Rental Housing: Information on Low-Income Veterans' Housing Conditions and Participation in HUD's Programs
Published: 2007-08-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Veterans returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan could increase demand for affordable rental housing. Households with low incomes (80 percent or less of the area median income) generally are eligible to receive rental assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) housing choice voucher, public housing, and project-based programs. However, because rental assistance is not an entitlement, not all who are eligible receive assistance. In response to a congressional mandate, GAO assessed (1) the income status and demographic and housing characteristics of veteran renter households, (2) how HUD's rental assistance programs treat veteran status (whether a person is a veteran or not) and whether they use a veterans' preference, and (3) the extent to which HUD's rental assistance programs served veterans in fiscal year 2005. Among other things, GAO analyzed data from HUD, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Bureau of the Census, surveyed selected public housing agencies, and interviewed agency officials and veterans groups. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. VA agreed with the report's findings. HUD objected to the characterization in the report regarding HUD's policies on veteran status and program eligibility and subsidy amounts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In 2005, an estimated 2.3 million veteran renter households had low incomes. The proportion of veteran renter households that were low income varied by state but did not fall below 41 percent. Further, an estimated 1.3 million, or about 56 percent of these low-income veteran households, had housing affordability problems--that is, rental costs exceeding 30 percent of household income. Compared with other (nonveteran) renter households, however, veterans were somewhat less likely to be low income or have housing affordability problems. HUD's policies for its three major rental assistance programs generally do not take veteran status into account when determining eligibility or assistance levels, but eligible veterans can receive assistance. Also, HUD generally does not distinguish between income that is specific to veterans, such as VA-provided benefits, and other sources of income. The majority of the 41 largest public housing agencies that administer the housing choice voucher or public housing programs have no veterans' preference for admission. The 13 largest performance-based contract administrators that oversee most properties under project-based programs reported that owners generally did not adopt a veterans' preference. In fiscal year 2005, an estimated 11 percent of all eligible low-income veteran households (at least 250,000) received assistance, compared with 19 percent of nonveteran households. Although the reasons for the difference are unclear, factors such as differing levels of need for affordable housing among veteran and other households could influence the percentages.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Disproportionately large numbers of military veterans have appeared  among the homeless population in recent years, raising concerns about the  incomes and housing conditions of veterans who rent, rather than own,  their homes. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), on any  given night at least 194,000 veterans were homeless in fiscal year 2005— about one-third of the adult homeless population—and many veteran  renters could be on the verge of homelessness if they have low incomes or  precarious living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing. The  return of more veterans from service in Iraq and Afghanistan—some with  significant physical and psychological challenges—could increase demand  for affordable housing with supportive services such as mental health and  substance abuse treatment. However, neither the VA nor other  government agencies report information specifically on the housing  conditions or housing costs of veterans who rent.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the primary  federal provider of rental housing assistance through its housing choice  voucher, public housing, and project-based programs. Vouchers, which are  annually renewable, enable about 2 million households to rent units of  their choice in the private market, while public housing and project-based  assistance is available to about 2.8 million households in specifically  designated units. These programs generally serve low-income  households—those with incomes that are 80 percent or less of their local  area median incomes (AMI). Assisted households generally pay 30 percent  of their monthly incomes, after certain adjustments, in rent, and HUD pays  the remainder. Third-party administrators manage the programs on HUD’s  behalf—local public housing agencies (PHA) for the voucher and public  housing programs and individual private property owners for the project- based programs. PHAs and property owners are responsible for ensuring  eligibility and for determining the amounts that tenants contribute toward  their rents. However, because the rental assistance programs are not  entitlement programs—the extent of assistance is limited by the amount of  appropriated funds—not all renter households that are eligible receive  assistance. In this report, we refer to households that do not receive rental  assistance as “unassisted.”
In 2005, an estimated 6 million unassisted low-income renter households  had what HUD termed “worst-case housing needs”—that is, they paid  more than half of their income in rent, lived in severely inadequate  housing, or both. Many PHAs and property owners have long waiting lists  of renters seeking subsidized housing. Within broad program  requirements, PHAs and property owners generally have the discretion to  use a system of “preferences” to give certain populations—such as the  elderly, veterans, or the homeless—priority in receiving assistance as  rental units or vouchers become available to new program participants.  HUD requires PHAs and property owners to describe their preference  policies in their administrative plans—documents required for the voucher  and public housing programs—or their tenant selection plans, which are  required for the project-based programs. HUD also funds a limited number  of supportive services programs for which PHAs and property owners can  apply that pay for service coordinators, economic self-sufficiency  initiatives for tenants, and other activities.
The conference report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Military Quality  of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act mandated that we conduct  a study on housing assistance to low-income veterans. As agreed with your  Subcommittees, our study focuses on low-income veterans who rent their  homes. Specifically, this report discusses (1) the income status and  demographic and housing characteristics of veteran renter households; (2)  how HUD’s rental assistance programs treat veteran status (that is,  whether a person is a veteran or not) and veteran-specific benefits in  determining eligibility and subsidy amounts; (3) the extent to which PHAs  and property owners participating in HUD’s rental assistance programs  establish a veterans’ preference in their administrative and tenant  selection plans; and (4) the extent to which HUD’s rental assistance  programs served veteran households in fiscal year 2005.
To determine the income status and demographic and housing  characteristics of veteran households, we utilized the Bureau of the  Census’s (Census) 2005 American Community Survey (ACS), which  identified households’ veteran status, income, and other demographic  characteristics, in conjunction with HUD’s defined income categories— low (80 percent of AMI or less), very low (50 percent of AMI or less), and  extremely low (30 percent of AMI or less). Using HUD’s income limits for  calendar year 2005, we estimated, by geographic area, the number of  veteran households that were in each income category. We also used  information on veteran households in ACS to describe certain  demographic characteristics, and the cost and quality of their housing.  (Not included in the 2005 ACS survey universe are individuals who live in  group quarters—which include college dormitories, correctional facilities,  and certain types of nursing facilities and hospitals—or homeless  individuals.) Unless otherwise noted, all reported numeric estimates  derived from ACS are subject to sampling errors of plus or minus 10  percent or less of the value of those numeric estimates. To determine how  HUD’s rental assistance programs treat households veteran status in  determining eligibility and subsidy amounts, we reviewed HUD’s eligibility  policies and regulations on rental assistance programs and interviewed  officials from HUD and VA. To determine whether PHAs and property  owners participating in HUD’s programs have established a veterans’  preference for households, we conducted interviews with officials from  the 41 largest PHAs that administer the public housing program (34 PHAs)  and the voucher program (40 PHAs), and from the 13 largest performance- based contract administrators (PBCA) that oversee property management  under project-based rental assistance programs. The PHAs and PBCAs  that we interviewed were responsible for administering or overseeing  more than half of the roughly $28 billion in assistance provided through  the three programs in fiscal year 2005. However, information on  preferences is not statistically generalizable to the other PHAs and  property owners. Finally, to determine the extent to which HUD’s rental  assistance programs served veteran households in fiscal year 2005, we  matched data from HUD on program participants with data from VA on  living veterans and used these matched data to estimate the percentage of  low-income veteran renter households that received HUD assistance. For  all of our research objectives, we consulted with officials from various  housing and veterans groups, including Harvard University’s Joint Center  on Housing Studies, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the  National Coalition of Homeless Veterans, the Corporation for Supportive  Housing, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and  Volunteers of America.
Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our scope and  methodology. We conducted our work in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los  Angeles, and Washington, D.C., from March 2006 through July 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: According to Census data, in 2005 an estimated 21.9 million households, or  20 percent of the 111.1 million households nationwide, were “veteran  households”—that is, they had at least one member who was a military  veteran. As figure 1 shows, most veteran households—about 80 percent— owned their own homes, a significantly higher percentage than was the  case for other (nonveteran) households.
Census data also show that renter households were more likely to be low  income than were owner-occupied households. In 2005, an estimated 36.8  million households nationwide rented homes, including about 4.3 million  veteran households. Approximately 66 percent of renter households were  low income; in contrast, 32 percent of homeowners were low income.  Many of these households must rent because they lack sufficient income  and savings to purchase a home. Furthermore, studies by HUD and others  have noted the difficulties many renters face in finding a place with  affordable rents because growth in household incomes has not kept pace  with rising rents in many markets.
VA, through a variety of programs, provides federal assistance to veterans  who are homeless, and also provides homeownership assistance, but does  not provide rental assistance. One of the agency’s largest programs for  homeless veterans is the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD)  program, which provides funding to nonprofit and public agencies to help  temporarily shelter veterans. GPD funding can be used for purposes such  as paying for the construction or renovation of transitional housing and  reimbursing local agencies for operating the program. In fiscal year 2005,  the GPD program spent about $67 million and had about 8,000 beds that  were available to homeless veterans. VA also administers eight other  programs for outreach and treatment of homeless veterans. In addition to  its homelessness programs, VA provides a variety of programs, services,  and benefits to veterans and their families. Included among them are  pension payments, disability payments, health care services, training and  education allowances, and burial expenses. The VA assists veterans in  becoming homeowners through its Home Loan Guaranty program, which  offers mortgages with favorable terms, including no down payment,  limitations on closing costs, no private mortgage insurance, and easier  credit standards to qualify for a loan.
HUD provides rental housing assistance through three major programs— housing choice voucher, public housing, and project-based. In fiscal year  2005, these programs provided rental assistance to about 4.8 million  households and paid about $28 billion in rental subsidies. These three  programs generally serve low-income households—that is, households  with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI. Most of these  programs have targets for households with extremely low incomes—  30 percent or less of AMI. HUD-assisted households generally pay 30  percent of their monthly income, after certain adjustments, toward their  unit’s rent. HUD pays the difference between the household’s contribution  and the unit’s rent (under the voucher and project-based programs) and  the difference between the PHAs’ operating costs and rental receipts for  public housing.
The housing choice voucher program provides vouchers that eligible  families can use to rent houses or apartments in the private housing  market. Voucher holders are responsible for finding suitable housing,  which must meet HUD’s housing quality standards. The subsidies in the  voucher program are connected to the household (that is, tenant-based),  so tenants can use the vouchers in new residences if they move. The  approximately 2,500 PHAs that administer the voucher program are  responsible for ensuring that tenants meet program eligibility  requirements and that tenant subsidies are calculated properly. PHAs also  are required to develop written policies and procedures to administer the  program consistently with HUD regulations.
The public housing program subsidizes the development, operation, and  modernization of government-owned properties and provides units for  eligible tenants in these properties. In contrast to the voucher program,  the subsidies in the public housing program are connected to specific  rental units (that is, project-based), so tenants receive assistance only  when they live in these units. Approximately 3,300 PHAs manage the  public housing program on behalf of HUD. PHAs are responsible for  ensuring tenant eligibility for the program, properly calculating tenant  subsidies, and ensuring that their policies and procedures conform to HUD  regulations.
Finally, through a variety of project-based programs, HUD provides rent  subsidies in the form of multiyear housing assistance payments to private  property owners and managers on behalf of eligible tenants. Tenants may  apply for admission to these properties with project-based rental  assistance contracts. About 22,000 property owners and managers  currently participate in the programs and, similar to PHAs, must ensure  tenants meet eligibility requirements, calculate subsidies correctly, and  develop administrative policies and procedures that are consistent with  HUD regulations. For most of these project-based properties, HUD  contracts with PBCAs—typically state and local housing agencies—to  oversee property management and process requests for payments from  property owners. The PBCAs are also responsible for conducting annual  management and occupancy reviews, which include reviewing property  owners’ tenant selection plans.
HUD rental assistance programs are not entitlements, and as a result, the  amount of funding HUD requests and Congress provides annually limits  the number of households that these programs can assist. Historically,  funding for these programs has not been sufficient to assist all eligible  households. Because the demand for rental assistance outstrips available  resources, many PHAs and property owners have waiting lists of  applicants seeking rental assistance. PHAs and property owners can use a  system of preferences for giving certain populations—such as the elderly,  veterans, or the homeless—priority in receiving assistance as units or  vouchers become available.
In addition to rental assistance, HUD funds a limited number of supportive  services programs. The programs offer counseling, education and job  training, mental health services, transportation, and child care, among  other services. Generally, PHAs and property owners must apply for  funding under these programs. Supportive services not funded by HUD  can be made available through partnerships between individual properties,  local organizations, and other federal agency programs.
HUD administers other programs that help low-income households,  including eligible veteran households, obtain access to affordable rental  housing. Our review did not focus on these programs because they make  up a relatively small percentage of HUD’s funding when compared with  the three major rental assistance programs. Further, they are not solely  rental assistance programs, but rather serve multiple purposes; for  example, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) provides  formula grants to states and localities to build, acquire, and rehabilitate  affordable housing for rent or homeownership. In addition, other federal  agencies administer programs that provide forms of rental assistance to  eligible populations, such as the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Low- Income Housing Tax Credit program and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s  (USDA) Rural Housing Service programs. The tax credit program funds  the development of rental units that are restricted to low-income  households for a number of years, while USDA’s programs (which are  small relative to HUD’s programs) fund the development of low-income  rental units or subsidize rents in rural areas.
section_title: More Than Half of Low-Income Veteran Renter Households Had Housing Affordability Problems
paragraphs: Based on our analysis of ACS data, an estimated 2.3 million veteran renter  households had low incomes in 2005. The numbers of low-income veteran  renter households varied considerably by state, as did the percentages of  veteran renter households that were low income. In terms of demographic  characteristics, we found that a significant proportion of low-income  veteran renter households had a veteran member who was elderly or had a  disability. In addition, about 56 percent of low-income veteran renter  households had problems affording their rents—that is, their housing  costs exceeded 30 percent of household income. Finally, a small  percentage of low-income veteran renters lived in overcrowded or  inadequate housing.
subsections: section_title: More Than Half of Veteran Renter Households Had Low Incomes
paragraphs: According to our analysis of ACS data, of the 4.3 million veteran  households that rented their homes, an estimated 2.3 million, or about 53  percent were low income in 2005. As shown in table 1, the largest share of  these 2.3 million households was concentrated in the highest low-income  category—that is, 50.1 to 80 percent of AMI—with somewhat small shares  in the two lower categories. The table also shows that other renter  households (that is, households without a veteran member) were even  more likely to be low income than veteran renter households. Specifically,  an estimated 22 million, or 68 percent, of the 32.5 million other renter  households were low income. Further, the largest share of the 22 million  households was concentrated in the lowest income category—that is, 30  percent or less of AMI.
The estimated numbers of low-income veteran renter households in 2005  varied greatly by state, as shown in figure 2. The estimated median number  of low-income veteran renters in any state was about 34,000. California  had significantly more low-income veteran renter households than any  other state—more than 236,000, or about 10 percent of all such households  nationwide—followed by Texas with about 142,000, and New York with  about 135,000. The states with the smallest number of low-income veteran  households were Vermont, Delaware, and Wyoming with less than 6,000  each.
As shown in figure 3, the percentages of veteran renter households that  were low income in 2005 also varied considerably by state. Michigan had  the highest percentage—about 65 percent of its veteran renter households  were low income, while Virginia had the lowest—about 41 percent. Table 8  in appendix II contains more detailed information about the number and  percentages of low-income veteran renters in each state and the District of  Columbia.
section_title: More Than One-Third of Low-Income Veteran Renter Households Were Elderly or Had a Disability
paragraphs: Households with at least one veteran member who was elderly (that is, 62  years of age or older) or had a disability constituted a significant share of  all low-income veteran renter households in 2005. Specifically, of the 2.3  million low-income veteran renter households, an estimated 816,000 (36  percent) had a member who was elderly. As shown in table 2, the incomes  of these elderly veteran households generally were distributed fairly  evenly across the three low-income categories.
In comparison, other (nonveteran) low-income households had a lower  percentage of elderly households. About 4 million (18 percent) of the 22  million other low-income renter households were elderly, with most of  their income concentrated in the lowest income category.
In 2005, an estimated 887,000, or 39 percent, of low-income veteran renter  households had at least one veteran member with a disability. Similar to  the elderly veteran renter households, the incomes of these households  generally were distributed evenly across the different low-income  categories (see table 3). In comparison, an estimated 6.8 million, or 31  percent, of other low-income households had a member with a disability.  In marked contrast to veteran renter households with a disability, other  such renters had household incomes that were considerably more  concentrated in the lowest income category.
In addition to the elderly and disability status of veteran households, we  also analyzed information on selected other demographic  characteristics—including race and ethnicity—of low-income veteran  renter households nationally and at the state level. We include these  results in appendix II.
section_title: More Than Half of Low- Income Veteran Renters Had Housing Affordability Problems
paragraphs: According to our analysis of ACS data, an estimated 1.3 million low- income veteran households, or about 56 percent of the 2.3 million such  households, had rents that exceeded 30 percent of their household income  in 2005 (see table 4). These veteran renter households had what HUD  terms “moderate” or “severe” problems affording their rent. Specifically,  about 31 percent of low-income veteran renter households had moderate  affordability problems, and about 26 percent had severe affordability  problems. The remainder either paid 30 percent or less of their household  income in rent, reported zero income, or did not pay cash rent. In  comparison, a higher proportion of other low-income renter households  had moderate or severe housing affordability problems. Specifically, of the  22 million other low-income renter households, an estimated 13.9 million,  or about 63 percent, had a housing affordability problem, with these  households somewhat evenly distributed between those with moderate  and severe affordability problems.
The extent of housing affordability problems among low-income veteran  renter households varied significantly by state in 2005 (see fig. 4). The  median percentage of low-income veteran renters with affordability  problems nationwide was 54 percent. California and Nevada had the  highest proportions of affordability problems among low-income veteran  renter households—about 68 and 70 percent, respectively. North Dakota  and Nebraska had the smallest—about 37 and 41 percent, respectively.  Table 9 in appendix II contains detailed information on the percentage of  low-income veterans with affordability problems by state.
section_title: Small Percentage of Low- Income Veteran Renter Households Lived in Inadequate Housing
paragraphs: A relatively small percentage of veteran households lived in overcrowded  or substandard housing in 2005. Specifically, an estimated 73,000, or 3  percent, of low-income veteran renter households lived in overcrowded  housing—housing with more than one person per room—and less than  18,000, or about 1 percent, lived in severely overcrowded housing— housing with more than one and a half persons per room. In contrast, an  estimated 1.5 million, or 7 percent, of other low-income renter households  lived in overcrowded housing, and about 423,000, or 2 percent, lived in  severely overcrowded housing.
Finally, ACS data indicate that a very small share of low-income veteran  renters lived in inadequate housing. ACS provides very limited information  about the quality of the housing unit; the survey classifies a unit as  inadequate if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, or both. In  2005, an estimated 53,000, or 2 percent, of low-income veteran renter  households lived in inadequate housing. In comparison, an estimated  334,000, or 2 percent, of other households lived in inadequate housing.
section_title: HUD Rental Assistance Programs Do Not Take Veteran Status into Account When Determining Eligibility or Subsidy Amounts
paragraphs: HUD’s rental assistance programs do not take veteran status into account  when determining eligibility or calculating subsidy amounts, and HUD  does not collect any information identifying whether assisted households  have members who are veterans. Veterans can participate in these  programs if they meet eligibility requirements. Further, HUD policies  generally do not distinguish between income sources that are specific to  veterans, such as VA-provided benefits, and other sources of income.  Instead, HUD takes into account the type of income, such as whether it is  recurring or not. When calculating applicants’ incomes, we found that  HUD excludes most types of income and benefits that veterans may  receive from VA, with the exception of recurring income, such as veterans’  pension, disability payments, and survivor benefits. Although HUD’s major  programs do not take veteran status into account for determining  eligibility and subsidy amount, HUD allocated almost 1,800 vouchers that  were specifically targeted to formerly homeless veterans in the early  1990s, but the number of vouchers in use has been declining.
subsections: section_title: HUD’s Rental Assistance Programs Are Not Required to Take Veteran Status into Account
paragraphs: HUD’s major rental assistance programs are not required to take a  household’s veteran status into account when determining eligibility and  calculating subsidy amounts. Consequently, HUD does not collect any  information that identifies the veteran status of assisted households. As  with other households, veterans can benefit from HUD rental assistance  provided that they meet all of the programs’ income and other eligibility  criteria. For example, assisted households must meet U.S. citizenship  requirements and, for some of the rental assistance programs, HUD’s  criteria for an elderly household or a household with a disability.
In addition to rental assistance, HUD makes available limited supportive  services to some assisted households, typically through separate  programs, but like rental assistance, none of these supportive services  programs take veteran status into account when determining eligibility. An  example is HUD’s Multifamily Housing Service Coordinator grant program,  which pays for coordinators to assist residents (at properties designated  for the elderly and persons with disabilities) in obtaining supportive  services from community agencies. (See table 11 in app. III for a  description of other programs through which HUD makes supportive  services available.) While the programs disregard veteran status, they may  provide services to veterans who receive HUD rental assistance. HUD  does not collect information identifying veteran households that its  supportive services programs serve, but agency officials stated that HUD’s  supportive services programs likely assist a small number of veterans  because the programs serve a relatively small percentage of all assisted  households.
section_title: HUD Generally Does Not Distinguish Between Income Sources That Are Veteran-Specific and Other Types of Income Sources
paragraphs: When determining income eligibility and subsidy amounts, HUD generally  does not distinguish between income sources that are specific to veterans,  such as VA-provided benefits, and other types of income. HUD policies  define household income as the anticipated gross annual income of the  household, which includes income from all sources received by the family  head, spouse, and each additional family member who is 18 years of age or  older. Specifically, annual income includes, but is not limited to, wages  and salaries, periodic amounts from pensions or death benefits, and  unemployment and disability compensation. HUD policies identify 39  separate income sources and benefits that are excluded when determining  eligibility and subsidy amounts. These exclusions relate to income that is  nonrecurring or sporadic in nature, health care benefits, student financial  aid, and assistance from certain employment training and economic self- sufficiency programs.
We found that, based on HUD’s policies on income exclusions, most types  of income and benefits that veteran households receive from VA would be  excluded when determining eligibility for HUD’s programs and subsidy  amounts. (See table 12 in app. IV for a detailed listing of these benefits).  Many of the excluded benefits relate to payments that veteran households  receive under certain economic self-sufficiency programs or nonrecurring  payments such as insurance claims. Of the benefits included, most are  associated with recurring or regular sources of income, such as disability  compensation, pensions, and survivor death benefits.
Of the 39 exclusions, we found that two income exclusions specifically  applied to certain veteran households but, according to HUD, these  exclusions are rarely used. These income exclusions are (1) payments  made to Vietnam War-era veterans from the Agent Orange Settlement  Fund and (2) payments to children of Vietnam War-era veterans who  suffer from spina bifida. The two exclusions are identified in federal  statutes that are separate from those authorizing the three major rental  assistance programs.
section_title: HUD Allocated a Limited Number of Vouchers Targeted to Certain Veterans Starting in 1992, but the Number of Vouchers in Use Has Been Declining
paragraphs: Under the Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive  Housing program (HUD-VASH), HUD provides rental assistance vouchers  specifically to veterans, but the number of veterans served is extremely  small and has been declining in recent years. Established in 1992, HUD- VASH is jointly funded by HUD and VA and offers formerly homeless  veterans an opportunity to obtain permanent housing, as well as ongoing  case management and supportive services. HUD allocated these special  vouchers to selected PHAs that had applied for funding, and VA was  responsible for identifying participants based on specific eligibility  criteria, including the veteran’s need for treatment of a mental illness or  substance abuse disorder. After selecting eligible veterans, VA and the  PHA worked together to help the veterans use the vouchers to rent  suitable housing, and VA provided ongoing case management, health, and  other supportive services.
Under the HUD-VASH initiative, HUD allocated 1,753 vouchers from fiscal  years 1992 through 1994. HUD funded these vouchers for 5 years and, if a  veteran left the program during this period, the PHA had to reissue the  voucher to another eligible veteran. VA officials stated that, after the   5-year period ended, PHAs had the option of continuing to use their  allocation of vouchers for HUD-VASH, or could discontinue participation  whenever a veteran left the program (that is, the PHA would not provide  the voucher to another eligible veteran upon turnover). According to VA  and HUD officials, after the 5-year period ended, many PHAs decided not  to continue in HUD-VASH after assisted veterans left the program; instead,  PHAs exercised the option of providing these vouchers to other  households under the housing choice voucher program. As a result, the  number of veterans that receive HUD-VASH vouchers has declined. Based  on VA data, about 1,000 veterans were in the program as of the end of  fiscal year 2006, and this number is likely to decline. Specifically, VA  officials estimated that the number of veterans served could drop to 400  because PHAs responsible for more than 600 vouchers have decided not to  continue providing these vouchers to other veterans as existing  participants leave the program.
Congress permanently authorized HUD-VASH as part of the Homeless  Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001. Under the act, Congress  also authorized HUD to allocate 500 vouchers each fiscal year from 2003  through 2006—a total of 2,000 additional vouchers. In December 2006,  Congress extended this authorization through fiscal year 2011—allocating  a total of 2,500 vouchers or 500 each year. However, HUD has not  requested, and Congress has not appropriated, funds for any of the  vouchers authorized from fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
section_title: Most Contacted Housing Agencies and Owners of Project- Based Properties Did Not Offer a Veterans’ Preference for Admission to HUD’s Rental Assistance Programs
paragraphs: Less than half of the 41 largest PHAs we contacted employed a veterans’  preference for admission to their public housing or voucher programs,  while the 13 largest PBCAs we contacted reported that owners of project- based properties that they oversee generally did not use a veterans’  preference. HUD allows, but does not require, PHAs and property owners  to establish preferences to better direct resources to families with the  greatest housing needs in their area. HUD does not aggregate information  on the extent to which PHAs and property owners use preferences. Our  review showed that 29 of the 34 largest PHAs that administered public  housing programs in fiscal year 2006 offered preferences and, of these, 14  offered a veterans’ preference. Similarly, 34 of the 40 largest PHAs that  administered the housing choice voucher program in fiscal year 2006  offered preferences and, of these, 13 offered a veterans’ preference.  Finally, officials from the 13 largest PBCAs told us that, in their  experience, owners of project-based properties that they oversee generally  did not employ a veterans’ preference when selecting tenants.
subsections: section_title: Public Housing Agencies and Property Owners May Establish Preferences to Meet Local Needs but Are Not Required to Do So
paragraphs: Currently, HUD’s policies give PHAs and owners of project-based  properties the discretion to establish preferences for certain groups when  selecting households for housing assistance. Preferences affect only the  order of applicants on a waiting list for assistance; they do not determine  eligibility for housing assistance. Before 1998, federal law required PHAs  and property owners to offer a preference to eligible applicants to their  subsidized housing programs who (1) had been involuntarily displaced,  (2) were living in substandard housing, or (3) were paying more than half  their income for rent. PHAs were required by law to allocate at least 50  percent of their public housing units and 90 percent of their housing  choice vouchers to applicants who met these criteria. Similarly, project- based owners had to allocate 70 percent of their units to newly admitted  households that met these criteria. The Quality Housing and Work  Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) gave more flexibility to PHAs and  project-based property owners to administer their programs, in part by  eliminating the mandated housing preferences. Although it gave PHAs  and owners more flexibility, QHWRA required that PHAs and owners  target assistance to extremely low-income households.
Under QHWRA, PHAs and owners of project-based properties may, but are  not required to, establish preferences to better direct resources to those  with the greatest housing needs in their areas. PHAs can select applicants  on the basis of local preferences provided that their process is consistent  with their administrative plan. HUD policy requires PHAs to specify their  preferences in their administrative plans, and HUD reviews these  preferences to ensure that they conform to nondiscrimination and equal  employment opportunity requirements. Similarly, HUD policy allows  owners of project-based properties to establish preferences as long as the  preferences are specified in their written tenant selection plans.
While HUD requires PHAs and property owners to disclose their  preferences in their administrative or tenant selection plans, HUD officials  said the department does not compile or systematically track this  information because PHAs and property owners are not required to have  preferences. However, HUD may examine the use of preferences as part of  specific studies or reports. For example, HUD discussed the use of  preferences by PHAs in its November 2000 report on the use of  discretionary authority in the housing choice voucher program. HUD  reported that about 71 percent of the 1,684 PHAs that were reviewed used  admission preferences for the housing choice voucher program. Further,  the study also found that PHAs offered need-based preferences, as well as  other local preferences, including those for households achieving self- sufficiency, but the report did not discuss whether the PHAs used a  veterans’ preference.
While HUD’s policies give PHAs the discretion to establish preferences for  certain groups when selecting households (including those with veterans)  for housing assistance, recent proposed legislation would develop and  expand permanent housing opportunities for very low-income veterans.  Specifically, legislation introduced in the Senate requires that, among  other things, PHAs and states and localities include veterans as a special  needs population in their PHA plans and comprehensive housing  affordability strategies.
section_title: Although Most Contacted PHAs Offered Preferences for Admission to Subsidized Housing, Less Than Half Offered a Veterans’ Preference
paragraphs: Most of the 41 PHAs we contacted used a preference system for admission  to their public housing and housing choice voucher programs, but less  than half offered a veterans’ preference. As shown in table 5, of the 34  largest PHAs that administered the public housing program, 29 established  preferences for admission to the program and 14 used a veterans’  preference. Similarly, of the 40 PHAs that administered the housing choice  voucher program, 34 used admission preferences, and 13 employed a  preference for veterans. According to PHA officials, the most common  preferences used for both programs were for working families, individuals  who were unable to work because of age or disability, and individuals who  had been involuntarily displaced or were homeless. Of course, veterans  could benefit from these admission preferences if they met the criteria.
Some of the PHAs we contacted offered a veterans’ preference because  their states required them to do so. Other PHA officials told us they  offered a veterans’ preference because they believed it was important to  serve the needs of low-income veterans since they had done so much for  the well-being of others. PHAs that we contacted that did not offer a  veterans’ preference gave various reasons for their decisions. Some  officials told us that the PHA did not need a veterans’ preference because  veteran applicants generally qualified under other preference categories,  such as elderly or disabled. One PHA official we contacted said a veterans’  preference was not needed because of the relatively small number of  veterans in the community.
Because PHAs can employ multiple preferences, many of the PHAs that  have a preference system weight or rank the preferences they use—that is,  they give greater weight to an applicant who falls within a particular  category—to determine position on the waiting list. Almost two-thirds of  the PHAs we contacted that administer a preference system for their  public housing programs weight or rank preferences. Nevertheless, only  four of these weighted systems allow for veterans to receive priority over  other populations who received other preferences. Similarly, a little more  than half of the PHAs who use preferences for their housing choice  voucher programs weighted or ranked preferences. But only three of these  PHAs gave priority to veterans over other populations that also were  eligible to receive a preference. The remaining PHAs that have a  preference system for their public housing or housing choice voucher  programs told us that they either assigned equal weight to the preferences  they offered, or used date and time or a lottery system to determine the  order in which they selected applicants from waiting lists.
In a 2004 examination of PHAs’ waiting lists, the National Low Income  Housing Coalition found that more than three-quarters of the agencies that  it reviewed used preferences for specific categories of applicants to order  waiting lists for their public housing and housing choice voucher  programs. In addition, the study found that less than one-quarter of the  agencies used a veterans’ preference to determine the order of their  waiting lists. Specifically, a little less than 25 percent of the PHAs that  administered a public housing program had a veterans’ preference, while  20 percent of the PHAs that ran housing choice voucher programs used  such a preference. Furthermore, the study found that PHAs most  commonly gave preferences to applicants who were employed,  involuntarily displaced from previous housing, victims of domestic  violence, or residents of the PHA’s jurisdiction.
section_title: PBCAs Said That Owners of Project-Based Properties Generally Did Not Use a Veterans’ Preference When Selecting Tenants
paragraphs: According to all of the PBCAs we contacted, owners of project-based  properties that they oversee generally did not employ a veterans’  preference when selecting tenants. Ten of the 13 largest PBCAs told us,  based on their review of property owners’ tenant selection plans, that  owners of project-based properties generally did not employ preferences  for any specific population. Officials from the remaining three PBCAs  said they were aware of some property owners offering preferences to  individuals who had been involuntarily displaced, working families, or  those unable to work because of age or disability. However, all the PBCAs  we contacted either said that property owners did not use preferences or  agreed that the use of preferences, including a veterans’ preference,  among owners of properties with project-based assistance was limited.  HUD officials to whom we spoke also stated, based on their experience  with tenant selection plans, that the use of preferences at project-based  properties likely was infrequent.
Although most PBCAs stated that property owners did not generally  employ preferences, the use of such preferences can vary significantly  even within one PBCA’s portfolio of properties. For example, a PBCA  official said that the demand for subsidized housing can influence whether  owners use preferences. Properties in communities with a high demand  for subsidized housing may need to establish preferences to manage  waiting lists, and those in communities with low demand may not need to  use preferences.
section_title: Veteran Households Were Less Likely to Receive HUD Rental Assistance Than Other Low-Income Households
paragraphs: Our analysis of ACS, HUD, and VA data shows that, in 2005, low-income  veteran renter households were less likely to receive rental assistance than  other low-income households. An estimated 11 percent of all low-income  veteran renter households received HUD rental assistance, compared with  19 percent of other low-income households. Although the reasons for this  difference are unclear, various factors—such as different levels of need for  affordable housing among veteran and other households—could  contribute to the disparity. In 2005, at least 250,000 low-income veteran  households received rental assistance under HUD’s programs— representing about 6 percent of all households that received such  assistance. The demographic characteristics of these veteran-assisted  households differed somewhat from those of other (nonveteran) assisted  households; for example, veteran-assisted households were more likely to  have a disability compared with other assisted households.
subsections: section_title: Eleven Percent of All Low- Income Veteran Households Received HUD Rental Assistance Compared with 19 Percent of Other Low-Income Households
paragraphs: Low-income veteran renter households were less likely to receive HUD  rental assistance than other households. As shown in table 6, of the total  2.3 million veteran renter households with low incomes, at least 250,000  (or 11 percent) received HUD assistance. In comparison, of the 22 million  other renter households with low incomes, 4.1 million (about 19 percent)  received HUD assistance. (As noted previously, although HUD is the  largest provider of federal rental housing assistance to low-income  households, it is not the sole source of such assistance. Thus, these  percentages likely understate the actual share of all eligible veteran renter  households that receive federal rental assistance.)
The reasons why other households were nearly twice as likely as veteran  households to receive HUD assistance are unclear. But, based on our  analyses and discussions with agency officials, some potential  explanations include (1) differences in the extent of housing needs  between veteran and other households, (2) infrequent use of a veterans’  preference by PHAs and property owners, and (3) statutory requirements  for targeting extremely low-income households. First, as discussed earlier  in this report, although a significant proportion of low-income veteran  households face affordability problems, an even larger proportion of other  (nonveteran) households face more severe affordability problems. Thus,  the level of veteran demand for rental assistance may be lower than that of  nonveteran households. Second, and again as discussed earlier in this  report, HUD rental assistance programs do not take veteran status into  account when determining eligibility, and most PHAs and property owners  do not offer a veterans’ preference. As a result, these policy decisions  likely focus resources on other types of low-income households with  housing needs. Third, although low-income households generally are  eligible to receive rental assistance from HUD’s three programs, statute  requires that a certain percentage of new program participants must be  extremely low income. These targeting requirements may lead to a higher  share of HUD rental assistance going to nonveteran households because  veteran households generally are less likely to fall within the extremely  low-income category.
According to HUD, other federal rental assistance programs (such as IRS’s  Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, HUD’s HOME, and USDA’s rental  assistance programs) also can provide assistance to veterans. Thus, the  share of veterans receiving HUD rental assistance does not reflect the  share of veterans that receive some other form of federal rental assistance.  Furthermore, according to HUD, veterans may be more likely to receive  rental assistance from some of these other programs, in part because these  other programs do not target extremely low-income households as do  HUD’s voucher, public housing, and project-based programs. However,  data are not available to determine the extent to which veterans may be  benefiting from other forms of federal rental assistance.
section_title: An Estimated 6 Percent of All HUD-Assisted Households Were Veteran Households
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2005, HUD’s rental assistance programs reached an  estimated 250,000 low-income veteran households, which constituted  approximately 6 percent of all HUD-assisted households. The housing  choice voucher program served the largest number of veteran households,  followed by the project-based program, and the public housing program  (see fig. 5). However, a slightly higher proportion of veteran households  participated in the public housing program (6.9 percent) than participated  in the voucher (5.7 percent) and project-based (5.2 percent) programs.
section_title: Compared with Other Households, Veterans Who Received HUD Assistance Were as Likely to Be Elderly but More Likely to Have a Disability
paragraphs: We found some similarities in the demographic characteristics of veterans  and other assisted households we analyzed. For example, compared with  other assisted households, HUD-assisted veteran households were as  likely to be elderly. Specifically, in fiscal year 2005, about 75,000, or 30  percent, of assisted veteran households were elderly, and about 1.3  million, or 31 percent, of other assisted households were elderly. About  40,000, or 54 percent, of these elderly veteran households received  assistance through project-based programs. Public housing provided  rental assistance to about 20,000 elderly veteran households and vouchers  to about 15,000.
HUD-assisted veteran households were more likely to have a disability. In  fiscal year 2005, HUD provided assistance to about 88,000 veteran  households with a disability, or about 34 percent of assisted veteran  households. In comparison, 1.2 million or 28 percent of other assisted  households had a disability. Among veteran households with a disability,  about 41,000 (or 46 percent) received assistance from vouchers. Public  housing and project-based programs each provided rental assistance to  less than one-third of these households with a disability (about 24,000 and  23,000, respectively). Appendix V contains more detailed information  about the number and percentages of HUD-assisted veteran households in  each state and the District of Columbia.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided VA and HUD with a draft of this report for review and  comment. In an e-mail from its Office of Congressional and Legislative  Affairs, VA agreed with the findings that related to VA and offered no other  comments. HUD provided comments in a letter from the Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and  Indian Housing; this letter is reprinted in appendix VI.
The Assistant Secretary’s letter states that “HUD objects to the  characterization that policies for its three major rental assistance  programs generally do not take veteran status into account when  determining eligibility or assistance levels” and notes that “HUD cannot  mandate that a PHA establish any particular type of preference” for their  voucher program. Our report does not state that HUD can mandate  preferences for any of the three major rental assistance programs but  rather acknowledges that the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility  Act of 1998 repealed federally mandated preferences and provided  individual PHAs and property owners with the authority to establish  preferences, including a veterans’ preference. Furthermore, how  veteran/nonveteran status affects eligibility for HUD programs is distinct  from whether or not a preference is extended once eligibility has been  established. As our report states, our reporting objectives addressed both  of these issues: (1) how HUD’s rental assistance programs treat veteran  status (that is, whether a person is a veteran or not) and veteran-specific  benefits in determining eligibility and subsidy amounts and (2) the extent  to which PHAs and property owners participating in HUD’s rental  assistance programs establish a veterans’ preference in their  administrative and tenant selection plans. In our review of program  eligibility policies and regulations and interviews with agency officials, we  found no evidence that veteran status is a factor in determining eligibility  for HUD’s programs, and HUD’s comment letter did not provide any  evidence. Accordingly, we did not change our report in this regard.
Our report states that, in determining eligibility for its programs, HUD  generally does not distinguish between income that is specific to veterans  and other sources of income. In its comments, HUD stated that the  department’s policies exclude specific types of benefits that some veterans  may receive, such as health care benefits and income from job training  programs. Our report acknowledges that certain types of veteran-specific  income sources are considered as income for determining eligibility and  subsidy amounts, but notes that it is the type of income that matters— such as whether or not it is recurring—not the source. Our report  specifically states that “when calculating applicants’ incomes, HUD  excludes most VA-provided benefits, such as payments for training and  education or health care services, but includes veterans’ pensions,  disability payments, and survivor benefits, which are recurring payments.”  Accordingly, we did not change our report in response to HUD’s comment.
HUD also commented on our methodology for estimating the extent of  veterans being served in HUD’s programs. Specifically, HUD noted that  since information for all veterans in VA’s database may not be complete,  our estimate of 250,000 veterans assisted by HUD’s programs in 2005  would be affected. As our report states, we matched data from HUD on  program participants with data from VA on living veterans using unique  identifying information and used these matched data to estimate the  percentage of low-income veteran renter households that receive HUD  rental assistance. Our report notes that this could be an underestimate of  the actual number of veteran households in the programs because of  incomplete or erroneous data in either VA’s or HUD’s databases. In cases  where we had incomplete information, such as missing Social Security  numbers, we attempted alternate ways of identifying HUD-assisted veteran  households, including matching records using both names and date of  birth only. We continue to believe that our estimate is a reasonable  measure of the extent to which HUD-assisted households are veteran  households. However, in response to HUD’s comment, we changed our  report to say “at least 250,000” in order to acknowledge the possible  undercount.
We are sending copies of this report to interested Members of Congress,  the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of  Veterans Affairs. We also will make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or woodd@gao.gov if you or your staff  has any questions about this report. Contact points for our Office of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing  assistance programs in our scope include the three major rental assistance  programs—housing choice voucher (voucher), public housing, and  project-based programs (including the project-based Section 8, Section 202  Supportive Housing for the Elderly, and Section 811 Supportive Housing  for Persons with Disabilities programs).
To determine the income status and demographic and housing  characteristics of veteran households, we analyzed data from the U.S.  Bureau of the Census’s (Census) 2005 American Community Survey  (ACS), which identified households’ veteran status, income, and other  demographic characteristics, in conjunction with HUD’s defined income  categories: low (80 percent or less of area median income or AMI), very  low (50 percent or less of AMI), and extremely low (30 percent or less of  AMI).
ACS is an annual survey conducted by Census to obtain current  information about the demographic, socioeconomic, and housing  characteristics of all U.S. communities nationwide. ACS is scheduled to  replace the traditional long-form survey in the decennial census, beginning  in 2010. As of January 2005, ACS collected information for 3,141 counties,  American Indian reservations, Alaska Native tribal areas, and Hawaiian  homelands in the United States.
Using HUD’s income limits for fiscal year 2005, we estimated, by  geographic area, the number of veteran households that were in each  income category. We also used information on veteran households in ACS  to describe their demographics, as well as the cost and quality of their  housing. Specifically, we obtained information on the household’s tenure  (renter- or owner-occupied), disability status, elderly status, race and  ethnicity, housing affordability categories (for example, households that  paid 30 percent or less, 30.1 to 50 percent, and more than 50 percent of  household income in rent), extent of overcrowding, and indicators of  housing quality. Census prepared tabulations of these results based on our  specifications.
ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with an annual  sample size of about 3 million addresses. The ACS survey uses probability  sampling, which helps ensure the integrity of sample survey results and  that they are representative. Because a survey produces estimates of the  whole population using only a portion of the population, all survey  estimates contain sampling errors. This means that the estimates derived  from the sample would be different if the survey had selected another  sample. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we  express our confidence in the precision of this sample’s results as 90  percent confidence intervals. This is the interval that would contain the  actual population value for 90 percent of the samples that could have been  drawn. As a result, we are 90 percent confident that each of the confidence  intervals will include the true values in the study population. In this report,  instead of providing the upper and lower confidence bounds, we provide  margin of error, which is the difference between an estimate and its upper  or lower confidence bound. We express margin of error as a percentage  (for example, plus or minus 7 percent).
The sample for the 2005 ACS does not contain information on all veterans  in the United States. Specifically, the sample design does not include  individuals who live in group quarters—which include college dormitories,  correctional facilities, and certain types of nursing facilities and  hospitals—or homeless individuals. As a result, ACS likely underestimates  the number of veterans to the extent that veterans live in group quarters or  are homeless.
We assessed the reliability of the data we received from Census by  reviewing relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable officials,  performing electronic testing of the data, and replicating published tables.  In addition, we reviewed Census’ quality review process to ensure the  completeness and accuracy of the tabulation that Census prepared at our  request. We determined that the data are reliable for the purposes of this  report.
To determine whether HUD’s rental assistance programs take veteran  status into account when determining eligibility and subsidy amount, we  reviewed HUD’s policies and regulations for the voucher, public housing,  and project-based programs. To assess how these programs treat veteran- specific income and benefits, we reviewed HUD’s policies and regulations  that define annual income, which is used to determine eligibility and  calculate subsidy amounts. We also interviewed officials from HUD and  the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
To determine whether public housing agencies (PHA) and property  owners participating in HUD’s programs have established a veterans’  preference, we interviewed officials from the 41 largest PHAs that  administer the public housing program (34 PHAs) and the voucher  program (41 PHAs) and the 13 largest performance-based contract  administrators (PBCA) that oversee property management under the  project-based rental assistance programs. Specifically, the PHAs and  PBCAs that we interviewed were responsible for administering or  overseeing more than half of the dollar assistance provided through each  of the three programs in fiscal year 2005. However, the information on  preferences cannot be statistically generalized to the other PHAs and  property owners. We reviewed HUD’s policies and regulations for  establishing preferences and obtained information from officials on the  extent to which preferences, particularly a veterans’ preference, were used  for tenant selection purposes. Additionally, we obtained and analyzed  studies by HUD and others on the use of preferences in general.
To determine the extent to which HUD’s rental assistance programs  served veteran households in fiscal year 2005, we matched data from HUD  on program participants with data from VA on living veterans and used  these matched data to estimate the percentage of low-income veteran  renter households that received HUD assistance. To determine the extent  to which veteran households were served by HUD’s rental assistance  programs, we obtained information on households receiving rental  assistance from HUD’s administrative databases—Public and Indian  Housing Information Center (PIC) and Tenant Rental Assistance  Certification System (TRACS), as of September 30, 2005, and information  on all living veterans from VA’s Beneficiary Identification and Records  Location Subsystem (BIRLS), as of October 1, 2004. We matched data  from HUD on program participants with data from VA on living veterans.  Specifically, we matched the Social Security numbers, first and last names,  and date of birth of the assisted households in PIC and TRACS with the  corresponding information for veterans in BIRLS. For the records in PIC  and TRACS that were matched to BIRLS, about 65 percent matched on  Social Security number, first and last names, and date of birth; about 30  percent matched on Social Security number and some combination of  names and date of birth; and about 5 percent matched on names and date  of birth only. We used the resulting matched information to determine the  number of veteran households that received rental assistance from HUD  and the annual subsidy amount that HUD paid to veteran households in  2005. Our totals of HUD-assisted veteran households could underestimate  the actual number of veteran households in the programs because of a  lack of complete information on all living veterans in the data we obtained  from VA. For example, Social Security numbers, which we used to match  VA and HUD data, may not have been available for all veterans who served  in the 1970s or earlier. However, we attempted to adjust for this by also  conducting a match on veterans’ names and dates of birth only. Data entry  errors in both VA and HUD systems also could contribute to fewer  successful matches.
To assess the reliability of the HUD data from the PIC and TRACS  databases, and the VA data from the BIRLS database, we reviewed  relevant documentation, interviewed knowledgeable officials, and  conducted electronic testing of the data. We determined the data were  sufficiently reliable for us to identify veterans who received assistance  through HUD rental programs.
For all of our research objectives, we consulted with officials from various  housing and veterans groups, including Harvard University’s Joint Center  on Housing Studies, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the  National Coalition of Homeless Veterans, the Corporation for Supportive  Housing, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and  Volunteers of America. We also surveyed the literature on these topics.
We conducted our work primarily in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los  Angeles, and Washington, D.C., from March 2006 through July 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Demographic and Housing Characteristics of Low-Income Veteran Renters
paragraphs: Households with an   affordability problem  (±9%) (±6%) (±6) (±15%) (±8%) (±8) (±9%) (±4%) (±4) (±10%) (±5%) (±5) (±4%) (±2%) (±2) (±8%) (±5%) (±5) (±11%) (±7%) (±7) (±22%) (±13%) (±13) (±20%) (±12%) (±12) (±5%) (±3%) (±3) (±7%) (±4%) (±4) (±14%) (±7%) (±7) (±14%) (±8%) (±8) (±6%) (±3%) (±3) (±8%) (±4%) (±4) (±10%) (±5%) (±5)
Households with an   affordability problem  (±9%) (±5%) (±5) (±9%) (±4%) (±4) (±11%) (±6%) (±6) (±14%) (±7%) (±7) (±10%) (±5%) (±5) (±9%) (±5%) (±5) (±7%) (±3%) (±3) (±9%) (±4%) (±4) (±14%) (±8%) (±8) (±7%) (±3%) (±3) (±14%) (±7%) (±7) (±13%) (±6%) (±6) (±11%) (±5%) (±5) (±15%) (±7%) (±7) (±8%) (±5%) (±5) (±16%) (±7%) (±7) (±5%) (±2%) (±2)
Households with an   affordability problem  (±8%) (±4%) (±4) (±15%) (±8%) (±8) (±5%) (±2%) (±2) (±10%) (±6%) (±6) (±9%) (±4%) (±4) (±5%) (±2%) (±2) (±15%) (±7%) (±7) (±10%) (±6%) (±6) (±18%) (±7%) (±7) (±8%) (±5%) (±5) (±5%) (±2%) (±2) (±17%) (±9%) (±9) (±20%) (±11%) (±11) (±7%) (±3%) (±3) (±5%) (±4%) (±4) (±14%) (±9%) (±9) (±7%) (±3%) (±3)
Households with an   affordability problem  (±26%) (±13%) (±13) (±1%) (±2%) (±0.6%) (+6%) (+8%) (+3%) (+1%) (+2%) (+1%) (+7%) (+9%) (+4%) (+2%) (+2%) (+1%) (+8%) (+11%) (+4%) (+2%) (+3%) (+1%) (+9%) (+12%) (+5%) (+3%) (+4%) (+2%) (+9%) (+11%) (+4%) (+3%) (+4%) (+2%) (+12%) (+14%) (+6%) (+3%) (+4%) (+1%) (+10%) (+12%) (+5%) (+4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+11%) (+14%) (+5%) (+3%) (+ 4%) (+1%) (+11%) (+15%) (+6%) (+4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+10%) (+14%) (+5%) (+ 4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+10%) (+15%) (+6%) (+4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+9%) (+12%) (+5%) (+3%) (+4%) (+1%) (+12%) (+15%) (+5%) (+ 4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+8%) (+11%) (+5%) (+ 4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+12%) (+16%) (+6%) (+ 4%) (+ 5%) (+2%) (+13%) (+15%) (+5%) (+5%) (+5%) (+2%) (+12%) (+14%) (+5%) (+5%) (+6%) (+2%) (+12%) (+17%) (+5%) (+ 5%) (+6%) (+2%) (+11%) (+12%) (+5%) (+ 4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+13%) (+19%) (+8%) (+ 5%) (+6%) (+3%) (+11%) (+15%) (+6%) (+4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+12%) (+16%) (+6%) (+ 5%) (+6%) (+2%) (+14%) (+5%) (+5%) (+6%) (+3%) (+12%) (+17%) (+6%) (+5%) (+ 6%) (+2%) (+13%) (+19%) (+8%) (+4%) (+5%) (+2%) (+11%) (+15%) (+5%) (+5%) (+ 7%) (+3%) (+15%) (+19%) (+8%) (+5%) (+ 6%) (+2%) (+16%) (+19%) (+7%) (+5%) (+6%) (+2%) (+13%) (+18%) (+6%) (+5%) (+5%) (+2%) (+15%) (+20%) (+7%) (+6%) (+8%) (+3%) (+15%) (+20%) (+8%) (+6%) (+ 8%) (+3%) (+13%) (+16%) (+7%) (+6%) (+7%) (+3%) (+12%) (+16%) (+6%) (+6%) (+ 7%) (+3%) (+13%) (+20%) (+7%) (+5%) (+ 7%) (+3%) (+14%) (+17%) (+4%) (+ 5%) (+6%) (+2%) (+15%) (+21%) (+8%) (+ 5%) (+ 6%) (+19%) (+26%) (+11%) (+7%) (+9%) (+3%) (+17%) (+26%) (+10%) (+6%) (+8%) (+3%) (+18%) (+24%) (+9%) (+ 5%) (+7%) (+3%) (+19%) (+22%) (+7%) (+ 8%) (+ 10%) (+3%) (+15%) (+22%) (+7%) (+7%) (+9%) (+3%) (+19%) (+24%) (+9%) (+8%) (+9%) (+3%) (+19%) (+23%) (+9%) (+6%) (+8%) (+3%) (+16%) (+20%) (+7%) (+7%) (+8%) (+3%) (+15%) (+24%) (+9%) (+6%) (+8%) (+3%) (+17%) (+21%) (+7%) (+7%) (+9%) (+3%) (+22%) (+34%) (+13%) (+7%) (+9%) (+3%) (+19%) (+27%) (+9%) (+7%) (+ 9%) (+3%) (+17%) (+23%) (+9%) (+6%) (+8%) (+3%) (+17%) (+21%) (+8%) (+7%) (+ 8%) (+3%)
section_title: Appendix III: Information on HUD’s Supportive Services Programs Available to Veterans
paragraphs: Historically, Congress has recognized the importance of providing  supportive services to veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming  homeless. Most of HUD’s rental assistance programs are not required to  provide supportive services, with the exception of the Section 202  Supportive Housing for the Elderly and Section 811 Supportive Housing  for Persons with Disabilities programs. However, households  participating in HUD’s rental assistance programs can receive supportive  services, typically through separate programs funded by HUD. Table 11  contains descriptions of these programs.
section_title: Appendix IV: HUD’s Policies on Eligibility and Subsidy Amounts with Respect to Veteran-Specific Income and Benefits
paragraphs: When determining eligibility and subsidy amounts under HUD’s rental  assistance programs, program administrators generally must calculate a  household’s adjusted annual income, or gross income, less any exclusions  and deductions. HUD’s policies and statute provide for 39 different types  of income exclusions and 5 deductions. When determining income  eligibility and subsidy amounts, HUD generally does not distinguish  between income sources that are specific to veterans, such as benefits that  VA provides and other types of incomes. As table 12 shows, most types of  income sources and benefits that veteran households receive from VA  would be excluded by HUD when determining eligibility and subsidy  amounts. Excluded income sources and benefits generally relate to  payments that veteran households receive under certain economic self- sufficiency programs or nonrecurring payments such as insurance claims.  Of the benefits included, most are associated with recurring or regular  sources of income, such as disability compensation, pensions, and  survivor death benefits.
section_title: Appendix V: Demographic and Housing Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Low-Income Veteran Renters
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Daniel Garcia-Diaz, Assistant  Director; Carl Barden; Michelle Bowsky; Mark H. Egger; Cynthia Grant;  John T. McGrail; Marc Molino; Josephine Perez; Carl Ramirez; Barbara  Roesmann; and Rose M. Schuville made key contributions to this report.