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

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

Report Overview

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

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

Program Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources & Dates

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

Number of Housing Units

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

Basic Counts

	Subsidized Housing Units Available*	% of US Total	% Occupied	% Reported	Average Months since Report	% With Geography	% Represented by Weights	% Moved in the Past Year	Number of People
	Subsidized Housing Units Available*	% of US Total	% Occupied	% Reported	Average Months since Report	% With Geography	% Represented by Weights	% Moved in the Past Year	per Unit	Total (000s)
U.S. Total	4,838,978	100	96	84	8	84	92	13	2.3	10,684
Indian Housing	72,885	2	99	39	16	21	51	11	3.6	260
Public Housing	1,300,493	27	90	84	8	91	92	11	2.4	2,809
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers	1,391,526	29	99	87	8	72	97	15	2.7	3,720
S.8 Moderate Rehab.	107,609	2	99	68	9	66	95	25	2.2	234
S.8 New+Substantial Rehabilitation	894,330	18	98	88	7	96	92	12	1.6	1,402
S.236	447,466	9	96	79	9	98	92	15	2.1	902
Other Subsidy	292,584	6	96	74	9	90	82	15	2.4	674
Housing Tax Credit	332,085	7	99			76			2.2	700

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

Percent Occupied

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

Percent Reported

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

Average Months since Report

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

Percent with Geography

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

Percent Represented

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

Percent Moved in Past Year

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

Average People per Unit

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

Total People Subsidized

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

Organization of the Data

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

Number of Records

	Total	Major Program Records*	Special Summary Records*	State Records*	Housing Agency Records**	Project Records	Tract Records
All Records	192,310	9	58	460	6,580	49,173	136,030
Records that are Totals across Programs	61,332	1	13	55			61,263
Indian Housing	3,146	1	9	31	192	2,913
Public Housing	17,309	1	9	54	3,200	14,045
S.8 Certificates+Vouchers	77,434	1	9	55	2,602		74,767
S.8 Moderate Rehab.	649	1	9	53	586
S.8 New+Substant.Rehab.	15,238	1	3	55		15,179
S.236	4,279	1	2	52		4,224
Other Subsidy	3,424	1	4	52		3,367
Housing Tax Credit	9,499	1		53		9,445

* Records are printed in this report

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

Rent, Income, and Age

	Rent per Month	Spending per Month	per Household $000s	per person $000s	% $1-4,999	% $20,000 or More	Wages	Welfare	Income Mix: % of Average Income	% if Local Median	% 24 or Less	% 62 or More	% 85 or More
	Rent per Month	Spending per Month	Household Income				Majority of Income is from:		Income Mix: % of Average Income	% if Local Median	Age of Head or Spouse, whichever is older
U.S. Total	209	412	9.5	4.1	17	6	27	15	67	25	10	32	5
Indian Housing	249	252	17.0	4.7	12	29	53	12	79		5	15	1
Public Housing	193	349	9.1	3.8	20	6	25	15	75	25	10	32	4
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers	217	471	9.6	3.6	17	6	32	20	62	24	8	17	2
S.8 Moderate Rehab.	167	547	7.8	3.5	27	3	27	25	67	20	17	17	1
S.8 New + Substant.Rehab.	196	493	9.1	5.7	11	3	14	7	51	26	7	60	10
S.236	261	253	11.0	5.2	14	8	37	12	62	28	14	34	5
Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP	204	341	10.0	4.2	24	11	40	18	82	26	17	22	2
Housing Tax Credit			13.3	6.2	10	17				37

Rent per Month

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

Spending per Month

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

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

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

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

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

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

Income

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

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

Income Mix

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

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

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

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

Income as Percent of Local Median.

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

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

Age of Head.

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

Disabilities, Minorities, Bedrooms

	As % of under Age 61 and Younger	As % of Age 62 and Older	% Minority	% Black	% Hispanic	% Native American	% Asian or Pacific Islander	Average Difference between Agency & Project (in % Minority)	0-1	3 or More
	Head or Spouse has Disability		% Minority	% Black	% Hispanic	% Native American	% Asian or Pacific Islander	Average Difference between Agency & Project (in % Minority)	Number of Bedrooms
U.S. Total	23	35	58	39	15	1	3		44	24
Indian Housing	9	29	91	1	0	89	0		8	80
Public Housing	24	30	69	47	19	0	2	13	50	26
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers	23	41	58	40	15	1	2	15	25	34
S.8 Moderate Rehab.	24	37	67	43	21	1	2		46	16
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab.	37		38	24	11	0	3		71	9
S.236	14		53	36	13	1	5		43	19
Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP	14		71	54	12	1	4		31	26
Housing Tax Credit			47	33	11				44	14

Disabilities.

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

Minorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Conditions

	% Both Spouses and Children	% No Spouse, with Children	% Female Head	% Over-housed: More Bedrooms than People	% With Utility Allowance	Their Average Utility Allowance	Average Months Since Moved in	Average Months on Waiting List	% in Poverty	% Minority	% Single Family Owners
	% Both Spouses and Children	% No Spouse, with Children	% Female Head	% Over-housed: More Bedrooms than People	% With Utility Allowance	Their Average Utility Allowance	Average Months Since Moved in	Average Months on Waiting List	Surrounding Census Tracts
U.S. Total	6	41	79	8	67	67	72	21	26	45	34
Indian Housing	33	37	58	25	75	138		41
Public Housing	6	39	76	7	43	50	80	11	36	59	26
S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers	8	56	84	9	90	83		28	20	41	40
S.8 Moderate Rehab.	6	46	74	5	78	69		15	29	53	30
S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab.	3	20	77	3	68	50	70		21	34	36
S.236	7	37	75	9	51	53	65		21	40	33
Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP	7	47	77	10	58	52	66		28	55	32
Housing Tax Credit			64						21	37	40

Marriage and Children.

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

Overhousing.

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

Fuel and Utilities.

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

Length of Stay.

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

Waiting List.

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

Neighborhoods.

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of Local Data

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

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

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

Number of Subsidized Units, by Percent Poor in Tract

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

Number of Subsidized Units, by Percent Minority in Tract

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

Distribution of Neighborhoods.

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

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

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

Number of Subsidized Units, by Concentration in Tract

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

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

Spatial Concentration.

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Population, by Concentration of Subsidized Units

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

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

Number of Agencies and Projects, by Size of Agency

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

Size of Agency.

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

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

Number of Subsidized Units and Projects, by Size of Project

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

Size of Projects.

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

Housing Sub-programs

	Unique Projects	Actual Project Records	Total Units	Subsidized Units	*LMSA/RAPSUP Units
TOTAL	22,767	31,479	1,609,394	1,605,378	462,691
S.8 New & Sub. Rehab. Projects	9,843	10,102	649,840	645,824	1,315
New & Sub. Rehab. Units				644,509
LMSA/RAPSUP Units				1,315	1,315
202/8	4,648	4,648	223,699	223,699	0
202/811	685	685	17,545	17,545	0
S.236	4,224	10,381	439,183	439,183	292,644
Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR)	1,049	1,700	102,872	102,872	47,183
LMSA, not 236 nor BMIR	1,505	3,141	112,132	112,132	112,132
LMSA, hard to classify	175	175	9,417	9,417	9,417
Property Disposition	638	647	54,706	54,706	0

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

Multiple Subsidies.

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

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

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

Number of Records by State

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

Number of Subsidized Units, by State and Program

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

Bibliography on Subsidized Tenants

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

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

Within each section items are in chronological order.

Related Data Files

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Documents

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

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

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

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

Programs of HUD. HUD, annual.

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

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

Specialized Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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