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

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

General Description of the Data

Bibliography


General Description of the Data

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

This report does not cover other types of subsidy, such as Rehabilitation grants, Homesteading, the Farmers Home Administration, etc.

The database here is a diamond mine (or a coal mine?) of facts about HUD subsidies. This report only scratches its surface, and points out various topics that can be explored.

Basic Counts


Subsidized Housing Units Available % Occupied % Reported % Moved in during Past Year Average People per Unit
U.S. Total 4,814,983
75 12 2.3
Indian Housing 67,744
48 9 3.7
Public Housing 1,326,224 90 80 10 2.4
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 1,346,306
74 14 2.7
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 105,845
62 16 2.3
S.8 New+Substantial Rehabilitation 897,160
76 11 1.6
S.236 447,382
73 15 2.1
Other Subsidy 292,237
65 15 2.4
Housing Tax Credit 332,085



Note: Blank means data not available


Occupancy

Occupancy rates are only collected for Public Housing. We assume plausible levels of occupancy in other programs for purposes of calculating the completeness of reporting.

Completeness

Overall reporting is 73% of occupied units (so we have 27% missing data). Public Housing, Certificates+Vouchers, Section 8 New, and Section 236 have the highest reporting, from 73–80%. The smaller programs range from 48% to 65% complete. In Tax Credits, no reporting is required.

On another aspect of completeness, we believe this count of Tax Credit units placed in service is fairly complete. There are estimates that over 600,000 Tax Credit units have been allocated, but for this report the appropriate figure is the number of unit s that have been placed in service, given above.

Some of the households counted above in Section 236 projects have incomes high enough to pay full rent, without subsidy. These households are not reported to HUD and their characteristics are not included in this report.

Household Sizes

Sizes range from 1.6 people per unit in Section 8 New projects, to 3.7 people per unit in Indian Housing. This variation is related to age: programs with smaller household sizes have more elderly, as shown on the next page.

Total People Served

We can multiply housing units times the average people per unit to find the total number of people served by the programs: about 11 million.


Rent, Income, and Age of Head of Household


Rent per Month Household Income Majority of Income is from: Income Mix: % of Average Income Age of Head or Spouse, whichever is older
Average ($000s) % $1–4,999 % $1–9,999 % $20,000 or More % Wages + Business % Welfare % Under 25 % 25–44 % 45–61 % 62 or More % 85 or More
U.S. Total 186 8.8 20 71 5 24 21 67 10 41 17 32 5
Indian Housing 182 16.0 13 40 27 55 16 79 5 54 26 15 1
Public Housing 184 8.5 23 74 5 24 20 76 11 36 20 33 5
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers 197 8.7 20 71 4 26 28 61 9 56 18 17 2
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 160 7.2 30 80 2 24 31 66 18 47 18 17 2
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab. 182 8.6 12 72 2 13 10 51 7 22 11 60 9
S.236 180 10.0 16 60 7 33 17 61 13 37 15 35 5
Other Subsidy 163 9.4 27 69 9 34 26 80 17 43 17 23 3
Housing Tax Credit No data available; reporting is not required

Rent and Income

Average rents range very narrowly from $160 per month in Moderate Rehabilitation projects to $197 per month in Certificates+Vouchers. Rents in Indian Housing do not mirror their relatively higher incomes, since most Indian Housing is Mutual Ownership, with a distinct calculation for household cost. The calculations are shown on the data collection form (50058).

Incomes range from $7,200 per year in Moderate Rehabilitation to $16,000 per year in Indian Housing. If we divide by average household size, income per person ranges from $3,100 in Moderate Rehabilitation and $3,200 in Certificates+Vouchers, to $5,300 in Section 8 New. The lowest averages of income per person are in the programs with most welfare recipients. Welfare here includes only Aid to Families with Dependent Children and General Assistance.

Income mix is expressed as a percent of the average income. The larger the percent, the more income mix there is.(1) These figures reflect the spread of incomes across the country, including high and low income areas. The mix is usually narrower in any one project or neighborhood.(2) The national income mix is relatively wider in Public and Indian Housing and in the 'Other Subsidy' projects. These programs serve a wide range of incomes across the country. The mix is narrowest in Section 8 New, where most households are elderly, living on Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI); these incomes vary little between or within projects. Some Section 8, Section 236, and 'Other Subsidy' projects have unsubsidized households, who are not counted in this report, and extend the income mix. The surroundings of Certificates+Vouchers likewise include unsubsidized higher income households. Figures include different household sizes, without adjustment, so some mix is due to larger households typically having (and needing) more income than smaller households.

Age of Head

Section 8 New has by far the highest concentration of elderly at 60%. Public Housing and Section 236 are next at 33–35%, and the other programs are 16–23%. It may be noted that 5% of subsidized households (about 230,000) have a head or spouse age 85 or older, which gerontologists term the 'very old.'


Disabilities, Minorities, and Number of Bedrooms


Head or Spouse has Disability % Minority % Black % Hispanic% Native American % Asian or Pacific Islander Average Difference between Agency & Project (in % Minority) Number of Bedrooms
As % of under 62 As % of 62 or More 0 1 2 3 or more
U.S. Total 21 31 56 38 14 2 3
6 37 33 25
Indian Housing 8 24 96 1 1 94 0
1 6 11 82
Public Housing 22 27 69 48 18 0 2 13 8 40 26 26
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers 21 38 54 36 15 1 2 13 2 22 42 33
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 21 38 63 40 21 1 2
13 28 41 17
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab. 34
36 23 10 0 2
7 64 20 9
S.236 14
50 34 12 0 5
9 34 38 19
Other Subsidy 14
68 53 10 1 4
4 27 43 26
Housing Tax Credit No data available; reporting is not required 4 40 42 14

Disabilities

There are large numbers of people with disabilities in some programs. Overall a fifth of the non-elderly have disabilities. Also, a fifth to two-fifths of the elderly have disabilities, but this is not necessarily surprising; many of us develop disabiliti es as we age. The definition includes mental and physical disabilities; for a summary of the definition, see the last page of form 50058.

Minorities

Overall, 56% of households are minorities (38% Black, 14% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 3% Native American). Indian Housing, of course, is almost entirely minority (for a recent description of Indian Housing see Kingsley et al 1996). The lowest minority rate, 36%, is in Section 8 New projects.

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

For each Public Housing project, 'Average Difference' is the difference between: (a) % minority for the project and (b) overall % minority for Public Housing at the agency. We average the figures from each project to have a total for each agency, state or other area.(3) Averages for states and the United States exclude agencies with under 5% or over 95% minority, or only one project, since differences are not meaningful in such agencies.

In Public Housing, households are assigned to projects by the housing agency.(4) Thus, racial differences would not be expected in projects, except by chance, or by households of one race moving out of or refusing to move into particular projects . The 13% national figure is a mix of random variation in some agencies, current practices, and past segregation patterns.(5) It may be useful in reviewing a particular agency to notice whether its figure is above or below this national average, but no particular figure proves discrimination. Particular practices at individual agencies need to be studied before any conclusions can be drawn.

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

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

The average difference happens to be 13 points in both Public Housing and Certificates+Vouchers, but this does not mean the programs operate in the same manner. As the next table shows, Certificate+Voucher holders live in neighborhoods with many fewer minorities than Public Housing tenants: 35% minority on average, compared to 63%. The measure on the table above is different: Minority and white Certificate+Voucher holders live in different neighborhoods from each other to some degree. This difference reflects that households often lived in racially disparate neighborhoods before they applied to the programs. Some stayed in place. Others moved, but not far (Léger and Kennedy 1990). Thus, the minority and white subsidized households do not end up equally distributed in the same neighborhoods as each other. We do know from the next table that Certificate+Voucher holders end up in more integrated neighborhoods than Public Housing tenants. But there is still a difference in the locations of white and minority Certificate+Voucher holders.

The minority difference is limited by the percent minority in the agency: for example some large agencies are nearly all minority and can only have small differences. An agency that is 5% or 95% minority can have an average difference as high as 9.5, while an agency that is 20% or 80% minority can have an average difference as high as 32. A 50% minority agency can have an average difference as high as 50.

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


Social, Financial, and Neighborhood Characteristics


% Both Spouses and Children % No Spouse, with Children % Female Head % Over-housed: More Bedrooms than People % with $5,000 in Assets Their Average Assets ($000s) % with Utility Allowance Their Average Utility Allowance Average Years since Moved in Average Months on Waiting List Surrounding Census Tracts
% in Poverty % Minority % Single Family Owners
U.S. Total 7 41 78 7 6 29 64 65 6 19 26 45 34
Indian Housing 34 36 57 24 1 27 75 130
20


Public Housing 6 39 76 8 3 29 42 49 7 10 38 63 25
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers 9 56 83 9 1 23 88 82
25 19 36 43
S.8 Moderate Rehab. 7 49 75 5 1 22 78 72
11 28 51 32
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab. 4 19 77 3 16 30 67 49 5
20 34 36
S.236 9 36 75 8 9 31 52 52 5
21 40 33
Other Subsidy 9 47 77 9 4 29 55 52 5
28 55 32
Housing Tax Credit No data available; reporting is not required 21 37 40


Social Characteristics

There is some variety among the programs in social items. Couples with children are not common, except in Indian Housing, since they tend to have more income than elderly and single parents. The first two columns above can be added to count all households with children. These figures are based on age, so they include foster children, nephews, grandchildren; anyone under 18. Female heads are common, since they include most households with no spouse present, as well as most elderly. The extent of over-housing may limit access for large households. It results partly from households that are not relocated to smaller units when their children grow up and leave.

Financial Characteristics

Assets over $5,000 are taken into account in setting rent. They are not common except in Section 8 New, with its many elderly households. Utility allowances are given when individual metering and billing are used, so they show the extent of individual metering. The size of the allowance is estimated by each Housing Agency to reflect typical bills. Households may actually spend more or less.

Length of Stay and Wait

For some programs we have length of time since the household moved in. It averages 6 years, with little variation. The average total stay of households, until they move out or die, is twice this span, or 12 years.(6) Time on waiting lists varies more than length of stay, from 10 months in Public Housing, to 25 months in Certificates+Vouchers. This is the average waiting time for people moving in, who tend to be in the higher priority categories ('preferences'), which give them the shortest waits. The average wait for people remaining on the waiting list may be longer.

Neighborhoods

To describe the neighborhoods of these households, we show three measures of the Census tracts surrounding them. A Census tract is an area averaging 1,500 homes, chosen by local communities in cooperation with the Census Bureau, as an area that is somewhat homogeneous socioeconomically. In low density areas Census tracts cover large land areas, so they are broader than the common idea of a neighborhood. The figures on the Census tract include the subsidized households there, so large projects can dominate or overwhelm the neighborhood figures. Tax Credit projects return to the discussion here, since we do have their addresses, and can describe their neighborhoods, even though they do not have to report on their occupants.

On average in the neighborhoods of most of the subsidy programs, 19–28% of households have incomes below the poverty limit, except in neighborhoods of Public Housing, which average 38%. There is more range in neighborhood minority rates, from 34–40% minority for Section 8 New, Certificates+Vouchers, Tax Credits, and Section 236, to 63% minority in the neighborhoods of Public Housing projects.

To provide a different view of these neighborhoods, we show the percent of households in the neighborhood that own single family homes. The extremes are a low of 25% for Public Housing neighborhoods, and highs of 40–43% for Tax Credit and Certificate+Voucher neighborhoods.


Number of Subsidized Units by Percent Poor in Tract


Total Up to 9% Poor 10-19% Poor 20-29% Poor 30-39% Poor 40% or more
Total 3,562,000 706,000 988,000 665,000 485,000 718,000
Indian Housing 4,000 426 1,000 1,000 1,000 181
Public Housing 859,000 52,000 120,000 146,000 153,000 389,000
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 976,000 240,000 347,000 203,000 110,000 76,000
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 794,000 217,000 242,000 142,000 93,000 100,000
S.236 423,000 98,000 137,000 80,000 54,000 55,000
Other Subsidy 253,000 36,000 61,000 48,000 43,000 64,000
Housing Tax Credit 252,000 63,000 78,000 46,000 32,000 34,000


Number of Subsidized Units by Percent Minority in Tract


Total Up to 19% Minority 20-39% Minority 40-59% Minority 60-79% Minority 80% or more Minority
Total 3,562,000 1,335,000 564,000 394,000 339,000 930,000
Indian Housing 4,000 2,000 1,000 418 214 143
Public Housing 859,000 159,000 93,000 90,000 96,000 421,000
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 976,000 447,000 172,000 114,000 95,000 149,000
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 794,000 390,000 136,000 75,000 56,000 136,000
S.236 423,000 163,000 82,000 53,000 40,000 85,000
Other Subsidy 253,000 61,000 38,000 34,000 31,000 90,000
Housing Tax Credit 252,000 113,000 42,000 26,000 22,000 49,000

Distribution of Neighborhoods

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

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

Similarly Public Housing tends to be in minority tracts. 'Other Subsidies' are in minority tracts almost as much, but the remaining programs tend to be in tracts with fewer minorities.


Total Number of Subsidized Units by Concentration in Tract


Total Subsidized Units Subsidized Units Have: Their Tracts Have:*
Average Income % Elderly % Minority % Minority % Poor
Total Subsidized are: 3,563,000 $8,921 34 55 44 25
Up to 9% of Tract 1,488,000 $8,788 32 42 27 16
10-19% of Tract 904,000 $8,816 38 51 40 22
20-29% of Tract 376,000 $8,804 36 62 54 29
30-39% of Tract 208,000 $8,587 32 72 62 34
40-49% of Tract 145,000 $9,009 31 78 70 40
50% or more 442,000 $9,796 31 87 85 51
Median 12%

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


Spatial Concentration

The data file has a summary record for each Census tract. There are about 61,000 Census tracts in the country, with a 1990 population of 250 million. Subsidized housing is in about 45,000 Census tracts, with a 1990 population of 200 million. Many of these tracts have no subsidized projects, and only a few Certificates+Vouchers, which households can take to any unit with a moderate rent. Even Certificates+Vouchers are fairly concentrated, because of households' preferences, and a lack of transportation and child care to permit a wide search in a reasonable time. The reports show some of this concentration: they show the tracts with the most subsidized units. The data file allows one to compare all tracts, with and without various kinds of subsidies.

We have tallied subsidized units by some of the characteristics of their tracts. Note that, as on the previous page, the total units are lower than in other tables, and some statistics differ, since we lack some addresses and cannot place them in tracts. Furthermore this table, like all tables in the report, is based on the public summary file, so it does not have data where few households were reported, and data were suppressed. The rate of concentration ranges widely as a percent of the homes in the tract, but the median subsidized unit is in a tract that is 12% subsidized.

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

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

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


Total U.S. Population by Concentration of Subsidized Units


Total People Their Tracts Have:*
% Minority % Poor
Total Subsidized are: 248,706,000 24 13
Not in Tract 49,321,000 18 10
Up to 9% of Tract 175,400,000 23 13
10-19% of Tract 16,572,000 41 22
20-29% of Tract 3,857,000 56 30
30-39% of Tract 1,444,000 65 34
40-49% of Tract 799,000 73 40
50% or more 1,313,000 85 51
Median 1%

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


Number of Agencies and Projects by Size of Agency


Number of Agencies Number of Projects # Tracts
Indian Housing Public Housing Certificates + Vouchers Indian Housing Public Housing Certificates + Vouchers
Total 177 3,192 2,554 2,400 13,537 63,729
1-99 Total Units in HA 45 1,190 493 163 1,760 2,192
100-299 Units in HA 66 850 736 538 2,304 6,306
300-499 Units in HA 30 375 414 456 1,462 5,970
500-999 Units in HA 21 358 423 459 1,747 10,150
1,000-2,999 Units in HA 11 210 240 395 1,596 9,697
3,000-4,999 Units in HA 3 143 171 189 1,843 13,757
5,000-9,999 Units in HA 1 39 45 200 1,043 6,390
10,000-29,999 Units in HA
22 27
958 7,337
30,000+ Units in HA
5 5
824 1,930

Size of Agency

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

Where one agency has more than one numeric code, we count it only once, but other publications may count each code separately. Also we count agencies based on total units in all programs. If they were grouped by the number of units in any one program, there would be fewer large agencies and more small ones.


Number of Subsidized Units and Projects by Size of Project


Total Project Size
1-49 Subsidized Units 50-99 Subsidized Units 100-199 Subsidized Units 200-499 Subsidized Units 500-999 Subsidized Units 1,000 or More Subsidized Units
Total Units 3,363,000 602,000 764,000 1,000,000 664,000 173,000 161,000
Number of Projects 48,057 26,382 11,210 7,648 2,480 261 76
Indian Housing 68,000 41,000 20,000 6,000 1,000

Number of Projects 2,350 1,976 321 48 5

Public Housing 1,326,000 157,000 231,000 311,000 325,000 147,000 155,000
Number of Projects 13,493 6,136 3,498 2,418 1,151 217 73
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab. 897,000 197,000 273,000 320,000 102,000 3,000 3,000
Number of Projects 15,179 8,303 3,966 2,494 410 4 2
S.236 447,000 29,000 98,000 188,000 122,000 8,000 3,000
Number of Projects 4,224 958 1,377 1,387 487 14 1
Other Subsidy 292,000 33,000 79,000 103,000 67,000 10,000
Number of Projects 3,367 1,187 1,128 781 255 16
Housing Tax Credit 332,000 145,000 63,000 72,000 46,000 6,000
Number of Projects 9,445 7,823 920 520 172 10

Size of Projects

Most projects are small, under 50 units. But most units are in larger projects, those with 100 or more units. The smallest projects are common in all programs, while the very largest projects are primarily in Public Housing. This table omits the 95 Public and Indian projects in the data file with zero units, since they are usually not really separate projects.


Housing Sub-programs


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


644,509
LMSA/RAPSUP Units


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

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


Multiple Subsidies

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

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

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


Largest 12 Housing Agencies


Units Available % Occupied % Reported Average Rent Average Income ($000s) % Mainly Wages % Mainly Welfare % Age 62 or More Disabilities as % of under 62 % Minority % Black % Hispanic % No Spouse, with Children Years since Moved in Months on Waiting List Census Tracts
% in Poverty % Minority
U.S. Total 4,814,983 75
186 8.8 24 21 32 21 56 38 14 41 6 19 26 45
Public Housing 1,326,224 90 80 184 8.5 24 20 33 22 69 48 18 39 7 10 38 63
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers 1,346,306
74 197 8.7 26 28 17 21 54 36 15 56
25 19 36
New York City HA NY 005 (215,362 units) Public 157,229 98 86 302 13.0 29 6 34 27 93 53 37 17
34 40 89
C+V 58,133
91 193 8.4 15 40 28 15 64 41 22 50
34

Puerto Rico State Agency RQ 901 (64,945 units) Public 57,288 97 58 47 3.1 35 21 21 8 99 0 99 40
20

C+V 7,076
96 90 4.9 36 17 14 6 99 0 99 45
15

Chicago HA IL 004 (57,657 units) Public 40,949 80 36











67 91
C+V 15,197
1













Los Angeles City CA 004 (37,848 units) Public 9,219 96 90 218 9.9 27 49 12 9 98 32 62 75 6 23 44 91
C+V 28,134
56 242 9.7 20 48 15 16 87 64 21 63
33 26 82
Philadelphia HA PA 002 (31,989 units) (7) Public 22,672 71 26













C+V 8,528
29













Baltimore City MD 002 (25,690 units) Public 18,053 86 96 168 7.6 17 29 33 18 94 92 0 43 11 27 49 85
C+V 6,672
80 169 7.4 25 37 11 23 92 92 0 67
52 24 72
NY State Agency NY 902 (22,209 units) C+V 20,585
99 240 10.0 29 22 21 26 35 23 12 47
25 16 27
Miami/Dade FL 005 (20,653 units) Public 11,475 81 99 154 7.1 14 22 43 24 98 64 34 43 7 21

C+V 4,986
86 171 7.7 20 21 35 15 99 45 54 49
82 25 84
Atlanta GA 006 (20,443 units) Public 14,461 75 72 134 6.5 15 33 30 4 95 92 2 48 9
60 90
C+V 5,982
0













Cleveland/Cuyahoga OH 003 (20,363 units) Public 12,005 67 79 141 6.5 9 31 30 29 87 83 3 31 6 18 64 81
C+V 7,296
0













Boston HA MA 002 (19,505 units) Public 12,777 79 34













C+V 6,280
95 267 11.0 34 34 12 17 79 49 27 66
47 20 58
New Orleans LA 001 (17,863 units) Public 13,694 71 59 105 5.3 18 46 12 13 99 99 0 69 13 16 79 99
C+V 4,169
23













Note: Blank means data not available


We present selected information here, without further comment, for the 12 largest agencies. This is meant as a convenient reference. Total units (in parentheses) include Moderate Rehabilitation, which is not shown separately on this page. Fuller informati on on these and other large agencies is in the body of the report.

Blanks above show missing data. HUD and many of these agencies are working to improve the data, so future releases will be able to fill in most of these blanks.


>

Bibliography on Subsidized Tenants

The order #, where given, is at HUD User, 800–245–2691, 301–251–5154, TDD 800–877–8674

A Picture of Subsidized Households, order # forthcoming. HUD, 1996. Summary data on paper, internet & cdrom for the United States, each State, each housing agency, and for Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA and Tax Credit projects and their Census tracts.

Subsidized Housing Projects' Geographic Codes, form HUD–951, AVI–1004, gopher://huduser.org:73/11/2/f/shp OR http://www.huduser.org/data.html HUD, 1996. Latitude, longitude, names, Zip codes and Census geography for HUD projects.

Development and Analysis of the National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Database, order # HUD–7306, AVI–60 http://www.huduser.org/lihtc/ HUD, 1996. Analyzes data from 1992–94, but database goes back to 1987, when the program began.

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

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

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

Family Data on Public & Indian Projects, August 1993, order # AVI–27, by Paul Burke. gopher://huduser.org:73/11/2/f/famdata or http://www.huduser.org/data.html HUD, November 1993. This is an earlier version of A Picture of Subsidized Households 19 96, prepared on a comparable basis, also with data on individual projects and agencies. It excludes Section 8, FHA and Tax Credits.

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

Characteristics of HUD–Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989, order # HUD–5961, by Connie Casey. HUD, March 1992. This has data (from sample interviews in the American Housing Survey) on the housing and neighborhood quality of the units people l ive in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Suspended Subsidy Programs," chapter 4 in Housing in the Seventies. HUD, 1974.

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

Statistical Yearbook 1966 to 1979. HUD & Government Printing Office.


>

Footnotes

(1) This is the coefficient of variation, which is the standard deviation of income, as a percent of the average income. The standard deviation measures dispersion: how far each household's income is from the average income. Incomes that are far above or below average have large effects, since the differences are squared before being averaged. In a normal distribution two thirds of cases are within ±1 standard deviation of the average. For example in Public Housing, the standard deviation of household income is $6,500, which is 76% of the average household income, $8,500, as shown.

(2) To understand why the national figure is bigger than most local figures, consider an example of two equal-sized projects: one where everyone has $20,000 income, and another where everyone has $5,000. The mix is zero in each project, but the combined m ix is quite wide (60%). National figures are not averages of local figures, but measure the overall national mix. The following table does give average mix, from projects with enough reporting. Public and Indian Housing still have a wider mix of incomes i n their projects than most, but not by much. They serve a wide range of incomes across the country, but not so wide in each project.


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


Total Indian Hsg. Public Hsg. Certs+Vchrs New+Sub.Re. Section 236 Other Subsidy
Total 3,099,000 30,000 1,021,000 686,000 349,000 198,000 792,000
Up to 19% 12,000 0 1,000 8,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
20-39% 703,000 2,000 168,000 343,000 89,000 32,000 70,000
40-59% 1,392,000 14,000 396,000 233,000 174,000 95,000 480,000
60-79% 763,000 13,000 267,000 97,000 81,000 64,000 241,000
80%or more 229,000 2,000 190,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 22,000
Median Mix 52% 59% 57% 39% 50% 54% 54%
Average Mix 53% 60% 59% 43% 50% 54% 55%


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

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

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

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

(7) Some Pittsburgh households were originally mis-coded into Philadelphia. This report has made efforts to identify most of them and report them correctly in Pittsburgh.


Return to Main Page