Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units

as of December 31, 2013 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units 

as of December 31, 2013

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

March 2016
ii

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 12. Use of Federal Rental Assistance Programs in LIHTC Units......................................................... 23
1

I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and, in some states, not collected at all. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completeness as warranted. 
2

II. Comparison of 2012 and 2013 Data Submissions

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

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

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

Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012, and do not include updated information on

properties placed in service prior to 2013 that was reported with the 2013 LIHTC properties placed in

service (PIS) data collection.1 The changes between 2012 and 2013 all represent net changes in either total

properties or total units.

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvement in matching, which is shown in table 2. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 HFAs reported 1,456 LIHTC properties placed in service prior to 2013 with the 2013 properties. Most of these 

newly reported properties were placed in service in 2012 (691) or 2011 (522).
3

Table 1. Comparison of 2012 and 2013 LIHTC Data Submissions

State

LIHTC Properties PIS Database LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

2012 Data 2013 Data Difference 2012–2013 2012 Data 2013 Data Difference 2012–2013

Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units

Alabama 705 35,936 709 36,208 4 272 355 11,651 325 13,452 – 30 1,801

Alaska 90 3,469 90 3,469 0 0 19 704 44 1,773 25 1,069

Arizona 373 28,192 376 28,653 3 461 295 21,984 341 26,450 46 4,466

Arkansas 607 28,444 578 28,447 – 29 3 396 17,284 389 17,084 – 7 – 200

California 3,018 240,434 3,313 263,806 295 23,372 2,666 204,956 2,831 224,698 165 19,742

Colorado 444 28,549 454 29,556 10 1,007 402 23,605 472 30,086 70 6,481

Connecticut 307 18,028 307 18,029 0 1 235 13,536 222 15,174 – 13 1,638

Delaware 123 7,147 137 7,900 14 753 115 6,349 124 6,825 9 476

District of Columbia 124 17,850 134 17,888 10 38 Not Reported 151 15,048 2012 Not Reported

Florida 1,068 148,304 1,265 177,304 197 29,000 964 144,398 998 147,269 34 2,871

Georgia 1,018 95,050 991 93,950 – 27 – 1,100 689 52,474 643 50,232 – 46 – 2,242

Guam 5 433 5 433 0 0 5 433 5 433 0 0 

Hawaii 72 6,490 74 6,727 2 237 72 6,330 77 6,730 5 400

Idaho 189 7,698 201 8,402 12 704 215 8,443 214 8,166 – 1 – 277

Illinoisa 1,197 75,150 1,301 84,418 104 9,268 515 25,342 286 17,813 – 229 – 7,529

Indiana 578 37,792 748 46,354 170 8,562 442 13,258 496 45,796 54 32,538

Iowa 594 21,641 615 22,850 21 1,209 469 17,498 468 17,374 – 1 – 124

Kansas 604 28,175 496 23,627 – 108 – 4,548 467 21,052 474 20,711 7 – 341

Kentucky 736 24,203 726 23,658 – 10 – 545 562 20,750 478 12,081 – 84 – 8,669

Louisiana 1,049 56,693 885 48,742 – 164 – 7,951 432 20,352 355 17,922 – 77 – 2,430

Maine 187 6,306 197 6,673 10 367 122 4,720 167 6,142 45 1,422

Maryland 694 59,832 369 35,201 – 325 – 24,631 454 34,735 414 35,392 – 40 657

Massachusetts 750 50,774 734 49,868 – 16 – 906 580 39,917 609 43,062 29 3,145

Michigan 1,274 70,000 1,302 72,690 28 2,690 1,008 62,276 1,027 63,250 19 974

Minnesota 626 27,500 808 36,815 182 9,315 378 16,159 689 33,313 311 17,154

Mississippi 572 31,585 580 32,105 8 520 512 27,450 529 27,567 17 117

Missouri 1,561 53,680 919 43,314 – 642 – 10,366 946 44,106 916 41,525 – 30 – 2,581

Montana 210 6,047 210 6,058 0 11 175 5,227 182 5,313 7 86

Nebraska 239 6,970 330 10,858 91 3,888 317 10,413 329 10,978 12 565

Nevada 206 20,207 184 19,247 – 22 – 960 208 22,125 215 24,182 7 2,057

New Hampshire 183 6,648 177 6,484 – 6 – 164 157 5,040 163 5,181 6 141

New Jersey 671 43,815 631 46,065 – 40 2,250 461 33,128 462 31,835 1 – 1,293

New Mexico 229 12,686 334 22,423 105 9,737 Not Reported 209 14,115 2012 Not Reported

New Yorka 2,459 128,433 2,724 170,626 265 42,193 1,017 64,329 1,320 106,092 303 41,763

North Carolina 1,294 52,474 1,375 57,352 81 4,878 938 48,410 906 48,506 – 32 96

North Dakota 171 5,198 171 5,167 0 – 31 162 4,886 168 5,092 6 206

Ohio 1,081 75,170 1,419 92,047 338 16,877 794 56,831 595 36,776 – 199 – 20,055

Oklahoma 460 22,970 475 23,537 15 567 378 18,371 391 18,247 13 – 124

Oregon 536 30,942 543 31,505 7 563 35 800 153 7,147 118 6,347

Pennsylvania 858 34,298 817 31,936 – 41 – 2,362 987 45,231 947 43,926 – 40 – 1,305

Puerto Rico 200 17,598 204 18,047 4 449 175 14,741 182 15,804 7 1,063

Rhode Island 187 10,958 161 10,297 – 26 – 661 164 10,007 168 10,355 4 348

South Carolina 698 33,916 537 29,363 – 161 – 4,553 358 15,452 478 23,121 120 7,669

South Dakota 202 6,991 160 5,862 – 42 – 1,129 181 6,550 150 5,087 – 31 – 1,463

Tennessee 909 53,477 925 53,925 16 448 427 34,032 478 36,822 51 2,790

Texas 1,860 176,720 1,967 187,151 107 10,431 1,488 170,443 1,483 170,555 – 5 112

Utah 370 19,122 366 19,050 – 4 – 72 319 15,392 304 15,551 – 15 159

Vermont 241 5,277 245 5,340 4 63 232 5,442 237 5,591 5 149

U.S. Virgin Islands 24 1,324 24 1,363 0 39 22 1,011 23 1,072 1 61

Virginia 827 71,995 873 76,800 46 4,805 846 73,838 866 74,035 20 197

Washington 996 68,139 1,006 69,070 10 931 67 23,552 760 36,387 693 12,835

West Virginia 267 10,725 232 10,660 – 35 – 65 234 9,947 229 10,428 – 5 481

Wisconsin 766 24,326 795 24,705 29 379 462 20,659 450 21,038 – 12 379

Wyoming 98 4,360 89 3,992 – 9 – 368 89 2,751 85 3,636 – 4 885

Total 34,807 2,160,141 35,288 2,286,017 481 125,876 24,008 1,578,370 25,677 1,732,240 1,669 153,870

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

Note: The 2012 data are identical to those reported in Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012, 

and do not include information on properties placed in service prior to 2013 that was reported with the 2013 PIS data collection. a 2012 totals do not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or either of New York City’s 

two suballocators, the New York City Housing Development Corporation or Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD). 2013 totals do 

not include tenant data from the Chicago Department of Planning and Development or the New York City HPD. 
4

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

State

2013 LIHTC Properties PIS Database 2013 LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

All Active 

Properties

All Active 

Units

Properties 

Matched to 

HERA

(%)

Units in 

Matched 

Properties

(%)

All Active 

Properties

All Active 

Units

Properties 

Matched to 

PIS

(%)

Units in 

Matched 

Properties

(%)

Alabama 709 36,208 38.6 41.4 325 13,452 95.4 94.8

Alaska 90 3,469 21.1 26.9 44 1,773 43.2 56.4

Arizona 376 28,653 84.0 84.6 341 26,450 92.7 94.2

Arkansas 578 28,447 64.2 61.0 389 17,084 92.0 91.1

California 3,313 263,806 72.6 72.7 2,831 224,698 84.0 82.7

Colorado 454 29,556 85.0 84.5 472 30,086 81.4 80.0

Connecticut 307 18,029 55.0 67.4 222 15,174 74.8 74.3

Delaware 137 7,900 78.1 80.7 124 6,825 90.3 92.7

District of Columbia 134 17,888 44.0 47.5 151 15,048 58.3 53.8

Florida 1,265 177,304 78.2 84.5 998 147,269 95.5 97.5

Georgia 991 93,950 52.7 60.3 643 50,232 91.6 91.6

Guam 5 433 100.0 100.0 5 433 100.0 100.0

Hawaii 74 6,727 86.5 82.0 77 6,730 83.1 79.9

Idaho 201 8,402 86.1 84.2 214 8,166 85.0 87.2

Illinoisa 1,301 84,418 20.9 24.7 286 17,813 92.0 93.2

Indiana 748 46,354 46.8 47.4 496 45,796 78.4 78.0

Iowa 615 22,850 66.3 72.1 468 17,374 88.0 88.6

Kansas 496 23,627 96.8 96.7 474 20,711 96.8 96.3

Kentucky 726 23,658 63.5 72.9 478 12,081 94.8 96.0

Louisiana 885 48,742 36.8 41.7 355 17,922 88.2 88.1

Maine 197 6,673 79.7 88.2 167 6,142 93.4 95.2

Maryland 369 35,201 73.7 68.1 414 35,392 66.7 68.4

Massachusetts 734 49,868 60.5 65.4 609 43,062 71.8 72.8

Michigan 1,302 72,690 66.7 74.3 1,027 63,250 83.0 82.3

Minnesota 808 36,815 62.9 63.1 689 33,313 70.1 68.5

Mississippi 580 32,105 87.1 90.5 529 27,567 95.1 95.9

Missouri 919 43,314 74.1 78.5 916 41,525 74.3 67.8

Montana 210 6,058 82.9 90.4 182 5,313 94.5 96.2

Nebraska 330 10,858 90.9 93.5 329 10,978 90.9 91.1

Nevada 184 19,247 79.9 82.3 215 24,182 67.9 69.0

New Hampshire 177 6,484 50.8 53.6 163 5,181 55.2 60.0

New Jersey 631 46,065 32.5 35.6 462 31,835 44.4 44.7

New Mexico 334 22,423 59.9 70.7 209 14,115 87.1 90.4

New Yorka 2,724 170,626 34.1 47.2 1,320 106,092 67.3 67.3

North Carolina 1,375 57,352 66.5 84.5 906 48,506 98.3 98.8

North Dakota 171 5,167 88.3 90.5 168 5,092 89.9 90.3

Ohio 1,419 92,047 37.1 36.6 595 36,776 89.4 90.1

Oklahoma 475 23,537 56.8 51.7 391 18,247 68.3 63.7

Oregon 543 31,505 22.5 20.8 153 7,147 79.7 78.6

Pennsylvania 817 31,936 65.7 73.7 947 43,926 56.4 53.6

Puerto Rico 204 18,047 66.7 61.0 182 15,804 70.3 61.6

Rhode Island 161 10,297 98.8 98.9 168 10,355 97.0 97.2

South Carolina 537 29,363 72.4 69.6 478 23,121 80.5 79.5

South Dakota 160 5,862 84.4 83.6 150 5,087 88.7 87.4

Tennessee 925 53,925 54.1 74.9 478 36,822 100.0 100.0

Texas 1,967 187,151 50.1 58.5 1,483 170,555 64.9 61.3

Utah 366 19,050 76.8 81.2 304 15,551 93.1 94.0

Vermont 245 5,340 44.9 42.7 237 5,591 46.0 42.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 24 1,363 79.2 76.7 23 1,072 82.6 79.1

Virginia 873 76,800 73.8 72.4 866 74,035 74.0 72.8

Washington 1,006 69,070 75.3 3.5 760 36,387 11.7 4.7

West Virginia 232 10,660 81.9 80.1 229 10,428 83.0 80.0

Wisconsin 795 24,705 51.6 47.0 450 21,038 87.8 87.9

Wyoming 89 3,992 75.3 75.1 85 3,636 78.8 79.0

Total 35,288 2,286,017 59.3 62.0 25,677 1,732,240 78.4 77.7

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

Note: The PIS Properties Matched to HERA column is not consistent with the reported matching rate in the 2012 LIHTC data. The previous matching 

rate contained a calculation error, dividing the number of HERA properties by the number of matched PIS properties. In limited cases, this error 

led to an overestimate of matched properties because some multiphase properties were listed twice in the HERA data but once in the PIS data. a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. 
5

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

State

Household Size at

Certification Not Reported

(%)

Less Than Reported Household 

Size at Certification 

(%)

Equals Reported Household 

Size at Certification

(%)

Greater Than Reported 

Household Size at Certification

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 0.0 3.6 91.1 5.3 100.0

Alaskaa 100.0 Data Not Reported

Arizona 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.4 100.0

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 99.4 0.6 100.0

California 3.3 0.6 95.9 0.2 100.0

Colorado 0.0 4.9 76.7 18.4 100.0

Connecticuta 99.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 100.0

Delaware 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

District of Columbiaa 50.2 4.3 44.5 1.0 100.0

Floridab 5.1 63.0 32.0 0.0 100.0

Georgia 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Guam 3.7 1.4 93.3 1.6 100.0

Hawaiia 97.5 0.0 2.4 0.1 100.0

Idaho 5.2 0.6 93.3 0.8 100.0

Illinoisc 0.0 3.2 85.1 11.7 100.0

Indiana 0.0 3.0 56.6 40.3 100.0

Iowa 0.0 1.9 97.9 0.2 100.0

Kansas 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Kentucky 10.2 2.3 85.7 1.8 100.0

Louisiana 0.0 1.0 98.6 0.4 100.0

Maine 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.4 100.0

Marylanda 99.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0

Massachusettsa 100.0 Data Not Reported

Michigan 0.0 0.5 98.9 0.6 100.0

Minnesotab 0.9 56.9 42.2 0.0 100.0

Mississippi 0.0 0.4 99.1 0.4 100.0

Missouri 0.0 0.7 99.0 0.3 100.0

Montana 4.3 0.0 95.5 0.2 100.0

Nebraska 5.8 1.1 92.7 0.4 100.0

Nevada 5.1 0.0 80.6 14.2 100.0

New Hampshire 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.4 100.0

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

New Mexico 0.1 3.0 96.4 0.5 100.0

New Yorkc 6.6 18.4 74.5 0.5 100.0

North Carolina 5.1 28.1 66.8 0.0 100.0

North Dakotab 0.0 47.9 52.1 0.0 100.0

Ohio 6.0 0.2 41.4 52.3 100.0

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 100.0

Oregon 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.2 100.0

Pennsylvania 0.3 0.0 94.9 4.7 100.0

Puerto Rico 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.2 100.0

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 98.0 2.0 100.0

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 100.0

South Dakota 0.0 0.4 99.3 0.3 100.0

Tennessee 0.0 3.3 91.9 4.8 100.0

Texasb 0.2 61.7 38.2 0.0 100.0

Utah 0.0 3.4 94.6 2.0 100.0

Vermont 0.0 0.0 98.9 1.1 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islandsa 100.0 Data Not Reported

Virginia 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.5 100.0

Washington 0.0 2.4 97.6 0.0 100.0

West Virginiaa 100.0 Data Not Reported

Wisconsin 0.0 1.3 95.3 3.4 100.0

Wyoming 0.0 0.4 99.2 0.3 100.0

Total 8.8 15.2 72.7 3.3 100.0

a Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia did not report household size for all or nearly all

households. The District of Columbia reported household size at certification for only one-half of its tenants. b Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas provided information for only one household member.

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

Calculation note: In the previous report, the last three columns of this table summed to 100 percent. In table 3, all four columns sum to 100 percent. 
6

III. Assessing Completeness of 2013 Tenant Data 

LIHTCs are administered by 60 state-level and, in limited instances, substate allocating HFAs.

2 Several

states separate administrative functions among multiple state agencies or local suballocators. The District

of Columbia and the states of 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 suballocations from New York State. Minnesota

allows seven local governments4 to allocate tax credits, although the state reports the tenant and property

data for the entire state.

5

A. States Submitting Tenant Data

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

compliance (for simplicity, hereafter referred to as “states”). HFAs administering LIHTCs in the District of

Columbia, New Mexico, and the cities of Chicago and New York did not submit 2012 tenant information. 

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

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

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

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

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

B. Properties in the Tenant Data

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

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

for several reasons. First, most states simplify or decrease the stringency of compliance rules after Year 15,

which lessens or eliminates certain information otherwise 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 many of these properties are managed by independent owners who may not have the ability to

 

2 This total includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Aside from its use of 

the Tax Credit Exchange Program, or TCEP, in 2009, American Samoa does not actively administer LIHTCs and is not 

counted here.

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

Counties, New York. 4 Dakota and Washington Counties and the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, Rochester, Saint Cloud, and Saint Paul 

each receive a portion of the state allocation.

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

Beginning in the fall of 2016, however, the suballocators will begin reporting directly to HUD.
7

submit electronically. Converting or hand-entering the information into electronic compliance and

reporting systems requires considerable time, and some states were not able to complete this type of

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

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

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

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

6

 

One method of assessing the completeness of each state’s HERA-mandated tenant data is to compare

the total number of properties the data contain with the number of properties reported to HUD through

its LIHTC PIS data collection,7 summarized in table 2. The time period covered in HUD’s PIS data

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

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

collected placed-in-service years.8 In addition, the PIS database also fails to correctly identify some

properties that are no longer monitored for program compliance, which inflates the true number of

properties in service. Hence, neither database is expected to be 100 percent complete and, from the

data available to HUD, it is not possible to provide a definitive assessment of completeness based on

one number. Rather, comparisons across the two sources of data suggest where issues of incomplete 

data, in either data source, may be larger.

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

State HFAs, however, submitted tenant information for 25,677 properties.9 As expected, most states

reported more properties in 2013, some with large increases. Alaska and Oregon both reported at least 

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

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

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

C. LIHTC Rent-Restricted Units 

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

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

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

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

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

database. State HFAs, however, reported data on tenants in 1.732 million units through the HERAmandated tenant submission to HUD. More than three-fourths (77.7 percent) of the units reported in 

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

 

6 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2013, some states provided the most recent 

income certification information, which was 2014.

7 HUD annually collects information on LIHTC properties placed in service during the previous calendar year. This 

information is available from http://lihtc.huduser.org/. 8 In addition to underreporting because of technicalities of determining placed-in-service status, several states 

(Alaska, Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico) did not submit information in certain recent 

years. See the database at http://lihtc.huduser.org/ for years of nonreporting. 9 Properties are identified in the tenant data based on property name, property identification number, city, and state.
8

Although information is submitted on a unit basis, the information in this report focuses primarily on

households or individual members, such as heads of household. The difference between reported units

and total number of households is the number of vacant units. The vacancy rate of reported units was

approximately 5 percent.

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

units in the 2012 data, reflecting better overall reporting.10 About 70,000 units of this increase were the

first-time reporting from the District of Columbia, New Mexico, and the New York City HDC. Alaska,

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

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

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

reported. 

D. Household Members 

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

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

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

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

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

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

reported asthe head of the household.11 In addition, not all 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. For some analyses, such as reporting household

composition, this factor is difficult to assess in states with incomplete data on all household members.

Hence, for tables presenting information on individuals as opposed to households, it is important to have

some sense of the coverage of household members.

States do provide information on household size, which is used to determine the maximum applicable

income limit during household income certification. When 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 actually reported in the tenant data. The first

column reportsthe share of householdsfor which household size at certification was not reported; that is,

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

data. Reporting of household size is quite complete overall; household size is missing in 8.8 percent of all

reported households. With the exceptions of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, the

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

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

per unit—this variable can be used to assessthe completeness of household membersin the tenant data. In

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

 

10 This total includes both vacant and occupied units. 11 The reporting of the head of household in LIHTC is merely for reference and is unrelated to status reported on 

individual income returns. 
9

IV. Race and Ethnicity of Tenants 

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

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

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

and necessary for program compliance by the state HFAs, race and ethnicity are not. Before the HERAmandated HUD collection, many states did not collect any race or ethnicity information, while others

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

incorporation, or modification, of race and ethnicity into states’ TIC forms caused a delay in their ability 

to report this information to HUD. This delay was caused in part by the process of amending the state

TIC forms to request this information but also by the need to 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 are requested for each household member. As explained in the previous section, data

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant portion of unreported units for their respective states.

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

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

12 states, highlighted in gray, submitted all household members for less than one-half of their reported

occupied units. The underreporting of household members across states lead to the decision to include

only tabulations of heads of household for race and ethnicity and for several other tabulations presented

subsequently in this report.12

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

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

provide perspective on the completeness for the entire active LIHTC stock in each state.13 Four states,

Florida, North Dakota, Texas, and Washington, did not provide race or ethnicity information for any

heads of household.

14 Two more states, Pennsylvania and Utah, reported race and ethnicity for less than

5 percent of occupied units. Kentucky was the only other state to report this information for less than

approximately one-half of its reported households.

 

12 Included in these tabulations are household members who are not reported as heads but are the only reported 

household members. Also, if a head of household is not indicated, the first member reported on the submitted 

form is included in these tabulations.

13 For example, although the Alaska HFC submitted both race and ethnicity data for 94.3 percent of reported heads 

of household, the tenant data for Alaska include only 21.1 percent of its LIHTC stock. 

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

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/docs/13-HSR.pdf. 
10

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household

State

Properties 

Reported

(%)

Non-Hispanic

Hispanic 

(Any 

Race)

(%)

Race or 

Ethnicity 

Not Reported

(%)

Total

(%)

White 

Alone

(%)

Black or 

AfricanAmerican 

Alone

(%)

Asian 

Alone

(%)

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native Alone

(%)

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Alone

(%)

Other 

(Including 

Multiple 

Race) 

(%)

Alabama 38.6 29.0 55.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 14.5 100.0

Alaska 21.1 47.2 10.2 8.9 19.7 4.1 0.0 4.2 5.7 100.0

Arizona 84.0 35.6 11.0 1.2 7.2 0.4 1.5 32.5 10.6 100.0

Arkansas 64.2 41.4 51.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.2 2.6 2.7 100.0

California 72.6 20.6 12.9 9.8 0.6 0.5 1.6 26.9 27.1 100.0

Colorado 85.0 33.9 9.7 2.1 0.8 0.2 1.9 20.0 31.4 100.0

Connecticut 55.0 29.3 23.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.7 25.3 18.9 100.0

Delaware 78.1 25.2 64.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.8 7.3 1.2 100.0

District of Columbia 44.0 1.1 61.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 3.2 33.0 100.0

Florida 78.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Georgia 52.7 16.0 65.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.4 2.6 13.0 100.0

Guam 100.0 5.5 1.4 24.0 0.2 63.7 0.2 0.2 4.6 100.0

Hawaii 86.5 16.1 1.5 32.2 0.5 26.2 5.2 7.6 10.7 100.0

Idaho 86.1 70.6 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.9 0.8 8.0 14.5 100.0

Illinoisa 20.9 53.1 37.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 4.3 3.6 100.0

Indiana 46.8 47.5 39.5 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.8 10.7 100.0

Iowa 66.3 51.5 11.1 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.7 2.4 32.8 100.0

Kansas 96.8 54.5 19.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 2.2 2.7 20.2 100.0

Kentucky 63.5 28.6 16.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 53.9 100.0

Louisiana 36.8 11.2 65.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.4 1.3 17.0 100.0

Maine 79.7 76.2 7.0 0.7 0.8 0.1 3.5 1.5 10.1 100.0

Maryland 73.7 16.5 38.4 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.7 5.4 37.3 100.0

Massachusetts 60.5 28.1 16.7 5.5 0.3 0.1 1.5 24.4 23.4 100.0

Michigan 66.7 32.3 27.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.0 1.8 36.9 100.0

Minnesota 62.9 43.9 29.1 2.6 2.8 0.3 0.9 2.5 18.0 100.0

Mississippi 87.1 12.5 65.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.8 18.5 100.0

Missouri 74.1 48.5 33.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.5 2.0 13.6 100.0

Montana 82.9 71.0 0.8 0.3 9.3 0.2 2.0 2.6 13.9 100.0

Nebraska 90.9 42.7 13.9 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.3 3.8 37.0 100.0

Nevada 79.9 35.3 13.1 1.8 0.5 0.7 2.1 19.8 26.7 100.0

New Hampshire 50.8 68.1 3.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 13.8 4.4 9.6 100.0

New Jersey 32.5 22.5 34.7 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 8.0 32.7 100.0

New Mexico 59.9 21.3 3.2 0.6 7.6 0.1 7.4 42.0 17.7 100.0

New Yorka 34.1 18.4 28.5 2.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 18.5 31.7 100.0

North Carolina 66.5 26.5 49.9 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.0 3.2 18.7 100.0

North Dakota 88.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Ohio 37.1 37.8 43.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.8 16.4 100.0

Oklahoma 56.8 57.1 20.1 0.6 7.2 0.2 2.7 3.9 8.1 100.0

Oregon 22.5 49.2 6.2 1.0 1.1 0.3 1.8 7.8 32.7 100.0

Pennsylvania 65.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 100.0

Puerto Rico 66.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 82.3 17.2 100.0

Rhode Island 98.8 52.3 15.3 0.7 1.2 0.1 3.6 19.6 7.1 100.0

South Carolina 72.4 20.6 61.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 2.2 2.9 12.1 100.0

South Dakota 84.4 57.7 3.5 1.2 18.6 0.1 4.3 2.5 12.1 100.0

Tennessee 54.1 37.0 45.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.3 15.0 100.0

Texas 50.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Utah 76.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 98.9 100.0

Vermont 44.9 81.1 3.0 1.3 0.3 0.0 9.0 1.3 4.0 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 79.2 0.8 54.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 13.1 31.0 100.0

Virginia 73.8 22.9 47.5 2.2 0.4 0.1 4.4 8.2 14.4 100.0

Washington 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

West Virginia 81.9 66.2 12.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 7.7 1.2 11.7 100.0

Wisconsin 51.6 51.8 24.2 0.9 1.6 0.1 1.0 4.3 16.1 100.0

Wyoming 75.3 60.1 4.1 0.6 2.0 0.2 1.5 7.6 23.9 100.0

Total 59.3 22.9 22.7 2.1 0.7 0.3 1.2 9.5 40.6 100.0

a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. 
11

V. Disability Status 

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

A tenant’s response, or nonresponse, does not affect the tenant’s ability to claim disability benefits or to

request handicapped-accessible features in the LIHTC unit. The Fair Housing Act defines a disability as a 

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

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

impairment are found in 24 CFR 100.201. In compliance with the Fair Housing Act, tenants are not

required to respond to this question.

Before the HERA data collection mandate, few states collected tenant disability status for the head of

household or other household members. Thus, nearly all HFAs had to amend their TIC forms to request 

this information, which delayed their ability to report to HUD. Missing data or data coverage of disability 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not report disability status for any household members. 

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

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

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

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

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

individuals downward from the actual percentage. 
12

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members

State

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

All Household Members 

Reporteda 

(% Households)

Disability Status Reported for At 

Least One Member

(% Households)

At Least One Member 

Reported as Disabled

(% Households)

Alabama 38.6 91.1 100.0 8.6

Alaska 21.1 Data Not Reported 95.8 20.0

Arizona 84.0 99.6 100.0 9.8

Arkansas 64.2 99.4 100.0 10.5

California 72.6 95.9 92.4 11.3

Colorado 85.0 76.7 83.8 3.7

Connecticutb 55.0 0.3 96.0 8.5

Delaware 78.1 100.0 100.0 4.1

District of Columbia 44.0 44.5 43.9 7.4

Floridac 78.2 32.0 100.0 3.0

Georgia 52.7 100.0 100.0 1.8

Guam 100.0 93.3 95.8 1.2

Hawaiib 86.5 2.4 90.6 6.0

Idaho 86.1 93.3 96.6 24.8

Illinoisd 20.9 85.1 100.0 2.9

Indiana 46.8 56.6 100.0 16.2

Iowa 66.3 97.9 85.0 9.6

Kansas 96.8 100.0 100.0 5.6

Kentucky 63.5 85.7 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 36.8 98.6 100.0 2.4

Maine 79.7 99.6 100.0 16.6

Marylandb 73.7 0.4 85.6 4.5

Massachusetts 60.5 Data Not Reported 93.8 11.4

Michigan 66.7 98.9 68.8 7.7

Minnesotac 62.9 42.2 86.8 6.8

Mississippi 87.1 99.1 87.3 7.4

Missouri 74.1 99.0 88.2 9.0

Montana 82.9 95.5 98.8 15.8

Nebraska 90.9 92.7 99.4 8.0

Nevada 79.9 80.6 89.7 9.7

New Hampshire 50.8 99.5 100.0 5.9

New Jersey 32.5 100.0 100.0 3.7

New Mexico 59.9 96.4 100.0 6.2

New Yorkd 34.1 74.5 67.4 15.4

North Carolina 66.5 66.8 94.9 13.9

North Dakotac 88.3 52.1 57.0 0.0

Ohio 37.1 41.4 51.1 10.7

Oklahoma 56.8 99.7 91.5 8.1

Oregon 22.5 99.8 100.0 15.0

Pennsylvaniae 65.7 94.9 9.0 9.8

Puerto Rico 66.7 99.8 100.0 5.9

Rhode Island 98.8 98.0 100.0 32.8

South Carolina 72.4 99.7 100.0 3.6

South Dakota 84.4 99.3 100.0 7.5

Tennessee 54.1 91.9 100.0 9.9

Texasc 50.1 38.2 0.0 0.0

Utahe 76.8 94.6 1.6 0.2

Vermont 44.9 98.9 100.0 17.3

U.S. Virgin Islands 79.2 Data Not Reported 67.8 0.8

Virginia 73.8 99.5 100.0 5.0

Washington 75.3 97.6 60.1 27.6

West Virginia 81.9 Data Not Reported 87.7 17.8

Wisconsin 51.6 95.3 84.3 11.2

Wyoming 75.3 99.2 93.2 12.7

Total 59.3 72.7 78.0 8.3

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. HUD could not 

evaluate Alaska, Massachusetts, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia because household size at certification was not provided. b Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maryland reported all household members for less than 3 percent of LIHTC households.

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

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

e Pennsylvania and Utah reported disability status for less than 10 percent of reported households.
13

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members

State

Properties Reported

(%)

All Household Members Reporteda

(% of Households)

Disability Status Is Reported

(% of Individuals)

Reported as Disabled

(% of Individuals)

Alabama 38.6 91.1 100.0 4.7

Alaska 21.1 Data Not Reported 97.3 9.5

Arizona 84.0 99.6 100.0 4.0

Arkansas 64.2 99.4 100.0 5.0

California 72.6 95.9 93.8 4.9

Colorado 85.0 76.7 85.5 1.6

Connecticutb 55.0 0.3 97.1 5.9

Delaware 78.1 100.0 100.0 2.0

District of Columbia 44.0 44.5 39.2 4.2

Floridac 78.2 32.0 100.0 3.0

Georgia 52.7 100.0 100.0 0.9

Guam 100.0 93.3 97.5 0.3

Hawaiib 86.5 2.4 94.2 3.2

Idaho 86.1 93.3 97.6 11.9

Illinoisd 20.9 85.1 100.0 1.7

Indiana 46.8 56.6 100.0 5.2

Iowa 66.3 97.9 82.1 5.1

Kansas 96.8 100.0 100.0 2.9

Kentucky 63.5 85.7 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 36.8 98.6 100.0 1.1

Maine 79.7 99.6 100.0 8.5

Marylandb 73.7 0.4 89.7 2.9

Massachusetts 60.5 Data Not Reported 94.8 6.5

Michigan 66.7 98.9 66.3 4.3

Minnesotac 62.9 42.2 86.8 6.8

Mississippi 87.1 99.1 87.5 3.2

Missouri 74.1 99.0 87.7 5.0

Montana 82.9 95.5 98.8 8.8

Nebraska 90.9 92.7 98.8 4.0

Nevada 79.9 80.6 87.7 4.3

New Hampshire 50.8 99.5 100.0 2.8

New Jersey 32.5 100.0 100.0 2.0

New Mexico 59.9 96.4 100.0 2.8

New Yorkd 34.1 74.5 75.6 10.0

North Carolina 66.5 66.8 97.2 7.5

North Dakotac 88.3 52.1 57.0 0.0

Ohio 37.1 41.4 22.0 3.5

Oklahoma 56.8 99.7 91.8 4.2

Oregon 22.5 99.8 100.0 6.9

Pennsylvaniae 65.7 94.9 5.5 5.5

Puerto Rico 66.7 99.8 100.0 2.7

Rhode Island 98.8 98.0 100.0 18.9

South Carolina 72.4 99.7 100.0 1.7

South Dakota 84.4 99.3 100.0 3.2

Tennessee 54.1 91.9 100.0 4.7

Texasc 50.1 38.2 0.0 0.0

Utahe 76.8 94.6 1.8 0.1

Vermont 44.9 98.9 100.0 9.8

U.S. Virgin Islands 79.2 Data Not Reported 75.4 0.6

Virginia 73.8 99.5 100.0 2.4

Washington 75.3 97.6 57.3 13.3

West Virginia 81.9 Data Not Reported 91.7 11.6

Wisconsin 51.6 95.3 79.5 6.8

Wyoming 75.3 99.2 93.2 5.8

Total 59.3 72.7 81.2 4.5

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. HUD could not 

evaluate Alaska, Massachusetts, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia because household size at certification was not provided. b Connecticut, Hawaii, and Maryland reported all household members for less than 3 percent of LIHTC households.

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

d Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. e Pennsylvania and Utah reported disability status for less than 10 percent of reported households.

Calculation note: Unlike in the previously reported LIHTC Households With Disabled Members table, units with missing disability status for

household members are included in the denominator. 
14

VI. Family Composition and Age 

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

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

elderly members, in table 7. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

State

All Household Members 

Reporteda 

(% of Households)

Valid Date of Birth Provided for

At Least One 

Member < 18

(%)

At Least One 

Member ≥ 62 

(%)

Reported Head of 

Household ≥ 62

(%)

Head of 

Household

(%)

All Reported 

Members

(%)

Alabama 91.1 100.0 99.8 37.7 27.6 27.1

Alaska Data Not Reported 97.0 97.5 32.5 25.2 24.5

Arizona 99.6 99.4 99.4 48.3 25.0 24.0

Arkansas 99.4 98.2 98.4 43.9 21.7 21.2

California 95.9 96.8 98.4 38.7 35.5 33.9

Colorado 76.7 97.0 97.8 37.9 26.1 25.5

Connecticutb 0.3 63.4 74.6 16.6 27.1 26.7

Delaware 100.0 99.8 95.0 42.2 27.1 26.4

District of Columbia 44.5 80.2 88.4 29.0 21.1 20.4

Florida 32.0 Data Not Reported

Georgia 100.0 97.1 91.8 36.1 27.1 26.5

Guam 93.3 95.4 98.3 76.9 11.1 6.5

Hawaiib 2.4 68.3 82.6 23.0 34.1 32.6

Idaho 93.3 96.8 97.9 39.6 26.7 26.0

Illinoisc 85.1 100.0 100.0 25.2 50.0 49.7

Indiana 56.6 100.0 99.8 43.3 25.0 24.4

Iowa 97.9 100.0 99.6 32.4 29.9 29.4

Kansas 100.0 95.3 85.9 28.5 28.0 27.7

Kentucky 85.7 99.0 98.4 35.9 27.6 27.1

Louisiana 98.6 95.4 97.1 46.1 21.1 20.4

Maine 99.6 98.8 99.3 33.5 37.1 36.1

Marylandb 0.4 73.9 83.2 20.5 34.4 34.0

Massachusetts Data Not Reported 77.6 86.9 26.9 28.7 27.9

Michigan 98.9 100.0 99.1 31.0 35.5 34.9

Minnesota 42.2 85.0 85.0 Data Suppressedd 17.8 17.8

Mississippi 99.1 99.9 99.7 51.3 16.9 16.5

Missouri 99.0 100.0 99.5 33.3 30.9 30.5

Montana 95.5 95.7 97.4 29.4 34.2 33.9

Nebraska 92.7 94.1 96.3 36.9 25.2 24.7

Nevada 80.6 95.0 96.2 33.1 35.0 33.3

New Hampshire 99.5 97.5 98.2 39.0 35.0 34.0

New Jersey 100.0 93.2 88.4 25.5 43.9 43.1

New Mexico 96.4 94.0 96.5 44.2 19.1 18.2

New Yorkc 74.5 52.5 63.0 15.5 20.5 20.0

North Carolina 66.8 94.5 96.2 35.4 31.3 30.9

North Dakota 52.1 0.1 0.1 Data Suppressedd

Ohio 41.4 16.9 10.7 Data Suppressedd

Oklahoma 99.7 99.6 99.3 39.8 31.8 31.4

Oregon 99.8 99.7 99.7 37.7 26.2 25.4

Pennsylvania 94.9 95.0 97.0 28.8 45.0 44.5

Puerto Rico 99.8 100.0 99.6 43.3 38.6 38.3

Rhode Island 98.0 99.6 99.7 25.9 41.3 40.6

South Carolina 99.7 99.2 99.2 46.8 23.6 23.0

South Dakota 99.3 95.4 96.8 49.0 22.4 21.8

Tennessee 91.9 100.0 99.9 44.6 19.1 18.4

Texas 38.2 Data Not Reported

Utah 94.6 95.2 43.0 Data Suppressedd 17.9 17.9

Vermont 98.9 99.2 99.0 28.0 41.2 40.3

U.S. Virgin Islands Data Not Reported 20.4 39.2 Data Suppressedd

Virginia 99.5 99.1 99.1 41.9 25.0 24.0

Washington 97.6 82.4 84.3 28.2 28.4 27.6

West Virginia Data Not Reported 50.6 67.4 21.5 11.8 11.5

Wisconsin 95.3 94.8 96.5 23.5 41.0 40.3

Wyoming 99.2 99.9 99.2 45.0 22.2 21.9

Total 72.7 72.5 80.9 37.4 32.3 31.5

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. HUD could not 

evaluate Alaska, Massachusetts, Virgin Islands, and West Virginia because household size at certification was not provided.

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

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

d Too few dates of birth were reported to provide a reliable estimate.
16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this report include only household incomes reported for 2012, 2013, or 201416. This method will exclude 

some units in properties with 100 percent low-income units and some properties in their extended-use

period, because annual recertifications are not required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eligibility. HUD, however, does not request AMGI and, to make this comparison, the AMGI must either 

be determined by address or derived from information provided on the LIHTC Tenant Data Collection 

Form, specifically the percentage of income or rent restriction (50 or 60 percent of AMGI) and the 

applicable income limit for each unit. The distribution provided in this report uses the latter method 

because it yielded a larger sample on which the distribution could be calculated.

 

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

Montana, and Puerto Rico, provided the most recent income certification information, which was 2014.
17

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income

State

Properties 

Reported

(%)

Income 

Reported

(%)

Households With Reported Annual Income

Median 

Income

($)

≤ $5,000

(%)

$5,001 to 

$10,000

(%)

$10,001 to 

$15,000

(%)

$15,001 to 

$20,000

(%)

> $20,000

(%) Total

Alabama 38.6 100.0 16,042 5.0 20.5 20.1 21.6 32.8 100.0

Alaskaa 21.1 0.0 Data Not Reported

Arizona 84.0 99.6 19,073 5.4 15.4 17.0 19.5 42.7 100.0

Arkansas 64.2 94.4 12,988 8.0 24.6 20.8 18.3 28.3 100.0

California 72.6 90.2 19,391 2.9 6.2 26.3 16.6 48.0 100.0

Colorado 85.0 100.0 18,330 7.9 17.8 15.0 13.8 45.5 100.0

Connecticut 55.0 94.9 19,126 3.9 19.8 15.3 13.6 47.4 100.0

Delaware 78.1 99.6 17,107 7.8 17.6 18.1 16.2 40.4 100.0

District of Columbiaa 44.0 35.2 23,897 8.1 16.9 10.3 7.4 57.2 100.0

Florida 78.2 85.5 22,452 3.6 10.3 11.1 15.3 59.6 100.0

Georgia 52.7 94.7 17,488 7.1 16.3 17.6 17.4 41.7 100.0

Guam 100.0 52.0 29,977 7.1 4.0 2.7 8.0 78.2 100.0

Hawaii 86.5 97.0 22,105 2.3 16.8 14.1 11.9 54.9 100.0

Idaho 86.1 93.6 16,535 4.9 18.7 21.4 21.2 33.8 100.0

Illinoisb 20.9 100.0 15,701 8.4 18.7 19.9 19.4 33.6 100.0

Indiana 46.8 100.0 16,008 12.1 16.6 17.7 18.4 35.2 100.0

Iowa 66.3 100.0 17,054 14.8 14.1 15.0 15.4 40.7 100.0

Kansas 96.8 96.5 16,906 7.7 16.5 18.5 19.2 38.1 100.0

Kentucky 63.5 100.0 9,327 30.1 22.3 16.8 12.5 18.3 100.0

Louisiana 36.8 84.1 15,856 7.6 22.6 16.9 19.0 33.8 100.0

Maine 79.7 97.6 14,640 6.6 20.5 20.8 18.1 34.0 100.0

Maryland 73.7 94.8 21,520 3.4 15.6 14.2 13.7 53.0 100.0

Massachusetts 60.5 96.1 15,785 4.3 17.7 24.9 14.3 38.8 100.0

Michigan 66.7 100.0 14,356 9.9 23.1 19.4 17.0 30.6 100.0

Minnesota 62.9 97.9 9,736 39.0 12.2 11.0 9.2 28.4 100.0

Mississippi 87.1 100.0 14,539 14.3 19.5 17.7 19.0 29.5 100.0

Missouri 74.1 100.0 16,260 9.8 18.2 17.6 17.1 37.3 100.0

Montana 82.9 95.7 15,102 6.9 21.7 21.2 20.0 30.3 100.0

Nebraska 90.9 94.2 17,040 16.7 11.7 14.7 16.7 40.2 100.0

Nevada 79.9 81.1 18,804 4.5 11.0 18.2 21.1 45.2 100.0

New Hampshire 50.8 85.6 18,744 4.7 12.8 16.2 14.9 51.4 100.0

New Jersey 32.5 97.7 20,800 5.6 13.7 13.8 14.6 52.3 100.0

New Mexico 59.9 92.6 16,098 7.5 18.2 16.5 18.4 39.5 100.0

New Yorkb 34.1 81.8 12,765 22.8 18.7 14.8 12.5 31.3 100.0

North Carolina 66.5 90.3 14,724 9.1 21.3 21.9 18.6 29.0 100.0

North Dakota 88.3 100.0 16,917 8.4 17.8 18.2 15.4 40.2 100.0

Ohio 37.1 51.3 13,692 13.4 22.5 19.1 18.1 27.0 100.0

Oklahoma 56.8 100.0 13,447 12.9 22.0 21.5 20.3 23.3 100.0

Oregon 22.5 74.1 15,600 7.0 21.2 19.7 16.3 35.9 100.0

Pennsylvania 65.7 97.8 14,793 12.7 20.6 19.0 17.7 30.0 100.0

Puerto Rico 66.7 100.0 5,772 45.6 30.8 16.2 5.1 2.3 100.0

Rhode Island 98.8 99.7 12,517 7.1 28.5 20.6 15.5 28.3 100.0

South Carolina 72.4 97.1 14,598 7.7 18.9 19.9 19.8 33.7 100.0

South Dakota 84.4 99.0 17,934 11.1 14.9 16.2 16.1 41.8 100.0

Tennessee 54.1 100.0 15,240 14.1 18.6 17.0 17.1 33.2 100.0

Texasa 50.1 9.4 18,240 7.5 15.5 15.0 18.6 43.4 100.0

Utah 76.8 100.0 19,245 7.8 14.3 14.6 15.5 47.8 100.0

Vermont 44.9 97.3 15,120 3.1 21.9 20.4 17.6 36.9 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 79.2 94.7 20,000 15.6 12.1 12.7 10.8 48.8 100.0

Virginia 73.8 99.4 22,197 6.7 13.5 12.2 12.6 55.0 100.0

Washington 75.3 99.9 18,396 4.8 17.8 16.8 15.9 44.7 100.0

West Virginia 81.9 92.2 12,904 10.6 28.5 21.1 16.1 23.8 100.0

Wisconsin 51.6 100.0 17,708 10.0 14.3 16.7 17.3 41.6 100.0

Wyoming 75.3 100.0 19,200 13.5 10.8 13.4 14.7 47.7 100.0

Total 59.3 84.0 17,000 9.4 15.8 17.9 16.1 40.8 100.0

a Alaska did not report income for any households, preventing tabulations. Texas reported household income for less than 10 percent of 

households, and the District of Columbia reported income for about one-third of households. b Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. 
18

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI

State

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

Income 

Reportedb 

(%)

Income,b Income Limit, 

and Income Restriction 

Reported

(%)

Total Household Annual Income as Percent of Derived AMGIa

0 

(%)

0.1 to 

30.0 

(%)

30.1 to 

40.0

(%)

40.1 to 

50.0 

(%)

50.1 to 

60.0

(%)

60.0 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 38.6 100.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Alaska 21.1 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Arizona 84.0 99.6 83.0 1.0 29.9 19.8 21.0 16.0 12.2 100.0

Arkansas 64.2 94.4 91.4 0.8 40.3 20.9 17.0 13.3 7.6 100.0

California 72.6 90.2 87.6 0.0 47.0 18.9 15.2 10.5 8.4 100.0

Colorado 85.0 100.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Connecticut 55.0 94.9 65.8 0.0 54.5 16.0 12.9 10.3 6.3 100.0

Delaware 78.1 99.6 99.6 1.1 44.7 18.2 17.2 10.8 8.0 100.0

District of Columbia 44.0 35.2 22.0 2.3 52.0 13.0 12.7 14.4 5.7 100.0

Florida 78.2 85.5 0.0 Data Not Reported

Georgia 52.7 94.7 94.7 1.6 32.3 19.2 18.7 14.5 13.8 100.0

Guam 100.0 52.0 50.8 1.8 15.0 15.9 22.7 44.1 0.5 100.0

Hawaii 86.5 97.0 62.7 0.0 45.3 17.5 13.1 10.0 14.2 100.0

Idaho 86.1 93.6 79.5 1.2 32.7 22.4 23.3 12.4 8.1 100.0

Illinoisc 20.9 100.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Indiana 46.8 100.0 28.9 0.8 38.6 20.3 21.0 13.7 5.7 100.0

Iowa 66.3 100.0 100.0 0.0 46.2 18.3 16.6 15.1 3.8 100.0

Kansas 96.8 96.5 96.5 2.2 37.5 20.3 19.2 14.3 6.6 100.0

Kentucky 63.5 100.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Louisiana 36.8 84.1 5.6 1.2 41.0 21.1 18.4 11.4 7.0 100.0

Maine 79.7 97.6 89.0 2.9 47.3 19.5 16.5 9.5 4.4 100.0

Maryland 73.7 94.8 64.6 0.0 50.4 19.4 14.6 10.5 5.2 100.0

Massachusetts 60.5 96.1 77.3 0.0 69.0 12.9 9.2 6.1 2.8 100.0

Michigan 66.7 100.0 100.0 0.0 53.1 17.8 14.4 9.6 5.1 100.0

Minnesota 62.9 97.9 94.8 33.3 35.9 11.4 9.4 7.3 2.8 100.0

Mississippi 87.1 100.0 100.0 0.0 44.8 18.4 17.7 14.1 5.0 100.0

Missouri 74.1 100.0 100.0 0.0 44.8 18.7 16.3 12.8 7.4 100.0

Montana 82.9 95.7 95.7 0.0 45.4 20.8 18.1 12.3 3.4 100.0

Nebraska 90.9 94.2 94.2 0.0 46.1 18.6 17.4 14.0 3.8 100.0

Nevada 79.9 81.1 81.1 0.0 36.2 23.3 20.1 14.9 5.5 100.0

New Hampshire 50.8 85.6 84.5 2.4 41.6 20.7 18.1 11.7 5.6 100.0

New Jersey 32.5 97.7 97.7 1.5 44.4 19.5 15.9 9.4 9.3 100.0

New Mexico 59.9 92.6 82.2 1.7 35.3 18.8 20.6 14.7 8.9 100.0

New Yorkc 34.1 81.8 64.8 18.1 43.1 14.1 11.9 7.2 5.5 100.0

North Carolina 66.5 90.3 79.2 0.0 46.2 20.0 16.8 10.7 6.3 100.0

North Dakota 88.3 100.0 100.0 0.0 48.0 17.9 16.0 11.6 6.6 100.0

Ohio 37.1 51.3 0.0 Data Not Reported

Oklahoma 56.8 100.0 100.0 0.0 48.3 19.9 17.8 10.4 3.6 100.0

Oregon 22.5 74.1 27.3 3.1 42.5 19.7 17.2 11.3 6.2 100.0

Pennsylvania 65.7 97.8 93.4 4.1 49.2 20.7 14.4 8.1 3.5 100.0

Puerto Rico 66.7 100.0 100.0 0.0 67.5 11.8 9.7 7.7 3.3 100.0

Rhode Island 98.8 99.7 88.6 3.3 66.4 14.9 8.8 4.4 2.3 100.0

South Carolina 72.4 97.1 91.5 1.0 39.2 20.9 19.0 13.1 6.8 100.0

South Dakota 84.4 99.0 91.3 4.9 36.1 18.7 18.9 13.8 7.6 100.0

Tennessee 54.1 100.0 98.4 3.1 42.2 17.1 16.8 14.0 6.8 100.0

Texas 50.1 9.4 0.0 Data Not Reported

Utah 76.8 100.0 98.6 0.0 41.3 19.5 17.3 13.8 8.0 100.0

Vermont 44.9 97.3 96.7 1.2 48.8 18.0 14.7 11.0 6.2 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 79.2 94.7 20.4 0.0 36.5 13.7 13.7 15.5 20.5 100.0

Virginia 73.8 99.4 95.3 1.2 37.8 19.1 20.1 15.4 6.3 100.0

Washington 75.3 99.9 99.9 1.1 39.7 21.6 19.5 11.1 7.0 100.0

West Virginia 81.9 92.2 52.1 0.0 55.8 17.7 13.5 8.2 4.8 100.0

Wisconsin 51.6 100.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Wyoming 75.3 100.0 100.0 0.0 46.5 18.4 17.7 9.9 7.5 100.0

Total 59.3 84.0 61.7 2.9 44.8 18.3 16.0 11.3 6.7 100.0

AMGI = Area Median Gross Income. a AMGI was derived by dividing the income limit by percent income restriction. b Income certified in 2012, 2013, or 2014.

c Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. 
19

VIII. Monthly Rental Payments 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information for only a small portion of their households. 
20

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income

State

Household Incomea

and Rent Reported

(%)

Tenant-Paid Rent as Percent of Total Annual Household Incomea

0 

(%)

0.1 to 30.0

(%)

30.1 to 40.0 

(%)

40.1 to 50.0

(%)

50.1 or Greater 

(%)

Income = $0b

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 100.0 5.0 63.0 17.2 7.2 5.9 1.7 100.0

Alaska 0.0 Data Not Reported

Arizona 92.7 0.0 51.3 25.3 12.9 9.9 0.6 100.0

Arkansas 87.2 0.0 69.9 15.8 6.9 7.0 0.4 100.0

California 90.2 1.0 52.2 20.8 12.6 13.4 0.0 100.0

Colorado 100.0 3.1 52.3 22.2 10.5 9.1 2.8 100.0

Connecticut 94.9 4.0 69.1 15.2 5.9 5.9 0.0 100.0

Delaware 99.6 9.1 68.6 12.5 3.5 5.2 1.1 100.0

District of Columbiac 35.2 9.2 58.2 18.4 5.1 7.0 2.0 100.0

Florida 84.3 2.4 38.3 33.7 14.8 10.3 0.4 100.0

Georgia 94.7 9.2 57.0 18.1 7.7 6.4 1.6 100.0

Guam 52.0 8.0 65.8 12.9 6.7 3.1 3.6 100.0

Hawaii 97.0 1.1 67.4 15.6 7.5 8.3 0.0 100.0

Idaho 93.5 3.2 52.5 23.8 10.0 9.3 1.2 100.0

Illinoisd 100.0 4.3 57.2 16.4 7.4 11.0 3.7 100.0

Indiana 100.0 6.5 58.4 20.4 7.3 6.8 0.7 100.0

Iowa 94.8 0.0 58.3 18.3 6.9 16.5 0.0 100.0

Kansas 96.5 5.8 60.4 17.8 6.8 7.0 2.2 100.0

Kentucky 100.0 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 100.0

Louisiana 74.5 0.0 54.6 22.8 9.8 12.0 0.7 100.0

Maine 91.8 0.0 63.9 19.0 7.8 7.6 1.6 100.0

Maryland 94.8 4.1 55.5 20.6 10.3 9.5 0.0 100.0

Massachusetts 96.1 1.9 76.7 11.8 4.0 5.6 0.0 100.0

Michigan 92.2 0.0 63.5 18.0 8.4 10.1 0.0 100.0

Minnesota 97.8 2.2 42.6 11.3 4.6 6.0 33.4 100.0

Mississippi 88.8 0.0 60.3 19.0 8.2 12.5 0.0 100.0

Missouri 89.7 0.0 74.9 14.4 5.1 5.6 0.0 100.0

Montana 92.3 0.0 63.2 19.6 8.0 9.2 0.0 100.0

Nebraska 88.4 0.0 59.7 15.7 5.4 19.1 0.0 100.0

Nevada 78.2 0.0 42.7 27.6 17.1 12.6 0.0 100.0

New Hampshire 80.5 0.0 56.8 20.8 10.4 10.3 1.8 100.0

New Jersey 97.7 3.2 60.3 16.9 8.1 10.0 1.5 100.0

New Mexico 88.3 0.0 48.1 25.0 12.5 12.5 1.8 100.0

New Yorkd 81.2 0.7 52.9 13.6 4.9 8.5 19.4 100.0

North Carolina 83.0 0.0 67.4 16.8 6.8 9.0 0.0 100.0

North Dakota 95.8 0.0 64.2 17.7 6.8 11.4 0.0 100.0

Ohio 51.3 9.5 58.7 15.4 6.6 6.7 3.2 100.0

Oklahoma 88.9 0.0 66.7 18.5 7.1 7.7 0.0 100.0

Oregon 70.2 0.0 46.8 20.1 13.0 17.6 2.5 100.0

Pennsylvania 97.8 4.7 63.2 13.5 5.5 4.9 8.2 100.0

Puerto Rico 70.9 0.0 85.7 6.2 2.3 5.7 0.0 100.0

Rhode Island 96.0 0.0 83.9 7.3 2.5 3.9 2.5 100.0

South Carolina 87.0 0.0 61.4 20.3 8.7 9.1 0.5 100.0

South Dakota 85.4 0.0 65.8 16.3 7.1 8.6 2.2 100.0

Tennessee 100.0 8.9 57.5 17.4 6.2 5.4 4.6 100.0

Texasc 9.4 5.5 47.5 25.3 11.0 9.5 1.3 100.0

Utah 95.9 0.0 53.9 22.4 10.1 13.6 0.0 100.0

Vermont 92.7 0.0 69.9 14.9 7.2 7.3 0.8 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 94.7 21.1 58.7 11.5 5.9 2.8 0.0 100.0

Virginia 92.6 0.0 49.9 25.9 11.2 12.5 0.5 100.0

Washington 99.9 1.3 51.4 22.3 12.0 11.8 1.1 100.0

West Virginia 92.2 8.0 67.4 11.9 5.1 7.6 0.0 100.0

Wisconsin 100.0 1.9 49.4 23.6 10.4 7.7 6.9 100.0

Wyoming 87.5 0.0 64.9 19.1 6.5 9.5 0.0 100.0

Total 81.4 3.0 55.6 19.7 9.0 9.5 3.1 100.0

a Includes only households with income certified in 2012, 2013, or 2014. b Ratio of tenant-paid rent to household income could not be calculated because total annual household income equals $0. c The District of Columbia and Texas reported income certification dates and percent rent restriction for a low percentage of households.

d Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. 
21

IX. Use of Rental Assistance 

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

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

gap may partially be filled by various types of rental assistance—both project- and tenant-based

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

Collection Form requests the amount of rental assistance received for a unit. 

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

organizations—for reported LIHTC tenants. Nine states17 did not report any households not receiving 

rental assistance—that is, households receiving $0 of rental assistance—but did report a large

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

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

states, and possibly others, actually represents households that did not receive rental assistance; that is, 

households receiving $0 in rental assistance. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which a positive amount was provided. The 23 states18 highlighted in gray in table 12 did not report the

source of federal rental assistance for any households. 

 

17 Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont. 18 Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New 

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

Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
22

Table 11. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance

State

Properties 

Reported

(%)

Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance

Not Reported

(%)

$0 

(%)

> $0

(%)

Total

(%)

Alabama 38.6 0.0 58.4 41.6 100.0

Alaska 21.1 8.0 41.2 50.9 100.0

Arizona 84.0 0.0 78.5 21.5 100.0

Arkansas 64.2 50.4 0.0 49.6 100.0

California 72.6 2.7 65.7 31.7 100.0

Colorado 85.0 0.0 79.8 20.2 100.0

Connecticut 55.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 100.0

Delaware 78.1 0.0 46.4 53.6 100.0

District of Columbia 44.0 0.0 65.2 34.8 100.0

Florida 78.2 0.0 81.8 18.2 100.0

Georgia 52.7 0.0 62.6 37.4 100.0

Guam 100.0 0.0 77.4 22.6 100.0

Hawaii 86.5 0.0 73.1 26.9 100.0

Idaho 86.1 3.4 63.5 33.1 100.0

Illinoisa 20.9 0.0 55.3 44.7 100.0

Indiana 46.8 0.0 57.2 42.8 100.0

Iowa 66.3 0.0 59.8 40.2 100.0

Kansas 96.8 0.0 60.7 39.3 100.0

Kentucky 63.5 0.0 55.6 44.4 100.0

Louisiana 36.8 63.6 0.0 36.4 100.0

Maine 79.7 41.3 0.0 58.7 100.0

Maryland 73.7 0.0 72.4 27.6 100.0

Massachusetts 60.5 0.0 48.2 51.8 100.0

Michigan 66.7 0.0 48.8 51.2 100.0

Minnesota 62.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Mississippi 87.1 0.0 41.1 58.9 100.0

Missouri 74.1 0.0 53.8 46.2 100.0

Montana 82.9 0.0 52.6 47.4 100.0

Nebraska 90.9 0.0 62.4 37.6 100.0

Nevada 79.9 0.0 68.8 31.2 100.0

New Hampshire 50.8 54.9 0.0 45.1 100.0

New Jersey 32.5 0.0 61.3 38.7 100.0

New Mexico 59.9 66.9 0.0 33.1 100.0

New Yorka 34.1 45.8 33.5 20.7 100.0

North Carolina 66.5 0.0 53.1 46.9 100.0

North Dakota 88.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Ohio 37.1 3.0 39.7 57.3 100.0

Oklahoma 56.8 0.0 48.1 51.9 100.0

Oregon 22.5 66.6 0.0 33.4 100.0

Pennsylvania 65.7 0.0 47.2 52.8 100.0

Puerto Rico 66.7 0.0 30.5 69.5 100.0

Rhode Island 98.8 22.6 0.0 77.4 100.0

South Carolina 72.4 58.1 0.0 41.9 100.0

South Dakota 84.4 0.0 63.4 36.6 100.0

Tennessee 54.1 0.0 53.7 46.3 100.0

Texas 50.1 0.0 62.5 37.5 100.0

Utah 76.8 0.0 71.2 28.8 100.0

Vermont 44.9 39.7 0.0 60.3 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 79.2 0.0 98.3 1.7 100.0

Virginia 73.8 0.0 64.3 35.7 100.0

Washington 75.3 0.0 73.4 26.6 100.0

West Virginia 81.9 0.0 72.1 27.9 100.0

Wisconsin 51.6 0.0 63.9 36.1 100.0

Wyoming 75.3 0.0 68.9 31.1 100.0

Total 59.3 6.6 57.5 35.9 100.0

a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD. 
23

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

State

Reported 

Amount of 

Federal 

Rental 

Assistance 

> $0

(%)

Source of 

Federal 

Rental 

Assistance 

Reported

(%)

Source of Federal Rental Assistance

HUD 

Multifamily 

PBRA

(%)

HUD Section 8 

Moderate 

Rehabilitation

(%)

Public 

Housing 

Operating 

Subsidy 

(%)

HOME 

Rental 

Assistance

(%)

HUD HCV 

Program, 

TenantBased

(%)

HUD 

ProjectBased 

Voucher 

(%)

USDA 

Section 521 

Rental 

Assistance 

Program

(%)

Other 

Federal 

Rental 

Assistance

(%)

Total

(%)

Alabama 39.5 100.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.5 0.0 10.2 84.4 100.0

Alaska 30.3 30.1 9.8 33.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 10.1 0.0 14.1 100.0

Arizona 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

California 27.9 27.7 18.0 4.4 0.6 0.1 24.7 19.4 10.6 22.2 100.0

Colorado 17.3 100.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.6 100.0

Connecticut 35.0 45.1 9.0 0.4 2.8 0.0 28.0 39.0 3.2 17.6 100.0

Delaware 26.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

District of Columbia 6.4 14.9 19.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 16.5 38.6 0.0 25.5 100.0

Florida 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Georgia 18.5 0.0 Data Not Reported

Guam 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Hawaii 23.7 37.1 21.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 16.9 35.3 1.8 22.9 100.0

Idaho 12.2 14.4 12.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.8 4.9 43.0 31.4 100.0

Illinoisa 43.7 100.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.1 60.3 100.0

Indiana 30.8 71.0 12.0 0.0 8.1 0.1 7.0 0.0 3.4 69.5 100.0

Iowa 0.0 29.0 47.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.6 0.0 0.0 6.9 100.0

Kansas 31.3 0.0 Data Not Reported

Kentucky 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Maine 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Maryland 21.2 32.9 1.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 30.4 57.1 3.4 6.9 100.0

Massachusetts 43.4 48.4 13.7 0.8 0.1 0.0 24.5 48.4 1.2 11.2 100.0

Michigan 0.0 38.4 62.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 22.7 100.0

Minnesota 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Mississippi 0.0 51.8 37.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 40.2 100.0

Missouri 0.0 34.6 64.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 7.5 100.0

Montana 0.0 40.1 59.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 100.0

Nebraska 0.0 29.1 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.5 0.0 0.0 5.8 100.0

Nevada 0.0 13.1 86.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 12.3 100.0

New Hampshire 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

New Jersey 25.5 0.0 Data Not Reported

New Mexico 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

New Yorka 16.0 16.5 6.6 9.3 2.9 0.9 28.8 30.1 5.5 16.0 100.0

North Carolina 39.8 39.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 50.2 100.0

North Dakota 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Ohio 5.2 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.3 94.7 100.0

Oklahoma 0.0 36.2 18.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 0.0 41.6 100.0

Oregon 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Pennsylvania 32.6 35.5 0.0 31.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 60.4 0.0 7.7 100.0

Puerto Rico 0.0 65.2 93.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

South Dakota 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Tennessee 46.3 100.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.8 0.0 3.9 78.2 100.0

Texas 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Utah 0.0 23.8 1.8 82.7 0.0 14.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0

Vermont 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

U.S. Virgin Islands 1.7 45.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 26.8 4.3 58.1 0.0 100.0

Virginia 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Washington 25.6 25.8 30.4 0.2 0.0 7.7 43.1 6.5 10.0 2.1 100.0

West Virginia 24.0 54.6 3.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 24.9 24.6 30.4 15.0 100.0

Wisconsin 0.0 0.0 Data Not Reported

Wyoming 0.0 25.9 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0

Total 13.7 23.2 19.8 4.4 1.0 0.4 19.2 12.5 4.0 38.8 100.0

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

Project-Based Rental Assistance. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. a Does not include tenant data from Illinois’ suballocator, the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, or the New York City HPD.