Understanding Whom the

LIHTC Program Serves:

Tenants in LIHTC Units 

as of December 31, 2012

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research
Und

Tenants!in!LIHTC!Units!as!of!December!31,!2012

erstanding!Whom!the!LIHTC!Program!Serves:!

Michael!K.!Hollar

December'2014
ii

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,+2012.!As!mandated!through!the!Housing!and!Economic!Recovery!Act!

(HERA)!of!2008,!state!agencies!administering!the!LowEIncome!Housing!Tax!Credit!(LIHTC)!Program!are!

now!required!to!submit!demographic!and!economic!data!on!LIHTC!tenants!to!the!U.S.!Department!of!

Housing!and!Urban!Development!(HUD). HUD’s!Office!of!Policy!Development!and!Research!has!been!

working!with!states!to!develop!a!process!for!compiling,!transmitting,!and!now!releasing!the!tenant!data.!

This!report!marks!the!first!release!of!those!national!data!on!LIHTC!tenants.

Getting!to!this!point!has!required!a!tremendous!effort!from!states,!whose!existing!data!and!compliance!

systems!needed!to!change!to!accommodate!a!standardized!and!electronic!system!of!data!submission.!In!

addition,!HERA!requires!the!collection!and!submission!of!new!data,!requiring!new!collection!efforts!and!

creating!additional!burden!on!states.!At!the!same!time,!HUD!needed!to!develop!a!completely!new!

system!for!receiving!and!processing!such!data.!HERA!authorized!$6 million!to!support!the!creation!of!

this!new!system,!but!funding!was!never!appropriated. In!the!absence!of!those!resources,!states!and!

HUD!managed!the!development!of!these!new!systems!within!existing!resources!and!through!an!iterative!

and!cooperative!process.!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!(ours!and!theirs)!and!improve!data. Each!year,!the!quality!and!coverage!of!

the!data!improve. The!preparation!of this!report surfaced!numerous!data!issues!that states!have!already!

begun!addressing, which!will!be!reflected!in!higher!quality!data!next!year.

Although!it!is!not!possible!to!name!all!the!staff!at!all!the!housing!finance!agencies who!worked!to!provide!

these data!to!HUD,!I!would!like!to!acknowledge!the!team!at!HUD!who!contributed!to!the!production of

this!report.!I!am!particularly!grateful!for!Mike!Hollar,!who!authored!this!report,!and!Shanti!Karimsetti,!who!

provided!invaluable!assistance!tabulating!the!data.!I!also!thank!Alastair!McFarlane,!Danilo!Pelletiere,!and!

Lydia!Taghavi!for!providing!valuable!input!throughout!the!production!of!this!report.

This!report!provides!summary!tables!of!state!tenant!data!received!for!tenants!as!of!December!2012.!

There!are!numerous!caveats!on!the!coverage!of!these!data,!which!are far!from!complete!in!some!states,!

or!for!some!specific!variables,!as!discussed!in!section!IV. 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.!

That!said,!LIHTC!is!a!critical!tool!for!creating and!preserving affordable!rental!housing!for!lowEincome!

households,!and!this!report!is!a!first!of!many!steps!in!an!effort!to!better!understand!those!whom!the!

LIHTC Program serves.!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.

Katherine!M.!O’Regan

Assistant+Secretary+for+Policy+Development+&+Research

Department+of+Housing+and+Urban+Development
iii

Contents

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

II. Background..........................................................................................................................................!2!

A. Overview!of!the!LowEIncome!Housing!Tax!Credit!Program.............................................................!2!

B. Tenant!Income!Certification ............................................................................................................!2!

C. Qualified!Allocation!Plans................................................................................................................!2!

D. HUD’s!Collection!of!LIHTC!Properties!Placed!in!Service ..................................................................!3!

III. Standards!and!Definitions!for!HERAEMandated!Tenant!Information!Collection.................................!4!

IV. Completeness!of!2013!Tenant!Data ....................................................................................................!5!

A. States!Submitting!Tenant!Data ........................................................................................................!5!

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

C. Units.................................................................................................................................................!9!

D. Household!Members .......................................................................................................................!9!

V. HUD’s!2013!Collection!of!LIHTC!Tenant!Information ........................................................................ 12

A. Race!by!Ethnicity............................................................................................................................ 12

B. Disability!Status ............................................................................................................................. 14

Households................................................................................................................................... 14

Household!Members.................................................................................................................... 16

C. Family!Composition!and!Age ......................................................................................................... 18

D. Household!Income......................................................................................................................... 20

E. Monthly!Rental!Payments!and!Use!of!Rental!Assistance .............................................................. 26

Monthly!Rental!Payments ............................................................................................................ 26

Use!of!Rental!Assistance............................................................................................................... 28

VI.! Appendix............................................................................................................................................ 30
iv

List&of&Tables

Table!1.!Number!and!Percentage of!Properties!Matched!Between!Property!and!Tenant!Databases........!7

Table!2.!Reported!Number!of!Household!Members!Compared!With!Household!Size!at!Certification..... 10

Table!3.!Race and Ethnicity!of!Heads!of!Household .................................................................................. 13

Table!4.!LIHTC!Households!With!Disabled!Members ................................................................................ 15

Table!5.!Disability!Status!of!Individual!Household!Members .................................................................... 17

Table!6.!Family!Composition:!Households!With!Children!and!Elderly!Members ...................................... 19

Table!7.!Distribution!of!Annual!Household!Income................................................................................... 22

Table!8.!Total!Annual!Household!Income!Compared!With!AMGI ............................................................. 24

Table 9.!Gross!Rent!As!Percentage!of!Annual!Household!Income ............................................................ 27

Table!10.!Percentage of!LIHTC!Households!Receiving!Monthly!Rental!Assistance ................................... 29

Table!A1.!Distribution!of!Income!for!All!HUDEAssisted!Housing,!December!31,!2012 ..............................!30!
1!

I. Introduction

The!LowEIncome!Housing!Tax!Credit!(LIHTC)!Program!provides!tax!credits!to!developers!of!affordable!

rental!housing.!The!tax!credits!are!provided!during the!first!10!years!of!a!minimum!30Eyear!compliance!

period!during!which!rent!and!income!restrictions!apply. The!LIHTC!Program,!although established!in!the!

U.S.!Internal!Revenue!Code!(IRC),!is!structured!such!that!stateEallocating!agencies!administer!most!

aspects!of!the!program,!including!income!and!rent!compliance,!with!the!Internal!Revenue!Service!(IRS)!

providing!oversight!and guidance.!Local!administration!allows!states!to!address!affordable!housing!

needs specific!to!their!populations.!!

As!part!of!state!compliance!enforcement,!each!state!has!developed!its!own!version!of!the!Tenant!Income!

Certification!(TIC)!form,!which!requests!information!from!property!managers!to!ensure!that!tenants!meet

LIHTC!Program!household!income!limits!and!property!managers!are!setting!rents!within!LIHTC!Program!

maximum!limits.!In!addition!to!collecting!income!and!rent!information,!many!states!have!also collected!

demographic!information,!each!according!to!their!own!standards!and!for!their!own!uses.!Thus,!although!

income!and!rent!information!was!collected!across!states!using!fairly!uniform!standards!and!definitions,!the!

demographic!information!was!not!standardized!and,!in!some!states,!not!collected!at!all.

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

finance!agency!(HFA)!that!administers!the!LIHTC!Program!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.

HERA!also!authorized!$6!million!to!support!the!creation!and!operation!of!this!new!tenant!data!collection!

effort,!but!those!resources!were!never!appropriated.

After!a!public!comment!period,!consultation!with!the!affected!state!HFAs,!and!approval!by!the!U.S.!

Office!of!Management!and!Budget!(OMB),!HUD!published!the!required!data!submission!standards!in!

early!2010.!HUD’s!published!standards!were!based!primarily!on!standards!recommended!by!the!

National!Council!of!State!Housing!Agencies!(NCSHA)!to!the!state!LIHTCEadministering!agencies!for!their!

determination!of!tenant!qualification. Although!HUD’s!standards!were!similar!to!those!used!by!most!

state!housing!agencies,!the!process!of!incorporating!changes;!collecting!the!new!information;!and!

modifying!states’ abilities!to!collect,!maintain,!and!transmit!the!information!to!HUD!electronically!took

several!years.!During!the!first!several!annual!collections,!few!states!were!able!to!submit!information!

from!a!majority!of!properties,!units,!or!tenants.!

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

information!reported!here!is!not!inclusive!of!all!tenants!served!by!the!LIHTC!Program,!HUD!believes!it!

provides!a!useful!picture!of!the!program’s!beneficiaries.!The!information!presented!within!was!received!

by!HUD!in!the!fall!of!2013!and!includes!tenants!in!LIHTC!units!as!of!December!31,!2012. Sections!II!and!III!

provide!background!on!the!LIHTC!Program!and!the!HERA!mandate. Because this!report!addresses the!

first!release!of!tenant!data,!and!data!completeness!is!an!issue!for!some!states!and!some!variables,!

section IV!provides!an!assessment!of!property,!unit,!and!tenant!coverage!by!state. Section!V!then!

provides a!discussion!of the!submitted!economic!and!demographic!data!required!under!HERA.
2!

II. Background&

A. Overview)of)the)Low/Income)Housing)Tax)Credit)Program

The!LIHTC!Program!was!established!in!the!Tax!Reform!Act!of!1986!and!enacted!as!Section!42!of!the!IRC.!

The!program!replaced!tax!provisions!that!allowed owners!of!rental!housing,!including!passive!investors,

to!deduct!operating!losses against!other!income,!which!encouraged!reduced!rental!rates. LIHTCs are!

provided!to!the!owners!of!rental!properties!to!finance!construction!or!substantial!rehabilitation!of!rental!

properties.!In!return,!property!owners!must!maintain!federally set income!and!rent!restrictions!for!a!

minimum!of!30!years. The!tax!credits,!which!are!taken!over!a!period!of!10!years,!are!determined!based!

on!the!construction!or!rehabilitation!costs!of!a!rental!property!so!that!the!present!value!of!the!tax!

credits!are!equal!to!either!70!or!30!percent!of!these!costs. Owners!can!obtain!the!tax!credits!either!

through!a!competitive!HFAEadministered!process!or!through!the!use!of!stateEissued!private!activity!

bonds. Owners!may!begin!claiming!the!tax!credits!after!the!property1 is!placed!in!service!and!the!

administering!state!HFA!confirms!the!property!is in!compliance!with!IRS!requirements.

HUD’s!administrative!responsibility!in!the!LIHTC!Program!is!strictly!limited!to!the!designation!Difficult!

Development!Areas!(DDAs)!and!Qualified!Census!Tracts!(QCTs)2

.!HUD!is!not!involved!in!the!compliance!

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

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

B. Tenant)Income)Certification

The!information!required!by!HUD!and!tabulated!in!this!report,!as!part!of!the!HERAEmandated!data!

collection,!is!also!collected!on!state!TIC!forms,!which!property!owners!must!provide!to!the!administering!

HFA!to!demonstrate!compliance!with!program!rent!and!income!rules. TIC!forms!currently!are!state

specific.!Most,!if!not!all,!states!collect information!using!their!TIC forms in!addition!to!that!required!by!

IRS!rules!and!tax!statutes.!

C. Qualified)Allocation)Plans

The!LIHTC!statute requires!HFAs!to!maintain!plans,!called!Qualified!Allocation!Plans!(QAPs), explaining!

how!the!LIHTC!Program!will!be!administered!in!each!state. QAPs!include!a!state’s!method!for!allocating!

its!share!of!LIHTCs!and!procedures!for!monitoring!compliance. Although!the!LIHTC!statute!does!not!

require!QAPs!to!include!the!submission!of!HERAEmandated!tenant!information as!a!criterion for!

compliance,!many!states!include!the!provision!of!this!information!as!a!component of!compliance. This!

provision is!pertinent!primarily!for!demographic!information,!such!as!race,!ethnicity,!and!disability!

status,!because!income,!rent,!and!other!categories!required!by!HERA!are!necessary!to!monitor!

compliance!with!other!program!rules.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1

!Tax!credits!technically!are!awarded!to!buildings!rather!than!properties. 2 Developers!who!locate!LIHTC!properties!in!DDAs!or!QCTs!are!eligible!for!30!percent!more!tax!credits!than!

otherwise!allowed.
3!

D. HUD’s)Collection)of)LIHTC)Properties)Placed)in)Service

In!addition!to!collecting!information!on!tenants!in!LIHTC!units,!HUD!annually!collects!characteristics!of!

LIHTC!properties!placed!in!service!(hereafter,!PIS data).!HUD!began!this!propertyElevel!data!collection!in!

1999!and,!although!state!participation!remained!voluntary,!all!states participated!each!year. Before the!

passage!of!HERA in!2008,!HUD!contracted!with!Abt!Associates Inc. to!collect!the!information!directly!

from!each!HFA. This!method!enabled!each!HFA!to!provide!the!requested!information!in!the!most!

convenient!format!for!each!agency.!Although!the!information!was!often!provided!in!Excel!spreadsheets

preformatted!by!Abt,!some!agencies!provided!hard!copies!of!the!requested!information,!which!required!

hand!entry by!Abt.!After!the!passage!of!HERA!and!the!mandate to!collect!data!on!all!tenants!in!LIHTC!

units,!HUD!revised!the PIS!data!submission!process and!began!requiring!electronic!submission!through!

the!same!process!as!established!for!the!tenant!data.!This!revision!required!HFAs!to!produce!XMLE

formatted3 files!and!to!submit!the!files!directly!to!HUD.

3 XML,!or!eXtensible!Markup!Language,!is!a!commonly!used!format!that!allows!for!the!transfer!of!structured!data.
4!

III. Standards&and&Definitions&for&HERACMandated&Tenant&Information Collection

HERA!requires!HUD to!establish!standards!and!definitions!for!the!mandated!data!submission.!To!

minimize!the!burden!on!state!HFAs,!HUD!adopted!a!modified!version!of!the!NCSHA’s!model!TIC!form,!

which!serves!as!the!basis!for!most!state!TIC forms!used!to!ensure!compliance!with!program!income!and!

rent!restrictions.!In!accordance!with!the!statute,!HUD!relies!on!established!program!standards!and!

definitions!to!reduce!reporting!burden!on!states!and!property!managers.

HUD’s!LIHTC!Tenant!Data!Collection!Form!requests!information!for eight!broad!categories.!Part!I!of!the!

form!(Development!Data)!requests!information!describing!the!property!and!unit,!such!as!property!

name,!address,!unit!number,!number!of!bedrooms,!and!program!identifying!codes. Part!II!(Household!

Composition) requests!the!HERAErequired!demographic!information!for!each!household!member,!

including!race,!ethnicity,!disability!status,!and!date!of!birth.!Information!from!these!sections,!in!addition!

to!information!from!HUD’s!LIHTC!PIS!data!collection,!enables!HUD!to!determine!the!completeness!of!the!

information!received.

Parts!III!(Gross!Annual!Income)!and!IV (Income!from!Assets)!request!information!on!household!income,!

which!is!collected!by!state!agencies!to!confirm program!eligibility!and!enforce!compliance!rules.

Although!states!collect!annual!income!and!income!from!assets!for!each!household!member,!HUD!

requires!reporting!of!only!total!household!income.!Part!V!(Determination!of!Income!Eligibility)!requests!

information!indicating!which!federal!income!restriction!the!household!meets.!The!LIHTC!Program!

requires!owners!to!reserve!rentErestricted!units!for!households!at!or!below!either!50!or!60 percent of!

Area!Median Gross!Income (AMGI).!Properties!that!agree!to!maintain lower!income!restrictions!indicate!

that!information!as!well,!although!the!poor!coverage!of!those!data!prohibits!their inclusion!in!this!

report.!

Part!VI!(Monthly!Rent)!requests!information!about various!components!of!monthly!rent,!including!

tenant!payments!and!monthly!rental!assistance.!Part!VII!(Student!Status)!requests!information!about

the!household’s!student!exception!if!all!occupants!are!fullEtime!students,!an!occurrence that,!in general,!

is prohibited!in!the!LIHTC!Program.!The!final!section,!Part!VIII (Program!Type),!requests information!

about whether!the!unit!complies!with!the!occupancy!requirements!of!the!HOME!and!other!federal!

affordable!housing!programs (applicable!for!units!receiving!other!funding).!
5!

IV. Completeness&of&2013 Tenant&Data

Information!on!tenants!in!rentErestricted!LIHTC!units!as!of!December!31,!2012,!was!collected!in!the!fall!

of!2013. As!required!by!statute,!the!information!was!submitted!to!HUD!by!state!HFAs,!which!collect!and!

maintain!the!data!as!part!of!program!compliance. Although!data!quality!and!completeness!have!

improved!with!each!submission!year,!because of a!variety!of!issues!discussed!subsequently,!the!data!

submitted!by!states!varied!in!completeness in!terms!of!properties!and!units!reported!and,!within!those!

units,!household!members.!To!the!extent!that!coverage!is!low!in!any!particular!state,!the!characteristics!

of!reported!tenants!may!not!be!representative!of!the!full!population!served!by!the!LIHTC!Program!in!

that!state. This!section!of!the!report!provides!information!on!coverage!to!aid!the!reader!in!interpreting!

the!data!used!throughout!this!report.!!

A. States)Submitting)Tenant)Data

The!LIHTC!Program is!administered!by!60!stateElevel!and,!in!limited!instances,!substate!allocating!housing!

finance!agencies.4 Several!states!separate!administrative!functions!between!multiple!state!agencies!or!

local!suballocators. The!District!of!Columbia!and!the!states!of!Massachusetts!and!New!York!separate!

functions!related!to!the!allocation!of!tax!credits!and!the!issuance!of!taxEexempt!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,!New!York,!and!Minnesota!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!counties5 receive!

suballocations!from!New!York!State.!Minnesota!allows!seven!local!governments!to!allocate!tax!credits,

6

although!the!state!conducts!compliance.

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

compliance (for!simplicity,!hereafter!referred!to!as!“states”).!All!states!provided tenant!data!in!response!

to!HUD’s!request!except!the!District!of!Columbia!and!New!Mexico.!None!of!the!suballocators!in!Illinois!

or!New!York,!however,!submitted!tenant!data to!HUD.

7 Thus,!tabulations!for those!two!states!provide!

only!a!partial!understanding!of!the!LIHTC!Program!and!are!representative!of!their!LIHTC!stocks excluding!

Chicago!and!New!York!City,!respectively.!The!following!sections!explain!how!the!submitted!information!

may!be incomplete for!each!of!the!states.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 This!total!includes!the!District!of!Columbia,!Guam,!Puerto!Rico,!and!Virgin!Islands.!Aside!from!the!use!of!the!Tax!

Credit!Exchange!Program!in!2009,!American!Samoa!does!not!actively!administer!the!LIHTC!Program!and!is!not!

counted!here.

5 The!Development!Authority!of!the!North!Country!administers!the!LIHTC!Program!in!Jefferson,!Lewis,!and!St.!

Lawrence!Counties,!New!York. 6 Dakota!and!Washington!Counties!and!the!cities!of!Duluth,!Minneapolis,!Saint!Cloud,!Saint!Paul,!and!Rochester!

each!receive!a!portion!of!the!state!allocation.

7 The!District!of!Columbia,!New!Mexico,!and!the!New!York!City!Housing!Development!Corporation!have!submitted!

2013!tenant!data.!
6!

B. Properties)in)the)Tenant)Data

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

extendedEuse!period.!Many!states!were!unable!to!submit!information!for!all!active!properties,!however,

for!several!reasons.!First,!many!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!extendedEuse!period.!Thus,!states!may!not!have previously!maintained

compliance!information!for!properties!in!the!extendedEuse!period.

8 Second,!some!states!previously!

accepted!Tenant!Income!Certification!forms from!smaller!properties!in!hard!copy!as!opposed!to!

electronically because!many!of!these!properties!are!managed!by!independent!owners!who!may!not!

have!the!ability!to!submit!electronically.!Converting!or!handEentering!the!information!into!electronic!

compliance!and!reporting!systems!requires!considerable!time,!and!some!states!were!not!able!to!

complete this!type!of!laborEintensive work.!Third,!the!Housing!and!Economic!Recovery!Act!permits!

states!to!forgo!annual!income!recertification!of!tenants!if!100!percent!of!a!building’s!units!are!income or!

rent!restricted.9 Income!information!from!tenants!in!these!properties,!therefore,!may!not!be!available!

or,!if!available,!may!not!be!current.!As!explained!subsequently,!in!order!to!present!an!appropriate

comparison,!HUD’s!tabulation!of!income!excludes!incomes!not!certified!in!2011!or!2012.10!!

One!method!of!assessing!the!completeness!of!each!state’s!HERAEmandated!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,

11 summarized!in!table!1.!The!time!period!covered in!HUD’s!PIS!data!

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

through!2012.!HUD’s!PIS!database!also!has!known!undercounting,!however,!primarily!for!the!most!

recently!collected!placedEinEservice!years.

12 Hence,!neither!database!is!expected!to!be!100!percent!

complete,!and,!from!the!data!available!to!HUD,!it!is!not!possible!to!provide!a!definitive!assessment!of!

completeness!based!on!one!number. Rather,!comparisons!across!the!two!sources!of!data!suggest!where!

issues!of!incomplete!data!(in!either!data!source)!may!be!larger.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8 Massachusetts!did!not!submit!tenant!data for!properties!in!the!extendedEuse!period!for!this!reason!but!plans!to!

do!so!in!future!submissions.!

9 Annual!recertification!is!not!needed!in!this!case!because!the!Next!Available!Unit!Rule!does!not!apply,!and!the!

program!allows!tenants!to!remain!in!rentErestricted!units!if household!income!increases!after!initial!certification!to!

exceed!income!limits.!Some!states,!however,!require!recertification!for!at!least!1!additional!year.

10 In!a!few!states,!some!incomes!were!certified!in!early!2013,!and!these!data!are!also!included. 11 As!discussed!in!section!II.D,!HUD!annually!collects!information!on!LIHTC!properties!placed!in!service!during!the!

previous!calendar!year.!This!information!is!available!from!http://lihtc.huduser.org/.! 12 In!addition!to!underreporting!because!of!technicalities!of!determining!placedEinEservice!status,!several!states!

(Connecticut,!Illinois,!Missouri,!Nebraska, Nevada,!New!Mexico,!Texas,!Utah,!Virginia,!Washington,!and!West!

Virginia) did!not!submit!any!information!in!recent!years.!See!the!database!at!http://lihtc.huduser.org/ for!years!of!

nonreporting.
7!

Table'1.'Number'and'Percentage of'Properties'Matched'Between'Property'and'Tenant'Databases' 2012'PIS'Database 2012'LIHTC'HERANMandated'Tenant'Data In'Both'Databases

Matched'to' Matched'to' Properties'Not' Matched'to' Matched'to' Properties'Not'

All'Active' HERA'Data'''' All'Active' HERA'Data'''' Matched'to' All'Active' PIS'Data'''''' All'Active' PIS'Data'''''' Matched'to' Active' Active'

State Properties (%) Units (%) HERA'Data Properties (%) Units (%) PIS'Data Properties Units

Alabama 705 47.1 35,936 28.7 368 355 93.5 11,651 88.6 23 332 10,320

Alaska 90 20.0 3,469 19.9 73 19 94.7 704 97.9 1 18 689

Arizona 373 71.3 28,192 64.1 96 295 90.2 21,984 82.2 29 266 18,075

Arkansas 607 63.4 28,444 58.6 194 396 97.2 17,284 96.5 11 385 16,680

California 3,018 82.3 240,434 72.0 463 2,666 93.2 204,956 84.5 182 2,484 173,122

Colorado 444 77.3 28,549 55.9 99 402 85.3 23,605 67.6 59 343 15,948

Connecticut 307 69.1 18,028 57.4 115 235 90.2 13,536 76.5 23 212 10,354

Delaware 123 90.2 7,147 84.9 12 115 96.5 6,349 95.6 4 111 6,067

DistrictBofBColumbia 124 N/A 17,850 N/A 124 Data'Not'Reported N/A

Florida 1,068 72.8 148,304 72.0 283 964 80.7 144,398 74.0 186 778 106,839

Georgia 1,018 64.0 95,050 47.9 424 689 94.6 52,474 86.8 37 652 45,537

Guam 5 100.0 433 100.0 0 5 100.0 433 100.0 0 5 433

Hawaii 72 91.7 6,490 54.2 6 72 91.7 6,330 55.6 6 66 3,517

Idaho 189 100.0 7,698 100.0 8 215 87.9 8,443 91.2 15 189 7,698

a Illinois 1,197 42.4 75,150 32.9 658 515 98.4 25,342 97.6 8 507 24,725

Indiana 578 63.3 37,792 28.4 247 442 82.8 13,258 81.1 76 366 10,749

Iowa 594 70.0 21,641 64.0 174 469 88.7 17,498 79.2 53 416 13,859

Kansas 604 74.3 28,175 61.0 137 467 96.1 21,052 81.6 18 449 17,173

Kentucky 736 74.7 24,203 80.6 177 562 97.9 20,750 94.0 12 550 19,509

Louisiana 1,049 38.2 56,693 33.4 571 432 92.8 20,352 93.1 31 401 18,943

Maine 187 64.2 6,306 70.6 67 122 98.4 4,720 94.3 2 120 4,452

Maryland 694 62.0 59,832 45.9 285 454 94.7 34,735 79.1 24 430 27,464

Massachusetts 750 66.9 50,774 60.4 239 580 86.6 39,917 76.8 78 502 30,653

Michigan 1,274 67.9 70,000 64.3 388 1,008 85.8 62,276 72.2 143 865 44,990

Minnesota 626 40.7 27,500 33.9 356 378 67.5 16,159 57.8 123 255 9,334

Mississippi 572 88.6 31,585 85.7 64 512 99.0 27,450 98.7 5 507 27,084

Missouri 1,561 47.9 53,680 56.8 789 946 79.1 44,106 69.1 198 748 30,499

Montana 210 81.9 6,047 82.1 36 175 98.3 5,227 94.9 3 172 4,963

Nebraska 239 97.5 6,970 96.8 3 317 73.5 10,413 64.8 84 233 6,750

Nevada 206 69.4 20,207 74.5 58 208 68.8 22,125 68.1 65 143 15,063

NewBHampshire 183 51.9 6,648 30.4 88 157 60.5 5,040 40.2 62 95 2,024

NewBJersey 671 33.2 43,815 39.4 446 461 48.4 33,128 52.2 238 223 17,278

NewBMexico 229 N/A 12,686 N/A 229 Data'Not'Reported N/A

NewBYorka 2,459 34.2 128,433 39.4 1,571 1,017 82.7 64,329 78.6 176 841 50,574

NorthBCarolina 1,294 72.0 52,474 91.7 333 938 99.4 48,410 99.4 6 932 48,096

NorthBDakota 171 93.6 5,198 92.7 10 162 98.8 4,886 98.7 2 160 4,821

Ohio 1,081 71.9 75,170 73.9 289 794 97.9 56,831 97.7 17 777 55,524

Oklahoma 460 57.4 22,970 51.6 193 378 69.8 18,371 64.6 114 264 11,864

Oregon 536 5.4 30,942 2.2 507 35 82.9 800 85.3 6 29 682

Pennsylvania 858 88.9 34,298 95.0 89 987 77.3 45,231 72.1 224 763 32,592

PuertoBRico 200 76.5 17,598 71.0 38 175 87.4 14,741 84.8 22 153 12,501

RhodeBIsland 187 64.7 10,958 63.8 62 164 73.8 10,007 69.9 43 121 6,994

SouthBCarolina 698 44.0 33,916 39.5 364 358 85.8 15,452 86.7 51 307 13,404

SouthBDakota 202 69.3 6,991 70.4 60 181 77.3 6,550 75.1 41 140 4,921

Tennessee 909 45.9 53,477 62.8 469 427 97.7 34,032 98.7 10 417 33,576

Texas 1,860 51.4 176,720 62.8 809 1,488 64.2 170,443 65.1 532 956 110,997

Utah 370 84.6 19,122 80.3 53 319 98.1 15,392 99.8 6 313 15,360

Vermont 241 55.2 5,277 53.0 107 232 57.3 5,442 51.4 99 133 2,797

VirginBIslands 24 79.2 1,324 64.2 5 22 86.4 1,011 84.1 3 19 850

Virginia 827 75.5 71,995 74.2 183 846 73.8 73,838 72.3 222 624 53,411

b Washington 996 1.5 68,139 11.8 747 67 22.4 23,552 34.2 52 15 8,059

WestBVirginia 267 79.0 10,725 78.1 64 234 90.2 9,947 84.2 23 211 8,375

Wisconsin 766 58.1 24,326 80.7 306 462 96.3 20,659 95.0 17 445 19,630

Wyoming 98 67.3 4,360 43.7 37 89 74.2 2,751 69.2 23 66 1,905

All'reported'areas 34,807 58.9 2,160,141 57.3 13,573 24,008 85.4 1,578,370 78.4 3,488 20,509 1,237,724

HERA!=!Housing!and!Economic!Recovery!Act.!LIHTC!=!lowEincome!housing!tax!credit.!N/A!=!not!applicable.!PIS!=!LIHTC!Properties!Placed!in!

Service!database. a Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.

b Property!names!for!properties!in!Washington’s!tenant!data!were!submitted!primarily!as!Building!Identification!Numbers,!precluding!an!

accurate!match.

Notes:!The!five!columns!under!the!heading!2012!PIS!Database!represent!the!number!of!active!properties!and!rentErestricted!units!reported!in!

the!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development’s!(HUD’s)!PIS!database!and the!percentage!of!those!properties!(and!

corresponding!units)!matched!to!properties!submitted!through!the!HERAEmandated!LIHTC!Tenant!Data!Collection!Form.!The!five!columns!

under!the!heading!2012!LIHTC!HERAEMandated!Tenant!Submission!represent!the!number!of properties!and!rentErestricted!units!submitted!

through!the!LIHTC!Tenant!Data!Collection!Form and!the!percentage!of!those!properties!(and!corresponding!units)!matched!to!properties!

reported!through!HUD’s!LIHTC!PIS!data!collection.!The!last!two!columns,!under!the!heading!In!Both!Databases!provide!the!number!of!

properties!(and!corresponding!units)!reported!in!both!HUD’s!PIS!database!and!the!LIHTC!tenant!database.
8!

Table!1!excludes!properties!identified!as!no!longer!monitored!for!LIHTC!compliance.!In!the!nation,!

34,807 properties!are!reported!as!active!in!the!LIHTC!Program in!HUD’s!PIS!database.!Through!the!

tenant!data!collection,!state!HFAs!submitted!information!for!24,008!properties.!The!difference!between!

these!two!counts!may!be!explained,!in!addition!to!the!reasons!previously!stated, in!part!from!the!PIS

database’s incorrect!categorization!of some!LIHTC!properties as!active!if!states!have!not!updated the

property’s!activity status with HUD,!producing!an!inflated!account!of!the!active!LIHTC!properties.!This!

factor!is!hard!to!distinguish!from!underreporting!in!the!tenant!data.

To!produce!a!more!informed!account!of!properties!reported!through!the!HERAEmandated!tenant!

submission,!HUD!matched!the!two!sets!of!data!using!property!name!and!programEspecific!identification!

numbers.

13 The!results!of!this!matching!are!also!reported!in!table!1.!Overall,!58.9 percent of!active!

properties!in!HUD’s!PIS!database!could!be!matched!to!properties!submitted!through!the!HERAEmandated!

tenant!data!collection.14 Some!of!this!relatively!low!overall!match!rate!reflects!nonreporting!of!the!District!

of!Columbia,!the!state!of!New!Mexico,!and!the!cities!of!Chicago!and!New!York.!Among!states!that!reported!

for!all!allocating!agencies,!the!match!rate!was!slightly!higher,!at!61.5 percent,!with!large!variation!across!

states.!Only!5!states!have!matching!rates!of!90!percent or!higher and!most!states!(35,!excluding!Illinois!and!

New!York)!have!matching!rates!below!75!percent.!These!varying!match!rates!provide!an!indication!of!the!

completeness!of!the!tenant!data for!each!state, driven!by!the!factors cited!previously.!!

In!addition to suffering!from incompleteness,!however,!matching!rates!from!the!PIS database to!HERAE

mandated!tenant!data!may!suffer!from poor!matching,!in!part!because!of changes!in!property names!since!

they!were!originally!placed!in!service!and!first!reported!to!HUD’s!PIS!database.!To!the!extent!that!poor!

matching!is!an!issue,!a!state!would!have a!low!matching!rate!in!both!directions,!meaning!that!a!similarly!

large!share!of!properties!in!the!tenant!data!would!not!be!matched!to!HUD’s!PIS!data!(also!reported in!

table!1).!For!example,!Nevada!had!nearly!identical!matching!rates!of!69!percent and!nearly!identical!

numbers!of!properties!across both!databases.!In!this!case,!the!low!match!rate!of PIS!properties!to!the!

tenant!data!need not suggest!incomplete!tenant!data. On!the!other!hand,!although!poor!matching!may!

explain!a!small!portion!of!Tennessee’s!45.9!percent PIS!match!to!tenant!data,!given!that!nearly!98!percent

of!properties!in!the!Tennessee!tenant!data!were!successfully!matched to!PIS data,!it!cannot!be!a!large!

factor.!Of!the!properties!submitted!through!the!HERA!tenant!data!collection,!nationally,!85.4!percent were!

matched!to!properties!in!the!PIS!database,!much!higher!than!the!58.9!percent!of!PIS!properties!matched!

to!the!tenant!data.!

As!mentioned!previously,!the!matching!rate!between!the!two!datasets varied!widely!across!the!states.!The!

tenant!submissions!from!oneEthird!of!states!had!property!matching!rates!above!90!percent,!providing!

confidence!that!nearly!all!the!active!LIHTC!properties!in!those!states!are!in!the!HUD!PIS database.!On!the!

other!hand,!about!oneEthird!matched!between!50!and!75!percent of!properties!from their!HERAE

mandated!tenant!data!to!the!PIS data.!In!those!cases,!it!is!less!clear!that!the!PIS!data!are!nearly!complete.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

13 HUD!used!property!names,!addresses,!stateEassigned!Project!Identification!Numbers,!and!IRSErequired!Building!

Identification!Numbers!to!match!the!PIS!and!tenant!datasets.

14 Note!that!this!percentage!indicates!that!at!least!one!unit!from!the!property!was!submitted!in!the!tenant!

submission!and!does!not!imply!that!all!units!within!the!matched!properties!were!provided.!
9!

Hence,!the!PIS!database may!not!provide!an!accurate!benchmark!for!assessing!the!completeness!of the!

tenant!data!(the main!focus!of!table!1).!As!mentioned!previously,!however,!incomplete!matching!also!

contributes!to!these!lower!rates!and!is!a!factor!when!interpreting!data!coverage.!

C. Units)

The!HERAEmandated!collection!of!LIHTC!tenant!data!is!intended!to!include!all!incomeE!or!rentErestricted!

LIHTC!units. Because!HUD’s!PIS!data!include!only!property!address!and!not!unit!address,!it!is!not!

possible!to!match!actual!units.!Instead,!table!1 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,!

2.160!million!active!LIHTC!units are in!HUD’s!PIS!database.!State!HFAs,!however,!reported!data!on!

tenants!in!1.578!million!units15 through!the!HERAEmandated!tenant!submission!to!HUD.!The!number!of!

units!in!matched!properties!is!1.237!million.!

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

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

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

approximately!5!percent.

D. Household)Members

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

required!by!HERA,!HUD!requests!householdElevel!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!HERAErequired!reporting!category.!However,!11!states!

provided!data!for!only!one!household!member,!usually!reported!as!the!head!of!the!household.

16 In!addition,

not!all!states!reported!all!certified!household!members when!reporting!on!individual!household!members,!

which affects!the!extent!to!which!their data!can!be!used!to!report!on!all!tenants versus!all!households.!For!

some!analyses,!such!as!reporting!household!composition,!this!factor!is!difficult!to!assess!in!states!with!

incomplete!data!on!all!household!members.!Hence,!for!tables presenting!information!on!individuals!as!

opposed!to!households,!it!is!important!to!have!some!sense!of!the!coverage!of!household!members.

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

limit determination during!household!income!certification.!When!all!household!members!are!included,!

household!size!equals!the!number!of!household!members!for!whom!data!are!submitted.!Table!2 compares!

household!size!at!certification with!the!number!of!household!members!actually!reported!in!the!tenant!data.!

The!first!column!reports!the!share!of!households!for!which!household!size!at!certification!was!not!reported;!

that!is,!households!for!which!HUD!is!unable!to!determine!whether!all!household!members!are!included!in!

the!tenant!data. Reporting!of!household!size!is!quite!complete!overall;!household!size!is!missing!in!only!0.3

percent of!households.!With!the!exception!of!Alaska,!which!did!not!report!household!size!for!any!

households,!this!variable!can!be!used to!assess!the!completeness!of!household!members!in!the!tenant!data.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

15 This!total!includes!both!vacant!and!occupied!units.! 16 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.!
10

Table'2.'Reported'Number'of'Household'Members'Compared'With'Household'Size'at'Certification'

a Connecticut,!Florida,!Hawaii,!Maryland,!Massachusetts,!Minnesota,!North!Dakota,!Texas,!Virgin!Islands,!West!Virginia,!and!Wyoming!

submitted!information!for!head!of!household!only. b Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.!!

!Less!Than!Reported!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Household!Size!at!Certification!!!!!!

(%)

Equals!Reported!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Household!Size!at!Certification!!!!!!

(%)

Greater!Than!Reported!!!!!!!!!!!!

Household!Size!at!Certification!!!!!!

(%)

Alabama 0.0 4.5 85.8 9.7

Alaska 100.0

Arizona 0.3 1.2 97.7 1.2

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 99.2 0.8

California 0.2 0.1 99.5 0.4

Colorado 0.0 6.0 84.6 9.4

Connecticuta 0.0 48.5 51.4 0.0

Delaware 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

DistrictAofAColumbia

Floridaa 0.0 66.6 33.4 0.0

Georgia 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Guam 0.5 1.9 96.6 1.4

Hawaiia 0.0 53.2 46.8 0.0

Idaho 6.7 1.2 94.5 4.2

Illinoisb 0.0 18.1 79.2 2.6

Indiana 0.0 3.2 56.4 40.4

Iowa 0.0 4.2 95.5 0.3

Kansas 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Kentucky 5.0 5.6 91.7 2.6

Louisiana 0.0 1.5 98.0 0.5

Maine 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.5

Marylanda 0.0 42.6 57.4 0.0

Massachusettsa 0.0 51.7 48.3 0.0

Michigan 0.0 0.0 99.0 1.0

Minnesotaa 0.1 60.7 39.2 0.1

Mississippi 0.0 0.9 98.6 0.5

Missouri 0.0 1.1 98.5 0.4

Montana 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3

Nebraska 0.0 1.4 97.8 0.8

Nevada 0.0 0.7 98.9 0.4

NewAHampshire 0.0 0.0 99.3 0.7

NewAJersey 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

NewAMexico

NewAYorkb 3.5 19.7 79.5 0.7

NorthACarolina 0.0 25.3 74.7 0.0

NorthADakotaa 0.0 47.0 53.0 0.0

Ohio 0.3 0.3 91.8 7.9

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.3

Oregon 0.0 0.0 99.9 0.1

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0 99.9 0.1

PuertoARico 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.4

RhodeAIsland 0.0 0.0 98.1 1.9

SouthACarolina 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.2

SouthADakota 0.0 0.3 99.4 0.3

Tennessee 0.0 1.8 95.9 2.3

Texasa 0.0 61.2 38.8 0.0

Utah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Vermont 0.0 0.0 99.0 1.0

VirginAIslandsa 0.0 74.3 25.7 0.0

Virginia 0.0 0.1 99.3 0.7

Washington 0.0 12.2 87.8 0.0

WestAVirginiaa 0.0 49.6 50.4 0.0

Wisconsin 0.0 1.3 98.5 0.2

Wyominga 0.0 55.1 44.9 0.0

All!reported!areas 0.3 19.1 79.6 1.2

Occupied!Units!With!Reported!Number!of!Household!Members

Household!Size!at!Certification!

Not!Reported!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

State (%)

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported
11

Across!all!reported!households,!79.6!percent!of!household records!included information!for!the!same!

number!of!household!members!as!household!size,!so!reported!on!all!household!members. Most!of!the!

remaining!reported!households,!19.1!percent,!included!information!for!less!than the!reported!

household!size!at!certification,!suggesting!incomplete coverage!of!household!members,!and!1.2!percent!

reported!more!household!members!than!present!at!certification.!!

Household!member!information!from!11!states!was!incomplete!for!more!than!40!percent!of!reported!

households,!usually!because!information!was!reported!for!only!the!head!of!the!household.

17 These!

states!are!shaded!gray!in table!2.!The!complete!coverage!of!household!members!will!be!relevant!for!

tables!reporting!demographic!and!compositional!characteristics,!in!particular!the!presence!of!children,!

seniors,!and!household!members!who!are!disabled.!!

In!addition to!varying!in!terms!of!coverage (for!example,!whether!all!properties,!units,!or!tenants!are!

included),!completeness also!varies!across!the!requested!information,!such!as!race,!disability!status,!age,!

or!use!of!rental!assistance. The!presentation!of!each!set!of!information!is!accompanied!by!an!account!of!

missing!data for!the!variables!relevant!for!that!table.!In!general,!data!are!most!complete!for!information!

that!states!have!historically!collected!as!part!of!LIHTC!Program!compliance;!newer!items!that!do!not!

affect!program!eligibility!may!have!lower!coverage!and!may!well!not!have!been!reviewed!by!states!

before submitting!to!HUD. HUD!performs!data!quality!checks!and!communicates!directly!with!states!to!

address!data!issues,!which!usually!occurs!through!the!next!year’s!submission!of!data.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

17 Alaska!could!not!be!evaluated!because,!although!the!Alaska!Housing!Finance!Corporation!submitted!multiple!

members!per!household,!it!did!not!provide!household!size!at!certification.!
12

V. HUD’s&2013&Collection&of&LIHTC&Tenant&Information&

A. Race)by)Ethnicity

HUD’s!LIHTC!Tenant!Data!Collection!Form!requests!race!according!to!standards!set!by!OMB 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!housing!finance!agencies,!race!and!ethnicity!are!not. Before the!Housing!and!

Economic!Recovery!ActEmandated!HUD!collection,!many!states!did!not!collect!any!race!and!ethnicity!

information,!and!others!collected!similar!information!using!different!categories!or!standards.!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!lowE

income!housing!tax!credit!tenants because many!states!did!not!have!this!information,!unlike!compliance!

information!such!as!income!and!rent, for!any!tenants.!!

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.!

Restating!information!presented!in!section IV,!seven!states!(Alaska,!Illinois,!Louisiana,!Minnesota,!New!

Jersey,!New!York,!Oregon,!and!Washington)!submitted!information!for!a!fairly!small!percentage!of!their!

active!LIHTC!property!stock.!Also,!as!previously!mentioned,!HUD!did!not!receive!information!for!LIHTC!

tenants!in!Chicago!or!New!York!City,!accounting!for!the!bulk!of!unreported!units!for!their!states.!

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

Recall!from!table!2 that!few!states!reported!all!members!of!each!LIHTC!household,!and!eight!states!

(Florida,!Hawaii,!Massachusetts,!Minnesota,!Texas,!Virgin!Islands,!West!Virginia,!and!Wyoming)!submitted!

all!household!members!for!less!than!oneEhalf!of!their!reported occupied!units.!The!underreporting!of!

household!members!across!states!lead!to!the!decision!to!include!only!tabulations!of!heads!of!household!

for!race!and!ethnicity!and!several!other!tabulations!presented!subsequently!in!this!report.

18

Table!3!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!1 in!order!

to!provide!perspective!on!the!completeness!for!the!entire!active!LIHTC!stock in!each!state.

19 Two!states,!

North!Dakota!and!Texas,!did!not!provide!race!or!ethnicity!information for!any!heads!of!household.

20 In!

addition,!Arizona,!Florida,!Pennsylvania,!and!Washington!did!not!provide!sufficient!information!on!both!

race!and!ethnicity!to!include in!tabulations!for!this!report.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

18 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.

19 For!example,!although!the!Alaska!HFC!submitted!both!race!and!ethnicity!data!for!92.2!percent!of!reported!heads!

of!household,!the!tenant!data!for!Alaska!includes!only!20.0!percent!of!its!LIHTC!stock.!

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

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housingEcenter/docs/12EHSR.pdf.!
13

Table&3.&Race and Ethnicity&of&Heads&of&Household

a Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators in!Illinois!or!New!York.

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)((((

(%)

Total((((((((

(%)

Alabama 47.1 18.1 32.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 48.4 100.0

Alaska 20.0 39.4 14.2 3.6 25.3 4.1 0.0 5.6 7.8 100.0

Arizona 71.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Arkansas 63.4 43.4 49.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.4 2.6 2.3 100.0

California 82.3 19.8 12.1 8.1 0.5 0.4 1.5 27.1 30.5 100.0

Colorado 77.3 34.3 10.1 1.8 0.9 0.2 1.5 19.5 31.6 100.0

Connecticut 69.1 31.1 22.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.5 23.7 20.6 100.0

Delaware 90.2 26.5 60.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.2 6.9 3.6 100.0

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 72.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Georgia 64.0 16.7 64.6 1.2 0.2 0.1 1.2 2.6 13.5 100.0

Guam 100.0 6.0 1.4 26.4 0.2 63.9 0.2 0.2 1.4 100.0

Hawaii 91.7 13.8 1.1 24.9 0.6 17.7 3.0 5.8 33.2 100.0

Idaho 100.0 67.1 1.3 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.7 7.4 21.0 100.0

Illinoisa 42.4 35.6 25.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 3.1 34.6 100.0

Indiana 63.3 47.9 38.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.7 11.1 100.0

Iowa 70.0 43.4 10.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.8 2.2 42.2 100.0

Kansas 74.3 53.6 18.6 0.7 0.5 0.1 2.1 2.4 22.1 100.0

Kentucky 74.7 83.2 16.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Louisiana 38.2 12.4 62.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.5 1.2 19.4 100.0

Maine 64.2 75.4 8.4 1.1 1.1 0.1 3.5 1.6 8.9 100.0

Maryland 62.0 19.1 40.8 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 5.7 32.0 100.0

Massachusetts 66.9 28.1 16.6 4.9 0.3 0.0 1.1 25.9 23.0 100.0

Michigan 67.9 31.7 26.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.8 38.2 100.0

Minnesota 40.7 53.4 30.3 2.4 2.5 0.2 0.8 3.3 6.9 100.0

Mississippi 88.6 12.6 65.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.8 18.7 100.0

Missouri 47.9 48.8 32.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.5 1.9 14.4 100.0

Montana 81.9 69.7 0.8 0.4 9.0 0.1 1.7 2.7 15.6 100.0

Nebraska 97.5 37.5 14.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 1.5 4.1 41.2 100.0

Nevada 69.4 31.9 13.2 1.5 0.5 0.6 2.0 19.8 30.5 100.0

NewAHampshire 51.9 66.0 3.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 16.0 3.8 10.2 100.0

NewAJersey 33.2 21.3 35.6 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.8 7.8 33.3 100.0

NewAMexico

NewAYorka 34.2 27.2 18.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 8.1 44.7 100.0

NorthACarolina 72.0 29.8 58.9 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 5.8 100.0

NorthADakota 93.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Ohio 71.9 34.7 37.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.2 25.3 100.0

Oklahoma 57.4 56.5 20.3 0.5 6.6 0.2 2.8 4.3 8.8 100.0

Oregon 5.4 68.0 5.2 1.4 1.4 0.3 1.9 8.8 13.0 100.0

Pennsylvania 88.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 95.1 100.0

PuertoARico 76.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 84.3 15.2 100.0

RhodeAIsland 64.7 54.8 14.4 0.7 1.3 0.1 3.2 17.3 8.1 100.0

SouthACarolina 44.0 22.1 59.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.3 3.3 13.6 100.0

SouthADakota 69.3 53.6 3.9 0.8 17.7 0.2 3.9 2.2 17.8 100.0

Tennessee 45.9 35.4 46.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 17.0 100.0

Texas 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

Utah 84.6 42.4 2.1 0.9 1.0 0.6 2.0 4.7 46.3 100.0

Vermont 55.2 79.8 3.1 1.2 0.3 0.0 10.1 1.4 4.0 100.0

VirginAIslands 79.2 0.9 55.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 13.0 29.8 100.0

Virginia 75.5 23.0 47.2 2.3 0.4 0.1 4.8 7.7 14.4 100.0

Washington 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0

WestAVirginia 79.0 79.9 14.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.2 4.1 100.0

Wisconsin 58.1 51.0 20.6 1.0 1.5 0.1 0.6 3.9 21.4 100.0

Wyoming 67.3 52.6 1.3 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.2 6.2 38.3 100.0

All(reported(areas 58.9 23.4 21.4 1.8 0.5 0.2 1.1 8.1 43.5 100.0

NonNHispanic

Hispanic(

(Any(Race)((((

(%)

Race(or(

Ethnicity(Not(

Reported((((((

(%)

Properties(

Reported((((((

(%)

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported
14

The!six!states!mentioned!with!insufficient!data and the!two!states!that!did!not!report!tenant!data—the!

District!of!Columbia!and!New!Mexico—are!presented!in!gray in!table!3.!Overall,!the!combination!of!race!

and!ethnicity!were!not!provided!for!43.5 percent of!reported!heads!of!household,!either!because!the!

tenant!chose!not!to!respond!or!the!data!were!not!collected.!Nearly!oneEfourth (23.4 percent)!of!

reported!LIHTC!heads!of!household are!nonEHispanic/White!and!slightly!more!than!oneEfifth!(21.4

percent)!are!nonEHispanic/Black. Slightly!less!than!oneEtenth!(8.1 percent)!of!heads!are!Hispanic.!

Although!other!minority!categories!represent!less!than!4!percent!nationwide,!they!comprise!a!

significant!percentage!in!certain!states.!For!example,!nonEHispanic/Asian!heads!of!household!account!

for!oneEfourth of!LIHTC!heads!in!Guam!and!Hawaii.!NonEHispanic/Native!Hawaiian!and!Other!Pacific!

Islander!heads!also!comprise!a!significant!share!in!Guam!and!Hawaii.!NonEHispanic/American!Indian!and!

Alaska!Native!heads!of!household!represent!oneEfourth of!the!households!in!Alaska!and!17.7 percent in!

South!Dakota.!!

B. 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!handicappedEaccessible!features!in!the!LIHTC!unit.!The!Fair!Housing!Act!defines!a!disability!as!a!

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

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

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

required!to!respond!to!this!question.

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

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

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

status!was similar!to!those!for!race!and!ethnicity,!both!of!which!are!newly!collected!information!that!is!

not!used!for!programmatic!purposes.!Similar!to!all!LIHTC!tenant!data,!this!information!suffers!from!

potential!incomplete!coverage of!properties,!units,!and!household!members.!As!explained!previously,!

data!from!seven!states!(Alaska,!Illinois,!Louisiana,!Minnesota,!New!Jersey,!New!York,!Oregon,!and!

Washington)!covered!a!fairly!small!percentage!of!their active!LIHTC!properties. In!addition,!the!District!

of!Columbia!and!New!Mexico,!and!suballocators!in!Chicago!and!New!York!City,!did!not!submit!any!

tenant!data.!The!reported!information!for!most!states!did!not!contain!all!household!members,!further!

limiting!HUD’s!ability!to!report!disability!status.

Households

Table!4 provides!householdElevel!information!on!the!presence!of!at!least!one!disabled!tenant. The!first!

column!(Percent!of!Properties!Reported)!repeats!data!from!table!1.!This!column!is!included to!enhance!

understanding!of!the!coverage!of!properties!in!the!state!data.!Connecticut,!Florida,!Hawaii,!Maryland,!

Massachusetts,!Minnesota,!North!Dakota,!Texas,!Virgin!Islands,!West!Virginia,!and!Wyoming—

highlighted!in!gray—provided!disability!status!for!only!the!head!of!household.

21

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

21 For!reporting!purposes,!a!household!member!who!is!not!reported!as!the!head!of!household,!but!who!is!the!only!

reported!member in!the unit,!is!considered!the!head!of!household!in!tabulations.!
15

Table&4.&LIHTC&Households&With&Disabled&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!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.

State

Properties+Reported++++++++

(%)

All+Household++++++++++++++++

Members+Reporteda++++++++++++++

(%)

Disability+Status+Reported+for+

At+Least+One+Member+++++++++

(%)

At+Least+One+Member+

Reported+As+Disabled++++++++++

(%)

Alabama 47.1 85.8 100.0 8.4

Alaska 20.0 Data$Not$Reported 99.4 20.7

Arizona 71.3 97.7 100.0 16.3

Arkansas 63.4 99.2 100.0 8.3

California 82.3 99.5 93.3 7.0

Colorado 77.3 84.6 82.9 2.5

Connecticut 69.1 51.4 100.0 6.3

Delaware 90.2 100.0 100.0 3.4

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 72.8 33.4 100.0 0.0

Georgia 64.0 100.0 100.0 1.4

Guam 100.0 96.6 98.8 1.2

Hawaii 91.7 46.8 100.0 3.5

Idaho 100.0 94.5 96.6 20.4

Illinoisb 42.4 79.2 100.0 3.3

Indiana 63.3 56.4 99.9 9.7

Iowa 70.0 95.5 68.7 6.7

Kansas 74.3 100.0 100.0 5.6

Kentucky 74.7 91.7 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 38.2 98.0 100.0 2.5

Maine 64.2 99.5 100.0 12.4

Maryland 62.0 57.4 100.0 4.1

Massachusetts 66.9 48.3 100.0 10.0

Michigan 67.9 99.0 61.7 4.3

Minnesota 40.7 39.2 98.9 8.3

Mississippi 88.6 98.6 71.1 5.7

Missouri 47.9 98.5 82.9 6.3

Montana 81.9 99.7 98.3 15.6

Nebraska 97.5 97.8 83.1 5.4

Nevada 69.4 98.9 88.4 5.5

NewAHampshire 51.9 99.3 100.0 5.4

NewAJersey 33.2 100.0 100.0 3.7

NewAMexico

NewAYorkb 34.2 79.5 58.0 12.5

NorthACarolina 72.0 74.7 100.0 12.3

NorthADakota 93.6 53.0 75.2 0.0

Ohio 71.9 91.8 19.0 5.7

Oklahoma 57.4 99.7 68.4 5.0

Oregon 5.4 99.9 100.0 7.8

Pennsylvania 88.9 99.9 7.7 7.7

PuertoARico 76.5 99.6 100.0 4.7

RhodeAIsland 64.7 98.1 100.0 30.8

SouthACarolina 44.0 99.8 100.0 2.1

SouthADakota 69.3 99.4 100.0 8.9

Tennessee 45.9 95.9 100.0 6.2

Texas 51.4 38.8 0.0 Data$Not$Reported

Utah 84.6 100.0 100.0 3.2

Vermont 55.2 99.0 100.0 15.4

VirginAIslands 79.2 25.7 100.0 1.6

Virginia 75.5 99.3 100.0 3.9

Washington 1.5 87.8 29.7 19.0

WestAVirginia 79.0 50.4 100.0 18.6

Wisconsin 58.1 98.5 89.3 10.5

Wyoming 67.3 44.9 100.0 9.1

All+reported+areas 58.9 79.6 76.1 6.4

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported
16

Overall,!approximately!threeEfourths!of!reported!households!include!disability!status!for!at!least!one!

household!member. The!reporting!of!disability!status,!however,!varied!across!states.!Nearly!oneEhalf!

of states!(27)!reported!disability!status!for!at!least!one!member!of!each!household,!and!more!than!oneE

half!(37!states)!reported!this!information!for!more!than!90!percent!of!households.!Four!states!(Ohio,!

Pennsylvania,!Texas,!and!Washington),!however,!reported!this!information!for!fewer!than!30!percent!of!

their!reported!households.!

The!data!quality!of!disability!status,!however,!remains!the!most!uncertain!of!all!the!required!

information.!For!example,!Florida,!Kentucky,!and!North!Dakota!reported!disability!status!for!at!least!

one!household!member!across!all!or!most!LIHTC!households.!None!of!their!tenants!were!reported!as!

disabled,!however.!This!discrepancy!could!be!in!part!a!result!of the!underreporting!of!all!household!

members,!which!is!33.4!percent!for!Florida!and!53.0!percent!in!North!Dakota;!underreporting!of!units

may!also!play!a!role.!With!all!the!coverage!and!data!quality!caveats in!mind,!6.4 percent!of!reported!

LIHTC!households!in!the!nation!have!at!least!one!disabled!member. Excluding!Florida,!Kentucky,!and!

North!Dakota,!7.3!percent!of!reported!LIHTC!households!in!the!nation!have!at!least!one!disabled!

member.

Considerable!variation!among!states!is!evident!in!each!of!these!statistics.!It!is!not!clear,!however,

whether!all!this!variation!reflects!true!differences!in!populations!served!or!data!issues. In!particular,!

state!disability!rates!several!times!larger!than!the!national!average!may!reflect!true!variation!in!who!is!

served!or!may!be!because!of!underreporting!in!many!states!with!particularly!low!shares!of!households!

containing!a!disabled!member.!Alaska!(20.7!percent),!Arizona!(16.3!percent),!Idaho!(20.4!percent),!

Rhode!Island!(30.8 percent),!Washington!(19.0!percent),!and!West!Virginia!(18.6!percent)!reported!

serving!the!highest!percentages!of!households!with!at!least!one reported!disabled!member.!

Household)Members

Table!5 reports!disability!status!at!the individual!household!member!level.!The!first!column!(Percent!of!

Properties!Reported)!repeats!data!from!table!1.!The!second!column!(All!Household!Members!Reported)!

contains!data!from!table!4.!The!last!two!columns!present!strictly!individualElevel!information,!beginning!

with!the!share!of!reported!individuals!in!that!state!for!whom!disability!status!is!known.!Overall,!

disability!status!is!reported!for!77.7 percent of!reported!individuals!in!the!tenant!data.!For!these!people,!

4.4!percent!are!reported!as!disabled.!As!discussed!previously,!data!quality!is!a!concern!for!several!states.!

Florida,!Kentucky,!and!North!Dakota!did!not!report!any!tenants!as!disabled.!Ohio,!Pennsylvania,!and!

Washington!reported!a!very!high!percentage!of!tenants!as!disabled!but!reported!on!less!than!30!percent!

of tenants.!In!fact,!Ohio!and!Pennsylvania!reported!on!disability!status!for!less!than!10!percent!of!

tenants.!These!outliers!do!not!have!a!great!effect!on!the!national!total,!however.!Excluding!all!6!of!

these!states!from!the!national!total!yields!a!national disability!rate!of!LIHTC!tenants!of!4.3!percent.!

Finally,!the!11!states!that!reported!information!for!only!the!head!of!household!are!highlighted!in!gray.
17

Table&5.&Disability&Status&of Individual Household&Members

a Reported household!members!equal!reported!household!size!at!certification. b Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.

State

Properties+Reported++

(%)

All+Household+Members+

Reporteda+++++++++++++++++++++++

(%+of+Households)

Individuals+For+Whom+Disability+

Status+Is+Reported++++++++++++++

(%+of+Individuals)

Reported+As+Disabled++++

(%+of+Individuals)

Alabama 47.1 85.8 100.0 4.2

Alaska 20.0 Data$Not$Reported 97.2 7.9

Arizona 71.3 97.7 100.0 6.7

Arkansas 63.4 99.2 100.0 4.1

California 82.3 99.5 91.6 3.2

Colorado 77.3 84.6 85.4 1.4

Connecticut 69.1 51.4 95.8 6.3

Delaware 90.2 100.0 100.0 1.7

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 72.8 33.4 94.0 0.0

Georgia 64.0 100.0 100.0 0.8

Guam 100.0 96.6 96.9 0.3

Hawaii 91.7 46.8 98.0 3.5

Idaho 100.0 94.5 90.8 10.9

Illinoisb 42.4 79.2 100.0 2.3

Indiana 63.3 56.4 99.9 4.6

Iowa 70.0 95.5 67.7 5.7

Kansas 74.3 100.0 100.0 3.1

Kentucky 74.7 91.7 100.0 0.0

Louisiana 38.2 98.0 100.0 1.2

Maine 64.2 99.5 100.0 6.6

Maryland 62.0 57.4 96.2 4.1

Massachusetts 66.9 48.3 97.3 10.0

Michigan 67.9 99.0 60.3 4.1

Minnesota 40.7 39.2 96.6 8.4

Mississippi 88.6 98.6 71.1 3.7

Missouri 47.9 98.5 82.8 4.4

Montana 81.9 99.7 98.4 9.0

Nebraska 97.5 97.8 82.1 3.5

Nevada 69.4 98.9 86.9 3.3

NewAHampshire 51.9 99.3 100.0 2.7

NewAJersey 33.2 100.0 100.0 2.2

NewAMexico

NewAYorkb 34.2 79.5 66.7 13.5

NorthACarolina 72.0 74.7 96.0 6.9

NorthADakota 93.6 53.0 75.9 0.0

Ohio 71.9 91.8 9.7 30.1

Oklahoma 57.4 99.7 68.4 4.0

Oregon 5.4 99.9 100.0 3.4

Pennsylvania 88.9 99.9 4.5 100.0

PuertoARico 76.5 99.6 100.0 2.3

RhodeAIsland 64.7 98.1 100.0 18.7

SouthACarolina 44.0 99.8 100.0 1.1

SouthADakota 69.3 99.4 100.0 4.0

Tennessee 45.9 95.9 100.0 3.1

Texas 51.4 38.8 0.0 Data$Not$Reported

Utah 84.6 100.0 100.0 1.4

Vermont 55.2 99.0 100.0 9.3

VirginAIslands 79.2 25.7 98.3 1.6

Virginia 75.5 99.3 100.0 1.9

Washington 1.5 87.8 26.3 42.5

WestAVirginia 79.0 50.4 93.9 18.6

Wisconsin 58.1 98.5 86.2 8.0

Wyoming 67.3 44.9 94.9 9.1

All+reported+areas 58.9 79.6 77.7 4.4

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported
18

C. Family)Composition and)Age

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 (for!example,!all!income!of!liveEin!aides!and!earned!income!of!

dependents)!does not!count!toward!annual!household!income.!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.!!

Many!states!use!the!LIHTC!Program!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. HUD!reports!family!composition!based!on!age!of!household!members!

and!the!relationship!to!the!head!of!household.!The!LIHTC!Tenant!Data!Collection!Form!requests!date!of!

birth!and!relationship!to!head!of!household!for!each!tenant!in!an!LIHTC!unit.!The!date!of!birth!is!used!to!

determine!the!age of!tenants!as!of!the!reporting!date,!December!31,!2012.!The!relationship!to!head!of!

household!is!used!primarily!to!identify!the!head!for!elderlyEheaded!households.22

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

household!members.!As!reported!previously,!in!order!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!6 provide!information!on!data!coverage!of!household!members and!date!of!birth. All!or!most!

household!members!were!reported!for!nearly!twoEthirds!of!states. In!addition,!nearly!twoEthirds!of!

HFAs!submitted!complete!or!nearly!complete!information!on!date!of!birth!for!all!household!members.!

Overall,!in!68 percent of!reported!units,!date!of!birth!was!provided!for!at!least!one!household!member.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

22 Although!relationship!to!head!of!household!could!be!used!to!identify!children!of!the!household!head,!this!

variable!suffers!from!the!same!coverage!issues!as!date!of!birth.!
19

Table'6.'Family'Composition:'Households'With'Children'and'Elderly'Members

a Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York. b Too!few!dates!of!birth!were!reported to!provide!a!reliable!estimate.! c

Does!not!include!Illinois,!Minnesota,!New!York, Ohio,!and!Washington.!

State

Head'of'Household''''

(%)

All'Reported'Members''''

(%)

Alabama 85.8 99.5 99.4 40.8 28.1 27.3

Alaska Not$Reported 99.8 98.8 52.5 25.0 23.1

Arizona 97.7 98.9 97.9 48.9 24.3 22.6

Arkansas 99.2 97.0 96.1 42.3 25.1 23.8

California 99.5 99.5 98.9 41.3 35.9 33.7

Colorado 84.6 93.3 92.4 38.2 27.3 25.8

Connecticut 51.4

Delaware 100.0 99.8 92.9 42.3 32.9 26.0

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 33.4

Georgia 100.0 97.5 91.9 37.1 32.2 26.6

Guam 96.6 98.6 95.9 80.0 12.7 6.5

Hawaii 46.8

Idaho 94.5 97.5 92.9 39.6 28.9 24.7

Illinoisa 79.2 68.9 68.9 Data$Suppressed b 30.8 30.6

Indiana 56.4 99.9 99.3 44.3 23.7 23.0

Iowa 95.5 100.0 99.4 31.8 28.5 27.5

Kansas 100.0 96.6 82.2 26.4 41.4 28.5

Kentucky 91.7 98.2 96.7 39.4 27.0 25.8

Louisiana 98.0 92.6 92.3 48.7 16.9 16.1

Maine 99.5 96.9 96.6 34.1 35.9 34.6

Maryland 57.4

Massachusetts 48.3

Michigan 99.0 100.0 98.3 31.6 36.1 34.4

Minnesota 39.2 96.5 96.5 Data$Suppressed b 18.6 18.6

Mississippi 98.6 99.8 99.2 51.8 16.8 15.9

Missouri 98.5 100.0 99.2 32.8 31.7 30.7

Montana 99.7 99.9 99.3 31.6 34.8 34.5

Nebraska 97.8 99.9 98.5 40.0 27.6 25.8

Nevada 98.9 100.0 99.6 35.3 36.2 34.8

NewAHampshire 99.3 95.9 95.5 38.8 35.2 34.0

NewAJersey 100.0 94.1 87.7 27.1 47.8 42.1

NewAMexico

NewAYorka 79.5 51.1 50.7 Data$Suppressed b 22.9 22.3

NorthACarolina 74.7 99.6 98.2 37.4 32.8 31.1

NorthADakota 53.0

Ohio 91.8 91.4 44.3 Data$Suppressed b 73.9 32.0

Oklahoma 99.7 99.3 98.3 39.5 32.4 31.3

Oregon 99.9 99.7 99.6 34.4 23.7 22.8

Pennsylvania 99.9 99.9 99.7 30.5 47.4 46.7

PuertoARico 99.6 100.0 99.3 44.2 38.9 38.0

RhodeAIsland 98.1 99.3 99.1 25.3 42.8 41.9

SouthACarolina 99.8 98.7 98.3 44.1 25.3 24.6

SouthADakota 99.4 85.2 84.4 44.3 20.5 19.4

Tennessee 95.9 100.0 99.5 47.3 18.3 17.6

Texas 38.8

Utah 100.0 95.7 83.0 35.2 29.4 17.0

Vermont 99.0 98.8 98.5 27.3 42.0 40.9

VirginAIslands 25.7

Virginia 99.3 98.3 97.3 41.6 25.8 24.1

Washington 87.8 44.5 43.6 Data$Suppressed b 16.6 15.4

WestAVirginia 50.4

Wisconsin 98.5 93.8 93.7 23.9 41.3 40.5

Wyoming 44.9

All'reported'areas 79.6 90.2 86.3 36.4c 32.7 28.6

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

Valid'Date'of'Birth'Provided'for At'Least'One'

Member'<'18''''''''

(%)

At'Least'One'

Member'>='62''''''

(%)

Reported'Head'of'

Household'>='62''''

(%)

All'Household'

Members'Reported''''''

(%)
20

Nine!states,!however,!did!not!submit!date!of!birth!for!any!household!members: Connecticut,!Florida,!

Hawaii,!Maryland,!Massachusetts,!Texas,!Virgin!Islands,!West!Virginia,!and!Wyoming.!In!addition,!North!

Dakota!reported!date!of!birth!for!less!than!0.1!percent!of!reported tenants. Minnesota!reported!

information!for!only!the!head!of!household,!limiting!the!usefulness!of!the!calculated!family!composition!

statistics. Each!of!these!states!has!indicated!it!will!provide!this!information!in!its!next!tenant!data!

submission!to!HUD.!!

Table!6 shows!the!percentage of!reported!households!with!children!(members!under!18!years!old),!

elderly!members!(those 62!years!and!older),!and!elderly!heads of!household.!Overall,!more!than!oneE

third!(36.4 percent) of!reported!LIHTC!households!had!at!least!one!member!under!18!years!old. Most!

states!have!between!25!and!50!percent of!households!with!at!least!one!member!under!18!years!old,!

with!Guam!(80.0 percent),!Alaska!(52.5!percent),!and!Mississippi!(51.8!percent)!being!the!only!states!in!

which!more!than!50!percent!of!LIHTC!households!have!a!child.!

Nearly!33 percent of!reported!LIHTC!households!have!an!elderly!member,!and!more!than!oneEfourth

(28.6!percent) of!reported!LIHTC!households!have!a!head!of!household!at!least!62!years!old.!The!

percentage!of!reported!heads!of!households!who!are!62!years!of!age!or!older,!in general,!is similar to,!

although!slightly!lower!than,!the!overall!percentage of!elderly!LIHTC!household!members in!each!state.!

More!than!40!percent!of!reported!LIHTC!units!in!New!Jersey,!Pennsylvania,!Rhode!Island,!Vermont,!and!

Wisconsin!have!an!elderly!head.!Eight states23 reported!elderly!headed!households!for!fewer!than!20!

percent!of!LIHTC!units.!!

D. 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!incomeEqualifying!limits!of!

either!50!or!60!percent!of!AMGI.

24 LIHTC!property!managers!must!submit!detailed!household!income!

information!to!the!administering!HFA at!tenant!move in!and!annually.

25!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!

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.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

23 Guam,!Louisiana,!Minnesota,!Mississippi,!South!Dakota,!Tennessee,!Utah,!and!Washington. 24 During!the!stateEallocation!process,!owners!may!commit!to!lower!income!limits,!usually!30!or!40!percent!of!

AMGI.

25 Program!rules!waive!the!federal!annual!income!certification!requirement!for!tenants!in!properties!that!are!100!

percent!lowEincome!or!rentErestricted!units.!Some!states!choose!to!recertify!all!tenants.
21

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!

extendedEuse!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!2011!or!2012,!with!the!exception!of!tabulations!

for!Idaho,!Kentucky,!Michigan,!Montana,!and!Puerto!Rico because!a!large!percentage!of!their!

households!were!submitted!with!certifications early!in!2013.!This!method!will!exclude!some!units!in!

properties!that!are!100!percent!low income!and!some!properties!in!their!extendedEuse!period,!because!

annual!recertifications!are!not!required.

Table!7 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!2011!or!2012!(or!

2013!in!states!noted!previously)!for!91.3 percent!of!households. Although!most!states!provided!income!

for!more!than 85!percent!of!reported!households,!many!of!the!states!that!reported!income!for!more!

than!95!percent!of!reported!households!provided!information!for!only!about!oneEhalf!of!their!LIHTC!

properties. For!example,!Illinois!provided!household!income!for!100!percent!of!their!reported!

households!but!reported!only!42.4!percent!of!LIHTC!properties!in!the!state.!
22

Table&7.&Distribution&of&Annual&Household&Income

a Percentage of!reported!households!in!which income!was!certified!in!2011!or!2012.!Tabulations!for!Idaho,!Kentucky,!Michigan,!Montana,!and!

Puerto!Rico!also!include!income!certified!in!2013. b Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.!

State

Median))))))

($)

<=)$5,000)))))

(%)

$5,001)to)

$10,000)))))))

(%)

$10,001)to)

$15,000)))))))

(%)

$15,001)to)

$20,000)))))))

(%)

>)$20,000)))))

(%)

Total))))))))))

(%)

Alabama 47.1 74.6 15,589 4.7 20.9 21.9 21.8 30.8 100.0

Alaska 20.0 0.0

Arizona 71.3 58.7 16,547 5.7 19.4 19.0 18.2 37.7 100.0

Arkansas 63.4 96.4 13,180 9.6 26.1 21.0 18.0 25.3 100.0

California 82.3 93.8 18,630 4.5 6.9 25.9 16.6 46.1 100.0

Colorado 77.3 100.0 17,225 8.6 18.8 15.6 15.1 41.8 100.0

Connecticut 69.1 100.0 19,188 5.0 19.1 14.1 13.7 48.0 100.0

Delaware 90.2 99.8 16,095 9.2 18.8 18.3 16.3 37.3 100.0

DistrictBofBColumbia

Florida 72.8 91.2 22,241 3.5 9.8 11.4 16.1 59.3 100.0

Georgia 64.0 97.0 16,990 7.0 17.1 18.3 17.9 39.7 100.0

Guam 100.0 63.9 26,919 10.2 2.6 4.9 10.2 72.2 100.0

Hawaii 91.7 100.0 20,934 2.7 17.1 14.4 13.2 52.6 100.0

Idaho 100.0 90.2 15,832 4.8 19.9 21.2 21.7 32.4 100.0

Illinoisb 42.4 100.0 15,707 8.9 19.5 18.8 18.6 34.2 100.0

Indiana 63.3 100.0 15,860 12.1 17.2 17.5 18.3 34.9 100.0

Iowa 70.0 99.8 16,533 16.7 13.9 15.0 15.2 39.2 100.0

Kansas 74.3 99.0 16,640 7.6 17.3 18.9 19.4 36.7 100.0

Kentucky 74.7 97.7 8,769 32.5 22.6 16.3 12.4 16.2 100.0

Louisiana 38.2 91.4 14,560 13.6 21.2 16.4 17.9 30.9 100.0

Maine 64.2 96.5 15,380 6.6 21.3 20.8 17.5 33.8 100.0

Maryland 62.0 100.0 21,063 4.9 15.6 13.4 13.2 52.8 100.0

Massachusetts 66.9 100.0 15,244 5.0 23.0 21.1 13.5 37.4 100.0

Michigan 67.9 100.0 14,256 10.0 23.1 19.6 17.3 30.1 100.0

Minnesota 40.7 69.0 18,252 8.1 17.5 14.9 13.9 45.4 100.0

Mississippi 88.6 99.4 13,987 16.2 19.9 17.4 18.6 27.9 100.0

Missouri 47.9 93.6 16,016 10.5 18.1 17.9 17.1 36.4 100.0

Montana 81.9 100.0 14,996 6.3 22.4 21.4 20.0 30.0 100.0

Nebraska 97.5 99.2 17,014 17.4 11.6 14.3 16.8 39.9 100.0

Nevada 69.4 99.9 18,403 4.1 12.6 18.7 20.8 43.7 100.0

NewBHampshire 51.9 89.8 17,484 17.2 12.1 14.1 13.2 43.5 100.0

NewBJersey 33.2 99.2 19,800 7.4 14.7 13.9 14.5 49.4 100.0

NewBMexico

NewBYorkb 34.2 76.3 15,971 8.0 20.2 18.5 15.8 37.5 100.0

NorthBCarolina 72.0 95.9 14,398 7.5 22.6 22.4 18.8 28.8 100.0

NorthBDakota 93.6 100.0 16,853 8.2 17.4 18.6 15.9 39.8 100.0

Ohio 71.9 0.0

Oklahoma 57.4 99.5 13,083 13.0 22.9 22.4 20.2 21.5 100.0

Oregon 5.4 94.4 15,515 17.5 16.1 15.0 16.3 35.1 100.0

Pennsylvania 88.9 99.7 14,692 10.5 21.1 19.7 18.2 30.5 100.0

PuertoBRico 76.5 99.9 5,587 46.4 31.2 15.4 5.0 2.1 100.0

RhodeBIsland 64.7 99.9 13,212 7.9 28.2 20.9 15.4 27.6 100.0

SouthBCarolina 44.0 97.3 15,612 7.3 19.6 20.4 20.7 32.0 100.0

SouthBDakota 69.3 99.1 15,006 15.4 17.2 17.4 15.7 34.3 100.0

Tennessee 45.9 100.0 14,341 14.9 19.8 17.4 17.1 30.8 100.0

Texas 51.4 96.9 18,089 9.3 15.7 14.2 17.9 43.0 100.0

Utah 84.6 96.6 18,530 8.3 15.4 15.2 16.3 44.7 100.0

Vermont 55.2 99.0 15,707 3.4 22.7 21.2 17.4 35.2 100.0

VirginBIslands 79.2 100.0 17,998 17.2 12.5 11.7 13.5 45.2 100.0

Virginia 75.5 99.6 21,452 7.3 13.7 12.3 12.9 53.9 100.0

Washington 1.5 100.0 9,576 12.8 39.3 23.8 11.8 12.3 100.0

WestBVirginia 79.0 100.0 12,252 11.3 28.5 21.5 16.5 22.3 100.0

Wisconsin 58.1 100.0 18,457 5.1 14.6 17.5 18.9 43.8 100.0

Wyoming 67.3 100.0 20,494 4.9 11.9 14.9 16.7 51.6 100.0

All)reported)areas 58.9 91.3 17,066 8.6 16.6 18.0 16.5 40.3 100.0

Data$Not$Reported

Properties)

Reported))))))

(%)

Income)

Reporteda)))))))

(%)

Households)With)Reported)Annual)Income

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported
23

The!overall!median!annual!income!was!$17,066,!although!the!median!income!varied!considerably!across!

states.!The!median!was!below!$10,000!for!Kentucky,!Puerto!Rico,!and!Washington.!The!low!reporting!

of!properties!in!Washington!may!indicate!that!this!median!and!the!income!distribution!are!not!

representative!of!all!LIHTC!households!in!that state.!The!median!household!income!exceeded!$20,000!in!

Florida,!Guam,!Hawaii,!Maryland,!Virginia,!and!Wyoming. The!reporting!for!these!states!was!relatively!

complete,!indicating!the!medians!and!income!distributions!for!these!states!are!representative.

To!aid!in!comparison!with!other!housing!programs,!the!distribution!of!household!income!in!table!7 relies!

on!the!same!categories!used!for!HUD!programs.

26 About!oneEfourth!of!reported!households!earned!less!

than!$10,000.!As!indicated!by!the!median!incomes,!Kentucky,!Puerto!Rico,!and!Washington!had!the!

highest!percentages of!reported!household incomes!under!$10,000.!Approximately!60!percent!of!

reported!households!nationwide!earned!less!than!$20,000.!More!than oneEhalf!of!reported!households!

in!Florida,!Guam,!Hawaii,!Maryland,!Virginia,!and!Wyoming!earned!more!than!$20,000. See!the!

appendix!for!a!similar!table!on!HUDEassisted!households!for!each!state.!Median!income!in!HUDEassisted!

housing!nationally!is!$10,272.27

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!8,!household!annual!income,!certified!in!2011!or!2012,!was!reported!for!more!than!!

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

before 2011,!the!overwhelming!majority!of!these!units!were!excluded!because!of missing!the!income!

certification!date.!States!with!particularly!low!reporting!of!household!income!and!certification!dates!are!

Alaska!(no!certification!dates), Arizona!(no!certification!dates),!and!Ohio!(certifications!dates!before

2011).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

26 Recall!that!the!LIHTC!Program!is!not!a!HUD!program. 27 See!table!A1!in!the!Appendix.
24

Table&8.&Total&Annual&Household&Income&Compared&With&AMGI

AMGI!=!Area!Median!Gross!Income. HH!=!household. a AMGI!was!derived!by!dividing!the!income!limit!by!the!percent!income!restriction. b Percentage!of!reported!households!the!incomes!of!which!were!certified!in!2011!or!2012.!Tabulations!for!Idaho,!Kentucky,!Michigan,!Montana,!

and!Puerto!Rico!also!include!income!certified!in!2013.! c

Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.

State

0%''''''''''

(%)

0.1%'to'

30.0%''''''

(%)

30.1%'to'

40.0%''''''

(%)

40.1%'to'

50.0%''''''

(%)

50.1%'to'

60.0%''''''

(%)

60.0%'or'

Greater''''

(%)

Total''''''''

(%)

Alabama 47.1 74.6 72.5 0.1 38.9 21.1 15.9 14.0 10.1 100.0

Alaska 20.0 0.0 0.0

Arizona 71.3 58.7 0.0

Arkansas 63.4 96.4 0.0

California 82.3 93.8 80.6 1.4 52.7 18.6 13.0 8.5 5.9 100.0

Colorado 77.3 100.0 0.0

Connecticut 69.1 100.0 0.0

Delaware 90.2 99.8 99.8 1.9 48.0 18.8 15.9 9.0 6.4 100.0

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 72.8 91.2 83.4 0.4 20.9 18.9 25.6 25.5 8.7 100.0

Georgia 64.0 97.0 97.0 1.2 35.7 20.1 18.8 14.0 10.1 100.0

Guam 100.0 63.9 63.0 3.4 15.6 19.8 21.0 38.9 1.1 100.0

Hawaii 91.7 100.0 0.0

Idaho 100.0 90.2 73.8 0.9 36.3 23.3 20.5 12.3 6.7 100.0

Illinoisc 42.4 100.0 0.0

Indiana 63.3 100.0 99.9 0.8 39.4 20.5 20.7 13.1 5.6 100.0

Iowa 70.0 99.8 99.8 0.0 47.5 18.1 16.1 14.1 4.2 100.0

Kansas 74.3 99.0 99.0 2.0 39.6 20.7 19.4 13.8 4.5 100.0

Kentucky 74.7 97.7 0.0

Louisiana 38.2 91.4 0.0

Maine 64.2 96.5 0.0

Maryland 62.0 100.0 0.0

Massachusetts 66.9 100.0 0.0

Michigan 67.9 100.0 100.0 0.0 53.7 17.8 13.9 9.0 5.5 100.0

Minnesota 40.7 69.0 67.5 0.0 51.3 17.5 15.6 12.1 3.5 100.0

Mississippi 88.6 99.4 99.4 0.0 46.7 18.2 17.0 13.2 4.9 100.0

Missouri 47.9 93.6 93.6 0.0 45.3 18.8 16.1 12.9 6.9 100.0

Montana 81.9 100.0 100.0 0.0 45.4 21.2 18.2 11.5 3.7 100.0

Nebraska 97.5 99.2 99.2 0.0 45.5 17.7 17.6 14.9 4.5 100.0

Nevada 69.4 99.9 99.9 0.0 38.4 22.6 18.4 13.5 7.1 100.0

NewAHampshire 51.9 89.8 0.0

NewAJersey 33.2 99.2 99.2 2.4 47.5 18.9 14.9 8.6 7.6 100.0

NewAMexico

NewAYorkc 34.2 76.3 75.1 4.1 49.3 17.6 14.3 8.3 6.5 100.0

NorthACarolina 72.0 95.9 84.2 0.0 46.4 20.1 16.7 10.7 6.2 100.0

NorthADakota 93.6 100.0 100.0 0.0 45.9 18.8 16.0 12.3 7.0 100.0

Ohio 71.9 0.0 0.0

Oklahoma 57.4 99.5 99.5 0.0 47.5 20.2 15.9 10.2 6.2 100.0

Oregon 5.4 94.4 0.0

Pennsylvania 88.9 99.7 99.7 5.4 49.3 20.1 14.0 8.2 3.1 100.0

PuertoARico 76.5 99.9 99.9 0.0 68.4 11.6 9.3 7.1 3.7 100.0

RhodeAIsland 64.7 99.9 0.0

SouthACarolina 44.0 97.3 0.0

SouthADakota 69.3 99.1 0.0

Tennessee 45.9 100.0 99.7 3.5 45.0 17.2 15.7 12.7 6.0 100.0

Texas 51.4 96.9 0.0

Utah 84.6 96.6 96.5 3.0 33.9 19.7 20.7 14.9 7.7 100.0

Vermont 55.2 99.0 0.0

VirginAIslands 79.2 100.0 0.0

Virginia 75.5 99.6 0.0

Washington 1.5 100.0 99.9 2.8 75.3 13.3 6.1 1.5 1.0 100.0

WestAVirginia 79.0 100.0 0.0

Wisconsin 58.1 100.0 0.0

Wyoming 67.3 100.0 0.0

All'reported'areas 58.9 91.3 54.7 1.3 44.8 18.7 16.5 12.4 6.3 100.0

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

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Properties'

Reported''''

(%)

Income'

Reportedb'''''''''''''''

(%)

Income,b'Income'Limit'

and'Income'Restriction'

Reported''''''''''''''''

(%)

Total'Annual'Household'Income'as'Percent'of'Derived'Area'Median'Gross'

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
25

The!third!column!in!table!8 shows!the!percentage of!units!that!reported!the!three!pieces!of!information!

necessary!to!calculate!the!distribution!of!LIHTC!households!by!income!level!relative!to!AMGI:!annual!

household!income,!the!applicable!income!limit!for!the!unit,!and!the!applicable!percentage income!

restriction.!AMGI!is!derived!using!the!income!limit!and!percentage income!restriction.!As!noted!

previously,!although!AMGI!could!be!determined!based!on!a!unit’s!address,!address!reporting!was!

insufficient!for!too!many!units!to!attempt!this!type!of!match.28 Missing!data!on!income!limit!or!

percentage income!restriction!reduced!the!number!of!states!for!which!HUD!could!calculate!income!

distribution.

Data!sufficient!to!calculate!household!annual!income as!a!percentage of!AMGI!were!provided!for!

28!states. The!distribution!across!states!is!fairly!consistent.!Between!oneEthird!and!oneEhalf!of!LIHTC!

households!in!these!states!earn!less!than!30!percent!of!AMGI.!Many!of!these!households!may!well!

receive!monthly!rental!assistance!(see table!10),!although!data!coverage!of!monthly!rental!assistance!

prevents!a!complete!understanding.!The!states!with!the!highest!percentage!of!reported!LIHTC!

households!with!incomes!less!than!30!percent!of!AMGI!are!Washington!(2.8!percent!with!no!annual!

income!and!75.3 percent!with!positive!income!below!30!percent!of!AMGI),!Minnesota (51.3!percent!

with!positive!income!below!30!percent!of!AMGI),!and!New!York!(4.1!percent!with!no!annual!income!

and!49.3!percent!with!positive!income!below!30!percent!of!AMGI).!

The!percentage of!households!earning!more!than!30!percent!of!AMGI,!but!less!than!the!federal!

maximum!for!initial!qualification!of!60!percent,!accounts!for!nearly!oneEhalf!of!reported!LIHTC!

households.!The!households!in!this!range!are!almost!equally!divided!in!the!three!groups!shown!in!!

table!8:!30.1!to!40.0 percent of!AMGI,!40.1!to!50.0 percent of!AMGI,!and!50.1!to!60.0 percent of!AMGI.!

The lowest!of!these!three!groups!(30.1!to!40.0!percent!of!AMGI)!includes slightly!more!households,

indicating!that!the!LIHTC!Program!serves!many!households!at!income!levels!well below!the!program’s!

federal!maximum!of!60!percent!of!AMGI.

Unlike!many!demandEside!housing!subsidy!programs!that!reduce!benefits!to!households!whose!incomes!

increase!above!applicable!income!limits,!the!LIHTC!Program!allows!households!to!remain!in!rentE

restricted!units!and!pay!lowEincome!rents!regardless!of!household!income.

29 The!final!column!of!table!8

shows!the!percentage of!reported!households!with!incomes!above!60!percent!of!AMGI.!In!general,!

fewer!than!10!percent!of!reported!households!have!annual!incomes!in!this!range.!Note!that!data!errors!

in!any!of!the!three!components!needed!to!derive!AMGI!could!contribute!to!these!results.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

28 To!ease!the!reporting!burden!on!HFAs,!HUD!requests!address!information!as!reported!to!the!IRS.!The!IRS,!

however,!requires!only!a!property!address,!which!is!insufficient!for!geocoding!scatteredEsite!properties.! 29 Program!rules!require!households!to!qualify!initially!under!applicable!program!income!limits.!If!a!tenant’s!

income!increases!to!more!than!140!percent!of!AMGI,!then!the!building’s!next!available!marketErate!unit!must!be!

rent!restricted!and!leased!to!an!incomeEqualified!household.!
26

E. Monthly)Rental)Payments and)Use)of)Rental)Assistance

Monthly)Rental)Payments

A!critical!goal!of!the!LIHTC!Program!is!to!provide!affordable!housing,!limiting!the!share!of!a!household’s!

income!paid!in!rent,!or!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!the!level chosen!by!the!

developer!during!the!application!process.30 Although!the!LIHTC!Program!sets!a!maximum!rent,!actual!

rents!are!often!less!and!can!fluctuate!with!market!conditions.!Unlike!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,!once!qualified!for!a!unit!based!on!the!unit’s!income!limits,!

increases!or!decreases!in!a tenant’s!household!income does!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!includes tenantE

paid!rent,!utility!allowance!and!other!nonoptional!charges. Table!9!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!2011!or!2012.!The!first!column!of!table!9 lists!the!percentage of!occupied!units!with!both!annual!

household!income!and!gross!rent.!Overall,!90.3!percent!of!reported!units!included!both!income!and!

rent. Insufficient!data!from!two!states,!Alaska!and!Ohio,!prevented!calculations. Income!certification!

dates!were!missing!for!households!in!Alaska.!Income!for!Ohio’s!households!did!not!include!all!

components!of!annual!household!income and!the!certification!dates!were!mostly!before 2011.!Arizona

was!the!only!other!state!in!which!income!and!rent!were!reported!for!less!than!60!percent!of!

households.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

30 States!may!impose!additional!restrictions!during!the!allocation!and!selection!processes.
27

Table'9.'Gross'Rent'As'Percentage'of'Annual'Household'Income

'' a Percentage of!reported!households!in!which!income!was!certified!in!2011!or!2012.!Tabulations!for!Idaho,!Kentucky,!Michigan,!Montana,!and!

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 74.6 7.2 64.1 15.7 6.8 6.2 0.1 100.0

Alaska 0.0

Arizona 58.7 0.8 43.2 22.6 14.7 18.0 0.6 100.0

Arkansas 89.2 0.0 70.2 14.7 6.5 7.1 1.5 100.0

California 93.8 0.8 51.4 20.0 12.7 13.6 1.4 100.0

Colorado 100.0 3.4 54.0 20.8 10.0 8.9 2.9 100.0

Connecticut 100.0 4.5 66.6 15.1 6.3 6.2 1.3 100.0

Delaware 99.8 8.6 66.3 13.2 4.2 5.8 1.9 100.0

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 90.2 2.4 37.7 33.8 14.9 10.8 0.4 100.0

Georgia 97.0 9.4 56.8 18.0 7.8 6.8 1.2 100.0

Guam 63.9 11.3 65.8 11.7 4.1 1.9 5.3 100.0

Hawaii 100.0 1.0 68.1 14.7 7.4 8.3 0.5 100.0

Idaho 89.7 3.1 54.2 21.8 10.1 9.8 1.0 100.0

Illinoisc 100.0 4.9 58.7 16.3 7.2 9.6 3.4 100.0

Indiana 100.0 5.9 58.2 20.3 7.4 7.4 0.8 100.0

Iowa 99.8 0.0 57.7 16.8 6.3 19.2 0.0 100.0

Kansas 99.0 5.6 60.6 17.9 6.8 7.0 2.1 100.0

Kentucky 97.8 77.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 100.0

Louisiana 83.9 0.0 52.0 22.4 8.6 11.8 5.2 100.0

Maine 94.3 0.0 62.9 19.3 7.3 8.0 2.5 100.0

Maryland 100.0 4.2 54.5 20.6 9.8 9.4 1.4 100.0

Massachusetts 100.0 1.7 75.4 12.0 4.2 5.8 1.0 100.0

Michigan 100.0 0.0 63.7 16.4 7.8 12.1 0.0 100.0

Minnesota 68.9 3.1 62.7 17.3 7.4 9.5 0.0 100.0

Mississippi 99.4 0.0 63.3 16.5 6.9 13.3 0.0 100.0

Missouri 93.6 0.0 75.6 12.1 4.5 7.7 0.0 100.0

Montana 100.0 0.0 66.0 17.2 7.0 9.8 0.0 100.0

Nebraska 99.2 0.0 62.5 13.7 4.9 18.9 0.0 100.0

Nevada 99.9 0.0 48.6 23.8 14.5 13.2 0.0 100.0

NewAHampshire 87.6 0.0 47.8 18.3 9.4 13.1 11.4 100.0

NewAJersey 99.2 3.6 60.3 16.1 7.6 10.1 2.4 100.0

NewAMexico

NewAYorkc 75.1 1.1 59.9 16.3 7.1 12.0 3.7 100.0

NorthACarolina 87.8 0.0 68.6 16.6 7.0 7.9 0.0 100.0

NorthADakota 100.0 0.0 67.3 16.4 6.7 9.6 0.0 100.0

Ohio 0.0

Oklahoma 99.5 0.0 70.0 15.1 6.3 8.6 0.0 100.0

Oregon 91.1 0.0 33.1 20.7 11.3 20.4 14.4 100.0

Pennsylvania 99.7 5.1 65.2 13.8 5.6 4.9 5.4 100.0

PuertoARico 99.9 0.0 85.2 4.4 1.6 8.8 0.0 100.0

RhodeAIsland 97.2 0.0 84.1 6.3 2.5 3.8 3.3 100.0

SouthACarolina 90.3 0.0 59.9 21.1 9.0 8.8 1.2 100.0

SouthADakota 90.3 0.0 64.7 14.8 5.8 9.6 5.1 100.0

Tennessee 100.0 10.8 58.0 16.2 6.0 5.5 3.5 100.0

Texas 96.9 6.2 46.9 25.0 10.6 9.8 1.4 100.0

Utah 96.6 3.1 50.9 21.0 10.1 11.9 3.1 100.0

Vermont 97.9 0.0 70.8 14.4 7.0 7.1 0.8 100.0

VirginAIslands 100.0 25.6 56.7 10.5 4.3 2.8 0.1 100.0

Virginia 93.6 0.0 49.9 24.8 11.1 13.3 0.9 100.0

Washington 99.7 3.8 84.4 5.5 1.4 2.1 2.9 100.0

WestAVirginia 100.0 7.3 66.7 12.0 5.3 7.6 1.1 100.0

Wisconsin 100.0 2.2 51.6 24.4 11.5 8.3 2.0 100.0

Wyoming 100.0 2.8 60.4 19.6 7.4 8.9 0.9 100.0

All&reported&areas 90.3 3.9 55.7 19.6 9.1 10.0 1.8 100.0

Household&Incomea&

and&Rent&Reported&&&&

(%)

TenantGPaid&Rent&As&Percentage&of&Total&Annual&Household&Income

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Puerto!Rico!also!include!income!certified!in!2013. b Ratio!of!tenantEpaid!rent!to!household!income!could!not!be!calculated!because!total!annual!household!income!equals!$0. c

Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.
28

More!than oneEhalf!of!reported!LIHTC!households!in!the!nation do!not face!an!affordable rent!burden—

that!is,!they!pay!less!than!30!percent!of!household!income!in!rent—and!threeEfourths spend!no!more!

than!40!percent!of!their!income!on!rent,!but!10 percent!are!severely!burdened—that!is,!pay!more!than!

50!percent!of!annual!household!income!for!rent. Although!the!distribution!is!similar!for!most!states,!

LIHTC!households!in!several!states!are!considerably!more!burdened. In!Oregon,!whereas!33.1!percent!

of!reported!LIHTC!households!pay!less!than!30!percent!of!income!toward!rent,!20.4!percent!of!reported!

LIHTC!households!are!severely!rent burdened!and!pay!at!least!oneEhalf!of!their!income for rent.!At!the!

other!extreme,!more!than 80!percent!of!LIHTC!households!in!Rhode!Island,!Washington!and!Puerto!

Rico!do!not!have an!affordable rent!burden.!The!final!column!of!table!9 shows!the percentage!of!

households!with!reported!annual!incomes!of $0,!preventing!the!calculation!of!rent!to!household!

income. Although!this!percentage!is!fairly!low!for!most!states,!more!than oneEfourth of!reported!

households!in!Kentucky!had!an!annual!income!of!$0.!Oregon!(14.4!percent)!and!New!Hampshire!

(11.4!percent)!also!reported!more!than!10!percent!of!households!with!$0!of!annual!income.

Use)of)Rental)Assistance

As!stated!previously,!more!than!oneEhalf!of!LIHTC!households!earn!less!than!40!percent!of!AMGI yet

federal!maximum!unit!rents!are!established!to!be!affordable!for!households!at!50!or!60!percent!of!

AMGI. This!gap!may!partially!be!filled!by!various!types!of!rental!assistance—both!projectE!and!tenantE

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

Tenant!Data!Collection!Form!requests!the!amount!of!rental!assistance!received!for!a!unit.!The!most!

recent!collection!of!tenant!data!also!requires!the!source!of!rental!assistance,!but!it!is!not!included!in!this!

report because!many!HFAs!were!unable!to!provide!this!detail. Thus,!the!following!information!includes!

rental!assistance!for!all!sources:!federal,!state,!local,!and!nonprofit!organizations,!both!unit!and!

household!based.

Table!10 shows!the!use!of!rental!assistance!for!reported!LIHTC!tenants.!Overall,!use!of!rental!assistance!

was!not!indicated!for!oneEthird!of!reported!tenants!(31.5!percent). Reporting,!however,!varied!

significantly by!state;!23 states!provided!amount!of!rental!assistance!for!all!reported!households,!

whereas!7!states!did!not!provide!an!indication!of!rental!assistance!for!any!reported!tenants.

For!households for!which!this!information!was!reported,!slightly!more!than!oneEhalf!either!receive!

tenantEbased!rental!assistance or!reside!in!a!unit!receiving rental!assistance.!Focusing!on!the!23!states!

with!complete!reporting!on!use!of!rental!assistance,!most!show!similar!usage,!with!roughly!oneEhalf!of!

reported!households receiving!some!form!of!assistance.!Mississippi!(60.4!percent!of!households)!and!

Puerto!Rico!(71.7)!reported!the!highest!percentages!of!LIHTC!households!receiving!rental!assistance.

Nevada!(23.4!percent)!and!Utah!(30.1!percent)!had!the!lowest!percentages!of!LIHTC!households!

receiving!monthly!rental!assistance.!The!use!of!rental!assistance correlates!with the!percentage!of!

households!earning!less!than!30!percent!of!AMGI in!table!7.!Mississippi!(46.7!percent)!and!Puerto!Rico!

(68.7!percent)!had!relatively!high!percentages!of!households!earning!below!this!threshold,!whereas!

Nevada!(38.4!percent)!and!Utah!(36.9!percent)!had!among!the!lowest!percentages.
29

Table&10.&Percentage of&LIHTC&Households&Receiving&Monthly&Rental&Assistance

LIHTC!=!low-incoming!housing tax!credit. a Does!not!include!tenant!data!from!suballocators!in!Illinois!or!New!York.

State

Not'Reported''''''''''

(%)

$0''''''''''''''''''''

(%)

>'$0''''''''''''''''''

(%)

Alabama 47.1 0.0 60.4 39.6

Alaska 20.0 0.0 57.3 42.7

Arizona 71.3 12.9 65.6 21.4

Arkansas 63.4 48.7 0.0 51.3

California 82.3 0.1 63.4 36.5

Colorado 77.3 78.7 0.0 21.3

Connecticut 69.1 100.0 0.0 0.0

Delaware 90.2 0.0 46.4 53.6

DistrictAofAColumbia

Florida 72.8 72.0 9.8 18.1

Georgia 64.0 0.0 61.5 38.5

Guam 100.0 74.0 0.2 25.7

Hawaii 91.7 100.0 0.0 0.0

Idaho 100.0 29.3 37.4 33.3

Illinoisa 42.4 0.0 56.5 43.5

Indiana 63.3 0.0 57.9 42.1

Iowa 70.0 0.0 59.1 40.9

Kansas 74.3 0.0 59.4 40.6

Kentucky 74.7 0.0 53.5 46.5

Louisiana 38.2 63.7 0.0 36.3

Maine 64.2 40.3 0.0 59.7

Maryland 62.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Massachusetts 66.9 100.0 0.0 0.0

Michigan 67.9 0.0 49.2 50.8

Minnesota 40.7 46.3 53.7 0.0

Mississippi 88.6 0.0 39.6 60.4

Missouri 47.9 0.0 54.1 45.9

Montana 81.9 0.0 49.4 50.6

Nebraska 97.5 0.0 58.8 41.2

Nevada 69.4 0.0 76.6 23.4

NewAHampshire 51.9 52.6 0.0 47.4

NewAJersey 33.2 0.0 59.7 40.3

NewAMexico

NewAYorka 34.2 71.7 8.5 19.8

NorthACarolina 72.0 50.5 0.0 49.5

NorthADakota 93.6 0.0 100.0 0.0

Ohio 71.9 2.5 42.3 55.2

Oklahoma 57.4 0.0 46.2 53.8

Oregon 5.4 76.3 0.0 23.7

Pennsyvania 88.9 0.0 45.1 54.9

PuertoARico 76.5 0.0 28.3 71.7

RhodeAIsland 64.7 81.7 0.0 18.3

SouthACarolina 44.0 59.4 0.0 40.6

SouthADakota 69.3 63.7 0.0 36.3

Tennessee 45.9 0.0 49.9 50.1

Texas 51.4 50.6 10.8 38.6

Utah 84.6 0.0 69.9 30.1

Vermont 55.2 36.4 0.0 63.6

VirginAIslands 79.2 100.0 0.0 0.0

Virginia 75.5 64.1 0.0 35.9

Washington 1.5 0.1 12.9 87.0

WestAVirginia 79.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Wisconsin 58.1 0.0 63.4 36.6

Wyoming 67.3 100.0 0.0 0.0

All'reported'areas 58.9 31.5 32.4 36.0

Data$Not$Reported

Data$Not$Reported

Amount'of'Monthly'Rental'Assistance

Properties'Reported''''''''

(%)
30

VI. Appendix

Table'A1.'Distribution'of'Income'for'All'HUDVAssisted'Housing,'December'31,'2012

HUD!=!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development.

Notes:!Household!data!reported!in!the!Public!and!Indian!Housing!Information!Center,!or!PIC, and!Tenant!Rental Assistance!Certification!

System,!or!TRACS, datasets.!Excludes!data!from!American!Samoa!and!the!Northern!Mariana!Islands!and!includes!data!from!areas,!

such!as!Chicago!and!New!York!City, not!reported!in!lowEincoming!housing!tax!credit!tables.

Median''''''''

($)

<='$5,000'''''''

(%)

$5,001'to'

$10,000'''''''''

(%)

$10,001'to'

$15,000'''''''''

(%)

$15,001'to'

$20,000'''''''''

(%)

>'$20,000'''''''

(%)

Total''''''''''

(%)

Alabama 85,007 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 21.5 36.0 21.2 11.8 9.5 100.0 8,728

Alaska 7,777 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15,378 10.0 8.0 29.4 24.1 28.5 100.0

Arizona 38,503 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 18.6 35.3 22.3 11.9 11.9 100.0 9,288

Arkansas 47,127 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 16.0 40.5 23.8 12.2 7.6 100.0 9,095

California 457,615 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,003 7.9 15.1 41.8 16.2 19.0 100.0

Colorado 58,052 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 16.1 37.4 22.5 12.9 11.1 100.0 9,419

Connecticut 72,903 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,276 10.5 29.6 21.2 15.4 23.2 100.0

Delaware 11,737 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,009 13.9 30.1 23.7 15.1 17.2 100.0

District,of,Columbia 23,256 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 18.9 33.7 17.6 10.0 19.9 100.0 9,381

Florida 182,256 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 15.3 38.8 20.8 12.3 12.8 100.0 9,180

Georgia 125,926 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20.5 34.3 21.5 12.3 11.4 100.0 9,096

Guam 3,158 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 37.9 13.4 14.4 15.2 19.1 100.0 9,426

Hawaii 17,947 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,324 7.3 32.8 21.1 13.6 25.2 100.0

Idaho 11,850 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 13.5 38.2 25.3 13.2 9.8 100.0 9,733

Illinois 197,861 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 16.9 34.1 20.1 14.2 14.7 100.0 9,780

Indiana 81,227 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 23.2 31.8 23.1 12.9 9.1 100.0 9,096

Iowa 37,130 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,608 12.1 34.0 28.4 15.3 10.3 100.0

Kansas 31,730 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,500 13.5 33.5 25.8 14.6 12.6 100.0

Kentucky 76,761 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 22.2 36.9 21.0 10.7 9.1 100.0 8,616

Louisiana 82,763 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 16.2 38.6 20.4 13.2 11.5 100.0 9,094

Maine 25,218 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,699 8.6 36.5 27.1 14.8 13.0 100.0

Maryland 87,752 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,061 11.6 33.6 20.5 13.4 21.0 100.0

Massachusetts 179,867 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,696 6.5 28.9 25.2 15.3 24.1 100.0

Michigan 134,969 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 15.5 35.9 23.3 13.9 11.4 100.0 9,744

Minnesota 85,246 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,136 12.0 31.8 25.0 15.1 16.1 100.0

Mississippi 51,313 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20.9 37.8 21.1 11.9 8.4 100.0 8,688

Missouri 84,166 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20.1 33.5 23.6 12.5 10.4 100.0 9,384

Montana 12,312 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 15.6 34.8 25.6 13.7 10.3 100.0 9,948

Nebraska 25,568 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,040 14.7 29.5 26.8 15.7 13.3 100.0

Nevada 21,495 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20.2 31.1 22.5 12.3 13.9 100.0 9,780

New,Hampshire 20,264 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,070 4.5 27.1 28.1 19.2 21.1 100.0

New,Jersey 154,001 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,300 9.0 30.3 22.0 15.1 23.6 100.0

New,Mexico 22,303 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 15.9 40.1 23.9 11.4 8.8 100.0 8,928

New,York 555,909 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,13,065 4.9 32.9 20.9 14.6 26.8 100.0

North,Carolina 119,332 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 21.6 35.8 22.5 11.5 8.7 100.0 8,820

North,Dakota 10,832 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,866 13.9 30.5 27.2 14.7 13.6 100.0

Ohio 212,065 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 25.0 34.7 20.5 11.6 8.3 100.0 8,616

Oklahoma 50,475 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 23.8 34.8 21.5 11.6 8.3 100.0 8,868

Oregon 51,033 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 10.7 43.3 24.1 12.0 10.0 100.0 9,336

Pennsylvania 200,947 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,716 12.8 33.9 23.7 15.3 14.3 100.0

Puerto,Rico 101,396 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 65.2 21.5 7.6 3.8 1.9 100.0 2,760

Rhode,Island 35,480 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,877 8.5 32.6 23.8 16.0 19.0 100.0

South,Carolina 59,333 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 24.4 33.5 21.6 11.8 8.8 100.0 8,724

South,Dakota 12,358 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,213 17.6 31.3 26.2 13.9 11.0 100.0

Tennessee 98,969 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 23.8 34.3 22.1 11.2 8.6 100.0 8,640

Texas 260,140 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 18.1 36.7 20.4 12.6 12.3 100.0 9,129

Utah 17,604 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 16.4 35.4 23.5 13.0 11.8 100.0 9,696

Vermont 11,790 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12,025 3.7 34.8 26.8 16.7 18.0 100.0

Virgin,Islands 5,037 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,128 29.3 20.3 15.2 9.7 25.5 100.0

Virginia 95,630 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 18.5 32.1 21.0 12.5 16.0 100.0 9,876

Washington 83,576 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 11.8 39.4 23.7 11.9 13.2 100.0 9,744

West,Virginia 31,068 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20.1 39.5 21.8 11.7 6.9 100.0 8,616

Wisconsin 69,754 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11,357 9.1 32.1 28.9 16.7 13.2 100.0

Wyoming 5,218 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10,917 13.5 31.5 25.7 15.3 14.0 100.0

Total 4,643,006 '''''''''''''10,272 15.2 32.1 23.8 13.5 15.4 100.0

Total'Number'of'

Reported'

State Households

Annual'Household'Income