Understanding Whom the LIHTC Serves:

Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of

December 31, 2017

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

December 2019

1

Message From the Assistant Secretary

It is my pleasure to present this report, Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2017. The LIHTC is a critical tool for creating and preserving affordable rental housing for low-income households and this report serves to provide a better understanding of those whom the LIHTC Program serves As mandated through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, state agencies administering the Program are required to submit demographic and economic data on LIHTC tenants to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This report marks the fifth release of said national data on LIHTC tenants.

This report reflects a tremendous effort from the state and local housing finance agencies that administer the LIHTC. These agencies work with LIHTC property managers to ensure data is collected and properly submitted to HUD while they also administer the LIHTC and often other housing programs.

The National Council of State Housing Agencies (the membership organization for agencies administering the LIHTC Program) has been an invaluable partner as we have worked with states to improve processes and data quality.

This report provides summary tables of state tenant data received for tenants as of December 2017.

There are numerous caveats on the coverage of these data—which are far from complete in some statesand for some specific variables—, as discussed in section III. Each table in the report is structured to provide readers with the information needed to make informed decisions about where the coverage and data are best, both in terms of which states and which variables.

I thank al those who worked to make this report possible and whose continuing commitment wil refine it to better help policy and practice in the future.

Seth D. Appleton

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research Department of Housing and Urban Development

2

Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4

II. Comparison of 2016 and 2017 Data Submissions .................................................................................... 8

III. Assessing Completeness of 2017 Tenant Data ......................................................................................... 9

A. States Submitting Tenant Data .................................................................................................... 9

B. Properties in the Tenant Data ...................................................................................................... 9

C. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Rent-Restricted Units ............................................................ 10

D. Household Members.................................................................................................................. 11

IV. Race and Ethnicity of Tenants ................................................................................................................. 12

V. Disability Status ....................................................................................................................................... 14

VI. Family Composition and Age ................................................................................................................... 17

VII. Annual Household Income ...................................................................................................................... 19

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments ....................................................................................................................... 22

IX. Use of Rental Assistance ......................................................................................................................... 24

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of 2016 and 2017 LIHTC Data Submissions ................................................................... 5

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases ............. 6

Table 3. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at Certification ......... 7

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household ...................................................................................... 13

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Members With Disabilities ........................................................................ 15

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members ........................................................................ 16

Table 7. Family Composition: Households With Children and Senior Members .......................................... 18

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income ...................................................................................... 20

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI ......................................................................... 21

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income .............................................................. 23

Table 11. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance ...................................... 25

Table 12. Use of Federal Rental Assistance Programs in LIHTC Units ........................................................... 26

3

I.

Introduction

In 2008, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), which, among other things, requires each 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. A more detailed background of this data collection is available in the original 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 HFAs have not fully adopted the HUD standards for col ecting demographic information. Thus, although income and rent information were col ected across HFAs using fairly uniform standards and definitions, the demographic information was not standardized and, for some HFAs, not collected at all.

Finally, HUD’s administrative responsibility in the LIHTC Program is strictly limited to the designation of Difficult Development Areas (DDAs) and Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs). HUD is not involved in enforcing the statutory or regulatory compliance of LIHTC properties unless HUD subsidies are present. The HUD

collection of tenant data, although required by statute, is not used in program administration.

This report complies with the HERA mandate to publicly release the collected information. Although the information reported here is not inclusive of all tenants served by the LIHTC, it provides a useful picture of the program’s beneficiaries. The information presented within was received by HUD in the fall of 2018

and includes tenants in LIHTC units as of December 31, 2017. Table 1 highlights the differences between the 2016 and 2017 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.

4

Table 1. Comparison of 2016 and 2017 LIHTC Data Submissions LIHTC Properties PIS Database

LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

2016 Data

2017 Data

Difference 2016–2017

2016 Data

2017 Data

Difference 2016–2017

State

Properties

Units Properties Units

Properties

Units

Properties

Units Properties Units

Properties

Units

Alabama

656

34,286

656

34,053

0

-233

629

33,677

663

35,449

34

1,772

Alaska

99

3,775

100

3,785

1

10

17

592

18

1,389

1

797

Arizona

394

30,050

406

31,037

12

987

380

29,440

397

30,472

17

1,032

Arkansas

515

24,268

559

26,189

44

1,921

455

20,003

425

18,669

-30

-1,334

California

3,952

312,324

4,011

317,127

59

4,803

3,606

278,828

3,640

285,053

34

6,225

Colorado

573

39,531

591

41,994

18

2,463

504

32,139

542

35,996

38

3,857

Connecticut

366

22,869

367

23,302

1

433

243

17,143

267

19,013

24

1,870

Delaware

247

15,102

137

8,506

-110

-6,596

124

7,293

126

7,473

2

180

District of Columbia

176

20,806

183

21,539

7

733

150

15,708

99

9,008

-51

-6,700

Florida

1,346

183,620

1,359

182,085

13

-1,535

1,081

153,787

1,108

154,096

27

309

Georgia

988

93,364

1,262

111,304

274

17,940

812

53,278

925

61,152

113

7,874

Guam

16

1,487

12

1,307

-4

-180

8

861

143

1,085

135

224

Hawaii

178

15,754

97

8,619

-81

-7,135

93

8,856

99

8,781

6

-75

Idaho

249

10,440

226

9,457

-23

-983

219

9,232

233

9,545

14

313

Illinois

1,007

75,268

966

72,072

-41

-3,196

611

36,153

1,055

65,972

444

29,819

Indiana

669

43,721

675

44,407

6

686

662

42,675

670

44,100

8

1,425

Iowa

535

21,333

551

22,394

16

1,061

493

19,097

513

20,046

20

949

Kansas

492

21,726

476

20,763

-16

-963

2,988

17,172

2,995

18,388

7

1,216

Kentucky

856

32,168

752

26,244

-104

-5,924

525

11,535

560

12,025

35

490

Louisiana

1,038

57,380

894

51,627

-144

-5,753

615

32,508

656

33,337

41

829

Maine

224

7,921

225

8,027

1

106

218

6,938

221

8,071

3

1,133

Maryland

474

44,594

502

48,429

28

3,835

421

38,256

416

38,642

-5

386

Massachusetts

935

65,012

939

66,058

4

1,046

702

49,562

718

53,536

16

3,974

Michigan

1,087

68,493

1,121

72,266

34

3,773

1,070

66,945

1,087

68,666

17

1,721

Minnesota

1,091

58,115

971

48,978

-120

-9,137

779

37,145

882

39,802

103

2,657

Mississippi

681

34,945

665

34,573

-16

-372

559

29,974

567

30,024

8

50

Missouri

1,751

61,425

1,764

62,751

13

1,326

960

44,636

976

41,200

16

-3,436

Montana

201

6,045

248

7,404

47

1,359

192

5,586

200

6,173

8

587

Nebraska

352

11,756

345

11,845

-7

89

331

11,240

333

11,574

2

334

Nevada

341

32,879

280

27,500

-61

-5,379

197

17,059

183

17,289

-14

230

New Hampshire

220

7,929

226

8,095

6

166

203

6,587

205

7,077

2

490

New Jersey

1,089

82,608

1,198

87,690

109

5,082

31

2,636

590

45,354

559

42,718

New Mexico

313

19,600

312

19,572

-1

-28

234

15,598

239

16,876

5

1,278

New Yorka

3,061

199,836

3,101

203,104

40

3,268

1,570

135,402

1,623

141,035

53

5,633

North Carolina

1,588

76,679

1,421

65,354

-167

-11,325

1,019

32,055

1,008

41,511

-11

9,456

North Dakota

183

5,394

186

5,487

3

93

176

5,554

186

5,828

10

274

Ohio

1,614

104,133

1,604

103,427

-10

-706

1,233

83,867

1,253

85,543

20

1,676

Oklahoma

553

27,641

562

28,033

9

392

422

19,953

393

17,454

-29

-2,499

Oregon

627

36,791

624

36,393

-3

-398

387

22,346

394

23,296

7

950

Pennsylvania

1,014

49,151

1,017

49,769

3

618

968

46,868

1,083

51,982

115

5,114

Puerto Rico

215

19,560

218

19,606

3

46

202

18,213

208

18,571

6

358

Rhode Island

160

10,896

160

10,896

0

0

173

11,062

176

11,287

3

225

South Carolina

585

31,533

578

31,228

-7

-305

540

29,106

542

29,184

2

78

South Dakota

235

8,428

243

8,789

8

361

176

6,461

171

6,511

-5

50

Tennessee

584

48,636

604

50,146

20

1,510

558

112,400

576

47,275

18

-65,125

Texas

2,229

244,101

2,107

234,148

-122

-9,953

1,746

196,390

1,865

208,939

119

12,549

Utah

403

22,132

399

22,139

-4

7

376

19,780

319

16,400

-57

-3,380

Vermont

271

6,250

276

6,428

5

178

258

6,220

274

6,706

16

486

U.S. Virgin Islands

24

1,076

24

1,076

0

0

28

1,304

28

1,175

0

-129

Virginia

996

87,202

993

87,059

-3

-143

955

83,331

977

85,807

22

2,476

Washington

1,518

120,742

1,128

90,610

-390

-30,132

6,152

69,700

6,395

73,831

243

4,131

West Virginia

279

12,789

286

12,889

7

100

258

11,524

236

10,728

-22

-796

Wisconsin

957

28,144

909

25,749

-48

-2,395

818

36,407

846

37,438

28

1,031

Wyoming

99

4,173

103

4,330

4

157

96

4,023

101

3,797

5

-226

Total

40,426 2,706,368

39,742 2,658,274

-684

-48,094

38,226 2,104,214

40,409 2,179,860

2,183

75,646

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

a Neither the 2016 nor 2017 totals include tenant data from one of New York City’s subal ocators, the Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

Note: The 2016 data are identical to those reported in Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2016, and do not include information on properties placed in service prior to 2017 that was reported with the 2017 PIS data collection.

5

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases 2017 LIHTC Properties PIS Database

2017 LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

Properties

Units in Matched

Properties

Units in Matched

All Active

All Active Matched to HERA Properties

All Active

All Active

Matched to PIS

Properties

State

Properties

Units

(%)

(%)

Properties

Units

(%)

(%)

Alabama

656

34,053

87.5

87.5

663

35,449

86.7

85.9

Alaska

100

3,785

8.0

11.4

18

1,389

38.9

35.2

Arizona

406

31,037

94.1

94.8

397

30,472

95.2

96.3

Arkansas

559

26,189

75.0

71.7

425

18,669

97.9

97.7

California

4,011

317,127

72.7

73.3

3,640

285,053

79.1

78.4

Colorado

591

41,994

78.3

77.1

542

35,996

84.3

84.8

Connecticut

367

23,302

58.3

70.4

267

19,013

93.6

93.7

Delaware

137

8,506

93.4

92.8

126

7,473

98.4

99.4

District of Columbia

183

21,539

36.6

34.0

99

9,008

66.7

67.9

Florida

1,359

182,085

72.2

74.7

1,108

154,096

88.0

88.8

Georgia

1,262

111,304

57.6

56.6

925

61,152

87.5

86.5

Guam

12

1,307

75.0

70.5

143

1,085

100.0

100.0

Hawaii

97

8,619

94.8

93.7

99

8,781

93.9

95.7

Idaho

226

9,457

99.6

99.8

233

9,545

96.1

96.2

Illinois

966

72,072

63.8

63.9

1,055

65,972

64.6

69.1

Indiana

675

44,407

91.4

92.1

670

44,100

91.9

93.1

Iowa

551

22,394

92.6

93.4

513

20,046

99.2

99.6

Kansas

476

20,763

72.5

69.0

2,995

18,388

75.5

71.3

Kentucky

752

26,244

73.7

83.9

560

12,025

97.5

98.9

Louisiana

894

51,627

69.9

70.1

656

33,337

94.1

94.0

Maine

225

8,027

88.4

91.3

221

8,071

89.6

91.2

Maryland

502

48,429

55.2

53.2

416

38,642

65.4

66.1

Massachusetts

939

66,058

53.9

56.9

718

53,536

67.8

67.8

Michigan

1,121

72,266

90.2

91.6

1,087

68,666

92.3

93.1

Minnesota

971

48,978

75.5

81.1

882

39,802

87.6

86.3

Mississippi

665

34,573

72.5

80.5

567

30,024

85.0

86.0

Missouri

1,764

62,751

52.5

74.1

976

41,200

93.5

92.5

Montana

248

7,404

89.1

92.3

200

6,173

100.0

100.0

Nebraska

345

11,845

96.5

98.3

333

11,574

100.0

100.0

Nevada

280

27,500

66.8

67.6

183

17,289

97.8

97.5

New Hampshire

226

8,095

82.7

80.6

205

7,077

89.8

87.3

New Jersey

1,198

87,690

32.5

30.2

590

45,354

56.9

50.5

New Mexico

312

19,572

64.1

73.4

239

16,876

83.7

85.1

New Yorka

3,101

203,104

50.0

65.7

1,623

141,035

93.9

94.9

North Carolina

1,421

65,354

71.6

86.5

1,008

41,511

99.6

99.6

North Dakota

186

5,487

85.5

88.3

186

5,828

86.0

85.8

Ohio

1,604

103,427

72.9

76.6

1,253

85,543

91.1

90.3

Oklahoma

562

28,033

60.9

57.6

393

17,454

85.8

83.1

Oregon

624

36,393

54.3

58.6

394

23,296

85.0

86.9

Pennsylvania

1,017

49,769

97.7

97.0

1,083

51,982

90.6

92.1

Puerto Rico

218

19,606

94.0

95.4

208

18,571

98.1

98.2

Rhode Island

160

10,896

99.4

99.1

176

11,287

94.9

95.1

South Carolina

578

31,228

78.4

80.4

542

29,184

83.6

85.1

South Dakota

243

8,789

64.6

69.8

171

6,511

90.6

92.6

Tennessee

604

50,146

87.3

85.9

576

47,275

91.3

88.7

Texas

2,107

234,148

82.7

83.8

1,865

208,939

92.7

92.2

Utah

399

22,139

80.2

77.3

319

16,400

100.0

100.0

Vermont

276

6,428

94.9

93.9

274

6,706

94.9

94.7

U.S. Virgin Islands

24

1,076

79.2

74.7

28

1,175

67.9

64.5

Virginia

993

87,059

96.2

97.5

977

85,807

97.1

97.6

Washington

1,128

90,610

2.6

4.4

6,395

73,831

96.7

95.5

West Virginia

286

12,889

74.5

70.4

236

10,728

89.8

88.8

Wisconsin

909

25,749

92.0

92.1

846

37,438

97.6

98.4

Wyoming

103

4,330

75.7

73.0

101

3,797

77.2

73.9

Total

39,742

2,658,274

69.6

72.1

40,409

2,179,860

88.5

87.5

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

a Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

6

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

at Certification

Less Than Reported

Equals Reported

Greater Than Reported

Not Reported

Hous

ehold Size at Certification

Household Size at Certification

Household Size at Certification

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

0.0

3.3

93.2

3.5

100.0

Alaskaa

19.8

3.4

73.9

2.8

100.0

Arizona

0.0

0.0

99.4

0.6

100.0

Arkansas

0.0

0.0

99.4

0.6

100.0

California

0.2

2.2

97.3

0.3

100.0

Colorado

0.0

0.2

99.5

0.3

100.0

Connecticut

0.0

2.6

97.3

0.1

100.0

Delaware

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

District of Columbia

6.8

14.5

64.6

14.2

100.0

Floridab

1.0

64.2

34.8

0.0

100.0

Georgia

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Guam

0.1

3.0

95.1

1.9

100.0

Hawaii

0.0

4.2

95.8

0.0

100.0

Idaho

0.1

0.8

98.3

0.9

100.0

Illinois

1.7

7.5

85.8

5.0

100.0

Indiana

0.0

5.8

88.1

6.1

100.0

Iowa

0.0

0.2

99.5

0.3

100.0

Kansas

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Kentucky

0.0

4.3

93.5

2.2

100.0

Louisiana

0.0

0.4

99.3

0.3

100.0

Maine

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

Maryland

0.0

0.3

99.7

0.0

100.0

Massachusetts

0.0

1.0

99.0

0.0

100.0

Michigan

0.0

0.0

99.2

0.8

100.0

Minnesota

0.1

4.0

94.8

1.2

100.0

Mississippi

0.0

0.2

99.1

0.6

100.0

Missouri

0.0

0.1

99.6

0.3

100.0

Montana

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

Nebraska

0.0

0.3

99.3

0.5

100.0

Nevada

0.0

0.2

99.4

0.4

100.0

New Hampshire

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

New Jersey

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

New Mexico

0.0

2.1

97.6

0.3

100.0

New Yorka, c

63.7

2.1

33.7

0.5

100.0

North Carolina

0.0

5.6

87.8

6.6

100.0

North Dakota

0.0

0.1

99.6

0.4

100.0

Ohio

0.4

1.2

92.5

5.9

100.0

Oklahoma

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.5

100.0

Oregon

0.0

0.0

99.7

0.3

100.0

Pennsylvania

0.0

0.0

99.8

0.2

100.0

Puerto Rico

0.0

0.0

99.8

0.2

100.0

Rhode Island

0.0

0.0

98.8

1.2

100.0

South Carolina

0.0

0.0

99.6

0.4

100.0

South Dakota

0.0

0.0

99.9

0.1

100.0

Tennesseea

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Texas

0.2

0.0

99.8

0.0

100.0

Utah

0.0

0.0

99.9

0.1

100.0

Vermont

0.0

0.0

99.0

1.0

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Virginia

0.0

0.0

99.5

0.5

100.0

Washington

0.0

1.2

93.3

5.5

100.0

West Virginia

0.0

0.2

99.8

0.0

100.0

Wisconsin

0.0

0.1

99.7

0.2

100.0

Wyoming

0.0

0.0

99.9

0.1

100.0

Total

6.7

5.9

86.2

1.2

100.0

a Tennessee did not report household size at certification. New York provided this information for less than one-half of its tenants. Alaska provided this information for about one-fifth of its tenants.

b Florida provided information for only one member of each household.

c Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

7

II.

Comparison of 2016 and 2017 Data Submissions

Table 1 provides a comparison of the HUD 2016 and 2017 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 2016 data presented in Table 1 do not include updated information on properties placed in service prior to 2017 that were reported with the 2017 LIHTC properties placed in service (PIS) data collection. 1 The changes between 2016 and 2017 all represent net changes in either total properties or total units.

In aggregate, a net decrease of 684 active properties containing 48,094 units was recorded in the HUD

2017 LIHTC PIS database compared with the 2016 version. This decrease was solely due to the elimination of duplicate records and was not due to a decrease in the actual number of active properties. States with these losses due to elimination of duplicates are highlighted across the first six columns.

For the HERA-mandated tenant data, a net additional 2,183 properties containing 75,646 units were reported in the 2017 data compared with the number in the 2016 data. The increase reflects both an increase in the stock of LIHTC units—that is, those placed in service in 2017—and newly reported information on units not submitted in the previous collection. The highlighted rows in the last six columns indicate states whose total unit counts are lower in the 2017 HERA data than in the 2016 data.

1 HFAs reported 327 LIHTC properties placed in service in 2016 with the 2017 properties. These properties were not previously reported.

8

III.

Assessing Completeness of 2017 Tenant Data

The LIHTC is administered by 66 state-level and, in limited instances, substate allocating HFAs (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as “states”). 2 Several states separate administrative functions among multiple state agencies or local subal ocators. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New York separate functions related to the allocation 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. Illinois, Minnesota, and New York allow local suballocators to award LIHTCs in certain cities or counties. The city of Chicago has authority to award credits and administer the program within city limits. New York City and several northern counties3 receive subal ocations from New York state. Minnesota allows seven local governments4 to allocate tax credits. 5

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

HUD requests tenant data and property characteristics from the 64 agencies that conduct program compliance. 6 One of the HFAs administering the LIHTC in New York City—the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD)—did not submit 2016 or 2017 tenant information. LIHTC

Properties under the purview of the New York City HPD are therefore 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

The HUD 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 collected 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 independent owners, who may not have the ability to submit electronically, manage many of these properties. 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 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 the LIHTC Program and is not counted here.

3 The Development Authority of the North Country administers the LIHTC Program 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 subal ocators in Minnesota monitor for compliance and, except for Dakota County, reported the 2017 tenant and property data directly to HUD.

6 The District of Columbia and Massachusetts al ocating agencies conduct compliance for their bond-issuing agencies.

9

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 2016, 2017, or 2018. 7

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 collection, 8 summarized in Table 2. The time period covered in the HUD PIS data collection is consistent with the tenant collection and currently includes properties placed in service through 2017.

The HUD PIS database also has known undercounting, primarily for the most recently collected placed-in-service years. 9 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, the databases are not 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 areas in which issues of incomplete data, in either data source, may be larger.

Overall, 39,742 properties were reported as in service and monitored for LIHTC compliance in 2017. State HFAs, however, submitted tenant information for 40,409 properties. 10 Ten states—Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, the U.S. Virgin Islands, West Virginia, and Wyoming—reported fewer units than in their previous submission. These changes are shown in Table 1.

C. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Rent-Restricted Units

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

Because the HUD PIS data include primarily only property addresses and, in only limited cases, building addresses, it is not possible to match actual units between the two datasets. 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 al states, 2.658 million active LIHTC units are in the HUD PIS

database. State HFAs, however, reported data on tenants in 2.180 million units through the HERA-mandated tenant submission to HUD. Almost nine-tenths (87.5 percent) of the units reported in the HERA data are in properties also in the PIS database.

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 4.5 percent.

The aggregate count of reported units increased slightly to 2.180 million units compared with 2.104

million units in the 2016 data, reflecting better overall reporting and newly placed-in-service properties. 11

Alaska, Il inois, and New Jersey provided significantly more units in their 2017 submissions than for 2016.

Several states—most notably the District of Columbia, Tennessee, and, to a lesser extent, Utah—

7 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2017, some states provided the most recent income certification information, which was from 2018.

8 HUD annual y collects information on LIHTC properties placed in service during the previous calendar year. This information is available from https://lihtc.huduser.gov/.

9 In addition to underreporting because of technicalities of determining placed-in-service status, several states (Alaska, New Mexico, and Tennessee) did not submit information in certain recent years. See the database at

https://lihtc.huduser.gov/ for years of nonreporting.

10 Properties are identified in the tenant data based on property name, property identification number (or PIN), city, and state.

11 This total includes both vacant and occupied units.

10

submitted considerably fewer units than in their previous submissions. The decreases were general y due to fewer properties being 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. One state, Florida, provided data for only one member per household, reported as the head of the household. 12 In addition, not al states reported all 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 all households.

Completeness of data reporting for some analyses, such as tabulations of household composition, 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 all 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 al household members are included in the tenant data. Reporting of household size is nearly complete overall; household size is missing in 6.7 percent of al reported households, but almost all of those are households in New York and Tennessee.

Tennessee did not report household size for any of its reported households, and New York did not report household size for almost 64 percent of its reported households. With the exception of Alaska, which did not report household size for at least one-fifth of its reported households, and New York, Tennessee, and Florida, 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.

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

11

IV. Race and Ethnicity of Tenants

The HUD LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form requests race data according to standards set by the U.S.

Office of Management and Budget and also used by the HUD 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 collection, many states did not collect any race or ethnicity information, whereas others collected similar information using categories or standards different from those established by HUD. The incorporation, or modification, of race and ethnicity data into states’ TIC forms caused a delay in their ability to report this information to HUD. This delay was caused, in part, by the process of amending the state TIC forms to request this information, but also by the need to collect this new information from 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 data 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. Furthermore, in accordance with fair housing laws, tenants are not required to report their race or ethnicity. States with the lowest reporting of this data for their active LIHTC property stock include Alaska (39 percent) and New Jersey (57 percent), with five other jurisdictions reporting less than 70

percent of their stock—District of Columbia, Il inois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Totals for New York account for almost 94 percent of its active LIHTC stock, even though HUD did not receive information for LIHTC tenants monitored by the New York City HPD, which accounts for a significant portion of unreported units for New York state.

Among the households and units reported, many suffered from an underreporting of household members. Recal from Table 3 that while most states reported all members, or nearly all members, of each reported LIHTC household, when compared to household size at certification, three states—Florida, New York, and Tennessee—submitted al household members for less than approximately one-half of their reported occupied units. The underreporting of household members across states led 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. 13

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. 14 Two states—

Florida and Ohio—did not provide race or ethnicity information for any heads of household. 15 Five other states reported this information for less than 70 percent of their reported households—Nebraska (69

percent), New York (65 percent), Pennsylvania (51 percent), Utah (60 percent), and Wyoming (63

percent).

13 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.

14 For example, although the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation submitted both race and ethnicity data for 98.5

percent of reported heads of household, the tenant data for Alaska include only 38.9 percent of its LIHTC stock.

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

https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/docs/16-HSR.pdf.

12

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household

NOT HISPANIC

American Indian Native Hawaiian

Race or

Properties

White Black or African

Asian

and Alaska

and Other Pacific Other (Including Hispanic Ethnicity Not Reported

Al

one American Alone

Alone Native Alone Islander Alone

Multiple Races)

(Any Race)

Reported

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

86.7

33.8

64.9

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.0

100.0

Alaska

38.9

73.2

5.7

3.3

11.1

1.5

0.2

3.6

1.5

100.0

Arizona

95.2

35.6

13.5

1.3

7.1

0.3

2.0

33.3

7.0

100.0

Arkansas

97.9

42.1

52.2

0.4

0.5

3.0

1.8

0.1

0.0

100.0

California

79.1

25.1

17.6

0.0

0.8

0.0

3.4

38.8

14.3

100.0

Colorado

84.3

35.6

11.1

1.6

0.7

0.2

3.5

23.0

24.2

100.0

Connecticut

93.6

31.8

27.4

0.0

0.4

0.0

2.1

29.9

8.3

100.0

Delaware

98.4

25.3

65.1

0.7

0.6

0.1

0.8

7.3

0.0

100.0

District of Columbia

66.7

1.5

82.4

0.7

0.3

0.0

0.8

4.7

9.6

100.0

Floridaa,b

88.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Georgia

87.5

19.2

75.1

1.1

0.2

0.1

1.5

2.8

0.0

100.0

Guam

100.0

2.5

1.0

40.9

0.2

27.7

27.1

0.2

0.5

100.0

Hawaii

93.9

44.1

4.8

0.3

1.4

0.6

10.6

12.0

26.2

100.0

Idaho

96.1

80.1

2.4

1.4

1.6

0.3

1.0

9.6

3.8

100.0

Illinois

64.6

41.6

49.5

0.8

0.2

0.2

1.4

6.2

0.2

100.0

Indiana

91.9

54.6

42.7

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.9

1.4

0.0

100.0

Iowa

99.2

58.1

15.5

1.0

0.6

0.1

1.1

3.4

20.2

100.0

Kansas

75.5

56.7

19.8

0.7

0.7

0.2

1.0

4.8

16.2

100.0

Kentucky

97.5

58.3

39.0

0.4

0.4

0.0

1.5

0.4

0.0

100.0

Louisiana

94.1

13.8

71.5

0.2

0.2

0.0

2.3

2.6

9.4

100.0

Maine

89.6

78.4

8.2

0.8

1.2

0.0

3.3

2.1

6.0

100.0

Maryland

65.4

24.7

60.6

0.0

0.3

0.0

1.6

5.8

6.9

100.0

Massachusetts

67.8

38.3

21.0

0.1

0.4

0.0

3.0

32.3

4.9

100.0

Michigan

92.3

37.3

33.0

0.7

0.3

0.0

1.7

2.1

24.8

100.0

Minnesota

87.6

42.2

40.0

2.5

2.9

0.1

1.3

2.8

8.2

100.0

Mississippi

85.0

12.3

76.6

0.5

0.2

0.1

1.6

0.9

7.8

100.0

Missouri

93.5

46.5

36.1

0.4

0.3

0.1

1.8

1.9

13.0

100.0

Montana

100.0

69.7

0.9

0.3

11.3

0.2

2.0

3.4

12.2

100.0

Nebraskab

100.0

41.9

18.5

0.5

1.2

0.1

1.7

5.5

30.6

100.0

Nevada

97.8

35.2

14.5

2.0

0.8

0.7

2.0

17.5

27.4

100.0

New Hampshire

89.8

76.2

2.6

0.6

0.2

0.0

6.0

6.5

7.9

100.0

New Jersey

56.9

28.8

52.3

1.6

0.4

0.1

2.2

14.5

0.1

100.0

New Mexico

83.7

19.7

3.2

0.6

8.9

0.1

3.2

47.3

17.0

100.0

New Yorkb,c

93.9

16.3

27.8

1.4

0.3

0.1

0.6

18.7

34.8

100.0

North Carolina

99.6

26.8

54.8

0.5

1.2

0.2

0.0

3.1

13.3

100.0

North Dakota

86.0

65.2

5.1

1.0

14.8

0.2

1.8

2.2

9.7

100.0

Ohioa

91.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

Oklahoma

85.8

59.1

22.2

0.6

7.8

0.4

2.8

3.5

3.6

100.0

Oregon

85.0

31.1

5.6

1.2

0.9

0.3

1.2

50.5

9.1

100.0

Pennsylvaniab

90.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

51.2

48.8

100.0

Puerto Rico

98.1

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

87.8

11.8

100.0

Rhode Island

94.9

50.3

14.5

0.7

1.1

0.1

3.8

27.0

2.5

100.0

South Carolina

83.6

20.9

66.9

0.3

0.2

0.1

1.6

2.7

7.4

100.0

South Dakota

90.6

63.3

6.8

1.4

16.4

0.1

4.1

4.4

3.5

100.0

Tennessee

91.3

38.1

50.3

0.5

0.2

0.1

1.4

0.9

8.5

100.0

Texas

92.7

21.0

34.3

1.5

0.2

0.1

1.3

33.6

8.1

100.0

Utahb

100.0

42.0

2.4

1.1

0.7

0.8

1.4

11.6

39.9

100.0

Vermont

94.9

79.7

3.1

1.2

0.4

0.0

6.0

3.4

6.2

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islandsb

67.9

0.7

55.3

0.0

0.1

0.0

1.2

14.8

28.0

100.0

Virginia

97.1

21.5

51.1

2.4

0.3

0.1

3.0

9.9

11.7

100.0

Washington

96.7

51.0

16.3

7.3

2.5

1.4

1.9

15.1

4.6

100.0

West Virginia

89.8

79.4

15.4

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.9

1.4

2.7

100.0

Wisconsin

97.6

53.4

21.6

0.8

1.8

0.1

1.0

4.4

16.9

100.0

Wyomingb

77.2

50.0

1.6

0.2

4.8

0.1

0.0

6.0

37.2

100.0

Total

88.5

28.8

30.8

1.0

0.9

0.2

1.7

16.7

19.9

100.0

a Florida and Ohio did not provide race or ethnicity for any household members.

b States that reported race and ethnicity for less than 70 percent of reporting households.

c Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

13

V.

Disability Status

Tenant disability status is collected in accordance with the Fair Housing Act’s definition of disabled. A tenant’s response, or nonresponse, does not affect the tenant’s ability to claim disability benefits or to request handicap-accessible features in the LIHTC unit. The Fair Housing Act defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantial y limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. Definitions of physical and mental impairment are 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 collection mandate, few states collected tenant disability status for the head of household or other household members. Thus, nearly al 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 and shown in Table 2, data from two states—Alaska and New Jersey—included a fairly small percentage of their active LIHTC properties. In addition, the reported information for some states did not contain all household members, further limiting the ability of HUD to report disability status.

Table 5 provides household-level information on the presence of at least one tenant with a disability 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, Kansas, and Wyoming did not report disability status for any household members. Further, Pennsylvania reported disability status for less than 20 percent of their reported households. The states with the highest percentage of households reporting at least one disability include Rhode Island (33 percent), Washington (29 percent), and Idaho (27 percent).

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 5 also applies to Table 6, likely skewing the estimate of individuals with disabilities downward from the actual percentage. By percentage of individual household members with disabilities, the states with the highest prevalence of disabilities include Rhode Island (20 percent), Washington (15 percent), Massachusetts (14 percent), and Idaho (14 percent).

14

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Members With Disabilities All Household

Disability Status Reported At Least One Member

Properties Reported

Members Reporteda

for At Least One Member

Reported as Disabled

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

86.7

93.2

100.0

4.9

Alaska

38.9

73.9

99.9

5.2

Arizona

95.2

99.4

100.0

11.5

Arkansas

97.9

99.4

100.0

0.0

California

79.1

97.3

94.4

12.7

Colorado

84.3

99.5

100.0

6.2

Connecticut

93.6

97.3

94.8

16.3

Delaware

98.4

100.0

100.0

5.9

District of Columbia

66.7

64.6

89.8

5.8

Floridac

88.0

34.8

0.0

0.0

Georgia

87.5

100.0

100.0

2.1

Guam

100.0

95.1

99.5

7.2

Hawaii

93.9

95.8

93.1

8.0

Idaho

96.1

98.3

100.0

26.5

Illinois

64.6

85.8

100.0

8.4

Indiana

91.9

88.1

100.0

10.0

Iowa

99.2

99.5

88.1

13.8

Kansasc

75.5

100.0

0.0

0.0

Kentucky

97.5

93.5

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

94.1

99.3

100.0

6.0

Maine

89.6

99.6

100.0

15.2

Maryland

65.4

99.7

98.8

15.9

Massachusetts

67.8

99.0

98.9

24.6

Michigan

92.3

99.2

75.0

10.8

Minnesota

87.6

94.8

99.8

15.2

Mississippi

85.0

99.1

87.9

9.4

Missouri

93.5

99.6

91.7

12.0

Montana

100.0

99.7

99.8

17.7

Nebraska

100.0

99.3

90.8

11.9

Nevada

97.8

99.4

93.6

11.6

New Hampshire

89.8

99.6

100.0

13.2

New Jersey

56.9

100.0

100.0

4.2

New Mexico

83.7

97.6

100.0

8.7

New Yorkc

93.9

33.7

67.4

15.0

North Carolina

99.6

87.8

100.0

21.2

North Dakota

86.0

99.6

35.7

15.2

Ohio

91.1

92.5

99.8

5.0

Oklahoma

85.8

99.5

91.5

11.7

Oregon

85.0

99.7

100.0

14.2

Pennsylvaniac

90.6

99.8

11.8

11.8

Puerto Rico

98.1

99.8

100.0

7.4

Rhode Island

94.9

98.8

100.0

33.2

South Carolina

83.6

99.6

100.0

6.2

South Dakota

90.6

99.9

100.0

13.2

Tennessee

91.3

0.0

100.0

10.9

Texasd

92.7

99.8

95.5

23.8

Utah

100.0

99.9

91.4

11.5

Vermont

94.9

99.0

100.0

16.7

U.S. Virgin Islands

67.9

100.0

99.3

3.2

Virginia

97.1

99.5

100.0

7.0

Washington

96.7

93.3

77.1

28.7

West Virginia

89.8

99.8

99.4

20.3

Wisconsin

97.6

99.7

83.5

11.8

Wyomingc

77.2

99.9

0.0

0.0

Total

88.5

86.2

83.5

12.1

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

b Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

c Pennsylvania reported disability status for less than one-half of reported households. Florida, Kansas, and Wyoming did not report disability status for any household members.

15

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members Al Household

Disability Status

Properties Reported

Members Reporteda

is Reported

Reported as Disabled

State

(%)

(% of Households)

(% of Individuals)

(% of Individuals)

Alabama

86.7

93.2

100.0

2.7

Alaska

38.9

73.9

84.3

3.2

Arizona

95.2

99.4

100.0

5.3

Arkansas

97.9

99.4

100.0

0.0

California

79.1

97.3

94.1

6.0

Colorado

84.3

99.5

100.0

3.2

Connecticut

93.6

97.3

96.1

9.6

Delaware

98.4

100.0

100.0

2.9

District of Columbia

66.7

64.6

92.4

3.7

Floridac

88.0

34.8

0.0

0.0

Georgia

87.5

100.0

100.0

1.1

Guam

100.0

95.1

99.8

2.3

Hawaii

93.9

95.8

93.3

3.8

Idaho

96.1

98.3

99.8

14.0

Illinois

64.6

85.8

99.5

5.3

Indiana

91.9

88.1

100.0

5.5

Iowa

99.2

99.5

85.5

7.8

Kansasc

75.5

100.0

0.0

0.0

Kentucky

97.5

93.5

100.0

0.0

Louisiana

94.1

99.3

100.0

2.9

Maine

89.6

99.6

100.0

8.9

Maryland

65.4

99.7

98.7

9.6

Massachusetts

67.8

99.0

98.6

14.4

Michigan

92.3

99.2

72.2

6.4

Minnesota

87.6

94.8

99.2

7.5

Mississippi

85.0

99.1

86.9

4.6

Missouri

93.5

99.6

90.4

7.2

Montana

100.0

99.7

99.8

10.0

Nebraska

100.0

99.3

88.8

6.1

Nevada

97.8

99.4

91.0

6.4

New Hampshire

89.8

99.6

100.0

7.5

New Jersey

56.9

100.0

100.0

2.4

New Mexico

83.7

97.6

100.0

4.2

New Yorkc

93.9

33.7

74.9

9.6

North Carolina

99.6

87.8

100.0

12.2

North Dakota

86.0

99.6

19.6

8.5

Ohio

91.1

92.5

99.9

2.6

Oklahoma

85.8

99.5

90.8

6.9

Oregon

85.0

99.7

100.0

7.5

Pennsylvaniac

90.6

99.8

7.2

7.2

Puerto Rico

98.1

99.8

100.0

3.8

Rhode Island

94.9

98.8

100.0

20.4

South Carolina

83.6

99.6

100.0

3.0

South Dakota

90.6

99.9

100.0

6.0

Tennessee

91.3

0.0

100.0

5.6

Texasd

92.7

99.8

94.4

11.5

Utah

100.0

99.9

88.9

5.2

Vermont

94.9

99.0

100.0

10.3

U.S. Virgin Islands

67.9

100.0

98.6

1.5

Virginia

97.1

99.5

100.0

3.6

Washington

96.7

93.3

76.2

14.9

West Virginia

89.8

99.8

98.9

11.3

Wisconsin

97.6

99.7

77.9

7.4

Wyomingc

77.2

99.9

0.0

0.0

Total

88.5

86.2

87.1

6.8

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

b Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

c Pennsylvania reported disability status for less than one-half of reported households. Florida, Kansas, and Wyoming did not report disability status for any household members.

16

VI. Family Composition and Age

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

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 their relationship to the head of household. The HUD 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. 16 Some states did not collect date of birth for all LIHTC tenants before the HERA mandate, instead opting to collect the 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, 2017. The relationship to head of household is used to identify the head for households that are headed by an elderly person, or senior.

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 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 the household size at certification. The second and third columns provide reporting rates for date of birth for heads of household and all members, respectively.

States with the highest percentage of reported heads of households of the age 62 or older include Pennsylvania (49 percent), Hawaii (47 percent), Maryland (46 percent), Rhode Island (46 percent), Illinois (45 percent), and New Hampshire (45 percent). States with the highest percentage of households with minors include Guam (55 percent), the U.S. Virgin Islands (51 percent), Mississippi (48 percent), South Dakota (47 percent), South Carolina (46 percent), and Arizona (46 percent).

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

17

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

Valid Date of Birth Provided for

At Least One

At Least One

Reported Head of

Members Reporte

Hea

d d of Household Al Reported Members Member < 18 Member >= 62

Household >= 62

State

(% of Households)a

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

93.2

100.0

99.9

38.8

29.5

29.0

Alaska

73.9

100.0

99.6

26.9

33.8

33.2

Arizona

99.4

99.9

99.8

45.7

30.3

29.2

Arkansas

99.4

99.8

99.8

37.9

30.4

29.8

California

97.3

99.6

99.7

37.8

40.1

38.2

Colorado

99.5

99.6

99.6

36.4

30.1

29.2

Connecticut

97.3

95.8

97.6

31.6

39.8

38.6

Delaware

100.0

99.9

94.8

39.6

30.3

29.7

District of Columbia

64.6

92.2

95.0

24.9

25.4

24.7

Florida

34.8

Data Not Reported

Georgia

100.0

98.3

96.1

35.7

33.8

33.2

Guam

95.1

99.5

99.8

54.5

34.6

29.2

Hawaii

95.8

97.4

98.5

33.5

48.5

46.5

Idaho

98.3

100.0

99.6

38.0

32.6

31.9

Illinois

85.8

96.5

97.3

24.7

45.8

45.4

Indiana

88.1

100.0

99.8

38.7

29.0

28.4

Iowa

99.5

100.0

99.6

31.1

34.9

34.1

Kansas

100.0

98.6

98.3

31.7

36.0

35.4

Kentucky

93.5

99.4

98.9

33.3

32.7

32.3

Louisiana

99.3

98.3

98.6

43.4

26.3

25.6

Maine

99.6

99.8

99.9

28.2

43.5

42.5

Maryland

99.7

99.9

99.7

27.7

46.8

46.2

Massachusetts

99.0

99.6

99.6

32.3

39.9

38.6

Michigan

99.2

100.0

99.6

29.1

39.8

39.3

Minnesota

94.8

93.7

93.5

34.5

24.0

23.1

Mississippi

99.1

100.0

99.6

48.2

20.7

20.2

Missouri

99.6

100.0

99.6

30.0

36.3

35.8

Montana

99.7

99.9

99.8

30.7

37.2

36.7

Nebraska

99.3

100.0

99.5

39.8

31.4

30.9

Nevada

99.4

99.9

99.7

29.7

43.2

42.3

New Hampshire

99.6

99.4

99.6

30.7

46.4

45.3

New Jersey

100.0

94.8

91.3

26.7

45.1

44.3

New Mexico

97.6

97.8

98.9

42.5

24.0

23.1

New Yorkb

33.7

65.9

73.3

19.4

26.8

26.0

North Carolina

87.8

99.3

99.2

35.3

36.7

36.1

North Dakota

99.6

100.0

99.8

28.6

37.7

37.0

Ohio

92.5

99.2

99.3

35.4

34.8

35.7

Oklahoma

99.5

99.9

99.4

36.0

38.2

37.9

Oregon

99.7

100.0

100.0

30.5

34.4

33.6

Pennsylvania

99.8

100.0

99.9

28.7

49.6

48.9

Puerto Rico

99.8

100.0

99.7

40.2

39.8

39.3

Rhode Island

98.8

100.0

99.9

23.8

46.5

45.5

South Carolina

99.6

99.9

99.9

46.4

26.9

26.3

South Dakota

99.9

99.7

99.8

46.6

26.1

25.3

Tennessee

0.0

100.0

99.9

43.0

23.4

22.7

Texas

99.8

99.5

99.2

45.3

29.7

28.6

Utah

99.9

100.0

98.6

43.8

21.0

20.2

Vermont

99.0

99.5

99.5

27.6

43.5

42.5

U.S. Virgin Islands

100.0

99.4

99.6

50.6

25.3

24.1

Virginia

99.5

99.9

99.8

40.8

28.5

27.4

Washington

93.3

90.6

92.9

32.7

30.7

30.4

West Virginia

99.8

99.9

99.7

36.1

27.7

27.0

Wisconsin

99.7

98.6

98.8

25.8

44.6

44.0

Wyoming

99.9

99.9

99.7

42.1

27.2

26.6

Total

86.2

89.5

93.6

32.6

32.0

31.2

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

b Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

18

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 annually thereafter. To certify household income, states collect 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. The HUD 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 2016, 2017, or 2018. 17 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 2016, 2017, or 2018 for 86.0 percent of households. Oregon and Tennessee did not report income, and Alaska, Guam, and New York reported income certified in these years for approximately one-half of households or less.

Comparing household income across states does not account for differences in cost of living, therefore, providing a somewhat skewed comparison. Comparing household income with AMGI provides a more informative assessment and provides measures of income more directly relevant for LIHTC program eligibility. HUD, however, does not request AMGI and to make this comparison. The AMGI must either be determined by address or derived from information provided on the LIHTC Tenant Data Collection Form, 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.

As shown in Table 9, household annual income, certified in 2015, 2016, or 2017, was reported for 86.0

percent of units, but income plus the information needed to calculate AMGI was provided for only 61.1

percent of units. Although some of the units excluded from this calculation had incomes certified before 2015, most of these units were excluded because of missing the income limit or income restriction.

Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas did not provide the necessary information to make the calculation for any of their reported units.

17 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2017, some states, primarily Kentucky, Michigan, and Texas, provided the most recent income certification information, which was 2018.

19

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

In

come

<= $5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

> $20,000

State

(%)

(%)

($)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Total

Alabama

86.7

96.6

16,032

5.9

19.2

20.6

21.3

33.0

100.0

Alaskaa

38.9

51.9

18,296

4.2

3.1

20.8

30.2

41.8

100.0

Arizona

95.2

98.5

18,642

6.9

15.3

15.9

15.8

46.2

100.0

Arkansas

97.9

97.6

13,825

9.3

24.2

21.2

17.2

28.2

100.0

California

79.1

93.5

20,540

2.9

5.5

26.6

14.2

50.9

100.0

Colorado

84.3

98.0

22,045

4.4

14.4

13.0

12.7

55.5

100.0

Connecticut

93.6

96.1

19,513

3.8

18.9

15.0

12.4

49.9

100.0

Delaware

98.4

99.9

19,107

5.8

15.4

16.5

15.2

47.1

100.0

District of Columbia

66.7

95.7

24,204

10.4

15.2

10.0

7.1

57.2

100.0

Florida

88.0

78.0

22,880

3.0

10.4

10.2

12.5

63.8

100.0

Georgia

87.5

90.6

16,300

8.5

18.4

18.7

16.2

38.1

100.0

Guama

100.0

43.4

21,153

8.1

7.7

12.6

15.6

56.1

100.0

Hawaii

93.9

98.7

23,992

2.6

15.1

12.7

11.3

58.2

100.0

Idaho

96.1

98.2

17,256

3.8

17.9

20.9

20.0

37.4

100.0

Illinois

64.6

67.8

16,849

8.0

19.1

17.3

16.2

39.4

100.0

Indiana

91.9

99.1

16,632

11.0

15.8

17.8

18.0

37.5

100.0

Iowa

99.2

100.0

18,063

10.7

13.9

15.9

15.8

43.7

100.0

Kansas

75.5

100.0

17,401

7.0

16.2

18.8

18.3

39.8

100.0

Kentucky

97.5

100.0

9,240

31.4

24.6

18.1

11.6

14.3

100.0

Louisiana

94.1

78.2

14,648

9.5

24.8

16.9

16.9

32.0

100.0

Maine

89.6

97.9

15,528

6.0

20.5

20.4

17.5

35.7

100.0

Maryland

65.4

98.6

20,688

3.7

17.3

14.3

12.4

52.3

100.0

Massachusetts

67.8

99.0

17,223

4.0

11.2

27.3

14.3

43.2

100.0

Michigan

92.3

100.0

14,219

9.9

23.3

19.4

16.2

31.1

100.0

Minnesota

87.6

65.1

18,719

8.7

16.4

15.6

11.7

47.6

100.0

Mississippi

85.0

100.0

14,316

14.6

19.6

18.2

18.2

29.3

100.0

Missouri

93.5

100.0

16,798

7.8

18.6

18.0

15.6

39.9

100.0

Montana

100.0

100.0

15,710

7.6

19.8

20.2

18.7

33.7

100.0

Nebraska

100.0

100.0

17,998

13.0

12.8

15.1

15.5

43.6

100.0

Nevada

97.8

100.0

19,200

5.0

12.1

17.6

18.2

47.2

100.0

New Hampshire

89.8

88.2

19,292

2.8

14.7

17.8

16.7

48.0

100.0

New Jersey

56.9

99.2

19,763

6.0

16.5

14.5

13.6

49.4

100.0

New Mexico

83.7

91.6

16,848

7.7

19.6

16.4

17.7

38.5

100.0

New Yorka, b

93.9

24.5

16,989

4.7

14.6

22.0

16.3

42.5

100.0

North Carolina

99.6

91.9

14,250

7.6

20.2

22.3

18.0

32.0

100.0

North Dakota

86.0

100.0

16,044

15.1

15.3

17.1

13.5

39.0

100.0

Ohio

91.1

97.2

12,376

17.4

23.9

18.1

15.5

25.1

100.0

Oklahoma

85.8

100.0

13,572

13.9

21.2

21.1

19.6

24.1

100.0

Oregona

85.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Pennsylvania

90.6

99.0

16,025

6.8

21.3

18.2

17.5

36.2

100.0

Puerto Rico

98.1

100.0

5,691

45.8

29.8

16.9

5.1

2.3

100.0

Rhode Island

94.9

100.0

13,519

6.3

29.4

19.9

13.9

30.3

100.0

South Carolina

83.6

90.3

14,739

10.0

18.8

19.7

17.8

33.7

100.0

South Dakota

90.6

99.3

17,580

10.4

15.5

15.7

14.9

43.4

100.0

Tennesseea

91.3

0.0

Data Not Reported

Texas

92.7

99.2

20,002

8.7

13.6

12.5

15.1

50.0

100.0

Utah

100.0

100.0

21,860

5.0

13.1

13.4

13.0

55.5

100.0

Vermont

94.9

96.4

16,008

3.3

20.0

20.8

17.2

38.6

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

67.9

99.4

15,002

22.1

13.7

13.4

10.3

40.5

100.0

Virginia

97.1

99.6

21,324

6.7

14.2

12.5

12.0

54.6

100.0

Washington

96.7

99.9

17,748

4.8

19.0

14.7

12.4

49.0

100.0

West Virginia

89.8

98.1

13,188

10.8

26.4

19.5

15.8

27.4

100.0

Wisconsin

97.6

100.0

18,443

7.3

10.8

20.7

17.2

43.9

100.0

Wyoming

77.2

100.0

20,022

5.3

12.0

17.1

15.6

50.0

100.0

Total

88.5

86.0

17,943

7.5

15.3

17.9

14.9

44.2

100.0

a Alaska, Guam, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee reported household income for less than 50 percent of reported households. For most households, income was reported without the certification date. This report only includes incomes certified in 2016, 2017, or 2018 in the tabulations.

b Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

20

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI Income,b Income

Total Household Annual Income as Percent of Dervied Area Median Gross Income (AMGI)a Properties

Income

Limit, and Income

Greater

Reported

Reportedb

Restriction Reported

0 0.1 t

o 30.0

30.1 to 40.0

40.1 to 50.0

50.1 to 60.0

than 60.0

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

86.7

96.6

0.0

Data Not Reported

Alaska

38.9

51.9

87.7

2.2

47.5

25.0

12.3

7.4

5.6

100.0

Arizona

95.2

98.5

6.7

1.2

34.1

16.3

15.8

11.2

21.5

100.0

Arkansas

97.9

97.6

98.7

1.2

42.7

18.8

15.9

11.7

9.7

100.0

California

79.1

93.5

95.8

0.0

47.1

17.2

14.1

9.9

11.7

100.0

Colorado

84.3

98.0

3.1

0.9

34.9

16.7

15.8

12.0

19.6

100.0

Connecticut

93.6

96.1

81.9

0.0

51.9

17.2

13.2

10.6

7.2

100.0

Delaware

98.4

99.9

100.0

1.0

39.9

17.4

17.7

10.7

13.4

100.0

District of Columbia

66.7

95.7

27.2

4.6

49.1

13.5

12.6

9.7

10.6

100.0

Florida

88.0

78.0

100.0

0.0

18.5

16.3

23.8

26.8

14.6

100.0

Georgia

87.5

90.6

100.0

1.8

37.0

18.1

17.3

13.4

12.4

100.0

Guam

100.0

43.4

80.2

0.8

35.1

15.4

20.2

22.6

5.9

100.0

Hawaii

93.9

98.7

95.3

0.0

44.4

16.3

14.8

12.0

12.4

100.0

Idaho

96.1

98.2

85.2

0.6

32.8

22.2

22.6

12.3

9.4

100.0

Illinois

64.6

67.8

14.8

2.8

48.1

16.9

14.2

9.6

8.3

100.0

Indiana

91.9

99.1

0.0

Data Not Reported

Iowa

99.2

100.0

100.0

6.4

37.1

18.9

16.7

13.4

4.0

96.6

Kansas

75.5

100.0

93.6

1.7

38.9

20.1

17.6

13.1

5.8

97.3

Kentucky

97.5

100.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Louisiana

94.1

78.2

1.5

2.5

44.8

11.9

15.3

7.9

17.6

100.0

Maine

89.6

97.9

22.8

3.1

49.4

13.8

14.0

7.9

11.7

100.0

Maryland

65.4

98.6

84.6

0.0

48.4

18.0

16.2

11.7

5.7

100.0

Massachusetts

67.8

99.0

87.3

0.0

61.2

13.5

10.6

7.8

7.0

100.0

Michigan

92.3

100.0

100.0

2.8

50.3

17.2

13.4

9.3

6.9

100.0

Minnesota

87.6

65.1

58.0

1.2

55.3

15.5

14.0

10.4

3.6

100.0

Mississippi

85.0

100.0

100.0

5.6

40.7

18.2

17.5

13.7

4.2

100.0

Missouri

93.5

100.0

100.0

2.8

41.3

17.9

15.9

12.7

9.4

100.0

Montana

100.0

100.0

100.0

2.6

43.8

19.9

18.8

11.2

3.7

100.0

Nebraska

100.0

100.0

100.0

8.8

37.7

18.1

18.0

13.3

4.1

100.0

Nevada

97.8

100.0

100.0

1.7

33.4

20.6

20.7

15.7

7.9

100.0

New Hampshire

89.8

88.2

20.8

1.0

39.6

21.3

15.9

10.8

11.6

100.0

New Jersey

56.9

99.2

99.9

1.1

48.9

18.1

15.3

9.2

7.3

100.0

New Mexico

83.7

91.6

2.2

0.6

32.6

19.4

17.2

15.0

15.0

100.0

New Yorkc

93.9

24.5

100.0

1.1

47.0

20.5

16.1

8.6

6.7

100.0

North Carolina

99.6

91.9

86.3

0.0

45.1

19.2

16.7

11.0

8.0

100.0

North Dakota

86.0

100.0

98.3

9.1

46.9

17.0

13.6

8.1

5.4

100.0

Ohio

91.1

97.2

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oklahoma

85.8

100.0

100.0

2.9

47.4

20.3

17.8

8.9

2.7

100.0

Oregon

85.0

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Pennsylvania

90.6

99.0

99.7

2.1

49.9

20.7

14.3

8.4

4.6

100.0

Puerto Rico

98.1

100.0

100.0

10.8

57.8

11.7

9.6

6.6

3.5

100.0

Rhode Island

94.9

100.0

6.2

6.8

49.0

11.3

9.9

7.7

15.3

100.0

South Carolina

83.6

90.3

13.5

0.4

46.7

17.3

13.5

9.1

12.9

100.0

South Dakota

90.6

99.3

11.7

2.0

33.9

17.3

14.8

10.9

21.0

100.0

Tennessee

91.3

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Texas

92.7

99.2

0.0

Data Not Reported

Utah

100.0

100.0

100.0

1.6

36.3

18.6

18.0

14.2

11.3

100.0

Vermont

94.9

96.4

33.3

0.5

48.6

19.0

13.8

8.2

9.7

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

67.9

99.4

96.9

0.0

50.2

13.4

12.8

9.8

13.7

100.0

Virginia

97.1

99.6

6.4

1.4

47.4

18.1

13.4

8.8

10.9

100.0

Washington

96.7

99.9

100.0

1.6

39.8

19.5

19.1

11.7

8.3

100.0

West Virginia

89.8

98.1

91.7

0.0

53.0

18.3

13.4

9.3

6.0

100.0

Wisconsin

97.6

100.0

27.3

4.8

38.6

21.7

16.6

12.3

6.0

100.0

Wyoming

77.2

100.0

81.7

1.4

43.6

21.3

17.7

9.1

7.0

100.0

Total

88.5

86.0

61.1

1.4

43.0

17.8

16.3

12.3

9.2

100.0

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

b Income certified in 2016, 2017, or 2018.

c Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

21

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments

A critical goal of the LIHTC Program is to provide affordable housing by limiting the share of a household’s income paid in rent, referred to as rent burden. The LIHTC Program restricts the maximum rent that can be charged for a unit to 30 percent of either 50 or 60 percent of AMGI, according to that chosen by the developer during the application process. Although the LIHTC Program sets 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 and do not vary directly with tenant income. Thus, rent 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 substantially from 30 percent.

The HUD 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 2016, 2017, or 2018. The first column of Table 10 lists the percentage of occupied units with both annual household income and gross rent. Overall, 85.0 percent of reported units included both income certified in 2016, 2017, or 2018 and rent. Alaska, Guam, Minnesota, and New York reported this information for less than two-thirds of their households. Oregon did not report data needed to calculate rent burden. Tennessee did not report the income certification date, which was necessary to make the calculation.

22

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income Household Incomea and

Tenant Paid Rent as % of Total Annual Household Income

Rent Reported

50.1 or

Unable to

State

(%)

0.00

0.1 to 30.0

30.1 to 40.0

40.1 to 50.0

Greater

Calculateb Total

Alabama

96.6

6.8

62.5

17.3

6.9

5.7

0.8

100.0

Alaskac

51.6

0.0

84.2

6.6

3.1

3.4

2.7

100.0

Arizona

92.8

0.0

55.5

23.6

11.5

8.8

0.7

100.0

Arkansas

97.6

7.6

64.1

14.0

6.1

7.0

1.2

100.0

California

93.5

1.0

57.8

18.9

10.6

11.8

0.0

100.0

Colorado

95.5

0.0

49.2

26.9

13.2

10.1

0.7

100.0

Connecticut

96.1

4.1

68.9

14.6

6.4

6.0

0.0

100.0

Delaware

99.9

8.3

69.7

12.6

3.2

5.1

1.0

100.0

District of Columbia

95.6

7.0

56.2

18.3

5.4

9.0

4.1

100.0

Florida

74.9

0.0

42.9

34.9

13.7

8.4

0.0

100.0

Georgia

90.6

8.3

58.0

17.5

7.2

7.2

1.8

100.0

Guamc

43.4

15.6

55.7

14.3

7.0

6.6

0.9

100.0

Hawaii

98.7

1.3

66.6

15.0

8.3

8.9

0.0

100.0

Idaho

98.2

2.7

54.9

23.6

10.4

7.8

0.7

100.0

Illinois

67.8

4.9

60.2

16.2

7.5

8.4

2.8

100.0

Indiana

99.1

7.1

53.7

21.2

8.6

7.6

1.7

100.0

Iowa

100.0

4.0

55.0

19.4

7.5

8.0

6.1

100.0

Kansas

100.0

5.5

62.4

16.7

6.6

7.1

1.6

100.0

Kentucky

100.0

77.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.8

100.0

Louisiana

71.0

0.0

62.2

18.8

9.2

9.4

0.5

100.0

Maine

94.9

0.0

69.2

15.6

7.5

6.1

1.6

100.0

Maryland

98.6

3.6

57.8

20.6

9.5

8.5

0.0

100.0

Massachusetts

99.0

2.4

77.7

10.9

3.6

5.4

0.0

100.0

Michigan

100.0

5.9

64.2

13.9

6.4

6.9

2.8

100.0

Minnesotac

65.1

3.5

55.1

19.5

9.6

11.5

0.8

100.0

Mississippi

100.0

11.6

50.8

16.9

7.7

7.3

5.6

100.0

Missouri

100.0

6.3

69.4

12.5

4.7

4.2

2.8

100.0

Montana

100.0

3.4

61.0

18.1

7.1

7.8

2.6

100.0

Nebraska

100.0

4.5

58.8

15.0

5.4

7.4

8.8

100.0

Nevada

100.0

2.9

37.8

26.2

16.9

14.5

1.7

100.0

New Hampshire

87.0

0.0

63.6

17.2

7.8

10.8

0.7

100.0

New Jersey

99.2

3.1

59.8

16.9

7.9

11.2

1.1

100.0

New Mexico

87.9

0.0

51.8

23.7

12.0

11.7

0.8

100.0

New Yorkc, d

24.5

1.7

60.6

17.9

7.6

11.2

1.1

100.0

North Carolina

85.7

0.0

69.1

16.7

6.5

7.8

0.0

100.0

North Dakota

100.0

2.7

57.8

14.8

6.2

9.4

9.1

100.0

Ohio

97.2

8.7

57.2

14.5

6.0

7.0

6.6

100.0

Oklahoma

100.0

10.1

57.1

16.9

6.7

6.3

2.9

100.0

Oregonc

0.0

Data Not Reported

Pennsylvania

99.0

4.2

68.3

14.1

6.1

5.3

2.1

100.0

Puerto Rico

100.0

27.6

53.9

4.4

1.9

1.4

10.8

100.0

Rhode Island

97.4

0.0

85.9

6.1

2.5

3.7

1.7

100.0

South Carolina

80.4

0.0

66.4

16.8

7.7

8.6

0.5

100.0

South Dakota

91.1

0.0

65.4

17.4

6.9

9.0

1.4

100.0

Tennesseec

0.0

Data Not Reported

Texas

99.2

4.7

40.2

29.6

13.1

11.0

1.4

100.0

Utah

100.0

2.2

52.5

22.8

9.9

11.0

1.6

100.0

Vermont

95.3

0.0

72.9

12.7

6.5

7.2

0.7

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

99.4

23.9

55.4

10.9

5.1

4.7

0.0

100.0

Virginia

93.5

0.0

52.9

24.8

10.7

11.1

0.5

100.0

Washington

99.9

1.7

53.7

21.2

11.7

10.0

1.6

100.0

West Virginia

98.1

8.4

66.7

11.4

4.9

8.5

0.0

100.0

Wisconsin

100.0

2.3

49.2

22.9

11.6

10.1

3.9

100.0

Wyoming

100.0

3.2

64.6

17.4

6.8

6.7

1.4

100.0

Total

85.0

4.1

55.8

20.2

9.2

9.0

1.7

100.0

a Includes only households with income certified in 2016, 2017, or 2018.

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

c Alaska, Guam, Minnesota, and New York reported this information for only a small portion of their households. Oregon did not report data needed to make the rent burden calculation. Tennessee did not report income certification date, which was necessary to make the calculation.

d Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

23

IX. Use of Rental Assistance

As shown in Table 9, 62 percent of LIHTC households earn 40 percent of AMGI or less, yet federal maximum unit rents are established to be affordable for households at 50 or 60 percent of AMGI. Various types of rental assistance—both project- and tenant-based assistance from HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state programs—may partially fill this gap. The HUD 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. Sixteen states18 did not report any households that did not receive 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, actually represents households that did not receive any rental assistance.

Tennessee is the one state where reporting on any type of rental assistance was unavailable. Reporting was low for Guam (13 percent reporting) and Arizona (19 percent reporting).

The HUD 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 32 states19 highlighted in gray in Table 12 did not report the source of federal rental assistance for any households. On average, the programs contributing the most to rental assistance in LIHTC households across states include HUD tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers (contributing 29

percent of rental assistance on average) and HUD Multi-Family Project Based Rental Assistance (contributing 24 percent of rental assistance on average).

18 Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Guam, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia.

19 Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

24

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

Properties Reported

Not

Reported

$0 > $0 Total State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

86.7

0.0

56.1

43.9

100.0

Alaska

38.9

19.8

19.0

61.2

100.0

Arizona

95.2

80.8

0.0

19.2

100.0

Arkansas

97.9

0.0

45.0

55.0

100.0

California

79.1

0.0

60.5

39.5

100.0

Colorado

84.3

69.2

0.0

30.8

100.0

Connecticut

93.6

0.0

41.4

58.6

100.0

Delaware

98.4

0.0

44.1

55.9

100.0

District of Columbia

66.7

33.3

40.4

26.2

100.0

Florida

88.0

77.9

0.0

22.1

100.0

Georgia

87.5

0.0

60.0

40.0

100.0

Guam

100.0

86.7

0.0

13.3

100.0

Hawaii

93.9

0.0

57.6

42.4

100.0

Idaho

96.1

0.1

61.7

38.2

100.0

Illinois

64.6

3.6

50.8

45.6

100.0

Indiana

91.9

0.0

56.0

44.0

100.0

Iowa

99.2

0.0

57.9

42.1

100.0

Kansas

75.5

0.0

65.5

34.5

100.0

Kentucky

97.5

0.0

44.7

55.3

100.0

Louisiana

94.1

64.1

0.0

35.9

100.0

Maine

89.6

52.9

0.0

47.1

100.0

Maryland

65.4

0.0

59.7

40.3

100.0

Massachusetts

67.8

0.0

28.4

71.6

100.0

Michigan

92.3

0.0

41.1

58.9

100.0

Minnesota

87.6

1.8

49.2

49.0

100.0

Mississippi

85.0

0.0

43.9

56.1

100.0

Missouri

93.5

0.0

52.3

47.7

100.0

Montana

100.0

0.0

49.7

50.3

100.0

Nebraska

100.0

0.0

55.5

44.5

100.0

Nevada

97.8

0.0

74.3

25.7

100.0

New Hampshire

89.8

49.5

0.0

50.5

100.0

New Jersey

56.9

0.0

56.5

43.5

100.0

New Mexico

83.7

61.2

0.0

38.8

100.0

New Yorka

93.9

78.1

3.1

18.8

100.0

North Carolina

99.6

48.4

0.0

51.6

100.0

North Dakota

86.0

0.0

89.2

10.8

100.0

Ohio

91.1

0.0

37.0

63.0

100.0

Oklahoma

85.8

0.0

44.7

55.3

100.0

Oregon

85.0

58.5

0.0

41.5

100.0

Pennsylvania

90.6

0.0

44.3

55.7

100.0

Puerto Rico

98.1

0.0

35.2

64.8

100.0

Rhode Island

94.9

24.1

0.0

75.9

100.0

South Carolina

83.6

56.1

0.0

43.9

100.0

South Dakota

90.6

64.3

0.0

35.7

100.0

Tennessee

91.3

100.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Texas

92.7

1.3

61.2

37.5

100.0

Utah

100.0

0.0

71.1

28.9

100.0

Vermont

94.9

56.1

0.0

43.9

100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands

67.9

0.0

73.0

27.0

100.0

Virginia

97.1

63.3

0.0

36.7

100.0

Washington

96.7

58.5

3.2

38.2

100.0

West Virginia

89.8

0.0

41.6

58.4

100.0

Wisconsin

97.6

0.0

64.2

35.8

100.0

Wyoming

77.2

0.0

70.6

29.4

100.0

Total

88.5

24.8

35.3

39.9

100.0

LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.

a Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

25

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

Source of

Source of Federal Rental Assistance

Amount of

Federal Rental

HUD Multi-Family

HUD Section 8

Public Housing

HUD Housing Choice

USDA Section 521

Federal Rental

Assistance

Project-Based Rental

Moderate

Operating

HOME Rental

Voucher, Tenant-

HUD Project-

Rental Assistance

Other Federal

Assistance > $01

Reported2 Assistance

Rehabilitation

Subsidy

Assistance

Based

Based Voucher

Program

Rental Assistance

Total

State

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Alabama

3.7

39.0

9.5

0.0

0.0

0.3

15.8

0.0

14.4

60.0

100.0

Alaska

0.0

60.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

Arizona

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Arkansas

0.1

21.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

93.3

5.2

0.2

100.0

California

5.5

34.4

16.1

3.6

0.9

0.1

29.5

33.1

9.1

7.6

100.0

Colorado

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Connecticut

10.2

46.6

21.9

0.3

1.6

0.0

20.6

44.5

0.3

10.8

100.0

Delaware

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

District of Columbia

2.9

6.5

45.2

0.0

4.5

0.0

0.2

50.2

0.0

0.0

100.0

Florida

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Georgia

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Guam

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Hawaii

11.9

31.9

37.4

1.3

0.1

0.0

15.3

19.1

9.0

17.8

100.0

Idaho

1.5

12.8

11.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.9

13.6

56.0

10.6

100.0

Illinois

16.4

37.9

43.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

23.4

4.1

4.7

24.4

100.0

Indiana

13.3

41.1

32.4

0.0

6.9

0.2

1.4

0.0

9.0

50.0

100.0

Iowa

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Kansas

0.0

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

9.5

34.9

27.3

0.1

0.0

0.0

16.7

29.6

1.5

24.9

100.0

Massachusetts

14.6

50.2

29.0

2.6

0.0

0.1

14.6

40.5

0.6

12.6

100.0

Michigan

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Minnesota

18.2

44.5

41.0

0.8

0.7

0.2

35.2

18.2

1.3

2.6

100.0

Mississippi

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Missouri

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Montana

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Nebraska

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Nevada

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Hampshire

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Jersey

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Mexico

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

New Yorka

0.1

2.5

5.3

4.0

0.0

0.0

50.8

13.5

0.0

26.4

100.0

North Carolina

0.0

38.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

48.2

0.0

0.0

51.8

100.0

North Dakota

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Ohio

25.3

59.0

42.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.0

0.0

4.3

44.8

100.0

Oklahoma

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Oregon

0.0

6.7

0.6

0.0

22.3

0.6

72.8

3.3

0.5

0.0

100.0

Pennsylvania

0.0

37.6

0.0

34.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

65.4

0.0

0.0

100.0

Puerto Rico

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

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

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Texas

6.0

30.3

19.9

2.8

2.5

0.0

64.9

7.1

0.0

2.7

100.0

Utah

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Vermont

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

U.S. Virgin Islands

0.0

16.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.1

89.9

0.0

0.0

100.0

Virginia

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Washington

13.5

35.2

38.3

1.0

0.0

5.4

42.1

1.5

8.9

2.7

100.0

West Virginia

8.9

43.3

20.6

0.2

0.0

0.0

26.0

23.4

17.0

12.8

100.0

Wisconsin

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Wyoming

0.0

0.0

Data Not Reported

Total

4.6

19.1

24.3

3.2

1.1

0.4

28.8

19.1

5.2

17.9

100.0

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.

a Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

26

27

Document Outline

Understanding Whom the LIHTC Serves: Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2017

Message From the Assistant Secretary

Contents

List of Tables

I. Introduction

II. Comparison of 2016 and 2017 Data Submissions

III. Assessing Completeness of 2017 Tenant Data

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

B. Properties in the Tenant Data

C. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 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