United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

November 1998 ASSISTED HOUSING

Occupancy

Restrictions On

Persons With

Disabilities

GAO/RCED-99-9

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-280681 

November 12, 1998

The Honorable Jerry Lewis

Chairman

The Honorable Louis Stokes

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and

 Independent Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen

House of Representatives

Two provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

allow the owners of certain federally assisted housing projects to establish

occupancy policies that favor elderly tenants over nonelderly tenants with

disabilities. Specifically, Sections 651 and 658 of Title VI of the 1992 act

allow the owners of projects built primarily for the elderly (defined as

those aged 62 or older) to restrict the occupancy of nonelderly persons

with disabilities.1

 These owners are not required to receive approval from

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) before

imposing such a restriction, nor to notify HUD once the restriction occurs.2

Therefore, little information on Title VI’s effect is available. However,

concerns have been raised that Title VI may make it more difficult for

nonelderly persons with disabilities to obtain affordable housing. Since

fiscal year 1997, the Congress has appropriated funds for incremental

(new) Section 8 rental housing certificates and vouchers for the exclusive

use of nonelderly persons with disabilities.3

In its July 11, 1997, report (H. Rep. 105-175) accompanying its fiscal year

1998 appropriations bill, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, directed GAO to assess the

effects of Sections 651 and 658 on nonelderly persons with disabilities. In

1

Occupancy by elderly tenants with disabilities is not restricted because they meet the age

qualification.

2

The owners and managers of private housing that receive federal assistance who decide to restrict the

occupancy of nonelderly persons with disabilities pursuant to the 1992 act may not force such persons

to move out of these units.

3

Persons using Section 8 certificates and vouchers, which are administered by local housing

authorities, pay a portion of their income—usually 30 percent—toward renting privately owned

apartments that meet HUD’s rent requirements and housing quality standards. HUD generally pays the

difference between the tenants’ portion and the total rent charged for a unit or, in the case of

vouchers, a rent standard established by HUD.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

response, this report provides information on (1) the extent to which the

occupancy policies of eligible projects restrict occupancy to the elderly

and the portion of units in eligible projects actually occupied by

nonelderly persons with disabilities and (2) the use of Section 8

certificates and vouchers to assist nonelderly persons with disabilities

affected by the act.

To obtain information on the effects of Sections 651 and 658, we surveyed

a random sample of 1,223 of the 7,696 privately owned, HUD-assisted

housing projects that are potentially eligible to restrict the number of

nonelderly tenants with disabilities.4

 Our survey results are generalizable

to approximately 6,080 of the potentially eligible projects.5

 This report

discusses the responses of those projects whose managers told us that the

projects were originally designed primarily for the elderly. We estimate

that there are 4,157 such projects. To obtain information on HUD’s use of

Section 8 certificates and vouchers to assist persons with disabilities

affected by the act, we interviewed appropriate HUD officials and obtained

documentation where available. We also interviewed officials of

associations representing (1) persons with disabilities, (2) the elderly, and

(3) owners of privately owned assisted housing. Appendix I describes our

survey methodology in more detail. Appendix II presents our survey and

the aggregated responses to our questions. Appendix III provides the

sampling errors for the responses to our survey.

Results in Brief The majority of housing projects designed for the elderly have not used

the 1992 act to restrict the occupancy of nonelderly persons with

disabilities. Almost three-quarters of the officials for the projects designed

for the elderly reported that they had adopted their current policies before

1993, when the law went in effect. That is, the policies for these projects

have not changed as a result of the act. A similar number of officials

reported that their projects’ occupancy composition has remained about

the same over the last 5 years. Regardless of when the occupancy policies

were adopted, most projects allow persons with disabilities to reside in

4

We did not assess whether the projects’ policies were in compliance with HUD’s regulations.

5

Almost 80 percent of the projects we surveyed by mail responded. We also conducted a telephone

survey of a sample of the projects that did not respond to our written survey to determine whether

their answers differed from those who responded by mail. We found some significant differences

between the two groups and have noted them, where appropriate, in this report. Sampling errors

define the upper and lower bounds of the estimates made for our survey results. Sampling errors were

calculated at the 95-percent confidence level. This means that 19 out of 20 times, the sampling

procedures used would produce a range that includes the true value. Wherever sampling errors were

less than 5 percent, we do not present them in this letter. Sampling errors greater than 5 percent follow

their corresponding estimates.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

them. About 42 percent allow the elderly and persons with disabilities to

apply for all units, while about 24 percent reserve some units for

nonelderly persons with disabilities. Elderly tenants currently occupy

about 90 percent of the available units, while nonelderly persons with

disabilities occupy 8 percent. Advocates for the elderly and persons with

disabilities and HUD officials generally were not surprised by our survey

results. Advocates for the elderly believe that our findings indicate that

few projects have used the act to restrict the occupancy of persons with

disabilities. In contrast, disability rights advocates believe that many

projects were discriminating against persons with disabilities prior to the

1992 act and that the act merely legitimized those practices.

Local housing authorities have made limited use of the funds for Section 8

certificates and vouchers that HUD can award to assist nonelderly persons

with disabilities who are not currently receiving housing assistance

because owners restricted occupancy, as the 1992 act allows. Of the

$45 million appropriated for this purpose in fiscal years 1997 and 1998,

only $8.4 million had been awarded to 13 housing authorities as of

September 30, 1998. HUD officials told us that these funds were not in

greater demand for several possible reasons. First, the application process

for these funds is more complicated than the process for funds in the

mainstream housing opportunities program, which is another mechanism

available for housing authorities to apply for certificates and vouchers for

persons with disabilities. Furthermore, our survey found that very few

owners of private projects were working with staff from their local

housing authority to assist persons with disabilities affected by Sections

651 and 658. Finally, housing authorities prefer to apply for funds from the

mainstream program for persons with disabilities. In September 1998, HUD

transferred $78.3 million of unobligated Section 8 funds for nonelderly

persons with disabilities, of which $36.6 million was from the $45 million

set-aside, into the mainstream program. These transferred funds were fully

obligated by the end of fiscal year 1998, according to HUD.

Background Assisted housing for the elderly (known as elderly housing) has been

developed under several HUD programs, including the Section 202 program,

which remains the primary assisted housing program for the elderly. All of

these programs allow, to some degree, occupancy by some nonelderly

persons with disabilities; however, the eligibility criteria for persons with

disabilities depend on the housing program and, in some instances, on the

year the project was developed and the definition of disability in effect for

that year. Therefore, some elderly projects that accept a person with a

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

physical disability may have the legal discretion to not accept a person

with either a developmental or mental disability. Many projects allowed

persons with mobility impairments to occupy 10 percent of their units and

elderly persons to occupy the remaining 90 percent. Other projects, such

as certain Section 202 projects built before 1964, when persons with

physical handicaps became eligible, were not required to accept any

persons with disabilities.

In response to complaints that the lifestyles of young adults with

disabilities residing in elderly housing conflicted with those of elderly

tenants, the Congress, in Title VI of the Housing and Community

Development Act of 1992, provided that owners of elderly housing may

restrict the number of nonelderly persons with disabilities who may reside

there, and defined the types of housing programs covered and the types of

restrictions permitted.6

 Specifically, Section 651 of Title VI states that

eligible elderly projects with Section 8 project-based assistance may give

preference to elderly families.7

 If preference is given, the project must

reserve some units—10 percent or fewer of the total units—for nonelderly

persons with disabilities under the age of 50. If there is an insufficient

number of elderly tenants, then the owner may give preference to persons

with disabilities who are near-elderly (ages 50 through 61). Projects

eligible under Section 658 have different restrictions. In essence, Section

658 permits elderly projects to return to their original occupancy policies,

as agreed upon with HUD, if they had over the years allowed tenants other

than those originally eligible to occupy units.

To offset the potential loss of housing for nonelderly persons with

disabilities and to provide them with greater housing choices, local

housing authorities may apply for HUD’s Section 8 rental housing

certificates and vouchers from one of three separate funding set-asides. Of

the $278.9 million that has been made available for certificates and

vouchers for persons with disabilities since the 1992 act, $136.9 million

was set aside for housing authorities that have HUD-approved allocation

6

Elderly housing generally consists of efficiency apartments and one-bedroom units, while family

housing consists of apartments with two or more bedrooms. Some family projects also have efficiency

or one-bedroom apartments for families with one or two members and do allow such families to reside

there. However, elderly projects rarely include apartments with more than one bedroom, and their

primary eligibility criteria are age and disability rather than family size.

7

Section 8 project-based assistance, unlike Section 8 certificates and vouchers, is tied to specific

property units. Rent is paid for eligible tenants when they occupy a specific housing development or

unit.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

plans,8 $45 million was set aside for housing authorities to assist those

nonelderly persons with disabilities who have been affected by private

projects’ establishment of occupancy policies restricting their number, and

$97 million was set aside for the mainstream housing opportunities

program.9

 Each set-aside has different application requirements and

restrictions. Once housing authorities are awarded funds for a specific

number of certificates or vouchers, they are responsible for providing the

certificates and vouchers to eligible applicants.

The 1992 Act Has Had

Little Effect on

Occupancy

Restrictions for

Nonelderly Persons

With Disabilities

Most elderly projects have not used the 1992 act to restrict the occupancy

of nonelderly persons with disabilities. Specifically, occupancy policies

and the relative percentages of elderly tenants and nonelderly tenants with

disabilities have not changed much since the enactment of the 1992 act,

according to survey responses. Advocates for the elderly and persons with

disabilities and HUD officials differ on whether our survey results show that

nonelderly persons with disabilities have been adversely affected by the

act.

Most Occupancy Policies

Precede the 1992 Act and

Allow Occupancy by Some

Persons With Disabilities

Of an estimated 4,157 projects originally designed for the elderly, about

71 percent—or 2,968 (± 207) projects with a total of 241,184 units (±

24,017)—had current occupancy policies that preceded the enactment of

the 1992 act. In other words, these projects did not use the 1992 act to

change their policies on the occupancy of nonelderly persons with

disabilities. Officials for most of these projects reported that their current

occupancy policies were adopted when the projects were developed. The

remaining projects included those that adopted their current policies in

1993 or later but were built before 1993, those that adopted their current

policies in 1993 or later but were built in 1993 or later, and those that did

not provide complete data.

8

A local housing authority wanting to restrict occupancy must submit to HUD an allocation plan that,

among other things, describes the local supply and demand of affordable housing for nonelderly

persons with disabilities and the steps the housing authority will take to secure alternative housing

options.

9

The mainstream housing opportunities program provides Section 8 certificates and vouchers to

persons with disabilities to find affordable housing of their choice in their communities (hence, the

term “mainstream”). The mainstream program does not have an age criterion for eligibility.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

Figure 1: Most Occupancy Policies

Precede the 1992 Act

71%

13%

13%

3%

Projects with occupancy 

policies enacted before 

1993 (2,968 projects 

with 241,184 units)

Projects built before 1993 

but adopted current 

occupancy policy since 1993

Projects built in 1993 

or later

Missing dataa

aRespondents did not complete questions on occupancy policy, date of policy, and/or date the

project was built or substantially rehabilitated.

Of the projects that were built before 1993 but have adopted policies since

then, 59.9 (± 10.3) percent adopted policies that restrict the number of

nonelderly persons with disabilities, either by limiting their number or by

renting only to elderly tenants. Another 24.3 (± 8.9) percent allowed only

the elderly and persons with disabilities for all units. The remaining

projects selected other policies or did not respond to our survey.

Regardless of when a project’s occupancy policy was adopted, at least

70 percent of the 4,157 projects built primarily for the elderly currently

accept some persons with disabilities (see fig. 2). Most projects had one of

three types of policies. One type of policy allows persons with disabilities

and elderly persons to apply for all units—42 percent, or 1,738

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

(± 181) projects, had this policy.10 Under a second type of policy, projects

reserve a percentage or number of units (most commonly 10 percent or

fewer of the total units) for nonelderly persons with disabilities and allow

the elderly and/or near-elderly to occupy the remaining units—24 percent

had this policy.11 A third type of policy restricts occupancy to the

elderly—21 percent had this policy. Projects under Section 658 were twice

as likely as those under Section 651 to restrict occupancy to elderly

persons.

10Section 651 projects that responded to our telephone survey reported significantly more often than

respondents to the mail survey that they accept both the elderly and persons with disabilities. There

were no significant differences between Section 658 telephone and mail survey respondents.

11Sections 651 and 658 projects that responded to our telephone survey reported significantly less

often than respondents to our mail survey that they reserve units for nonelderly persons with

disabilities, limiting the remaining units to the elderly.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

Figure 2: Most Elderly Projects Allow

Occupancy by Some Persons With

Disabilities

42%

22%

2%

3%

Elderly persons and persons 

with disabilities are considered 

for all units

A percentage of units are 

reserved for nonelderly 

persons with disabilities and 

elderly and/or near-elderly 

for remaining units

Elderly, near-elderly, 

and nonelderly persons 

with disabilities are 

considered for all units

Missing data

24%

6%

Only elderly persons or only 

elderly persons and near-elderly 

nondisabled persons are 

considered for all units

Other policies, including those 

that might allow persons with 

disabilities

a

Other policies that allow 

persons with disabilities

1%

b

aRespondents did not complete question on occupancy policy.

bIn this category, 21 percent allow only elderly persons.

Projects that reserved some units for nonelderly persons with disabilities

generally limited these units to those with physical disabilities. That is,

officials for almost 70.5 (± 6.8) percent of the projects that reserved some

units reported that only persons with disabilities requiring physically

accessible units were eligible for occupancy in those reserved units, while

officials for about 26 (± 6.5) percent of the projects reported that they

would consider persons with disabilities who do not require accessible

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

units. In contrast, projects that considered the elderly and persons with

disabilities for all units more often had policies to admit persons with

disabilities regardless of their need for accessible units.12

Percentages of Elderly and

Nonelderly With

Disabilities at Elderly

Projects Have Remained

Relatively Stable Over the

Last 5 Years

According to officials for most of the projects, elderly persons currently

occupy 90 percent of units, while nonelderly persons with disabilities

occupy 8 percent overall.13 That is, of the 321,152 (± 25,979) units of

federally supported housing located in elderly housing projects, about

287,629 (± 24,151) units are occupied by the elderly and 25,796 (±

4,169) units are occupied by nonelderly persons with disabilities.

Nonelderly, nondisabled tenants reside in fewer than 2 percent of the

units.14

The percentages of elderly residents and residents with disabilities have

remained the same over the last 5 years, according to a majority of those

responding. About three-quarters (77 percent) of the officials of elderly

projects reported that the percentage of elderly tenants has remained the

same; and 70 percent reported that the percentage of tenants with

disabilities (regardless of age) has remained the same. Increases in the

percentage of elderly tenants were experienced by 11 percent of the

projects, while officials for 21 percent of the projects reported that they

had increases in the percentage of tenants with disabilities.

Advocates and HUD

Provide Different Reasons

for Potentially Low Impact

of 1992 Act

We provided the preliminary results of our survey to national

representatives of, and advocates for, persons with disabilities, the elderly,

and owners of projects that are eligible under Sections 651 and 658 to

restrict the occupancy of persons with disabilities, as well as to HUD

officials. These experts offered different interpretations of our

findings—that most projects adopted their current occupancy policies

before the 1992 act’s enactment, that occupancy patterns have been stable,

and that occupants are predominantly elderly. Specifically, they disagreed

over the meaning of stability in policies and occupancy. Some believed

that these results showed that nonelderly persons with disabilities were

12Section 651 projects that responded to our telephone survey were significantly more likely to report

accepting both disabled persons who require physically accessible units and those who do not require

such units than projects that responded by mail. There were no differences in these policies for

Section 658 telephone and mail survey respondents.

13Another 4.6 percent of elderly projects did not provide sufficient data on occupancy for this analysis.

14Officials for some projects reported vacancies, although our survey did not ask about vacant units.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

being adequately served, while others believed that they showed that

project owners were continuing past discriminatory practices.

Officials representing project owners and the elderly believed that the

survey data confirm their experience that projects have not generally used

the 1992 act to restrict occupancy by persons with disabilities. They

believed that it is a misperception that project owners and managers favor

elderly tenants over younger tenants with disabilities. Instead, they

explained that many younger persons with disabilities (1) do not want to

live with elderly persons and prefer other types of housing, including

housing projects and group homes just for persons with disabilities or

(2) want to choose their own housing using Section 8 certificates and

vouchers. Therefore, younger persons with disabilities are not applying in

higher numbers for admission to elderly housing. The officials believed

that our survey results confirm these views because our survey found that

nonelderly persons with disabilities represented 8 percent of applicants on

elderly projects’ waiting lists.15 As a result, elderly housing is primarily

composed of elderly tenants.

In contrast, advocates for persons with disabilities maintained that few

projects used the 1992 act to restrict the occupancy of such persons

because many projects were already imposing such restrictions—which

could have been illegal—before the 1992 act was passed. In other words,

the 1992 act codified existing occupancy practices, regardless of whether

those practices were legal. The advocates maintained that such practices

occurred because of discrimination against people with disabilities and

ignorance of the law and HUD’s occupancy regulations. In their view, the

project owners were and are able to maintain such potentially illegal

practices because HUD is not required to approve changes to the projects’

occupancy policies and because HUD is not enforcing compliance with its

occupancy regulations. The advocates also believed that project owners

use “redlining,” telling potential applicants that a waiting list is closed or a

project is accepting persons with only certain types of disabilities, such as

physical disabilities. Finally, the advocates said that most low-income

people will not file complaints against a project out of ignorance or fear of

retaliation or intimidation. If they do file a complaint, they are more likely

to do so with a local organization than with HUD. As a result, HUD does not

know the extent to which persons with disabilities experience

discrimination.

15Waiting lists are an imperfect measure of demand because they reflect demand only at the time the

individuals are listed or lists are updated. They do not reflect the demand of those persons who need

housing but, for various reasons, are not listed.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

Finally, HUD officials believed that our survey results confirm that, overall,

persons with disabilities have not to date been harmed by the 1992 act.

HUD program officials disagreed with the assertion of the disability rights

advocates that the 1992 act codified potentially illegal practices. While the

officials acknowledged that some projects maintained illegal occupancy

practices before the act’s passage, they did not believe that such practices

were widespread. Otherwise, they believed, significantly more complaints

would have been brought to HUD’s attention. However, HUD officials were

surprised by some of our findings. For instance, they did not understand

why 11 percent of the projects eligible under Section 651 reported that

they accept only elderly tenants. According to HUD’s program officials,

Section 651 projects that accept only the elderly should be rare.

Furthermore, they were surprised that the percentage of nonelderly

persons with disabilities on waiting lists was so small.

Use of Section 8

Certificates and

Vouchers to Offset the

Impact of Private

Projects’ Occupancy

Restrictions Is

Limited

Of the $278.9 million that has been made available for incremental (new)

Section 8 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities since the

passage of the 1992 act, $45 million ($25 million in fiscal year 1997 and

$20 million in fiscal year 1998) was specifically for offsetting the effects of

occupancy restrictions by private projects that meet the criteria of

Sections 651 and 658.16 Housing authorities can apply for certificates and

vouchers funded from this program if they can identify nonelderly persons

with disabilities in their communities who are not receiving housing

assistance because of private projects’ occupancy restrictions.

As of September 30, 1998, only about 19 percent of the $45 million had

been used to assist persons with disabilities affected by private projects’

occupancy restrictions. HUD had awarded about 1,610 certificates and

vouchers worth about $8.4 million to 13 housing authorities for this

purpose, leaving about $36.6 million unobligated. In addition, HUD had

$41.7 million unobligated from the funding set-aside targeted to local

housing authorities with approved allocation plans. As a result, in

September 1998, HUD transferred a total of $78.3 million in unobligated

funds from these two funding set-asides into the mainstream program for

Section 8 certificates and vouchers, raising the amount of funding

16Our report entitled Public Housing: Impact of Designated Public Housing on Persons With

Disabilities (GAO/RCED-98-160, June 9, 1998) discusses in detail the use and limitations of Section 8

certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. This report focuses only on Section 8

certificates and vouchers awarded to offset the effects of private projects’ restrictions of occupancy to

the elderly.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

available in that program from $48.5 million to $126.8 million.17 All told,

276 housing authorities have submitted applications for approval,

requesting 22,000 certificates and vouchers worth almost $633 million.

According to HUD, by the end of September 1998, it had obligated all

$126.8 million of the mainstream Section 8 certificates and vouchers.

We were not able to account for housing authorities’ greater interest in

applying for mainstream certificates and vouchers for persons with

disabilities than in applying for certificates and vouchers to assist

nonelderly persons with disabilities affected by private projects’

occupancy restrictions. According to HUD officials, it is possible that the

mainstream program is more popular in part because housing authority

officials are more familiar with its application process. Furthermore,

housing authority officials may find the process for applying for

mainstream certificates and vouchers simpler than the process for

applying for certificates and vouchers set aside for housing authorities that

have approved allocation plans or that can identify persons affected by

occupancy restrictions in private housing. Because of legislative

requirements, the mainstream program has fewer application requirements

than the other two set-asides have. For instance, a housing authority

desiring certificates and vouchers in connection with an allocation plan

must first submit the plan to designate housing. Information for this plan

could require participation from current tenants, the local government,

and advocacy groups.

Similarly, a housing authority that applies for certificates and vouchers to

assist persons with disabilities affected by private projects’ occupancy

restrictions have additional requirements. The housing authority must first

identify those private projects that have restricted occupancy and then

submit statements signed by the owners of the private projects certifying

that the projects have established occupancy policies favoring the elderly

and providing the number of nonelderly disabled families on their waiting

lists. In addition, the housing authority must identify the number of other

nonelderly disabled families residing in the community who would qualify

for these certificates and vouchers. According to HUD Section 8 officials,

even though HUD has encouraged the owners of private projects to

cooperate with the housing authorities to determine the need for

certificates and vouchers, many housing authorities have found that

project owners are often reluctant to cooperate. Only 1.8 percent of the

managers of elderly housing projects reported in our survey that they are

17While $48.5 million of this amount can be used to assist any family or individual with disabilities

regardless of age, the $78.3 million must be used for nonelderly persons with disabilities.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

working with a housing authority to help persons with disabilities find

housing.

Communication problems among HUD’s offices and among HUD, housing

authorities, and private projects may have contributed to the low level of

interest in the Section 8 certificates and vouchers set-aside. According to

HUD’s former Section 8 director, he had asked the Office of Housing’s

Multifamily Housing Division to (1) notify project owners that Section 8

certificates and vouchers were available for qualified persons with

disabilities who are affected by the owners’ changes in occupancy policies

and (2) request that the project owners notify their local housing authority

to assist them in identifying eligible candidates for certificates and

vouchers. However, because of changes in HUD’s management and

organization, the division has not acted on his request. Likewise, the

Section 8 office has not formally provided housing authorities with

information about Sections 651 and 658, including the allowable

occupancy policies and how these policies affect low-income nonelderly

persons with disabilities looking for affordable housing. Moreover, other

than issuing an April 30, 1998, notice of funding availability for the fiscal

year 1998 funds, HUD has not made any formal efforts to educate housing

authorities on the type of funding available for nonelderly persons with

disabilities.

Recognizing that housing authorities do not always apply for some of

these funds, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,

House Committee on Appropriations, in HUD’s fiscal year 1999

appropriations, provided the Secretary of Housing with waiver authority to

allow nonprofit organizations to apply for these certificates and vouchers.

Conclusions While our survey data might indicate that, to date, few nonelderly persons

with disabilities have been affected by the occupancy restrictions enacted

by privately owned elderly housing projects, the impact could be greater

as more elderly projects enact occupancy restrictions in accordance with

Sections 651 and 658 of the 1992 act. Section 8 certificates and vouchers

are also available to assist nonelderly persons with disabilities who may

no longer be eligible for elderly projects, but much of these Section 8

funds remained unspent because, among other reasons, housing

authorities may find the application process cumbersome in comparison

with that for the mainstream program. Regardless, as demonstrated by the

oversubscription of the mainstream program, which has an application

process that is more familiar to housing authorities, there is a

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
B-280681 

demonstrated demand for certificates and vouchers for persons with

disabilities.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. HUD

agreed with the report and responded that it found the information in the

report to be useful for continuing to implement its programs for elderly

persons and persons with disabilities. The Department also provided some

technical clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate. HUD’s

letter appears in appendix IV.

We conducted our review from December 1997 through October 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate Senate and House

committees; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and the

Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will also make

copies available on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you and your staff have any questions

about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix V.

Judy A. England-Joseph

Director, Housing and Community

 Development Issues

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Survey Methodology

18

Sampling Error 19

Analysis of Survey Nonresponses 19

Results of Data Reliability Checks 21

Appendix II 

Survey Results of

Privately Owned

Housing Projects

23

Appendix III 

Sampling Errors for

Questions in the

Survey of Privately

Owned Housing

Projects

27

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of

Housing and Urban

Development

29

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

30

Figures Figure 1: Most Occupancy Policies Precede the 1992 Act 6

Figure 2: Most Elderly Projects Allow Occupancy by Some

Persons With Disabilities

8

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Contents

Abbreviations

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

VA Veterans Administration

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix I 

Survey Methodology

To obtain information on the impact of Sections 651 and 658 of Title VI of

the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, we surveyed a

stratified random sample of 1,223 privately owned, federally assisted

housing projects that were potentially eligible to restrict the occupancy of

nonelderly persons with disabilities. We identified potentially eligible

projects using a list of projects that receive federal assistance provided by

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These projects

receive assistance through the following programs:

• Programs eligible under Section 651: Section 8 New Construction

Program, Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation Program, State Housing

Agencies program (insofar as it involves new construction and substantial

rehabilitation), the New Construction Set-Aside for Section 515 Rural

Rental Housing Projects Program, and the Section 8 Housing Assistance

Program for the Disposition of HUD-Owned Projects (insofar as it involves

substantial rehabilitation). Projects receiving assistance through these

programs may also be known by the section of the National Housing Act,

as amended, authorizing the assistance: Section 221(d)(3) (excluding

below-market interest rate), Section 221(d)(4), or Section 231.

• Programs eligible under Section 658: Section 202 of the Housing Act of

1959 as it existed before the enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National

Affordable Housing Act; Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act,

using a below-market interest rate determined by Section 221(d)(5); and

the Section 236 Interest Reduction Subsidy or other programs providing

assistance under Section 236 of the National Housing Act.

The data HUD used to develop the universe of projects affected by the 1992

act came from the Multifamily Data Warehouse, Field Office Multifamily

National System, and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System. None

of these systems has undergone detailed data reliability assessments. We

spoke with HUD officials familiar with the data to assess the accuracy of

the data fields that were critical to the creation of the project universe and

to our use of the data for the survey mailing. We determined that the data

were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

From the lists we obtained from HUD, we eliminated family projects, which

HUD defines as being not elderly or handicapped. We thus obtained a list of

1,938 projects that were potentially eligible to restrict the occupancy of

nonelderly persons with disabilities under Section 651 and 5,758 projects

that were potentially eligible to restrict the occupancy of such persons

under Section 658, for a total of 7,696 potentially eligible projects. Those

projects that are actually eligible are the ones that were originally built for

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix I 

Survey Methodology

the elderly. We relied on a survey question to identify which of the

potentially eligible projects were actually eligible.

We randomly sampled 646, or a sampling fraction of one-third, of the

Section 651 projects and 577, or a sampling fraction of about one-tenth, of

the Section 658 projects, for a total of 1,223 projects. We mailed a

questionnaire addressed to the project manager at the addresses provided

by HUD for these projects. We sent follow-up mailings to encourage

responses and called some respondents by phone to clarify unclear

responses.

Managers at 523 of the Section 651 projects (81 percent) and 452 of the

Section 658 projects (78 percent) responded to our survey. In our analyses

of survey data, we weighted each survey in proportion to its sampling

fraction. The results of our survey are presented as estimates for the 6,080

(± 190) potentially eligible projects that we estimate would have

responded to our survey if we had mailed the survey to all projects.

Sampling Error Because we used a sample (called a probability sample) to develop our

estimates, each estimate has a measurable precision, or sampling error,

that may be expressed as a plus/minus figure. A sampling error indicates

how closely we can reproduce from a sample the results that we would

obtain if we were to take a complete count of the universe using the same

measurement methods. By adding the sampling error to and subtracting it

from the estimate, we can develop upper and lower bounds for each

estimate. This range is called a confidence interval. Sampling errors and

confidence intervals are stated at a certain confidence level—in this case,

95 percent. For example, a confidence interval at the 95-percent

confidence level means that in 95 out of 100 instances, the sampling

procedure we used would produce a confidence interval containing the

universe value we are estimating.

Analysis of Survey

Nonresponses

About 6.5 percent of the addresses for surveyed projects provided by HUD

were identified by the U.S. Postal Service as inadequate for mail purposes.

We were able to obtain corrected addresses for some projects and mailed

surveys to the managing agent or owner of the project listed in HUD’s

database for others. We were able to obtain an additional 31 completed

responses in this manner. This effort reduced the nonresponse rate for

undeliverable surveys to 4 percent of the total universe, a rate we judged

to be satisfactory.

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix I 

Survey Methodology

To test for potential differences between the projects that did and did not

respond to our survey, we performed two analyses. The first analysis was

a statistical comparison of respondents to our mail survey with those who

did not respond on background information provided by HUD for all

projects. This information included the type of funding received by the

project, the primary type of occupancy in the project, and the total number

of units in the project. The only statistically significant difference between

the mail respondents and nonrespondents for Section 651 projects was the

primary type of occupancy. The projects of nonrespondents were

significantly more often devoted only partially to the elderly than those of

respondents and less often devoted wholly to the elderly. For Section 658

projects, the projects of nonrespondents had significantly fewer units than

those of mail respondents (48.2 ± 8.9 versus 64.2 ± 5.7). In addition, the

projects of significantly more Section 658 nonrespondents than

respondents were funded under the Section 202 program for the

handicapped while more of the projects of respondents than

nonrespondents were funded under the pre-1974 Section 202 program for

the elderly.

The second analysis was a comparison of those who responded to our

mail survey and those who did not respond to items from our

questionnaire. To acquire information on these questions from

nonrespondents, we conducted a follow-up telephone survey of a random

sample of those who did not respond to our mail survey—91 of the 123

Section 651 nonrespondents as of May 4, 1998, and 94 of the 126 Section

658 nonrespondents as of June 11, 1998.

We obtained some information about all 91, or 100 percent, of the projects

in our telephone survey of Section 651 projects and 86, or 91 percent, of

the projects in our telephone survey of Section 658 projects. In most cases,

we spoke with either project managers or representatives of the projects

or their managing agents. From discussions with project representatives

and HUD, we determined that 3 of the 91 Section 651 projects did not

belong in our universe because 2 are no longer receiving HUD subsidies and

1 no longer exists. We identified one Section 658 project that no longer

receives HUD subsidies.

We tested for statistically significant differences between the mail

respondents and the telephone respondents on four survey questions:

(1) the number of units; (2) the primary purpose for which the project was

built; (3) the project’s current policy on occupancy by persons with

disabilities; and (4) the project’s willingness to accept persons with

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix I 

Survey Methodology

disabilities who require physically accessible units, persons with

disabilities who do not require physically accessible units, and/or

near-elderly persons with no disabilities. There were no differences

between the mail respondents and telephone respondents whose projects

were built primarily for the elderly in the number of units in the projects.

There was a significant difference between telephone and mail

respondents for Section 651 projects in whether projects were built

primarily for the elderly. That is, Section 651 projects surveyed by

telephone were significantly less often built primarily for the elderly than

were the Section 651 projects responding by mail. We also found

statistically significant differences in the projects’ occupancy policies and

the types of disabled persons the projects accepted for occupancy.

Officials of those Section 651 projects surveyed by telephone reported

significantly more often than mail respondents that they accept both

elderly and disabled persons for occupancy and reported less often than

the mail respondents that they reserve units for nonelderly disabled

persons, limiting the remaining units to the elderly. There were no

significant differences between Section 658 telephone respondents and

mail respondents on the policy of accepting elderly and disabled persons

in all units. However, Section 658 telephone respondents reported

significantly less often than mail respondents that they reserve units for

nonelderly disabled persons. Section 651 telephone respondents were also

significantly more likely to report accepting both disabled persons who

require physically accessible units and those who do not require such

units, while there was no difference in these policies for Section 658

telephone and mail respondents.

Results of Data

Reliability Checks

To assess the reliability of responses to our survey and HUD’s data, we

compared the two on the number of units in each project and the section

of the act under which the project received assistance. For the number of

units, the two sets of numbers were highly correlated (Pearson correlation

coefficient of .98 for Section 651 projects and .90 for Section 658 projects).

However, the survey responses differed significantly from HUD’s data on

the section of the act under which the project received assistance. As

many as 26 percent of the Section 651 projects that identified themselves

as receiving Section 8 subsidies reported differently from HUD on whether

they received new construction or substantial rehabilitation funding, and

23 percent of the respondents who reported the section of the act under

which they received funding provided an answer different from HUD’s

records. Only 6 percent of the Section 658 projects assigning themselves to

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix I 

Survey Methodology

classifications under a section of the act used classifications different from

those HUD designated.

To test the completeness of the universes covered by Sections 651 and 658

of the 1992 act provided by HUD headquarters, we compared the listings

provided by HUD headquarters with similar listings of projects provided to

us by the HUD field offices at five locations across the country.1

Because the HUD headquarters lists were not generated at the same time as

the field office lists, we recognized that some minor differences would

exist. In most cases, the listings provided to us by HUD agreed with the

listings provided by the field staff. In the two locations that had

differences, these differences were minor.2

 Thus, we concluded that the

information provided by HUD headquarters was sufficiently complete for

our survey.

1

These five locations were Anaheim and San Francisco, California; Fall River, Massachusetts; Corinth,

Mississippi; and Woodbury, New Jersey.

2

In one location, the HUD headquarters list omitted one project. In another location, the headquarters

list had one additional project and the local list had one additional project. The total number of

projects in these locations from the headquarters list was 47.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix II 

Survey Results of Privately Owned Housing

Projects

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix II 

Survey Results of Privately Owned Housing

Projects

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix II 

Survey Results of Privately Owned Housing

Projects

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix II 

Survey Results of Privately Owned Housing

Projects

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix III 

Sampling Errors for Questions in the Survey

of Privately Owned Housing Projects

Survey question Estimate based on response Sampling error for response

1a 439,170 27,930

1b 6,055 21.9

3a 3.4 1.7

3b 92.9 2.2

4a 407,399 25,582

4b 6,047 33

5a 4,157 197

5b 1,780 194

5c 92 46

6a 287,629 24,151

6b 1,034 544

6c 3,680 1,238

6d 25,796 4,169

6e 11,838 1,863

6f 9,608 1,292

6g 2,046 268

6h 321,152 25,979

7a 3.5 1.5

7b 7.2 2.1

7c 76.9 3.3

7d 8.3 2.0

7e 3.1 1.4

8a 52.9 8.2

8b 22.0 6.9

8c 5.4 3.3

8d 11.0 4.9

8e 7.0 4.2

9a 4.2 1.6

9b 17.2 2.8

9c 70.1 3.6

9d 5.0 1.7

9e 1.7 1.1

10a 61.4 7.0

10b 15.9 5.3

10c 6.9 3.2

10d 7.0 3.5

10e 5.8 3.6

11a 291,468 109,188

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix III 

Sampling Errors for Questions in the Survey

of Privately Owned Housing Projects

Survey question Estimate based on response Sampling error for response

11b 4,070 199

12a 240,344 95,974

12b 3,761 1,757

12c 22,149 10,402

12d 267,485 105,558

13a 89.7 2.5

13b 9.2 2.4

14a 19.7 11.1

14b 16.8 9.7

14c 10.8 7.5

14d 17.9 10.4

14e 28.9 12.3

15a 41.6 4.0

15b 54.9 4.0

16a 23.8 3.5

16b 0.7 0.4

16c 1.1 0.7

16d *

16e 3.0 1.2

16f 21.2 3.5

16g *

16h 41.8 3.9

16i 6.3 1.9

17a 16.4 2.9

17b 73.9 3.5

18a 41.9 4.0

18b 57.0 4.0

19a 78.6 5.1

19b 13.4 4.2

19c 8.0 3.4

20a 68.8 3.8

20b 42.8 3.8

20c 5.1 1.4

20d 21.0 3.5

21a 75 47

21b 3,960 201

21c 122 56

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

Housing and

Community

Development Issues

Stanley J. Czerwinski, Associate Director

Mathew Scire, Assistant Director

Martha Chow

J. Davis

Diana Gilman

Stewart Seman

Design, Methodology,

and Technical

Assistance Group

Carolyn Boyce

Office of the General

Counsel

John T. McGrail

(385724) Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-9 Assisted Housing for Persons With Disabilities
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100