1 

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 
2 

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 all those who worked to make this report possible and whose continuing commitment will 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
3 

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
4 

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 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 HFAs have not fully adopted the HUD standards for 

collecting demographic information. Thus, although income and rent information were collected 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.
5 

Table 1. Comparison of 2016 and 2017 LIHTC Data Submissions

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 suballocators, 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. 

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

2016 Data 2017 Data Difference 2016–2017

LIHTC Properties PIS Database LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

2016 Data 2017 Data Difference 2016–2017
6 

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

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. 

State

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 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

2017 LIHTC Properties PIS Database 2017 LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission
7 

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

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. 

State

Less Than Reported 

Household Size at Certification 

(%)

Equals Reported 

Household Size at Certification 

(%)

Greater Than Reported 

Household Size at Certification 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 0.0 3.3 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

Household Size 

at Certification 

Not Reported 

(%)
8 

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.
9 

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 suballocators. 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 suballocations 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 laborintensive 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 suballocators 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 allocating agencies conduct compliance for their bond-issuing 

agencies.
10

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-inservice 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 all 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 HERAmandated 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, Illinois, 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 annually 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. 
11

submitted considerably fewer units than in their previous submissions. The decreases were generally 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 asthe head of the household.12 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.

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 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 nearly complete overall; household size is missing in

6.7 percent of all 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 assessthe

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. 
12

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, Illinois, 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. Recall 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 all 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. 
13

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household 

 

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.

White 

Alone 

(%)

Black or African 

American Alone 

(%)

Asian 

Alone 

(%)

American Indian 

and Alaska 

Native Alone 

(%)

Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific 

Islander Alone 

(%)

Other (Including 

Multiple Races) 

(%)

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

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

NOT HISPANIC

Hispanic 

(Any Race) 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Race or 

Ethnicity Not 

Reported

State (%)
14

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 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 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 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).
15

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Members With Disabilities

 

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.

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

Properties Reported 

(%)

All Household 

Members Reporteda 

(%)

Disability Status Reported 

for At Least One Member 

(%)

At Least One Member 

Reported as Disabled 

State (%)
16

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members

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.

State

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

Properties Reported 

(%)

All Household 

Members Reporteda 

(% of Households)

Disability Status 

is Reported 

(% of Individuals)

Reported as Disabled 

(% of Individuals)
17

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.
18

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

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. 

State

Head of Household 

(%)

All Reported Members 

(%)

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

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

All Household 

Members Reported 

(% of Households)a

Valid Date of Birth Provided for At Least One 

Member < 18 

(%)

At Least One 

Member >= 62 

(%)

Reported Head of 

Household >= 62 

(%)

Data Not Reported
19

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 extendeduse 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. 
20

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income

 

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.

Median 

Income 

($)

<= $5,000 

(%)

$5,001 to 

$10,000 

(%)

$10,001 to 

$15,000 

(%)

$15,001 to 

$20,000 

(%)

> $20,000 

(%) 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

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

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

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

State

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

Income 

Reported 

(%)

Households with Reported Annual Income
21

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI

 

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. 

0 

(%)

0.1 to 30.0 

(%)

30.1 to 40.0 

(%)

40.1 to 50.0 

(%)

50.1 to 60.0 

(%)

Greater 

than 60.0 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 86.7 96.6 0.0

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

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

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

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

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

Texas 92.7 99.2 0.0

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

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

Income 

Reportedb 

(%)

Income,b Income 

Limit, and Income 

Restriction Reported 

(%)

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

State
22

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 tenantpaid 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.
23

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income

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.

State 0.00 0.1 to 30.0 30.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 50.0 

50.1 or 

Greater 

Unable to 

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

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

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

Household Incomea

 and 

Rent Reported 

(%)

Tenant Paid Rent as % of Total Annual Household Income

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported
24

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.
25

Table 11. Percentage of LIHTC Households Receiving Monthly Rental Assistance

LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. a Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

State

Not Reported 

(%)

$0 

(%)

> $0 

(%)

Total 

(%)

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

Properties Reported 

(%)

Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance
26

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

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. aDoes not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

HUD Multi-Family 

Project-Based Rental 

Assistance 

(%)

HUD Section 8 

Moderate 

Rehabilitation 

(%)

Public Housing 

Operating 

Subsidy 

(%)

HOME Rental 

Assistance 

(%)

HUD Housing Choice 

Voucher, TenantBased 

(%)

HUD ProjectBased Voucher 

(%)

USDA Section 521 

Rental Assistance 

Program 

(%)

Other Federal 

Rental Assistance 

(%)

Total 

(%)

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

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

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

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

Georgia 0.0 0.0

Guam 0.0 0.0

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

Kansas 0.0 0.0

Kentucky 0.0 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.0

Maine 0.0 0.0

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

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

Missouri 0.0 0.0

Montana 0.0 0.0

Nebraska 0.0 0.0

Nevada 0.0 0.0

New Hampshire 0.0 0.0

New Jersey 0.0 0.0

New Mexico 0.0 0.0

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

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

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

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0

South Carolina 0.0 0.0

South Dakota 0.0 0.0

Tennessee 0.0 0.0

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

Vermont 0.0 0.0

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

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

Wyoming 0.0 0.0

Total 4.6 19.1 24.3 3.2 1.1 0.4 28.8 19.1 5.2 17.9 100.0

Reported 

Amount of 

Federal Rental 

Assistance > $01 

(%)

Source of 

Federal Rental 

Assistance 

Reported2 

(%)

Source of Federal Rental Assistance

State

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported
27