads of household. 14 Two more states, Pennsylvania and Utah, reported race and ethnicity for less than 5 percent of occupied units. Kentucky was the only other state to report this information for less than

approximately one-half of its reported households.

12 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.

13 For example, although the Alaska HFC submitted both race and ethnicity data for 94.3 percent of reported heads of household, the tenant data for Alaska include only 21.1 percent of its LIHTC stock.

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

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/docs/13-HSR.pdf.

9

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household

Non-Hispanic

Native

Hawaiian

Black or

American

and Other

Other

African-

Indian and

Pacific

(Including

Hispanic

Race or

Properties

White

American

Asian

Alaska

Islander

Multiple

(Any

Ethnicity

Reported

Alone

Alone

Alone

Native Alone

Alone

Race)

Race)

Not Reported

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

38.6

29.0

55.3

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.4

0.6

14.5

100.0

Alaska

21.1

47.2

10.2

8.9

19.7

4.1

0.0

4.2

5.7

100.0

Arizona

84.0

35.6

11.0

1.2

7.2

0.4

1.5

32.5

10.6

100.0

Arkansas

64.2

41.4

51.0

0.4

0.3

0.3

1.2

2.6

2.7

100.0

California

72.6

20.6

12.9

9.8

0.6

0.5

1.6

26.9

27.1

100.0

Colorado

85.0

33.9

9.7

2.1

0.8

0.2

1.9

20.0

31.4

100.0

Connecticut

55.0

29.3

23.7

0.5

0.4

0.2

1.7

25.3

18.9

100.0

Delaware

78.1

25.2

64.0

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.8

7.3

1.2

100.0

District of Columbia

44.0

1.1

61.9

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.4

3.2

33.0

100.0

Florida

78.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Georgia

52.7

16.0

65.4

1.4

0.1

0.1

1.4

2.6

13.0

100.0

Guam

100.0

5.5

1.4

24.0

0.2

63.7

0.2

0.2

4.6

100.0

Hawaii

86.5

16.1

1.5

32.2

0.5

26.2

5.2

7.6

10.7

100.0

Idaho

86.1

70.6

1.6

0.9

1.7

1.9

0.8

8.0

14.5

100.0

Illinoisa

20.9

53.1

37.5

0.0

0.2

0.3

1.0

4.3

3.6

100.0

Indiana

46.8

47.5

39.5

0.0

0.3

0.2

1.1

0.8

10.7

100.0

Iowa

66.3

51.5

11.1

0.9

0.4

0.1

0.7

2.4

32.8

100.0

Kansas

96.8

54.5

19.1

0.6

0.5

0.1

2.2

2.7

20.2

100.0

Kentucky

63.5

28.6

16.6

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.4

0.2

53.9

100.0

Louisiana

36.8

11.2

65.7

0.2

0.2

0.0

4.4

1.3

17.0

100.0

Maine

79.7

76.2

7.0

0.7

0.8

0.1

3.5

1.5

10.1

100.0

Maryland

73.7

16.5

38.4

1.4

0.3

0.1

0.7

5.4

37.3

100.0

Massachusetts

60.5

28.1

16.7

5.5

0.3

0.1

1.5

24.4

23.4

100.0

Michigan

66.7

32.3

27.2

0.4

0.4

0.0

1.0

1.8

36.9

100.0

Minnesota

62.9

43.9

29.1

2.6

2.8

0.3

0.9

2.5

18.0

100.0

Mississippi

87.1

12.5

65.8

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.8

0.8

18.5

100.0

Missouri

74.1

48.5

33.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

1.5

2.0

13.6

100.0

Montana

82.9

71.0

0.8

0.3

9.3

0.2

2.0

2.6

13.9

100.0

Nebraska

90.9

42.7

13.9

0.4

0.8

0.1

1.3

3.8

37.0

100.0

Nevada

79.9

35.3

13.1

1.8

0.5

0.7

2.1

19.8

26.7

100.0

New Hampshire

50.8

68.1

3.2

0.6

0.3

0.0

13.8

4.4

9.6

100.0

New Jersey

32.5

22.5

34.7

1.0

0.2

0.1

0.9

8.0

32.7

100.0

New Mexico

59.9

21.3

3.2

0.6

7.6

0.1

7.4

42.0

17.7

100.0

New Yorka

34.1

18.4

28.5

2.2

0.3

0.1

0.4

18.5

31.7

100.0

North Carolina

66.5

26.5

49.9

0.5

0.8

0.3

0.0

3.2

18.7

100.0

North Dakota

88.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Ohio

37.1

37.8

43.2

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.1

1.8

16.4

100.0

Oklahoma

56.8

57.1

20.1

0.6

7.2

0.2

2.7

3.9

8.1

100.0

Oregon

22.5

49.2

6.2

1.0

1.1

0.3

1.8

7.8

32.7

100.0

Pennsylvania

65.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.8

95.2

100.0

Puerto Rico

66.7

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

82.3

17.2

100.0

Rhode Island

98.8

52.3

15.3

0.7

1.2

0.1

3.6

19.6

7.1

100.0

South Carolina

72.4

20.6

61.6

0.3

0.2

0.0

2.2

2.9

12.1

100.0

South Dakota

84.4

57.7

3.5

1.2

18.6

0.1

4.3

2.5

12.1

100.0

Tennessee

54.1

37.0

45.5

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.5

1.3

15.0

100.0

Texas

50.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Utah

76.8

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

98.9

100.0

Vermont

44.9

81.1

3.0

1.3

0.3

0.0

9.0

1.3

4.0

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

79.2

0.8

54.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.7

13.1

31.0

100.0

Virginia

73.8

22.9

47.5

2.2

0.4

0.1

4.4

8.2

14.4

100.0

Washington

75.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

West Virginia

81.9

66.2

12.7

0.3

0.1

0.1

7.7

1.2

11.7

100.0

Wisconsin

51.6

51.8

24.2

0.9

1.6

0.1

1.0

4.3

16.1

100.0

Wyoming

75.3

60.1

4.1

0.6

2.0

0.2

1.5

7.6

23.9

100.0

Total

59.3

22.9

22.7

2.1

0.7

0.3

1.2

9.5

40.6

100.0

a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

10

V.

Disability Status

Tenant disability status is collected in accordance with the Fair Housing Act’s definition of handicapped.

A tenant’s response, or nonresponse, does not affect the tenant’s ability to claim disability benefits or to request handicapped-accessible features in the LIHTC unit. The Fair Housing Act defines a disability as a

physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such

an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. Definitions of physical and mental

impairment are 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 were similar to those for race and ethnicity, neither of which are used for programmatic

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

of properties, units, and household members. As explained previously, data from seven states (Alaska,

Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Oregon) covered a fairly smal percentage of their

active LIHTC properties. In addition, the reported information for some states did not contain all

household members, further limiting HUD’s ability to report disability status.

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

household. The first column, Properties Reported, repeats data from table 2. This column is included to

enhance understanding of the coverage of properties in the state data. Florida, Minnesota, and North

Dakota provided disability status for only the head of household. Further, Connecticut, Hawaii, and

Maryland reported all household members for less than 3 percent of LIHTC households. Pennsylvania

and Utah reported disability status for less than 10 percent of their reported households, and Texas did

not report disability status for any household members.

Table 6 reports disability status at the individual household member level. The first column, Properties

Reported, repeats data from table 2. The second column, All Household Members Reported, contains

data from table 5. The last two columns present strictly individual-level information, beginning with the

share of reported individuals in that state for whom disability status is reported. The underreporting

mentioned previously for table 6 applies to table 5 as well and likely biases the estimate of disabled

individuals downward from the actual percentage.

11

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members

Properties

Al Household Members

Disability Status Reported for At

At Least One Member

Reported

Reporteda

Least One Member

Reported as Disabled

State

(%)

(% Households)

(% Households)

(% Households)

Alabama

38.6

91.1

100.0

8.6

Alaska

21.1

Data Not Reported

95.8

20.0

Arizona

84.0

99.6

100.0

9.8

Arkansas

64.2

99.4

100.0

10.5

California

72.6

95.9

92.4

11.3

Colorado

85.0

76.7

83.8

3.7

Connecticutb

55.0

0.3

96.0

8.5

Delaware

78.1

100.0

100.0

4.1

District of Columbia

44.0

44.5

43.9

7.4

Floridac

78.2

32.0

100.0

3.0

Georgia

52.7

100.0

100.0

1.8

Guam

100.0

93.3

95.8

1.2

Hawaiib

86.5

2.4

90.6

6.0

Idaho

86.1

93.3

96.6

24.8

Illinoisd

20.9

85.1

100.0

2.9

Indiana

46.8

56.6

100.0

16.2

Iowa

66.3

97.9

85.0

9.6

Kansas

96.8

100.0

100.0

5.6

Kentucky

63.5

85.7

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

36.8

98.6

100.0

2.4

Maine

79.7

99.6

100.0

16.6

Marylandb

73.7

0.4

85.6

4.5

Massachusetts

60.5

Data Not Reported

93.8

11.4

Michigan

66.7

98.9

68.8

7.7

Minnesotac

62.9

42.2

86.8

6.8

Mississippi

87.1

99.1

87.3

7.4

Missouri

74.1

99.0

88.2

9.0

Montana

82.9

95.5

98.8

15.8

Nebraska

90.9

92.7

99.4

8.0

Nevada

79.9

80.6

89.7

9.7

New Hampshire

50.8

99.5

100.0

5.9

New Jersey

32.5

100.0

100.0

3.7

New Mexico

59.9

96.4

100.0

6.2

New Yorkd

34.1

74.5

67.4

15.4

North Carolina

66.5

66.8

94.9

13.9

North Dakotac

88.3

52.1

57.0

0.0

Ohio

37.1

41.4

51.1

10.7

Oklahoma

56.8

99.7

91.5

8.1

Oregon

22.5

99.8

100.0

15.0

Pennsylvaniae

65.7

94.9

9.0

9.8

Puerto Rico

66.7

99.8

100.0

5.9

Rhode Island

98.8

98.0

100.0

32.8

South Carolina

72.4

99.7

100.0

3.6

South Dakota

84.4

99.3

100.0

7.5

Tennessee

54.1

91.9

100.0

9.9

Texasc

50.1

38.2

0.0

0.0

Utahe

76.8

94.6

1.6

0.2

Vermont

44.9

98.9

100.0

17.3

U.S. Virgin Islands

79.2

Data Not Reported

67.8

0.8

Virginia

73.8

99.5

100.0

5.0

Washington

75.3

97.6

60.1

27.6

West Virginia

81.9

Data Not Reported

87.7

17.8

Wisconsin

51.6

95.3

84.3

11.2

Wyoming

75.3

99.2

93.2

12.7

Total

59.3

72.7

78.0

8.3

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. HUD could not evaluate Alaska, Massachusetts, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia because household size at certification was not provided.

b Connecticut, Hawai , and Maryland reported al household members for less than 3 percent of LIHTC households.

c Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas provided disability status for only the head of household.

d Does not include tenant data from Il inois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of , or the New York City HPD.

e Pennsylvania and Utah reported disability status for less than 10 percent of reported households.

12

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members

Properties Reported

All Household Members Reporteda

Disability Status Is Reported

Reported as Disabled

State

(%)

(% of Households)

(% of Individuals)

(% of Individuals)

Alabama

38.6

91.1

100.0

4.7

Alaska

21.1

Data Not Reported

97.3

9.5

Arizona

84.0

99.6

100.0

4.0

Arkansas

64.2

99.4

100.0

5.0

California

72.6

95.9

93.8

4.9

Colorado

85.0

76.7

85.5

1.6

Connecticutb

55.0

0.3

97.1

5.9

Delaware

78.1

100.0

100.0

2.0

District of Columbia

44.0

44.5

39.2

4.2

Floridac

78.2

32.0

100.0

3.0

Georgia

52.7

100.0

100.0

0.9

Guam

100.0

93.3

97.5

0.3

Hawaiib

86.5

2.4

94.2

3.2

Idaho

86.1

93.3

97.6

11.9

Il inoisd

20.9

85.1

100.0

1.7

Indiana

46.8

56.6

100.0

5.2

Iowa

66.3

97.9

82.1

5.1

Kansas

96.8

100.0

100.0

2.9

Kentucky

63.5

85.7

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

36.8

98.6

100.0

1.1

Maine

79.7

99.6

100.0

8.5

Marylandb

73.7

0.4

89.7

2.9

Massachusetts

60.5

Data Not Reported

94.8

6.5

Michigan

66.7

98.9

66.3

4.3

Minnesotac

62.9

42.2

86.8

6.8

Mississippi

87.1

99.1

87.5

3.2

Missouri

74.1

99.0

87.7

5.0

Montana

82.9

95.5

98.8

8.8

Nebraska

90.9

92.7

98.8

4.0

Nevada

79.9

80.6

87.7

4.3

New Hampshire

50.8

99.5

100.0

2.8

New Jersey

32.5

100.0

100.0

2.0

New Mexico

59.9

96.4

100.0

2.8

New Yorkd

34.1

74.5

75.6

10.0

North Carolina

66.5

66.8

97.2

7.5

North Dakotac

88.3

52.1

57.0

0.0

Ohio

37.1

41.4

22.0

3.5

Oklahoma

56.8

99.7

91.8

4.2

Oregon

22.5

99.8

100.0

6.9

Pennsylvaniae

65.7

94.9

5.5

5.5

Puerto Rico

66.7

99.8

100.0

2.7

Rhode Island

98.8

98.0

100.0

18.9

South Carolina

72.4

99.7

100.0

1.7

South Dakota

84.4

99.3

100.0

3.2

Tennessee

54.1

91.9

100.0

4.7

Texasc

50.1

38.2

0.0

0.0

Utahe

76.8

94.6

1.8

0.1

Vermont

44.9

98.9

100.0

9.8

U.S. Virgin Islands

79.2

Data Not Reported

75.4

0.6

Virginia

73.8

99.5

100.0

2.4

Washington

75.3

97.6

57.3

13.3

West Virginia

81.9

Data Not Reported

91.7

11.6

Wisconsin

51.6

95.3

79.5

6.8

Wyoming

75.3

99.2

93.2

5.8

Total

59.3

72.7

81.2

4.5

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. HUD could not evaluate Alaska, Massachusetts, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia because household size at certification was not provided.

b Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maryland reported all household members for less than 3 percent of LIHTC households.

c Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas provided disability status for only the head of household.

d Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

e Pennsylvania and Utah reported disability status for less than 10 percent of reported households.

Calculation note: Unlike in the previously reported LIHTC Households With Disabled Members table, units with missing disability status for household members are included in the denominator.

13

VI.

Family Composition and Age

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

Thus, family composition and age are reported together, highlighting households with children and

elderly members, in table 7.

HUD determines family composition based on the age of household members and the relationship to

the head of household. HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests relationship to head and date

of birth for each household member. Relationship to head is used for program income determination

because income from certain household members does not count toward annual household income. 15

Some states did not collect date of birth for all LIHTC tenants before the HERA mandate, instead opting

to col ect number of household members by age group. Thus, although similar information was

collected, this information also required a change in some states’ TIC forms. HUD uses the date of birth

to determine the age of tenants as of the reporting date, December 31, 2013. The relationship to head

of household is used to identify the head for elderly-headed households.

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

household members. As reported previously, to determine whether all household members are

reported, HUD compared the number of reported members for whom date of birth and other

information is requested with the reported household size at certification. The first three columns of

table 7 provide information on data coverage of household members and date of birth. Florida and

Texas did not provide dates of birth, preventing calculation of age. The first column represents the

number of households in which the reported number of members equals size at certification. As

mentioned previously, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maryland reported all household members for less than

3 percent of LIHTC households, therefore limiting interpretation of their information in this table. The

second and third columns provide reporting rates for date of birth for heads of household and all

members, respectively. North Dakota, Ohio, and the Virgin Islands provided dates of birth for only a

small percentage of reported household members, preventing the calculation of a reliable estimate.

Tabulations for these states were suppressed. Although HUD could not determine whether all

household members were reported in Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maryland due to nonreporting of

household size at certification, enough household members were reported to produce a reasonable

calculation and information for these states is included in table 7.

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

14

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

Valid Date of Birth Provided for

All Household Members

Head of

Al Reported

At Least One

At Least One

Reported Head of

Reporteda

Household

Members

Member < 18

Member ≥ 62

Household ≥ 62

State

(% of Households)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

91.1

100.0

99.8

37.7

27.6

27.1

Alaska

Data Not Reported

97.0

97.5

32.5

25.2

24.5

Arizona

99.6

99.4

99.4

48.3

25.0

24.0

Arkansas

99.4

98.2

98.4

43.9

21.7

21.2

California

95.9

96.8

98.4

38.7

35.5

33.9

Colorado

76.7

97.0

97.8

37.9

26.1

25.5

Connecticutb

0.3

63.4

74.6

16.6

27.1

26.7

Delaware

100.0

99.8

95.0

42.2

27.1

26.4

District of Columbia

44.5

80.2

88.4

29.0

21.1

20.4

Florida

32.0

Data Not Reported

Georgia

100.0

97.1

91.8

36.1

27.1

26.5

Guam

93.3

95.4

98.3

76.9

11.1

6.5

Hawaiib

2.4

68.3

82.6

23.0

34.1

32.6

Idaho

93.3

96.8

97.9

39.6

26.7

26.0

Illinoisc

85.1

100.0

100.0

25.2

50.0

49.7

Indiana

56.6

100.0

99.8

43.3

25.0

24.4

Iowa

97.9

100.0

99.6

32.4

29.9

29.4

Kansas

100.0

95.3

85.9

28.5

28.0

27.7

Kentucky

85.7

99.0

98.4

35.9

27.6

27.1

Louisiana

98.6

95.4

97.1

46.1

21.1

20.4

Maine

99.6

98.8

99.3

33.5

37.1

36.1

Marylandb

0.4

73.9

83.2

20.5

34.4

34.0

Massachusetts

Data Not Reported

77.6

86.9

26.9

28.7

27.9

Michigan

98.9

100.0

99.1

31.0

35.5

34.9

Minnesota

42.2

85.0

85.0

Data Suppressedd

17.8

17.8

Mississippi

99.1

99.9

99.7

51.3

16.9

16.5

Missouri

99.0

100.0

99.5

33.3

30.9

30.5

Montana

95.5

95.7

97.4

29.4

34.2

33.9

Nebraska

92.7

94.1

96.3

36.9

25.2

24.7

Nevada

80.6

95.0

96.2

33.1

35.0

33.3

New Hampshire

99.5

97.5

98.2

39.0

35.0

34.0

New Jersey

100.0

93.2

88.4

25.5

43.9

43.1

New Mexico

96.4

94.0

96.5

44.2

19.1

18.2

New Yorkc

74.5

52.5

63.0

15.5

20.5

20.0

North Carolina

66.8

94.5

96.2

35.4

31.3

30.9

North Dakota

52.1

0.1

0.1

Data Suppressedd

Ohio

41.4

16.9

10.7

Data Suppressedd

Oklahoma

99.7

99.6

99.3

39.8

31.8

31.4

Oregon

99.8

99.7

99.7

37.7

26.2

25.4

Pennsylvania

94.9

95.0

97.0

28.8

45.0

44.5

Puerto Rico

99.8

100.0

99.6

43.3

38.6

38.3

Rhode Island

98.0

99.6

99.7

25.9

41.3

40.6

South Carolina

99.7

99.2

99.2

46.8

23.6

23.0

South Dakota

99.3

95.4

96.8

49.0

22.4

21.8

Tennessee

91.9

100.0

99.9

44.6

19.1

18.4

Texas

38.2

Data Not Reported

Utah

94.6

95.2

43.0

Data Suppressedd

17.9

17.9

Vermont

98.9

99.2

99.0

28.0

41.2

40.3

U.S. Virgin Islands

Data Not Reported

20.4

39.2

Data Suppressedd

Virginia

99.5

99.1

99.1

41.9

25.0

24.0

Washington

97.6

82.4

84.3

28.2

28.4

27.6

West Virginia

Data Not Reported

50.6

67.4

21.5

11.8

11.5

Wisconsin

95.3

94.8

96.5

23.5

41.0

40.3

Wyoming

99.2

99.9

99.2

45.0

22.2

21.9

Total

72.7

72.5

80.9

37.4

32.3

31.5

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. HUD could not evaluate Alaska, Massachusetts, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia because household size at certification was not provided.

b Connecticut, Hawai , and Maryland reported al household members for less than 3 percent of LIHTC households.

c Does not include tenant data from Il inois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

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

15

VII. Annual Household Income

Household income is a central part of LIHTC tenant qualification and ongoing compliance. To qualify for

tax credits, owners of LIHTC properties must elect to maintain maximum income-qualifying limits of

either 50 or 60 percent of Area Median Gross Income (AMGI). LIHTC property managers must submit

detailed household income information to the administering HFA at tenant move in and annual y. 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 the submission of components of household income such as earned

income or income from assets. HUD’s form also does not require the submission of income for each

household member. Because income limits can vary by property depending on the percentage of AMGI

an owner elects to enforce, state TIC forms and the HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form also request

the applicable income limit and maximum percentage of AMGI for each unit.

Although all states receive household income information for compliance, not all states maintained this

information electronically before HERA reporting requirements, especially for properties in the

extended-use period that have less strict income certification rules. These looser reporting rules and lack

of data maintenance hindered the abilities of some HFAs to provide annual household income and

related income limit information for all households. Because program rules do not require annual

recertification for all units, HUD also requests the income certification date. The income tabulations in

this report include only household incomes reported for 2012, 2013, or 201416. This method will exclude some units in properties with 100 percent low-income units and some properties in their extended-use

period, because annual recertifications are not required.

Table 8 shows the median reported income of households and the distribution of income. In terms of

data coverage, total annual household income was reported with certifications dates of 2012, 2013, or

2014 for 84.0 percent of households. Alaska did not report income certification dates for any

households and was thus excluded. Texas reported household income with certification dates in 2012,

2013, or 2014 for less than 10 percent of households, and the District of Columbia reported income

certified in these years for about one-third of households.

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

therefore provides a somewhat skewed comparison. Comparing household income with AMGI provides

a more informative assessment and also provides measures of income more directly relevant for LIHTC

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, specifically 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.

16 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2013, some states, primarily Kentucky,

Montana, and Puerto Rico, provided the most recent income certification information, which was 2014.

16

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income

Households With Reported Annual Income

Properties

Income

Median

$5,001 to

$10,001 to

$15,001 to

Reported

Reported

Income

≤ $5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

> $20,000

State

(%)

(%)

($)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Total

Alabama

38.6

100.0

16,042

5.0

20.5

20.1

21.6

32.8

100.0

Alaskaa

21.1

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

84.0

99.6

19,073

5.4

15.4

17.0

19.5

42.7

100.0

Arkansas

64.2

94.4

12,988

8.0

24.6

20.8

18.3

28.3

100.0

California

72.6

90.2

19,391

2.9

6.2

26.3

16.6

48.0

100.0

Colorado

85.0

100.0

18,330

7.9

17.8

15.0

13.8

45.5

100.0

Connecticut

55.0

94.9

19,126

3.9

19.8

15.3

13.6

47.4

100.0

Delaware

78.1

99.6

17,107

7.8

17.6

18.1

16.2

40.4

100.0

District of Columbiaa

44.0

35.2

23,897

8.1

16.9

10.3

7.4

57.2

100.0

Florida

78.2

85.5

22,452

3.6

10.3

11.1

15.3

59.6

100.0

Georgia

52.7

94.7

17,488

7.1

16.3

17.6

17.4

41.7

100.0

Guam

100.0

52.0

29,977

7.1

4.0

2.7

8.0

78.2

100.0

Hawaii

86.5

97.0

22,105

2.3

16.8

14.1

11.9

54.9

100.0

Idaho

86.1

93.6

16,535

4.9

18.7

21.4

21.2

33.8

100.0

Illinoisb

20.9

100.0

15,701

8.4

18.7

19.9

19.4

33.6

100.0

Indiana

46.8

100.0

16,008

12.1

16.6

17.7

18.4

35.2

100.0

Iowa

66.3

100.0

17,054

14.8

14.1

15.0

15.4

40.7

100.0

Kansas

96.8

96.5

16,906

7.7

16.5

18.5

19.2

38.1

100.0

Kentucky

63.5

100.0

9,327

30.1

22.3

16.8

12.5

18.3

100.0

Louisiana

36.8

84.1

15,856

7.6

22.6

16.9

19.0

33.8

100.0

Maine

79.7

97.6

14,640

6.6

20.5

20.8

18.1

34.0

100.0

Maryland

73.7

94.8

21,520

3.4

15.6

14.2

13.7

53.0

100.0

Massachusetts

60.5

96.1

15,785

4.3

17.7

24.9

14.3

38.8

100.0

Michigan

66.7

100.0

14,356

9.9

23.1

19.4

17.0

30.6

100.0

Minnesota

62.9

97.9

9,736

39.0

12.2

11.0

9.2

28.4

100.0

Mississippi

87.1

100.0

14,539

14.3

19.5

17.7

19.0

29.5

100.0

Missouri

74.1

100.0

16,260

9.8

18.2

17.6

17.1

37.3

100.0

Montana

82.9

95.7

15,102

6.9

21.7

21.2

20.0

30.3

100.0

Nebraska

90.9

94.2

17,040

16.7

11.7

14.7

16.7

40.2

100.0

Nevada

79.9

81.1

18,804

4.5

11.0

18.2

21.1

45.2

100.0

New Hampshire

50.8

85.6

18,744

4.7

12.8

16.2

14.9

51.4

100.0

New Jersey

32.5

97.7

20,800

5.6

13.7

13.8

14.6

52.3

100.0

New Mexico

59.9

92.6

16,098

7.5

18.2

16.5

18.4

39.5

100.0

New Yorkb

34.1

81.8

12,765

22.8

18.7

14.8

12.5

31.3

100.0

North Carolina

66.5

90.3

14,724

9.1

21.3

21.9

18.6

29.0

100.0

North Dakota

88.3

100.0

16,917

8.4

17.8

18.2

15.4

40.2

100.0

Ohio

37.1

51.3

13,692

13.4

22.5

19.1

18.1

27.0

100.0

Oklahoma

56.8

100.0

13,447

12.9

22.0

21.5

20.3

23.3

100.0

Oregon

22.5

74.1

15,600

7.0

21.2

19.7

16.3

35.9

100.0

Pennsylvania

65.7

97.8

14,793

12.7

20.6

19.0

17.7

30.0

100.0

Puerto Rico

66.7

100.0

5,772

45.6

30.8

16.2

5.1

2.3

100.0

Rhode Island

98.8

99.7

12,517

7.1

28.5

20.6

15.5

28.3

100.0

South Carolina

72.4

97.1

14,598

7.7

18.9

19.9

19.8

33.7

100.0

South Dakota

84.4

99.0

17,934

11.1

14.9

16.2

16.1

41.8

100.0

Tennessee

54.1

100.0

15,240

14.1

18.6

17.0

17.1

33.2

100.0

Texasa

50.1

9.4

18,240

7.5

15.5

15.0

18.6

43.4

100.0

Utah

76.8

100.0

19,245

7.8

14.3

14.6

15.5

47.8

100.0

Vermont

44.9

97.3

15,120

3.1

21.9

20.4

17.6

36.9

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

79.2

94.7

20,000

15.6

12.1

12.7

10.8

48.8

100.0

Virginia

73.8

99.4

22,197

6.7

13.5

12.2

12.6

55.0

100.0

Washington

75.3

99.9

18,396

4.8

17.8

16.8

15.9

44.7

100.0

West Virginia

81.9

92.2

12,904

10.6

28.5

21.1

16.1

23.8

100.0

Wisconsin

51.6

100.0

17,708

10.0

14.3

16.7

17.3

41.6

100.0

Wyoming

75.3

100.0

19,200

13.5

10.8

13.4

14.7

47.7

100.0

Total

59.3

84.0

17,000

9.4

15.8

17.9

16.1

40.8

100.0

a Alaska did not report income for any households, preventing tabulations. Texas reported household income for less than 10 percent of households, and the District of Columbia reported income for about one-third of households.

b Does not include tenant data from Il inois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

17

As shown in table 9, household annual income, certified in 2012, 2013, or 2014, was reported for 84.0

percent of units, but income plus the information needed to calculate AMGI was provided for only 61.7

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

2012, the overwhelming majority of these units were excluded because of missing the income limit or

income restriction. Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin did

not provide the necessary information to make the calculation for any of their reported units.

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI

Income,b Income Limit,

Total Household Annual Income as Percent of Derived AMGIa

Properties

Income

and Income Restriction

0.1 to

30.1 to

40.1 to

50.1 to

Reported

Reportedb

Reported

0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

60.0

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

38.6

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Alaska

21.1

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

84.0

99.6

83.0

1.0

29.9

19.8

21.0

16.0

12.2

100.0

Arkansas

64.2

94.4

91.4

0.8

40.3

20.9

17.0

13.3

7.6

100.0

California

72.6

90.2

87.6

0.0

47.0

18.9

15.2

10.5

8.4

100.0

Colorado

85.0

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Connecticut

55.0

94.9

65.8

0.0

54.5

16.0

12.9

10.3

6.3

100.0

Delaware

78.1

99.6

99.6

1.1

44.7

18.2

17.2

10.8

8.0

100.0

District of Columbia

44.0

35.2

22.0

2.3

52.0

13.0

12.7

14.4

5.7

100.0

Florida

78.2

85.5

0.0

Data Not Reported

Georgia

52.7

94.7

94.7

1.6

32.3

19.2

18.7

14.5

13.8

100.0

Guam

100.0

52.0

50.8

1.8

15.0

15.9

22.7

44.1

0.5

100.0

Hawai

86.5

97.0

62.7

0.0

45.3

17.5

13.1

10.0

14.2

100.0

Idaho

86.1

93.6

79.5

1.2

32.7

22.4

23.3

12.4

8.1

100.0

Illinoisc

20.9

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Indiana

46.8

100.0

28.9

0.8

38.6

20.3

21.0

13.7

5.7

100.0

Iowa

66.3

100.0

100.0

0.0

46.2

18.3

16.6

15.1

3.8

100.0

Kansas

96.8

96.5

96.5

2.2

37.5

20.3

19.2

14.3

6.6

100.0

Kentucky

63.5

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Louisiana

36.8

84.1

5.6

1.2

41.0

21.1

18.4

11.4

7.0

100.0

Maine

79.7

97.6

89.0

2.9

47.3

19.5

16.5

9.5

4.4

100.0

Maryland

73.7

94.8

64.6

0.0

50.4

19.4

14.6

10.5

5.2

100.0

Massachusetts

60.5

96.1

77.3

0.0

69.0

12.9

9.2

6.1

2.8

100.0

Michigan

66.7

100.0

100.0

0.0

53.1

17.8

14.4

9.6

5.1

100.0

Minnesota

62.9

97.9

94.8

33.3

35.9

11.4

9.4

7.3

2.8

100.0

Mississippi

87.1

100.0

100.0

0.0

44.8

18.4

17.7

14.1

5.0

100.0

Missouri

74.1

100.0

100.0

0.0

44.8

18.7

16.3

12.8

7.4

100.0

Montana

82.9

95.7

95.7

0.0

45.4

20.8

18.1

12.3

3.4

100.0

Nebraska

90.9

94.2

94.2

0.0

46.1

18.6

17.4

14.0

3.8

100.0

Nevada

79.9

81.1

81.1

0.0

36.2

23.3

20.1

14.9

5.5

100.0

New Hampshire

50.8

85.6

84.5

2.4

41.6

20.7

18.1

11.7

5.6

100.0

New Jersey

32.5

97.7

97.7

1.5

44.4

19.5

15.9

9.4

9.3

100.0

New Mexico

59.9

92.6

82.2

1.7

35.3

18.8

20.6

14.7

8.9

100.0

New Yorkc

34.1

81.8

64.8

18.1

43.1

14.1

11.9

7.2

5.5

100.0

North Carolina

66.5

90.3

79.2

0.0

46.2

20.0

16.8

10.7

6.3

100.0

North Dakota

88.3

100.0

100.0

0.0

48.0

17.9

16.0

11.6

6.6

100.0

Ohio

37.1

51.3

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oklahoma

56.8

100.0

100.0

0.0

48.3

19.9

17.8

10.4

3.6

100.0

Oregon

22.5

74.1

27.3

3.1

42.5

19.7

17.2

11.3

6.2

100.0

Pennsylvania

65.7

97.8

93.4

4.1

49.2

20.7

14.4

8.1

3.5

100.0

Puerto Rico

66.7

100.0

100.0

0.0

67.5

11.8

9.7

7.7

3.3

100.0

Rhode Island

98.8

99.7

88.6

3.3

66.4

14.9

8.8

4.4

2.3

100.0

South Carolina

72.4

97.1

91.5

1.0

39.2

20.9

19.0

13.1

6.8

100.0

South Dakota

84.4

99.0

91.3

4.9

36.1

18.7

18.9

13.8

7.6

100.0

Tennessee

54.1

100.0

98.4

3.1

42.2

17.1

16.8

14.0

6.8

100.0

Texas

50.1

9.4

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

76.8

100.0

98.6

0.0

41.3

19.5

17.3

13.8

8.0

100.0

Vermont

44.9

97.3

96.7

1.2

48.8

18.0

14.7

11.0

6.2

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

79.2

94.7

20.4

0.0

36.5

13.7

13.7

15.5

20.5

100.0

Virginia

73.8

99.4

95.3

1.2

37.8

19.1

20.1

15.4

6.3

100.0

Washington

75.3

99.9

99.9

1.1

39.7

21.6

19.5

11.1

7.0

100.0

West Virginia

81.9

92.2

52.1

0.0

55.8

17.7

13.5

8.2

4.8

100.0

Wisconsin

51.6

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wyoming

75.3

100.0

100.0

0.0

46.5

18.4

17.7

9.9

7.5

100.0

Total

59.3

84.0

61.7

2.9

44.8

18.3

16.0

11.3

6.7

100.0

AMGI = Area Median Gross Income.

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

b Income certified in 2012, 2013, or 2014.

c Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

18

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments

A critical goal of LIHTCs is to provide affordable housing by limiting the share of a household’s income

paid in rent, referred to as rent burden. LIHTCs restrict the maximum rent that can be charged for a unit

to 30 percent of either 50 or 60 percent of AMGI, according to that chosen by the developer during the

application process. Although LIHTCs set a maximum rent, actual rents are often less and can fluctuate

with market conditions. Unlike in most housing programs, income and rent limits are set for the unit, do

not vary directly with tenant income, and may exceed 30 percent of income at qualification. In addition,

after a tenant has qualified for a unit based on the unit’s income limits, increases or decreases in a

tenant’s household income do not result in corresponding changes in rent paid. The combination of

these factors may result in the share of a household’s income spent on rent varying substantial y from

30 percent.

HUD’s LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests components of gross rent, which include tenant-paid

rent, utility allowance, and other nonoptional charges. Table 10 shows the distribution of gross rent as a

percentage of annual household income. To calculate this distribution, both household income and rent

must be provided. As in the previous section, this section includes only household incomes certified in

2012, 2013, or 2014. The first column of table 10 lists the percentage of occupied units with both annual

household income and gross rent. Overall, 81.4 percent of reported units included both income certified

in 2012, 2013, or 2014 and rent. Income certification dates and percent rent restriction were missing for

all households in Alaska, preventing calculation. The District of Columbia and Texas reported this

information for only a smal portion of their households.

19

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income

Household Incomea

Tenant-Paid Rent as Percent of Total Annual Household Incomea

and Rent Reported

0

0.1 to 30.0

30.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 50.0

50.1 or Greater Income = $0b

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

100.0

5.0

63.0

17.2

7.2

5.9

1.7

100.0

Alaska

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arizona

92.7

0.0

51.3

25.3

12.9

9.9

0.6

100.0

Arkansas

87.2

0.0

69.9

15.8

6.9

7.0

0.4

100.0

California

90.2

1.0

52.2

20.8

12.6

13.4

0.0

100.0

Colorado

100.0

3.1

52.3

22.2

10.5

9.1

2.8

100.0

Connecticut

94.9

4.0

69.1

15.2

5.9

5.9

0.0

100.0

Delaware

99.6

9.1

68.6

12.5

3.5

5.2

1.1

100.0

District of Columbiac

35.2

9.2

58.2

18.4

5.1

7.0

2.0

100.0

Florida

84.3

2.4

38.3

33.7

14.8

10.3

0.4

100.0

Georgia

94.7

9.2

57.0

18.1

7.7

6.4

1.6

100.0

Guam

52.0

8.0

65.8

12.9

6.7

3.1

3.6

100.0

Hawaii

97.0

1.1

67.4

15.6

7.5

8.3

0.0

100.0

Idaho

93.5

3.2

52.5

23.8

10.0

9.3

1.2

100.0

Illinoisd

100.0

4.3

57.2

16.4

7.4

11.0

3.7

100.0

Indiana

100.0

6.5

58.4

20.4

7.3

6.8

0.7

100.0

Iowa

94.8

0.0

58.3

18.3

6.9

16.5

0.0

100.0

Kansas

96.5

5.8

60.4

17.8

6.8

7.0

2.2

100.0

Kentucky

100.0

78.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.4

100.0

Louisiana

74.5

0.0

54.6

22.8

9.8

12.0

0.7

100.0

Maine

91.8

0.0

63.9

19.0

7.8

7.6

1.6

100.0

Maryland

94.8

4.1

55.5

20.6

10.3

9.5

0.0

100.0

Massachusetts

96.1

1.9

76.7

11.8

4.0

5.6

0.0

100.0

Michigan

92.2

0.0

63.5

18.0

8.4

10.1

0.0

100.0

Minnesota

97.8

2.2

42.6

11.3

4.6

6.0

33.4

100.0

Mississippi

88.8

0.0

60.3

19.0

8.2

12.5

0.0

100.0

Missouri

89.7

0.0

74.9

14.4

5.1

5.6

0.0

100.0

Montana

92.3

0.0

63.2

19.6

8.0

9.2

0.0

100.0

Nebraska

88.4

0.0

59.7

15.7

5.4

19.1

0.0

100.0

Nevada

78.2

0.0

42.7

27.6

17.1

12.6

0.0

100.0

New Hampshire

80.5

0.0

56.8

20.8

10.4

10.3

1.8

100.0

New Jersey

97.7

3.2

60.3

16.9

8.1

10.0

1.5

100.0

New Mexico

88.3

0.0

48.1

25.0

12.5

12.5

1.8

100.0

New Yorkd

81.2

0.7

52.9

13.6

4.9

8.5

19.4

100.0

North Carolina

83.0

0.0

67.4

16.8

6.8

9.0

0.0

100.0

North Dakota

95.8

0.0

64.2

17.7

6.8

11.4

0.0

100.0

Ohio

51.3

9.5

58.7

15.4

6.6

6.7

3.2

100.0

Oklahoma

88.9

0.0

66.7

18.5

7.1

7.7

0.0

100.0

Oregon

70.2

0.0

46.8

20.1

13.0

17.6

2.5

100.0

Pennsylvania

97.8

4.7

63.2

13.5

5.5

4.9

8.2

100.0

Puerto Rico

70.9

0.0

85.7

6.2

2.3

5.7

0.0

100.0

Rhode Island

96.0

0.0

83.9

7.3

2.5

3.9

2.5

100.0

South Carolina

87.0

0.0

61.4

20.3

8.7

9.1

0.5

100.0

South Dakota

85.4

0.0

65.8

16.3

7.1

8.6

2.2

100.0

Tennessee

100.0

8.9

57.5

17.4

6.2

5.4

4.6

100.0

Texasc

9.4

5.5

47.5

25.3

11.0

9.5

1.3

100.0

Utah

95.9

0.0

53.9

22.4

10.1

13.6

0.0

100.0

Vermont

92.7

0.0

69.9

14.9

7.2

7.3

0.8

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

94.7

21.1

58.7

11.5

5.9

2.8

0.0

100.0

Virginia

92.6

0.0

49.9

25.9

11.2

12.5

0.5

100.0

Washington

99.9

1.3

51.4

22.3

12.0

11.8

1.1

100.0

West Virginia

92.2

8.0

67.4

11.9

5.1

7.6

0.0

100.0

Wisconsin

100.0

1.9

49.4

23.6

10.4

7.7

6.9

100.0

Wyoming

87.5

0.0

64.9

19.1

6.5

9.5

0.0

100.0

Total

81.4

3.0

55.6

19.7

9.0

9.5

3.1

100.0

a Includes only households with income certified in 2012, 2013, or 2014.

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

c The District of Columbia and Texas reported income certification dates and percent rent restriction for a low percentage of households.

d Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

20

IX.

Use of Rental Assistance

As shown in table 9, two-thirds of LIHTC households earn less than 40 percent of AMGI, yet federal

maximum unit rents are established to be affordable for households at 50 or 60 percent of AMGI. This

gap may partially be filled 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.

Table 11 shows the use of rental assistance from all sources—federal, state, local, and nonprofit

organizations—for reported LIHTC tenants. Nine states17 did not report any households not receiving rental assistance—that is, households receiving $0 of rental assistance—but did report a large

percentage of households with an unknown status; that is, the amount of rental assistance was reported

as missing. Although these states could not confirm, it is likely that Not Reported in table 11 for these

states, and possibly others, actual y represents households that did not receive rental assistance; that is, households receiving $0 in rental assistance.

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

assistance, which is shown in table 12. Inconsistencies between the amount of federal rental assistance

received and the reported source of rental assistance prevent a confident determination on the

completeness of this information. The first column in table 12 provides the percentage of units that

received federal rental assistance; that is, the reported amount of federal rental assistance was greater

than $0. The second column shows the percentage of units for which the HFA identified the

programmatic source of federal rental assistance. For most states, the source of federal rental

assistance was reported, indicating that the household received assistance, for more units than for

which a positive amount was provided. The 23 states18 highlighted in gray in table 12 did not report the source of federal rental assistance for any households.

17 Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont.

18 Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,

Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

21

Table 11. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance

Properties

Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance

Reported

Not Reported

$0

> $0

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

38.6

0.0

58.4

41.6

100.0

Alaska

21.1

8.0

41.2

50.9

100.0

Arizona

84.0

0.0

78.5

21.5

100.0

Arkansas

64.2

50.4

0.0

49.6

100.0

California

72.6

2.7

65.7

31.7

100.0

Colorado

85.0

0.0

79.8

20.2

100.0

Connecticut

55.0

0.0

64.0

36.0

100.0

Delaware

78.1

0.0

46.4

53.6

100.0

District of Columbia

44.0

0.0

65.2

34.8

100.0

Florida

78.2

0.0

81.8

18.2

100.0

Georgia

52.7

0.0

62.6

37.4

100.0

Guam

100.0

0.0

77.4

22.6

100.0

Hawaii

86.5

0.0

73.1

26.9

100.0

Idaho

86.1

3.4

63.5

33.1

100.0

Illinoisa

20.9

0.0

55.3

44.7

100.0

Indiana

46.8

0.0

57.2

42.8

100.0

Iowa

66.3

0.0

59.8

40.2

100.0

Kansas

96.8

0.0

60.7

39.3

100.0

Kentucky

63.5

0.0

55.6

44.4

100.0

Louisiana

36.8

63.6

0.0

36.4

100.0

Maine

79.7

41.3

0.0

58.7

100.0

Maryland

73.7

0.0

72.4

27.6

100.0

Massachusetts

60.5

0.0

48.2

51.8

100.0

Michigan

66.7

0.0

48.8

51.2

100.0

Minnesota

62.9

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Mississippi

87.1

0.0

41.1

58.9

100.0

Missouri

74.1

0.0

53.8

46.2

100.0

Montana

82.9

0.0

52.6

47.4

100.0

Nebraska

90.9

0.0

62.4

37.6

100.0

Nevada

79.9

0.0

68.8

31.2

100.0

New Hampshire

50.8

54.9

0.0

45.1

100.0

New Jersey

32.5

0.0

61.3

38.7

100.0

New Mexico

59.9

66.9

0.0

33.1

100.0

New Yorka

34.1

45.8

33.5

20.7

100.0

North Carolina

66.5

0.0

53.1

46.9

100.0

North Dakota

88.3

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Ohio

37.1

3.0

39.7

57.3

100.0

Oklahoma

56.8

0.0

48.1

51.9

100.0

Oregon

22.5

66.6

0.0

33.4

100.0

Pennsylvania

65.7

0.0

47.2

52.8

100.0

Puerto Rico

66.7

0.0

30.5

69.5

100.0

Rhode Island

98.8

22.6

0.0

77.4

100.0

South Carolina

72.4

58.1

0.0

41.9

100.0

South Dakota

84.4

0.0

63.4

36.6

100.0

Tennessee

54.1

0.0

53.7

46.3

100.0

Texas

50.1

0.0

62.5

37.5

100.0

Utah

76.8

0.0

71.2

28.8

100.0

Vermont

44.9

39.7

0.0

60.3

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

79.2

0.0

98.3

1.7

100.0

Virginia

73.8

0.0

64.3

35.7

100.0

Washington

75.3

0.0

73.4

26.6

100.0

West Virginia

81.9

0.0

72.1

27.9

100.0

Wisconsin

51.6

0.0

63.9

36.1

100.0

Wyoming

75.3

0.0

68.9

31.1

100.0

Total

59.3

6.6

57.5

35.9

100.0

a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

22

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

Reported

Source of Federal Rental Assistance

Amount of

Source of

USDA

Federal

Federal

Public

HUD HCV

HUD

Section 521

Other

Rental

Rental

HUD

HUD Section 8

Housing

HOME

Program,

Project-

Rental

Federal

Assistance

Assistance

Multifamily

Moderate

Operating

Rental

Tenant-

Based

Assistance

Rental

> $0

Reported

PBRA

Rehabilitation

Subsidy

Assistance

Based

Voucher

Program

Assistance

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

39.5

100.0

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.3

2.5

0.0

10.2

84.4

100.0

Alaska

30.3

30.1

9.8

33.0

0.0

0.0

33.0

10.1

0.0

14.1

100.0

Arizona

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arkansas

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

California

27.9

27.7

18.0

4.4

0.6

0.1

24.7

19.4

10.6

22.2

100.0

Colorado

17.3

100.0

0.0

15.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

84.6

100.0

Connecticut

35.0

45.1

9.0

0.4

2.8

0.0

28.0

39.0

3.2

17.6

100.0

Delaware

26.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

District of Columbia

6.4

14.9

19.1

0.4

0.0

0.0

16.5

38.6

0.0

25.5

100.0

Florida

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Georgia

18.5

0.0

Data Not Reported

Guam

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Hawai

23.7

37.1

21.1

2.0

0.0

0.0

16.9

35.3

1.8

22.9

100.0

Idaho

12.2

14.4

12.5

0.0

0.4

0.0

7.8

4.9

43.0

31.4

100.0

Illinoisa

43.7

100.0

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

32.9

0.0

0.1

60.3

100.0

Indiana

30.8

71.0

12.0

0.0

8.1

0.1

7.0

0.0

3.4

69.5

100.0

Iowa

0.0

29.0

47.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

45.6

0.0

0.0

6.9

100.0

Kansas

31.3

0.0

Data Not Reported

Kentucky

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Louisiana

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Maine

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Maryland

21.2

32.9

1.8

0.0

0.4

0.0

30.4

57.1

3.4

6.9

100.0

Massachusetts

43.4

48.4

13.7

0.8

0.1

0.0

24.5

48.4

1.2

11.2

100.0

Michigan

0.0

38.4

62.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.9

0.0

0.0

22.7

100.0

Minnesota

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Mississippi

0.0

51.8

37.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

22.8

0.0

0.0

40.2

100.0

Missouri

0.0

34.6

64.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

27.6

0.0

0.0

7.5

100.0

Montana

0.0

40.1

59.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

31.1

0.0

0.0

9.7

100.0

Nebraska

0.0

29.1

34.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

59.5

0.0

0.0

5.8

100.0

Nevada

0.0

13.1

86.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.0

0.0

12.3

100.0

New Hampshire

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Jersey

25.5

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Mexico

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Yorka

16.0

16.5

6.6

9.3

2.9

0.9

28.8

30.1

5.5

16.0

100.0

North Carolina

39.8

39.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

49.8

0.0

0.0

50.2

100.0

North Dakota

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Ohio

5.2

17.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

0.3

94.7

100.0

Oklahoma

0.0

36.2

18.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

39.5

0.0

0.0

41.6

100.0

Oregon

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Pennsylvania

32.6

35.5

0.0

31.9

0.0

0.1

0.0

60.4

0.0

7.7

100.0

Puerto Rico

0.0

65.2

93.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.7

0.0

0.0

1.7

100.0

Rhode Island

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

South Carolina

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

South Dakota

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Tennessee

46.3

100.0

13.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

4.8

0.0

3.9

78.2

100.0

Texas

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

0.0

23.8

1.8

82.7

0.0

14.8

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.1

100.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

U.S. Virgin Islands

1.7

45.9

0.0

0.0

10.8

0.0

26.8

4.3

58.1

0.0

100.0

Virginia

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Washington

25.6

25.8

30.4

0.2

0.0

7.7

43.1

6.5

10.0

2.1

100.0

West Virginia

24.0

54.6

3.9

0.0

1.2

0.0

24.9

24.6

30.4

15.0

100.0

Wisconsin

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wyoming

0.0

25.9

57.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

42.3

0.0

0.0

0.1

100.0

Total

13.7

23.2

19.8

4.4

1.0

0.4

19.2

12.5

4.0

38.8

100.0

HCV = housing choice voucher. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LIHTC = low-income housing tax credit. PBRA =

Project-Based Rental Assistance. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.

a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ subal ocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.

23

Document Outline

Cover

TItle Page

Contents

List of Tables

I. Introduction

II. Comparison of 2012 and 2013 Data Submissions

III. Assessing Completeness of 2013 Tenant Data

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

B. Properties in the Tenant Data

C. LIHTC Rent-Restricted Units

D. Household Members

IV. Race and Ethnicity of Tenants

V. Disability Status

VI. Family Composition and Age

VII. Annual Household Income

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments

IX. Use of Rental Assistance