Understanding Whom 

the LIHTC Serves

Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units 

as of December 31, 2015

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Understanding Whom the LIHTC Serves

Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of 

December 31, 2015

 

 

 

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

 

 

 

 

March 2018
ii

Contents

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

II. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Data Submissions.................................................................................... 5

III. Assessing Completeness of 2015 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 2014 and 2015 LIHTC Data Submissions................................................................... 2

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Properties Matched Between Property and Tenant Databases ............. 3

Table 3. Reported Number of Household Members Compared With Household Size at Certification......... 4

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), 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. This report represents the third annual data release 

of information collected under this mandate. 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 HUD’s 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, or DDAs, and Qualified Census Tracts, or QCTs. HUD is not involved in 

enforcing the statutory or regulatory 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 fourth public release of information under the HERA mandate. 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 2016

and includes tenants in LIHTC units as of December 31, 2015. Table 1 highlights the differences between 

the 2014 and 2015 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

Table 1. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 LIHTC Data Submissions

HERA = Housing and Economic Recovery Act. LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. PIS = LIHTC properties placed in service database.

Note: The 2014 data are identical to those reported in Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2014 and do not include information 

on properties placed in service prior to 2015 that was reported with the 2015 PIS data collection. a Neither the 2014 nor 2015 totals include tenant data from one of New York City’s suballocators, the Department of Housing Preservation & 

Development (HPD). 

State Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units Properties Units

Alabama 644 33,710 657 34,305 13 595 668 35,235 626 33,554 -42 -1,681

Alaska 96 3,670 96 3,670 0 0 106 1,108 32 1,203 -74 95

Arizona 361 27,722 375 28,718 14 996 363 28,440 366 28,610 3 170

Arkansas 492 23,200 500 23,490 8 290 391 17,222 457 20,064 66 2,842

California 3,634 287,804 3,841 303,979 207 16,175 3,219 260,741 3,477 276,780 258 16,039

Colorado 539 36,603 552 37,950 13 1,347 485 31,164 477 29,938 -8 -1,226

Connecticut 332 20,182 359 22,450 27 2,268 231 15,607 243 17,623 12 2,016

Delaware 122 7,334 239 14,459 117 7,125 125 6,973 126 7,114 1 141

District of Columbia 159 19,216 168 20,274 9 1,058 261 16,555 272 14,573 11 -1,982

Florida 1,302 178,909 1,323 180,894 21 1,985 1,029 149,986 1,060 152,625 31 2,639

Georgia 940 89,546 945 90,895 5 1,349 484 40,001 807 58,187 323 18,186

Guam 7 587 7 588 0 1 7 587 7 595 0 8

Hawaii 86 7,626 176 15,664 90 8,038 83 7,831 102 8,215 19 384

Idaho 205 8,533 246 10,357 41 1,824 204 8,284 215 8,935 11 651

Illinois 1,090 83,338 1,149 87,179 59 3,841 1,096 60,226 262 7,844 -834 -52,382

Indiana 648 42,695 656 42,915 8 220 424 28,009 593 38,510 169 10,501

Iowa 514 20,262 527 20,926 13 664 487 18,512 502 19,544 15 1,032

Kansas 479 21,625 491 21,840 12 215 3,221 20,013 3,158 20,243 -63 230

Kentucky 780 28,683 847 31,613 67 2,930 530 13,715 534 14,451 4 736

Louisiana 776 43,702 1,020 56,180 244 12,478 538 27,566 606 31,651 68 4,085

Maine 203 7,052 213 7,387 10 335 185 6,646 191 6,868 6 222

Maryland 448 41,577 448 41,577 0 0 370 33,026 411 36,628 41 3,602

Massachusetts 880 62,244 909 64,076 29 1,832 634 45,414 692 50,412 58 4,998

Michigan 1,041 64,776 1,067 67,205 26 2,429 1,052 64,889 1,009 61,518 -43 -3,371

Minnesota 872 41,148 1,026 52,982 154 11,834 731 33,285 758 34,297 27 1,012

Mississippi 662 34,289 685 35,432 23 1,143 538 28,537 552 30,012 14 1,475

Missouri 1,713 60,692 1,721 61,219 8 527 861 34,321 964 43,802 103 9,481

Montana 189 5,797 194 5,976 5 179 184 5,313 50 1,551 -134 -3,762

Nebraska 335 11,223 343 11,517 8 294 329 10,859 333 10,919 4 60

Nevada 231 23,174 335 32,880 104 9,706 195 19,560 197 18,398 2 -1,162

New Hampshire 208 7,494 211 7,689 3 195 176 5,540 194 6,711 18 1,171

New Jersey 626 44,837 1,075 82,676 449 37,839 431 25,983 494 33,863 63 7,880

New Mexico 311 19,600 311 19,600 0 0 216 14,447 232 15,433 16 986

New Yorka 2,859 174,891 2,905 180,333 46 5,442 1,540 124,488 1,472 124,658 -68 170

North Carolina 1,425 57,079 1,498 63,288 73 6,209 923 50,222 963 36,885 40 -13,337

North Dakota 176 5,300 180 5,296 4 -4 173 5,210 173 5,402 0 192

Ohio 1,551 100,449 1,584 102,578 33 2,129 1,120 72,162 1,177 78,201 57 6,039

Oklahoma 531 26,506 531 26,506 0 0 398 17,990 410 19,904 12 1,914

Oregon 589 34,310 610 35,328 21 1,018 268 15,718 352 20,542 84 4,824

Pennsylvania 1,075 49,133 1,077 49,242 2 109 1,016 47,640 984 47,243 -32 -397

Puerto Rico 207 18,944 213 19,510 6 566 197 17,528 201 18,062 4 534

Rhode Island 158 10,376 161 10,548 3 172 170 10,525 171 10,672 1 147

South Carolina 553 29,858 586 31,221 33 1,363 505 25,890 532 28,953 27 3,063

South Dakota 228 8,124 232 8,276 4 152 165 6,192 169 6,317 4 125

Tennessee 578 47,602 578 47,602 0 0 511 39,782 530 42,384 19 2,602

Texas 2,051 223,702 2,144 234,173 93 10,471 1,539 176,511 1,609 185,117 70 8,606

Utah 354 19,074 362 19,470 8 396 332 16,401 356 19,227 24 2,826

Vermont 258 5,877 263 5,960 5 83 247 5,885 256 6,174 9 289

U.S. Virgin Islands 24 1,076 24 1,076 0 0 23 892 27 1,251 4 359

Virginia 958 84,438 973 85,631 15 1,193 911 77,700 938 81,982 27 4,282

Washington 937 71,068 937 71,068 0 0 827 62,340 476 32,240 -351 -30,100

West Virginia 261 11,919 270 12,475 9 556 240 10,682 246 11,274 6 592

Wisconsin 878 30,046 933 27,912 55 -2,134 791 34,266 483 21,147 -308 -13,119

Wyoming 94 4,066 95 4,093 1 27 94 3,859 94 3,957 0 98

Total 36,790 2,423,175 38,988 2,581,222 2,198 158,047 36,516 1,937,538 33,879 1,942,323 -2,637 4,785

LIHTC Properties PIS Database LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission

2014 Data 2015 Data Difference 2014-2015 2014 Data 2015 Data Difference 2014-2015
3

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 657 34,305 85.1 85.8 626 33,554 88.8 87.4

Alaska 96 3,670 18.8 24.0 32 1,203 56.3 75.6

Arizona 375 28,718 94.4 94.9 366 28,610 95.4 96.1

Arkansas 500 23,490 83.0 80.7 457 20,064 89.9 88.3

California 3,841 303,979 80.1 81.5 3,477 276,780 86.7 86.2

Colorado 552 37,950 83.3 80.5 477 29,938 94.3 93.1

Connecticut 359 22,450 61.6 73.2 243 17,623 84.8 85.5

Delaware 239 14,459 96.7 96.9 126 7,114 99.2 99.7

District of Columbia 168 20,274 67.3 64.5 272 14,573 75.7 78.6

Florida 1,323 180,894 76.5 81.0 1,060 152,625 93.9 93.8

Georgia 945 90,895 59.9 63.8 807 58,187 81.9 82.3

Guam 7 588 100.0 100.0 7 595 100.0 100.0

Hawaii 176 15,664 89.8 86.5 102 8,215 95.1 96.4

Idaho 246 10,357 99.2 99.4 215 8,935 99.5 99.8

Illinois 1,149 87,179 7.9 8.9 262 7,844 88.5 74.1

Indiana 656 42,915 84.9 84.8 593 38,510 93.3 94.9

Iowa 527 20,926 94.5 97.3 502 19,544 99.2 99.7

Kansas 491 21,840 80.0 80.2 3,158 20,243 80.3 81.0

Kentucky 847 31,613 67.3 77.0 534 14,451 98.9 99.6

Louisiana 1,020 56,180 67.2 74.6 606 31,651 94.9 95.4

Maine 213 7,387 87.3 91.0 191 6,868 95.8 97.1

Maryland 448 41,577 64.1 61.0 411 36,628 68.1 70.1

Massachusetts 909 64,076 62.8 68.0 692 50,412 79.6 80.7

Michigan 1,067 67,205 89.7 87.0 1,009 61,518 94.2 93.5

Minnesota 1,026 52,982 78.7 82.2 758 34,297 92.3 94.0

Mississippi 685 35,432 76.4 84.5 552 30,012 91.7 92.6

Missouri 1,721 61,219 54.6 76.9 964 43,802 94.7 93.7

Montana 194 5,976 23.2 26.1 50 1,551 88.0 97.5

Nebraska 343 11,517 97.1 98.5 333 10,919 100.0 100.0

Nevada 335 32,880 74.0 72.4 197 18,398 100.0 100.0

New Hampshire 211 7,689 89.1 89.8 194 6,711 94.3 94.3

New Jersey 1,075 82,676 56.5 56.3 494 33,863 97.0 97.2

New Mexico 311 19,600 52.1 59.8 232 15,433 69.8 76.2

New Yorka 2,905 180,333 47.4 63.5 1,472 124,658 91.4 90.4

North Carolina 1,498 63,288 70.0 90.0 963 36,885 99.8 99.8

North Dakota 180 5,296 84.4 87.9 173 5,402 88.4 89.6

Ohio 1,584 102,578 72.3 76.6 1,177 78,201 93.5 93.8

Oklahoma 531 26,506 65.9 63.1 410 19,904 84.1 81.4

Oregon 610 35,328 52.6 56.2 352 20,542 90.3 92.1

Pennsylvania 1,077 49,242 83.5 88.5 984 47,243 90.3 92.0

Puerto Rico 213 19,510 93.9 94.0 201 18,062 99.5 99.8

Rhode Island 161 10,548 99.4 99.8 171 10,672 98.2 99.1

South Carolina 586 31,221 81.2 83.2 532 28,953 85.5 85.8

South Dakota 232 8,276 67.7 72.8 169 6,317 91.1 93.5

Tennessee 578 47,602 90.7 90.8 530 42,384 98.9 98.8

Texas 2,144 234,173 70.8 75.2 1,609 185,117 93.4 93.5

Utah 362 19,470 97.2 99.2 356 19,227 98.9 98.9

Vermont 263 5,960 95.8 96.2 256 6,174 98.0 97.4

U.S. Virgin Islands 24 1,076 87.5 85.3 27 1,251 77.8 75.9

Virginia 973 85,631 94.9 97.7 938 81,982 95.6 97.1

Washington 937 71,068 1.6 4.1 476 32,240 74.8 0.0

West Virginia 270 12,475 80.0 75.2 246 11,274 87.4 85.9

Wisconsin 933 27,912 55.0 55.7 483 21,147 98.1 99.3

Wyoming 95 4,093 98.9 99.3 94 3,957 100.0 100.0

Total 38,988 2,581,222 68.7 73.2 33,879 1,942,323 83.1 89.7

2015 LIHTC Properties PIS Database 2015 LIHTC HERA-Mandated Tenant Submission
4

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

Certification

a Alaska, Illinois, and Texas reported household size at certification for less than one-half of its tenants. The District of Columbia, Kansas, New 

York, and North Dakota reported household size at certification for approximately 50 percent to 55 percent. b Florida, North Dakota, and Texas provided information for only one household member. 

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 3.0 91.7 5.2 100.0

Alaskaa 52.2 1.3 44.7 1.7 100.0

Arizona 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.4 100.0

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.5 100.0

California 2.1 1.5 96.2 0.3 100.0

Colorado 0.0 0.5 99.2 0.3 100.0

Connecticut 3.3 2.0 94.7 0.0 100.0

Delaware 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

District of Columbiaa 41.4 7.0 50.7 0.9 100.0

Floridaa, b 2.9 63.7 33.4 0.0 100.0

Georgia 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

Guam 0.2 6.7 85.5 7.6 100.0

Hawaii 1.9 0.2 97.9 0.0 100.0

Idaho 2.9 0.7 95.5 0.9 100.0

Illinoisa 81.9 0.3 17.3 0.5 100.0

Indiana 0.0 5.6 88.4 6.0 100.0

Iowa 5.8 0.5 93.4 0.2 100.0

Kansasa 8.5 40.5 51.1 0.0 100.0

Kentucky 0.0 6.8 86.5 6.6 100.0

Louisiana 0.0 0.4 99.2 0.3 100.0

Maine 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.5 100.0

Maryland 3.5 0.4 96.1 0.0 100.0

Massachusetts 2.6 0.6 96.9 0.0 100.0

Michigan 4.4 0.0 95.0 0.6 100.0

Minnesota 19.4 4.2 75.7 0.6 100.0

Mississippi 6.6 0.4 92.5 0.5 100.0

Missouri 5.8 0.1 93.9 0.2 100.0

Montana 4.8 0.0 95.1 0.1 100.0

Nebraska 6.2 0.4 92.8 0.5 100.0

Nevada 4.3 0.0 95.4 0.3 100.0

New Hampshire 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 100.0

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0

New Mexico 0.0 2.2 97.6 0.2 100.0

New Yorka 42.3 2.0 55.1 0.5 100.0

North Carolina 6.2 5.2 82.2 6.5 100.0

North Dakotaa, b 5.9 43.2 50.9 0.0 100.0

Ohio 0.0 4.1 91.1 4.9 100.0

Oklahoma 6.9 0.0 92.9 0.2 100.0

Oregon 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 100.0

Pennsylvania 0.3 0.0 95.2 4.5 100.0

Puerto Rico 2.0 0.0 97.9 0.1 100.0

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 98.9 1.1 100.0

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3 100.0

South Dakota 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.2 100.0

Tennessee 0.0 3.0 92.2 4.8 100.0

Texasa, b 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Utah 3.9 0.0 95.9 0.1 100.0

Vermont 0.0 0.0 99.1 0.9 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 3.2 0.0 96.8 0.0 100.0

Virginia 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.4 100.0

Washington 0.0 1.8 92.8 5.4 100.0

West Virginia 6.5 0.1 93.4 0.0 100.0

Wisconsin 0.0 0.4 96.1 3.5 100.0

Wyoming 5.1 0.0 94.5 0.4 100.0

Total 14.9 6.7 77.3 1.1 100.0

Household Size 

at Certification 

Not Reported 

(%)
5

II. Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Data Submissions

Table 1 provides a comparison of HUD’s 2014 and 2015 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

2014 data presented in table 1 are identical to those reported in Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of

December 31, 2014 and do not include updated information on properties placed in service prior to 2015

that was reported with the 2015 LIHTC properties placed in service (PIS) data collection.1 The changes

between 2014 and 2015 all represent net changes in either total properties or total units.

In aggregate, a net increase of 2,198 active properties containing 158,047 units was recorded in HUD’s

2015 LIHTC PIS database compared with the 2014 version. For the HERA-mandated tenant data, a net 

additional 4,785 units were reported in the 2015 data compared with the number in the 2014 data. The 

increase reflects both an increase in the stock of LIHTC units—that is, those placed in service in 2015—

and newly reported information on units not submitted in the previous collection. The highlighted rows in 

the last four columns indicate states whose total unit counts are lower in the 2015 HERA data than in the 

2014 data.

 

1 HFAs reported 249 LIHTC properties placed in service in 2014 with the 2015 properties. These properties were not 

previously reported.
6

III. Assessing Completeness of 2015 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 2014 or 2015 tenant information. LIHTC 

Properties under the purview of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

(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

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 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, beginning with the 2015 data, report tenant and 

property data directly to HUD.

6 The District of Columbia and Massachusetts allocating agencies conduct compliance for their bond-issuing 

agencies.
7

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 2014, 2015, or 2016.

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 HUD’s PIS data collection is

consistent with the tenant collection and currently includes properties placed in service through 2015.

HUD’s 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, 38,988 properties were reported as in service and monitored for LIHTC compliance in 2015. State

HFAs, however, submitted tenant information for 33,879 properties.

10 As expected, most states reported

more properties in 2015, some with large increases. Georgia reported almost twice as many properties in

its 2015 tenant data. Several states—Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Michigan, 

Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin—reported fewer units than 

in their previous submission. 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, 2.581 million active LIHTC units are in HUD’s PIS

database. State HFAs, however, reported data on tenants in 1.942 million units through the HERAmandated tenant submission to HUD. Almost nine-tenths (89.7 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 percent.

 

7 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2015, some states provided the most recent 

income certification information, which was from 2016.

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.
8

The aggregate count of reported units increased slightly to 1.942 million units compared with 1.938

million units in the 2014 data, reflecting better overall reporting.11 Georgia, Indiana, and Oregon provided

more than one-third more units in their 2015 submissions than for 2014. Several states, most notably

Illinois, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin, 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, Texas,

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 quite complete overall; household size is missing in

14.9 percent of all reported households, but about two-thirds of those are households in Texas. With the

exception of Alaska, the District of Columbia, Illinois, New York, and Texas—which did not report household

size for at least two-fifths of itsreported households—and Florida, North Dakota, and Texas—which provided

information for only one household member per unit13—this variable can be used to assessthe completeness

of household members in the tenant data.

 

11 This total includes both vacant and occupied units. 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. 

13 North Dakota reported two members per household for 231 of their 4,723 reported households. No reported 

household in North Dakota contained information for more than two members.
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, whereas 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. Four states—Alaska, Illinois, Montana, and Washington—submitted information for less than

approximately one-third of their active LIHTC property stock. Totals for New York are less than 

approximately one-half of its active LIHTC stock, primarily because 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 less than one-half of all states reported all members, or nearly all 

members, of each reported LIHTC household, and eight states, highlighted in gray, 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.14

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.15 Three states—

Florida, Ohio, and Texas—did not provide race or ethnicity information for any heads of household.

16 In 

addition, North Dakota and Pennsylvania reported race and ethnicity for only 4.9 and 4.3 percent, 

respectively, of occupied units. Kentucky and Maine were the only other states to report this information

for less than one-half of its reported households.

 

14 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.

15 For example, although the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation submitted both race and ethnicity data for 80.2 

percent of reported heads of household, the tenant data for Alaska include only 18.8 percent of its LIHTC stock. 

16 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. 
10

Table 4. Race and Ethnicity of Heads of Household

a Shaded states submitted all household members for less than one-half of their reported occupied units. b Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

State

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 Race) 

(%)

Race or 

Ethnicity Not 

Reported (%)

Alabama 85.1 25.8 52.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 20.1 100.0

Alaska 18.8 45.6 9.5 6.6 18.0 5.6 0.6 4.4 9.8 100.0

Arizona 94.4 31.5 10.1 0.8 6.4 0.3 1.8 33.9 15.3 100.0

Arkansas 83.0 39.4 47.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 2.7 8.7 100.0

California 80.1 20.3 13.9 10.8 0.8 0.4 2.0 31.1 20.7 100.0

Colorado 83.3 30.8 8.8 1.3 0.6 0.2 3.2 21.8 33.4 100.0

Connecticut 61.6 32.0 26.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.5 26.4 12.2 100.0

Delaware 96.7 25.0 64.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.9 7.2 0.6 100.0

District of Columbia 67.3 2.0 67.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 3.7 25.6 100.0

Floridaa 76.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Georgia 59.9 16.0 63.8 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.5 15.2 100.0

Guam 100.0 3.0 0.7 28.7 0.2 66.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 100.0

Hawaii 89.8 15.3 1.7 28.8 0.3 22.7 7.9 6.8 16.4 100.0

Idaho 99.2 72.9 1.8 1.1 1.5 0.2 0.9 9.2 12.2 100.0

Illinois 7.9 14.4 65.5 3.9 2.0 0.1 0.5 5.1 8.5 100.0

Indiana 84.9 46.9 35.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.0 1.0 15.4 100.0

Iowa 94.5 55.5 11.8 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.8 2.8 27.4 100.0

Kansas 80.0 46.1 16.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 6.2 3.8 26.4 100.0

Kentucky 67.3 20.8 17.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 61.0 100.0

Louisiana 67.2 10.4 52.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.9 9.4 26.2 100.0

Maine 87.3 32.7 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.5 11.6 53.5 100.0

Maryland 64.1 22.5 53.3 1.9 0.3 0.2 1.0 6.2 14.7 100.0

Massachusetts 62.8 31.3 18.2 5.6 0.3 0.1 1.8 28.6 14.1 100.0

Michigan 89.7 37.3 28.4 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.2 1.8 30.5 100.0

Minnesota 78.7 31.7 24.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 0.5 1.8 37.5 100.0

Mississippi 76.4 17.7 65.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.8 13.9 100.0

Missouri 54.6 50.2 32.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.5 1.8 13.8 100.0

Montana 23.2 72.4 1.0 0.4 3.1 0.1 1.6 3.3 18.2 100.0

Nebraska 97.1 41.9 15.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 1.2 4.7 35.4 100.0

Nevada 74.0 37.4 13.5 1.8 0.6 0.7 1.8 15.7 28.4 100.0

New Hampshire 89.1 46.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 3.3 16.0 32.9 100.0

New Jersey 56.5 22.3 36.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.2 9.6 29.5 100.0

New Mexico 52.1 17.8 2.8 0.5 7.5 0.1 3.2 43.7 24.3 100.0

New Yorkb 47.4 16.8 26.9 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 18.8 34.5 100.0

North Carolina 70.0 25.0 49.7 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 3.1 20.6 100.0

North Dakotaa 84.4 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.1 100.0

Ohio 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Oklahoma 65.9 60.1 19.5 0.6 6.9 0.3 2.3 3.4 7.0 100.0

Oregon 52.6 12.6 2.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 33.4 50.0 100.0

Pennsylvaniaa 83.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 94.7 100.0

Puerto Rico 93.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 83.4 14.1 100.0

Rhode Island 99.4 43.0 10.0 0.7 1.0 0.1 2.4 24.1 18.6 100.0

South Carolina 81.2 19.9 61.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.7 14.6 100.0

South Dakota 67.7 33.5 3.2 0.7 11.4 0.1 2.6 7.2 41.3 100.0

Tennessee 90.7 36.9 49.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.3 10.8 100.0

Texasa 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Utah 97.2 41.4 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.3 8.6 44.3 100.0

Vermont 95.8 38.6 2.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 3.0 24.2 30.5 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 87.5 0.5 41.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 12.7 45.1 100.0

Virginia 94.9 19.1 43.7 1.8 0.2 0.1 2.7 10.3 22.2 100.0

Washingtona 1.6 40.4 11.1 5.5 1.9 1.0 1.6 10.8 27.7 100.0

West Virginia 80.0 75.8 13.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.4 8.2 100.0

Wisconsin 55.0 58.6 12.9 1.0 1.3 0.1 0.7 4.1 21.3 100.0

Wyoming 98.9 62.4 3.0 0.5 2.5 0.4 1.1 7.8 22.4 100.0

Total 68.7 21.2 21.5 2.5 0.7 0.3 1.2 11.4 41.4 100.0

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

NOT HISPANIC

Hispanic 

(Any Race) 

(%)

Total 

(%)
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 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 three states—Alaska, 

Georgia, 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 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 and North Dakota 

provided disability status for only the head of household. Further, Kansas reported disability status for 

less than 20 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 5 also applies to table 6 and likely biases the estimate of disabled 

individuals downward from the actual percentage.
12

Table 5. LIHTC Households With Disabled Members

a The percentage of occupied units in which reported household members equal reported household size at certification. b Florida and North Dakota provided disability status for only the head of household.

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

d Kansas reported disability status for less than one-half of reported households. Texas did not report disability status at all.

State

Alabama 84.0 91.7 100.0 6.2

Alaska 17.7 84.7 96.8 18.2

Arizona 96.1 99.6 100.0 9.6

Arkansas 72.6 99.5 100.0 12.4

California 77.2 88.5 90.7 11.9

Colorado 85.7 75.7 84.2 4.4

Connecticut 62.3 92.9 91.5 12.9

Delaware 93.4 100.0 100.0 4.1

District of Columbia 75.5 39.8 55.8 6.2

Floridab 77.5 32.8 100.0 3.2

Georgia 38.5 100.0 100.0 1.3

Guam 100.0 68.8 92.3 1.4

Hawaii 91.9 96.0 95.4 6.8

Idaho 99.5 97.3 99.8 26.8

Illinois 65.6 80.6 98.7 4.2

Indiana 63.1 84.1 100.0 11.0

Iowa 94.0 98.8 89.3 11.4

Kansasd 79.3 45.0 7.3 23.7

Kentucky 66.7 83.7 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 67.1 99.0 100.0 3.8

Maine 89.2 99.6 100.0 18.3

Maryland 66.1 94.4 95.1 8.1

Massachusetts 64.0 95.8 96.0 21.4

Michigan 95.3 98.9 74.8 10.3

Minnesota 75.2 78.8 93.4 7.7

Mississippi 75.1 99.1 90.0 8.7

Missouri 51.2 99.4 93.8 10.1

Montana 95.2 97.5 98.9 16.7

Nebraska 97.3 98.8 96.3 10.1

Nevada 76.6 99.7 86.9 10.9

New Hampshire 84.6 99.5 100.0 7.7

New Jersey 35.8 100.0 100.0 4.4

New Mexico 62.4 97.2 100.0 6.4

New Yorkc 46.7 68.5 70.4 17.0

North Carolina 65.5 63.0 95.5 14.7

North Dakotab 89.2 52.5 45.5 0.0

Ohio 70.5 92.4 100.0 5.7

Oklahoma 64.6 99.4 96.8 10.4

Oregon 44.5 99.6 100.0 11.1

Pennsylvania 87.7 94.7 10.1 11.0

Puerto Rico 94.7 99.9 100.0 6.7

Rhode Island 98.7 96.5 100.0 33.9

South Carolina 79.6 99.7 100.0 5.0

South Dakota 67.1 99.7 100.0 12.6

Tennessee 88.2 92.0 100.0 10.6

Texasd 70.6 38.8 0.0 0.0

Utah 93.8 99.8 93.2 7.5

Vermont 91.1 98.9 100.0 15.2

U.S. Virgin Islands 87.5 93.2 95.4 2.7

Virginia 95.8 99.6 100.0 5.7

Washington 0.9 99.2 72.5 30.2

West Virginia 82.0 93.8 94.1 20.3

Wisconsin 89.2 95.4 85.2 11.6

Wyoming 100.0 99.6 88.2 13.4

Total 69.5 80.4 80.6 9.5

All Household Members 

Reporteda 

(%)

Disability Status Reported for 

At Least One Member 

(%)

At least One Member 

Reported as Disabled 

(%)

Properties Reported 

(%)
13

Table 6. Disability Status of Individual Household Members

a Reported household members equal reported “Household Size at Certification.”

b Florida and North Dakota provided disability status for only the head of household.

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

d Pennsylvania reported disability status for less than 10 percent of household members. Texas did not report disability status for any household 

members.

State

Alabama 85.1 91.7 100.0 3.4

Alaska 18.8 44.7 97.8 8.9

Arizona 94.4 99.6 100.0 4.5

Arkansas 83.0 99.5 100.0 7.0

California 80.1 96.2 92.6 5.3

Colorado 83.3 99.2 100.0 2.0

Connecticut 61.6 94.7 94.7 8.6

Delaware 96.7 100.0 100.0 2.2

District of Columbia 67.3 50.7 65.5 3.7

Floridab 76.5 33.4 100.0 3.5

Georgia 59.9 100.0 100.0 0.9

Guam 100.0 85.5 99.7 0.2

Hawaii 89.8 97.9 94.6 3.4

Idaho 99.2 95.5 98.8 13.0

Illinois 7.9 17.3 95.3 9.1

Indiana 84.9 88.4 100.0 5.3

Iowa 94.5 93.4 86.8 6.4

Kansas 80.0 51.1 14.4 5.4

Kentucky 67.3 86.5 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 67.2 99.2 100.0 2.7

Maine 87.3 99.5 100.0 9.4

Maryland 64.1 96.1 96.4 6.7

Massachusetts 62.8 96.9 96.8 13.0

Michigan 89.7 95.0 75.5 6.4

Minnesota 78.7 75.7 94.1 4.6

Mississippi 76.4 92.5 90.4 3.8

Missouri 54.6 93.9 90.2 6.4

Montana 23.2 95.1 99.8 10.8

Nebraska 97.1 92.8 85.4 5.1

Nevada 74.0 95.4 91.9 6.5

New Hampshire 89.1 99.7 100.0 6.0

New Jersey 56.5 100.0 100.0 2.4

New Mexico 52.1 97.6 100.0 3.8

New Yorkc 47.4 55.1 78.5 9.7

North Carolina 70.0 82.2 96.6 9.8

North Dakotab 84.4 50.9 39.8 0.0

Ohio 72.3 91.1 99.9 2.6

Oklahoma 65.9 92.9 92.3 5.2

Oregon 52.6 99.7 100.0 7.7

Pennsylvaniad 83.5 95.2 6.7 6.7

Puerto Rico 93.9 97.9 100.0 3.2

Rhode Island 99.4 98.9 100.0 19.5

South Carolina 81.2 99.7 100.0 3.0

South Dakota 67.7 99.8 100.0 5.6

Tennessee 90.7 92.2 100.0 4.6

Texasd 70.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Utah 97.2 95.9 93.4 5.1

Vermont 95.8 99.1 100.0 9.1

U.S. Virgin Islands 87.5 96.8 96.0 1.1

Virginia 94.9 99.6 100.0 3.2

Washington 1.6 92.8 71.5 15.9

West Virginia 80.0 93.4 96.1 10.9

Wisconsin 55.0 96.1 79.3 6.7

Wyoming 98.9 94.5 88.9 6.4

Total 68.7 77.3 86.2 5.3

Properties Reported 

(%)

All Household 

Members Reporteda 

(% of Households)

Disability Status 

is Reported 

(% of Individuals)

Reported as Disabled 

(% of Individuals)
14

VI. Family Composition and Age

Many states use the LIHTC 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.17

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, 2015. The relationship to head of

household is used to identify the head for households that are headed by an elderly person.

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. The second and third columns

provide reporting rates for date of birth for heads of household and all members, respectively. North

Dakota provided dates of birth for only a small percentage of reported household members, preventing

the calculation of a reliable estimate. Tabulations for this state were suppressed.

 

17 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

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

State

Head of Household 

(%)

All Reported Members 

(%)

Alabama 91.7 100.0 100.0 40.3 25.6 25.1

Alaska 44.7 96.6 97.8 40.4 26.0 24.9

Arizona 99.6 99.9 99.8 47.2 27.2 26.3

Arkansas 99.5 99.3 99.4 41.1 26.3 25.8

California 96.2 97.6 98.8 38.5 37.2 35.5

Colorado 99.2 99.0 99.3 38.9 25.6 24.8

Connecticut 94.7 92.7 95.8 29.3 39.9 39.0

Delaware 100.0 99.3 92.9 40.2 27.7 27.1

District of Columbia 50.7 85.9 91.3 28.1 24.2 23.5

Florida 33.4

Georgia 100.0 97.5 93.4 36.2 29.2 28.6

Guam 85.5 99.2 99.6 81.8 10.4 5.0

Hawaii 97.9 95.5 97.7 33.4 46.2 44.3

Idaho 95.5 97.6 98.4 38.4 28.6 28.0

Illinois 17.3 93.5 95.8 26.5 39.8 39.3

Indiana 88.4 99.9 99.8 40.0 26.4 25.8

Iowa 93.4 94.2 96.4 30.0 30.6 30.0

Kansas 51.1 91.5 92.1 18.7 29.8 29.7

Kentucky 86.5 99.2 98.7 34.6 27.9 27.8

Louisiana 99.2 98.1 98.4 44.8 24.3 23.6

Maine 99.5 99.6 99.8 31.4 40.5 39.6

Maryland 96.1 96.0 97.4 27.3 44.9 44.2

Massachusetts 96.9 96.3 97.9 32.9 35.8 34.6

Michigan 95.0 95.6 97.0 29.1 35.4 34.9

Minnesota 75.7 93.0 90.7 36.2 22.8 22.0

Mississippi 92.5 93.4 96.6 46.7 17.4 16.9

Missouri 93.9 94.2 96.3 29.4 31.7 31.3

Montana 95.1 95.2 96.8 23.7 34.9 34.5

Nebraska 92.8 93.7 96.5 37.6 27.6 27.0

Nevada 95.4 95.6 97.5 28.7 42.2 41.4

New Hampshire 99.7 99.0 99.3 34.1 41.2 40.1

New Jersey 100.0 91.3 86.4 25.8 42.6 41.9

New Mexico 97.6 97.5 98.8 44.3 21.3 20.5

New Yorkb 55.1 65.7 75.5 20.1 25.6 24.9

North Carolina 82.2 93.2 95.7 34.4 32.4 31.9

North Dakota 50.9 0.1 0.1

Ohio 91.1 98.9 99.3 36.2 32.1 31.5

Oklahoma 92.9 93.0 95.6 35.7 32.3 32.0

Oregon 99.7 100.0 99.9 33.2 31.4 30.7

Pennsylvania 95.2 95.4 97.2 27.6 46.7 46.1

Puerto Rico 97.9 98.0 98.7 41.4 37.8 37.4

Rhode Island 98.9 100.0 99.9 24.6 43.6 42.8

South Carolina 99.7 99.8 99.8 47.9 24.2 23.6

South Dakota 99.8 99.5 99.7 48.8 24.3 23.7

Tennessee 92.2 100.0 99.9 45.7 20.7 19.9

Texas 0.0

Utah 95.9 96.1 94.9 40.2 18.5 17.8

Vermont 99.1 99.5 99.6 27.9 41.8 40.9

U.S. Virgin Islands 96.8 96.3 98.1 56.0 17.6 16.3

Virginia 99.6 99.8 99.8 42.1 26.8 25.8

Washington 92.8 90.3 91.3 27.5 33.3 33.4

West Virginia 93.4 93.3 96.0 34.9 25.3 24.6

Wisconsin 96.1 97.9 98.5 23.3 46.9 46.4

Wyoming 94.5 94.9 96.9 41.8 24.2 23.9

Total 77.3 77.7 86.7 28.7 26.2 25.5

All Household 

Members Reported 

(% of Households)

Valid Date of Birth Provided for At Least One 

Member < 18 

(%)

At Least One 

Member >= 62 

(%)

Reported Head of 

Household >= 62 

(%)

Data Not Reported

Data Suppressed c

Data Not Reported
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 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 2014, 2015, or 2016.

18 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 2014, 2015, or 

2016 for 79.8 percent of households. Texas did not report income certification dates, and Alaska, Illinois, 

Kansas, and New York reported income certified in these years for less than one-half 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 

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 2014, 2015, or 2016, was reported for 79.8

percent of units, but income plus the information needed to calculate AMGI was provided for only 73.8

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

2014, most of these units were excluded because of missing the income limit or income restriction.

Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Texas, and Wisconsin did not provide the necessary information to

make the calculation for any of their reported units.

 

18 Although HUD requested information for tenants as of December 31, 2015, some states, primarily Kentucky, 

provided the most recent income certification information, which was 2016.
17

Table 8. Distribution of Annual Household Income

a Alaska, Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Texas 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 2014, 2015, or 2016 in the tabulations. b Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

State

Median 

Income 

($)

<= $5,000 

(%)

$5,001 to 

$10,000 

(%)

$10,001 to 

$15,000 

(%)

$15,001 to 

$20,000 

(%)

> $20,000 

(%) Total

Alabama 85.1 94.9 15,991 7.0 18.8 20.0 21.8 32.4 100.0

Alaskaa 18.8 47.2 24,225 0.9 2.1 6.2 26.8 64.1 100.0

Arizona 94.4 99.9 18,218 6.1 14.7 16.3 18.6 44.4 100.0

Arkansas 83.0 95.6 14,088 8.4 23.9 20.9 18.5 28.3 100.0

California 80.1 91.1 19,732 3.1 5.8 26.5 15.6 48.9 100.0

Colorado 83.3 98.1 21,466 4.9 13.8 13.3 13.9 54.0 100.0

Connecticut 61.6 94.1 17,901 3.7 19.8 16.0 13.9 46.6 100.0

Delaware 96.7 99.4 18,470 6.2 15.6 16.8 16.3 45.1 100.0

District of Columbia 67.3 92.6 21,933 11.1 17.9 11.1 8.0 51.9 100.0

Florida 76.5 82.9 23,154 3.6 10.0 10.5 14.0 61.9 100.0

Georgia 59.9 90.1 17,588 7.0 15.7 17.9 17.3 42.1 100.0

Guam 100.0 55.3 27,383 5.5 1.2 5.2 10.9 77.2 100.0

Hawaii 89.8 96.9 22,911 2.6 15.5 13.4 12.7 55.9 100.0

Idaho 99.2 96.4 14,959 20.1 15.2 17.2 18.4 29.2 100.0

Illinoisa 7.9 15.2 19,205 6.1 18.9 16.8 16.1 42.1 100.0

Indiana 84.9 99.0 16,824 10.0 15.5 17.8 18.3 38.3 100.0

Iowa 94.5 94.2 17,663 12.3 13.8 15.7 16.2 42.1 100.0

Kansasa 80.0 35.8 17,400 3.7 17.6 20.0 18.5 40.1 100.0

Kentucky 67.3 100.0 9,036 34.3 22.8 17.3 11.6 14.0 100.0

Louisiana 67.2 80.0 14,824 8.9 24.3 17.5 17.6 31.7 100.0

Maine 87.3 97.5 14,976 6.7 20.0 20.6 17.8 34.9 100.0

Maryland 64.1 95.1 21,383 3.5 15.9 14.1 13.3 53.1 100.0

Massachusetts 62.8 96.5 16,292 4.4 12.3 28.2 14.7 40.5 100.0

Michigan 89.7 95.6 14,756 9.4 22.1 19.5 17.2 31.9 100.0

Minnesota 78.7 44.2 17,996 8.7 14.9 17.2 13.2 46.1 100.0

Mississippi 76.4 93.4 14,612 14.3 18.9 18.0 19.0 29.8 100.0

Missouri 54.6 94.2 16,477 8.5 18.5 18.4 16.4 38.3 100.0

Montana 23.2 95.2 15,778 6.6 19.4 21.1 18.3 34.5 100.0

Nebraska 97.1 93.8 17,535 13.4 12.4 16.0 16.4 41.8 100.0

Nevada 74.0 95.7 18,768 4.8 11.0 18.5 20.4 45.3 100.0

New Hampshire 89.1 84.7 18,712 3.2 14.8 18.2 16.9 46.9 100.0

New Jersey 56.5 98.6 21,812 4.6 13.3 13.1 14.0 55.0 100.0

New Mexico 52.1 93.2 17,448 6.9 18.3 15.9 18.5 40.4 100.0

New Yorka, b 47.4 45.7 16,342 4.5 20.6 19.8 15.0 40.1 100.0

North Carolina 70.0 87.6 14,040 8.3 20.2 21.9 18.6 31.0 100.0

North Dakota 84.4 94.1 17,076 9.6 16.5 17.4 15.1 41.4 100.0

Ohio 72.3 97.1 12,348 18.1 23.1 18.2 15.7 25.0 100.0

Oklahoma 65.9 93.1 13,766 12.4 21.9 20.8 20.3 24.6 100.0

Oregon 52.6 97.3 15,555 6.8 21.9 19.4 15.3 36.6 100.0

Pennsylvania 83.5 98.1 15,289 11.2 20.8 18.2 17.5 32.2 100.0

Puerto Rico 93.9 98.0 5,622 46.7 29.3 16.6 5.1 2.3 100.0

Rhode Island 99.4 99.6 13,729 6.6 28.5 20.6 14.8 29.5 100.0

South Carolina 81.2 95.4 14,400 10.4 18.8 19.7 17.9 33.2 100.0

South Dakota 67.7 99.2 16,989 10.5 16.1 16.4 15.4 41.5 100.0

Tennessee 90.7 100.0 15,365 14.4 17.9 16.7 16.4 34.6 100.0

Texasa 70.8 0.0

Utah 97.2 96.1 21,000 5.6 12.7 14.1 14.5 53.1 100.0

Vermont 95.8 95.6 15,635 3.0 20.6 21.5 17.5 37.4 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 87.5 96.2 18,720 17.2 13.8 12.6 9.2 47.2 100.0

Virginia 94.9 99.3 20,328 7.1 13.8 12.8 12.4 53.9 100.0

Washington 1.6 99.9 16,521 5.2 19.8 16.3 14.9 43.8 100.0

West Virginia 80.0 91.2 13,143 10.3 26.6 20.4 17.1 25.6 100.0

Wisconsin 55.0 100.0 18,178 9.9 9.8 19.4 17.9 43.1 100.0

Wyoming 98.9 94.9 21,722 4.8 10.8 14.6 14.9 54.9 100.0

Total 68.7 79.8 17,470 8.0 15.4 18.6 15.8 42.2 100.0

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

Income 

Reported 

(%)

Households with Reported Annual Income

Data Not Reported
18

Table 9. Total Annual Household Income Relative to AMGI

AMGI = Area Median Gross Income.

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

b Income certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016. c Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

State

0 

(%)

0.1 to 30.0 

(%)

30.1 to 40.0 

(%)

40.1 to 50.0 

(%)

50.1 to 60.0 

(%)

Great than 

60.0 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 85.1 94.9 0.0

Alaska 18.8 47.2 94.9 0.0 36.7 24.7 17.1 12.8 8.7 100.0

Arizona 94.4 99.9 14.4 0.6 35.2 17.6 16.8 12.9 17.0 100.0

Arkansas 83.0 95.6 3.1 1.7 37.7 16.2 17.9 13.4 13.1 100.0

California 80.1 91.1 96.2 0.0 46.4 18.2 14.9 10.3 10.3 100.0

Colorado 83.3 98.1 7.7 0.8 31.5 17.4 18.3 14.1 18.0 100.0

Connecticut 61.6 94.1 79.3 0.0 55.8 16.0 12.2 9.0 7.0 100.0

Delaware 96.7 99.4 99.9 1.0 42.0 18.0 16.6 11.2 11.2 100.0

District of Columbia 67.3 92.6 68.7 3.6 51.4 12.3 12.1 11.1 9.4 100.0

Florida 76.5 82.9 100.0 0.5 18.0 16.6 24.1 27.9 13.0 100.0

Georgia 59.9 90.1 100.0 1.7 31.2 19.3 18.0 14.3 15.5 100.0

Guam 100.0 55.3 100.0 3.0 16.1 20.1 19.5 31.0 10.3 100.0

Hawaii 89.8 96.9 98.5 0.0 44.4 16.6 14.9 12.3 11.9 100.0

Idaho 99.2 96.4 86.1 14.0 27.9 19.0 20.6 10.9 7.6 100.0

Illinois 7.9 15.2 15.6 1.1 22.0 18.8 28.5 17.2 12.4 100.0

Indiana 84.9 99.0 0.0

Iowa 94.5 94.2 100.0 7.6 37.5 19.6 17.2 14.1 3.9 100.0

Kansas 80.0 35.8 0.0

Kentucky 67.3 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 67.2 80.0 2.5 3.4 44.6 17.0 13.1 9.0 13.0 100.0

Maine 87.3 97.5 40.8 3.6 49.7 16.2 12.8 9.2 8.5 100.0

Maryland 64.1 95.1 87.7 0.0 45.1 19.1 17.1 12.2 6.5 100.0

Massachusetts 62.8 96.5 92.6 0.0 63.4 13.2 10.2 7.4 5.7 100.0

Michigan 89.7 95.6 100.0 2.9 48.3 18.2 14.5 9.7 6.3 100.0

Minnesota 78.7 44.2 53.1 5.0 50.6 15.9 13.5 10.4 4.5 100.0

Mississippi 76.4 93.4 100.0 5.2 39.2 18.2 18.3 14.4 4.6 100.0

Missouri 54.6 94.2 100.0 2.4 41.8 18.3 16.3 12.9 8.3 100.0

Montana 23.2 95.2 100.0 3.2 41.4 20.2 17.7 13.5 4.1 100.0

Nebraska 97.1 93.8 100.0 9.6 36.5 18.3 18.2 13.3 4.2 100.0

Nevada 74.0 95.7 100.0 1.6 33.7 23.0 20.0 14.3 7.4 100.0

New Hampshire 89.1 84.7 39.0 1.8 40.4 21.3 16.3 10.5 9.8 100.0

New Jersey 56.5 98.6 99.9 0.7 42.3 18.8 16.8 10.4 10.9 100.0

New Mexico 52.1 93.2 6.6 1.3 37.7 17.2 19.9 12.2 11.7 100.0

New Yorkc 47.4 45.7 91.7 0.1 54.3 16.7 13.1 9.4 6.5 100.0

North Carolina 70.0 87.6 86.9 0.0 45.1 19.9 16.8 10.9 7.3 100.0

North Dakota 84.4 94.1 100.0 3.3 47.0 17.9 15.3 10.8 5.7 100.0

Ohio 72.3 97.1 96.1 7.1 48.0 17.0 13.8 8.7 5.4 100.0

Oklahoma 65.9 93.1 100.0 2.1 46.4 20.3 18.0 10.0 3.2 100.0

Oregon 52.6 97.3 7.9 1.5 43.8 18.8 16.0 9.2 10.7 100.0

Pennsylvania 83.5 98.1 95.6 2.7 50.0 21.0 14.5 7.9 3.9 100.0

Puerto Rico 93.9 98.0 100.0 9.6 58.4 11.8 9.8 7.1 3.4 100.0

Rhode Island 99.4 99.6 13.8 7.9 47.5 14.6 12.0 7.8 10.2 100.0

South Carolina 81.2 95.4 22.2 0.8 45.7 19.5 13.8 10.3 9.8 100.0

South Dakota 67.7 99.2 24.5 2.5 35.7 18.2 15.6 10.9 17.2 100.0

Tennessee 90.7 100.0 97.9 3.2 42.0 16.5 16.2 13.9 8.2 100.0

Texas 70.8 0.0 0.0

Utah 97.2 96.1 100.0 2.1 35.1 19.2 18.2 14.6 10.8 100.0

Vermont 95.8 95.6 52.0 0.9 48.8 20.0 13.6 8.2 8.3 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 87.5 96.2 100.0 0.0 37.5 13.3 13.0 15.7 20.5 100.0

Virginia 94.9 99.3 14.9 1.6 45.6 18.6 14.8 10.3 9.1 100.0

Washington 1.6 99.9 100.0 1.2 41.6 20.7 18.3 10.9 7.1 100.0

West Virginia 80.0 91.2 82.2 0.0 49.5 19.6 14.3 9.6 6.9 100.0

Wisconsin 55.0 100.0 0.0

Wyoming 98.9 94.9 100.0 1.7 38.3 20.4 18.8 11.2 9.6 100.0

Total 68.7 79.8 73.8 1.9 42.6 17.9 16.3 12.7 8.7 100.0

Properties 

Reported 

(%)

Income 

Reportedb 

(%)

Incomeb

, Income Limit 

and Income Restriction 

Reported 

(%)

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

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported
19

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, 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

2014, 2015, or 2016. The first column of table 10 lists the percentage of occupied units with both annual

household income and gross rent. Overall, 78.5 percent of reported units included both income certified

in 2014, 2015, or 2016 and rent. Alaska, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, and New York reported this

information for only a small portion of their households. Texas did not report income certification date,

which was necessary to make the calculation. 
20

Table 10. Gross Rent as Percentage of Annual Household Income

LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. a Includes only households with income certified in 2014, 2015, or 2016.

b Ratio of tenant-paid rent to household income could not be calculated because total annual household income equals $0. c Alaska, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, and New York reported this information for only a small portion of their households. Texas 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 

(%)

0.1 to 30.0 

(%)

30.1 to 40.0 

(%)

40.1 to 50.0 

(%)

50.1 or 

Greater 

(%)

Unable to 

Calculateb 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 94.9 8.4 61.5 17.2 6.5 5.3 1.2 100.0

Alaskac 47.1 1.2 85.9 8.5 3.0 1.4 0.0 100.0

Arizona 92.2 0.0 52.2 25.4 12.8 9.0 0.5 100.0

Arkansas 87.6 0.0 68.5 16.2 7.3 7.5 0.5 100.0

California 91.1 0.9 55.0 20.4 11.5 12.3 0.0 100.0

Colorado 95.0 0.0 49.6 26.6 12.5 10.3 1.0 100.0

Connecticut 94.1 4.3 69.7 13.8 6.1 6.0 0.0 100.0

Delaware 99.4 8.1 70.9 11.7 3.6 4.8 1.0 100.0

District of Columbia 92.6 8.0 59.9 15.6 5.0 7.4 4.1 100.0

Florida 81.4 2.3 39.9 34.1 14.2 9.2 0.4 100.0

Georgia 90.1 8.6 58.3 18.1 7.4 6.0 1.7 100.0

Guam 55.3 5.2 61.7 17.3 7.3 5.5 3.0 100.0

Hawaii 96.9 1.4 66.1 16.1 7.7 8.6 0.0 100.0

Idaho 96.4 2.4 45.8 19.6 8.4 7.0 16.8 100.0

Illinoisc 15.2 3.9 55.6 21.2 9.3 7.4 2.5 100.0

Indiana 99.0 6.9 55.5 21.4 8.0 7.4 0.8 100.0

Iowa 94.2 3.6 54.9 19.2 7.2 7.5 7.6 100.0

Kansasc 35.8 4.6 68.1 15.2 6.2 5.2 0.6 100.0

Kentucky 100.0 74.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 100.0

Louisiana 70.3 0.0 61.6 19.8 8.8 9.2 0.6 100.0

Maine 92.3 0.0 64.4 18.6 8.1 7.0 1.9 100.0

Maryland 95.1 3.6 56.7 20.9 9.9 8.9 0.0 100.0

Massachusetts 96.5 2.2 76.6 11.4 3.9 5.9 0.0 100.0

Michigan 95.6 5.7 60.3 16.3 7.1 7.7 2.9 100.0

Minnesotac 44.2 3.0 60.9 16.9 7.8 8.7 2.7 100.0

Mississippi 93.4 11.7 52.5 17.0 7.4 6.3 5.2 100.0

Missouri 94.2 7.5 68.6 13.1 4.6 3.8 2.4 100.0

Montana 95.2 2.1 53.1 22.7 10.1 8.7 3.2 100.0

Nebraska 93.8 4.5 58.4 15.5 5.3 6.7 9.6 100.0

Nevada 95.7 3.0 40.7 26.0 16.1 12.7 1.6 100.0

New Hampshire 81.4 0.0 63.4 17.8 7.8 9.7 1.2 100.0

New Jersey 98.6 3.1 62.0 16.9 7.8 9.5 0.7 100.0

New Mexico 88.5 0.0 49.1 24.8 13.2 11.9 0.9 100.0

New Yorkc, d 45.5 1.5 63.9 17.2 6.1 11.2 0.1 100.0

North Carolina 81.3 0.0 68.6 16.4 6.8 8.2 0.0 100.0

North Dakota 94.1 3.1 58.6 16.6 7.2 11.3 3.3 100.0

Ohio 97.1 9.9 55.3 14.7 5.8 6.9 7.3 100.0

Oklahoma 93.1 9.6 59.6 16.8 6.3 5.6 2.1 100.0

Oregon 91.3 0.0 57.8 17.8 10.1 13.2 1.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 98.1 4.3 65.1 13.7 5.4 4.9 6.5 100.0

Puerto Rico 98.0 23.4 60.6 3.8 1.6 1.0 9.6 100.0

Rhode Island 95.6 0.0 84.8 6.2 2.6 4.2 2.1 100.0

South Carolina 84.0 0.0 65.3 17.4 8.0 8.6 0.7 100.0

South Dakota 86.5 0.0 67.6 16.3 5.9 8.5 1.6 100.0

Tennessee 100.0 12.1 55.6 17.3 6.0 5.6 3.5 100.0

Texasc 0.0

Utah 96.1 2.3 53.7 22.4 9.9 9.7 2.1 100.0

Vermont 91.9 0.0 72.1 13.1 7.1 7.1 0.7 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 96.2 23.6 56.1 11.8 4.5 4.1 0.0 100.0

Virginia 92.0 0.0 52.3 24.8 10.9 11.5 0.5 100.0

Washington 99.9 1.8 54.0 20.7 11.6 10.6 1.2 100.0

West Virginia 91.2 8.2 68.7 11.1 4.7 7.3 0.0 100.0

Wisconsin 100.0 2.0 48.0 22.5 11.5 8.7 7.3 100.0

Wyoming 94.9 2.4 62.7 19.0 7.4 6.8 1.7 100.0

Total 78.5 4.5 56.7 19.3 8.7 8.6 2.1 100.0

Household Incomea

 and 

Rent Reported 

(%)

Tenant Paid Rent as % of Total Annual Household Income

Data Not Reported
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. 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. 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. Fourteen states19 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.

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 17 states20 highlighted in gray in table 12 did not report the source of federal

rental assistance for any households.

 

19 Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia.

20 Florida, Guam, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
22

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 85.1 0.0 56.8 43.2 100.0

Alaska 18.8 28.7 9.5 61.8 100.0

Arizona 94.4 78.1 0.0 21.9 100.0

Arkansas 83.0 48.7 0.0 51.3 100.0

California 80.1 2.0 60.1 37.9 100.0

Colorado 83.3 70.1 0.0 29.9 100.0

Connecticut 61.6 3.2 43.0 53.7 100.0

Delaware 96.7 0.0 44.3 55.7 100.0

District of Columbia 67.3 24.2 34.1 41.7 100.0

Florida 76.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Georgia 59.9 0.0 63.4 36.6 100.0

Guam 100.0 52.4 23.5 24.0 100.0

Hawaii 89.8 1.9 59.0 39.1 100.0

Idaho 99.2 4.6 59.4 36.0 100.0

Illinois 7.9 24.2 23.5 52.2 100.0

Indiana 84.9 0.0 58.6 41.4 100.0

Iowa 94.5 0.0 60.9 39.1 100.0

Kansas 80.0 0.0 62.9 37.1 100.0

Kentucky 67.3 0.0 50.7 49.3 100.0

Louisiana 67.2 59.4 0.0 40.6 100.0

Maine 87.3 40.4 0.0 59.6 100.0

Maryland 64.1 3.4 58.0 38.5 100.0

Massachusetts 62.8 2.5 29.0 68.4 100.0

Michigan 89.7 0.0 49.5 50.5 100.0

Minnesota 78.7 5.7 46.0 48.2 100.0

Mississippi 76.4 0.0 47.8 52.2 100.0

Missouri 54.6 0.0 55.2 44.8 100.0

Montana 23.2 0.0 55.4 44.6 100.0

Nebraska 97.1 0.0 59.6 40.4 100.0

Nevada 74.0 0.0 76.7 23.3 100.0

New Hampshire 89.1 45.0 0.0 55.0 100.0

New Jersey 56.5 0.0 61.3 38.7 100.0

New Mexico 52.1 65.3 0.0 34.7 100.0

New Yorka 47.4 71.0 7.8 21.2 100.0

North Carolina 70.0 53.6 0.0 46.4 100.0

North Dakota 84.4 0.0 88.0 12.0 100.0

Ohio 72.3 0.0 39.9 60.1 100.0

Oklahoma 65.9 0.0 48.9 51.1 100.0

Oregon 52.6 58.8 0.0 41.2 100.0

Pennsylvania 83.5 0.0 47.1 52.9 100.0

Puerto Rico 93.9 0.0 35.4 64.6 100.0

Rhode Island 99.4 23.0 0.0 77.0 100.0

South Carolina 81.2 56.9 0.0 43.1 100.0

South Dakota 67.7 54.9 0.0 45.1 100.0

Tennessee 90.7 0.0 56.6 43.4 100.0

Texas 70.8 47.5 16.5 36.1 100.0

Utah 97.2 0.0 73.3 26.7 100.0

Vermont 95.8 45.8 0.0 54.2 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 87.5 3.2 76.4 20.4 100.0

Virginia 94.9 60.7 0.0 39.3 100.0

Washington 1.6 61.4 2.5 36.1 100.0

West Virginia 80.0 6.5 38.1 55.3 100.0

Wisconsin 55.0 0.0 70.2 29.8 100.0

Wyoming 98.9 0.0 67.3 32.7 100.0

Total 68.7 28.9 33.2 37.9 100.0

Properties Reported 

(%)

Amount of Monthly Rental Assistance
23

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

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher Program. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LIHTC = Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

Program. PBRA = Project-Based Rental Assistance. USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. a Does not include tenant data from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development.

State

HUD Multi-Family 

Project-Based Rental 

Assistance (PBRA) 

(%)

HUD Section 8 

Moderate 

Rehabilitation 

(%)

Public Housing 

Operating Subsidy 

(%)

HOME Rental 

Assistance 

(%)

HUD Housing Choice 

Voucher (HCV), TenantBased 

(%)

HUD ProjectBased Voucher 

(PBV) 

(%)

USDA Section 521 

Rental Assistance 

Program 

(%)

Other Federal 

Rental Assistance 

(%)

Total 

(%)

Alabama 5.1 41.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 15.6 0.0 12.5 59.3 100.0

Alaska 27.5 8.9 0.0 77.6 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Arizona 0.0 5.5 14.0 61.1 0.0 0.1 6.9 5.7 12.2 0.0 100.0

Arkansas 0.0 12.6 2.7 84.5 0.1 0.0 7.4 5.2 0.1 0.0 100.0

California 24.7 27.2 18.4 0.2 1.2 0.1 23.1 25.3 9.7 22.1 100.0

Colorado 19.6 2.2 0.0 81.8 0.5 0.2 5.6 10.0 2.0 0.0 100.0

Connecticut 34.6 44.6 19.9 2.3 1.9 0.1 29.9 31.0 0.8 14.3 100.0

Delaware 24.0 24.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

District of Columbia 18.1 14.4 5.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 41.1 51.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

Florida 0.0 0.0

Georgia 18.1 20.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Guam 0.0 0.0

Hawaii 32.0 30.7 35.8 3.8 0.1 0.0 13.9 24.4 6.5 15.5 100.0

Idaho 11.9 12.2 13.4 0.6 0.0 0.3 5.1 9.8 53.3 17.7 100.0

Illinois 35.0 12.4 42.7 15.8 2.0 0.0 8.7 7.2 0.0 23.6 100.0

Indiana 41.9 41.2 30.1 0.0 8.6 0.2 5.7 0.0 9.3 46.1 100.0

Iowa 0.0 0.0

Kansas 38.6 37.1 31.6 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.5 11.3 9.4 100.0

Kentucky 0.0 0.0

Louisiana 0.0 5.5 4.0 36.3 0.0 0.0 12.1 1.5 46.0 0.0 100.0

Maine 0.0 9.0 0.0 78.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Maryland 25.6 32.1 23.0 5.2 0.2 0.1 17.3 24.0 1.5 28.8 100.0

Massachusetts 47.3 57.5 29.7 1.7 0.3 0.2 18.9 34.9 0.5 13.8 100.0

Michigan 0.0 0.0

Minnesota 26.7 35.5 30.6 5.1 1.1 0.0 29.2 27.4 2.5 4.0 100.0

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 3.1 20.4 61.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.5 9.0 0.0 100.0

New Jersey 23.3 24.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

New Mexico 0.0 9.1 0.0 99.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0

New York 10.6 3.5 8.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 41.4 9.2 0.0 35.6 100.0

North Carolina 39.5 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 0.0 53.2 100.0

North Dakota 0.0 0.0

Ohio 57.2 59.9 42.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 4.3 45.8 100.0

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0

Oregon 0.0 7.7 0.5 4.8 21.4 0.3 69.6 3.0 0.4 0.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 34.2 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 100.0

Puerto Rico 0.0 0.0

Rhode Island 0.0 2.2 0.8 7.2 36.9 5.5 19.9 28.8 0.8 0.0 100.0

South Carolina 0.0 1.7 1.2 41.8 4.6 0.0 39.0 3.4 10.0 0.0 100.0

South Dakota 0.0 3.2 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Tennessee 48.4 43.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 6.8 56.0 100.0

Texas 0.0 0.0

Utah 0.0 0.0

Vermont 0.0 6.7 2.4 88.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 100.0

U.S. Virgin Islands 14.8 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 70.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Virginia 0.0 4.6 8.9 83.8 4.0 0.1 1.7 1.1 0.5 0.0 100.0

Washington 34.0 33.1 35.4 0.0 0.0 6.9 42.4 2.0 11.6 1.6 100.0

West Virginia 49.1 51.8 19.3 2.7 0.4 0.1 20.5 16.3 25.0 15.7 100.0

Wisconsin 0.0 0.0

Wyoming 0.0 0.0

Total 16.9 17.0 20.4 10.9 1.0 0.3 18.7 16.9 6.0 25.7 100.0

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

Reported 

Amount of 

Federal Rental 

Assistance > $01 

(%)

Source of 

Federal Rental 

Assistance 

Reported2 

(%)

Source of Federal Rental Assistance

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported

Data Not Reported
March 2018