The definition of “elderly families” used to determine eligibility for certain public housing has evolved over time. Until 1992, the term encompassed low-income families whose head, spouse, or sole member was aged 62 or older, as well as low-income individuals with disabilities, regardless of age. All housing authorities were obligated by law to provide equal access to units in developments known as “elderly buildings” to both elderly persons and persons with disabilities. These developments usually consisted of efficiencies and one-bedroom units rather than the multiple-bedroom units typical of family housing. As the number of younger persons with disabilities residing in “elderly housing” increased, the complaints from their elderly neighbors also increased. Elderly residents cited the differences in values and lifestyles they had with the younger residents as impediments to safe and decent housing for the elderly. In 1992, we reported that nonelderly tenants with mental disabilities occupied between 8 and 10 percent of the units in public housing for the elderly, but were, according to public housing authorities (PHA), causing a disproportionate share of problems for the elderly residents as well as for the PHAs’ management and staff. Problems included complaints about noise, visitors, crime, and disrespectful attitudes of the younger residents toward the elderly residents. It was primarily this increase in the number of tenants with disabilities in elderly housing and the resultant complaints that led the Congress to promote designated housing in the 1992 act. First, the 1992 act established a definition of elderly persons that no longer included persons with disabilities under the age of 62. Second, the act allowed PHAs to seek approval for designating housing as elderly-only, disabled-only, or elderly and disabled through allocation plans submitted to HUD. The 1992 act laid out criteria for the contents of allocation plans and standards that HUD should use to approve the plans. Specifically, the law stipulated that approval is to be granted to only PHAs that demonstrate in their allocation plans that designation is necessary to achieve the housing goals for their jurisdictions and to meet the needs of the jurisdictions’ low-income population. PHAs that do not have approved allocation plans must continue to treat persons with disabilities and the elderly equally and allow both to live in elderly buildings on a first-come, first-serve basis. Finally, the act allowed owners of privately owned, HUD-assisted projects that were designed primarily for occupancy by elderly families to designate housing for the elderly through the establishment of elderly preferences or restrictions. Unlike PHAs that designate housing, however, owners of privately owned projects do not need to seek HUD’s approval prior to designation or to notify HUD once designation occurs. To offset the potential loss of housing for persons with disabilities and to provide them with greater housing choices, HUD set aside Section 8 rental housing certificates and vouchers for their use. Through appropriations for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 for incremental certificates and vouchers, the Congress augmented HUD’s ability to set aside Section 8 assistance for persons with disabilities displaced by public and privately owned housing designated for the elderly. Separately, HUD has also made Section 8 certificates and vouchers available to provide mainstream housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. The mainstream program is open to all housing authorities, not just those with approved allocation plans. It is popular with persons with disabilities who want to find housing in the private sector (known as “housing of choice”) rather than in public or project-based housing. Only 73 of the nation’s 3,200 PHAs had allocation plans as of November 1, 1997. These PHAs typically elected to designate units for the elderly or for the elderly and persons with disabilities combined. Of all the 73 PHAs with allocation plans, 64 designated a total of 24,902 housing units—approximately 36 percent of their housing stock for the elderly or persons with disabilities—as elderly-only. As a result, these units may no longer be available to persons with disabilities. However, persons with disabilities occupied only a portion of these units in the past, and most who resided in those units still do. Specifically, 53 of the 64 PHAs that designated units as elderly-only and provided complete occupancy data in our survey reported that when they submitted their plans, about 4,100 persons with disabilities were occupying units now designated for the elderly. The number had fallen to about 3,000 as of November 1, 1997. Overall, there has been little change in the number of persons with disabilities residing in units now designated as elderly-only, disabled-only, and elderly and disabled or in other undesignated units available to the elderly and persons with disabilities. One reason is that more than half of the PHAs with allocation plans had them approved as recently as 1996 or 1997, so the designations are relatively new. Another reason is that PHAs are not permitted to force residents with disabilities to move out of housing newly designated for the elderly and residents with disabilities may not wish to relocate. (See app. IV for our survey instrument and the complete responses to our survey.) According to HUD, 73 out of 3,200 PHAs had approved allocation plans as of November 1, 1997. HUD denied applications from another 22 PHAs, and 2 other PHAs withdrew their applications. Although some plans were approved as early as 1994, over half of them were approved in 1996 and 1997. The 73 PHAs with approved allocation plans represent a cross-section of housing authorities in terms of size and are located in 35 states. Twenty-four PHAs with approved allocation plans had fewer than 500 units of public housing, 16 had between 500 and 1,249 units, and 33 had 1,250 or more units. All but one of these PHAs—Toccoa, Georgia—reported designating housing units as part of their allocation plans. (See fig. 1.) Most of the 73 PHAs with allocation plans designated units as elderly-only. Specifically, 64 of the PHAs that have approved allocation plans reported in our survey that they designated 24,902 units as elderly-only, meaning that the units will no longer be rented to new tenants who are not at least 62 years old. Five PHAs accounted for more than a third of the units designated as elderly-only: Worcester, Massachusetts; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Antonio, Texas; and Chicago, Illinois. Seven PHAs designated 50 or fewer units as elderly-only. (See fig. 2.) Fewer units were designated as disabled-only or elderly and disabled. (See table 1.) Among the 64 PHAs that designated units only for the elderly, 19 also designated units in which either the elderly or persons with disabilities could be housed, and 7 also designated units as disabled-only. Four of the PHAs used all three of the possible designations. One PHA with an approved allocation plan opted not to designate any housing units. Finally, nonelderly persons with disabilities and the elderly were eligible for an additional 23,870 units at the 73 PHAs with approved allocation plans. These units were not designated as elderly- or disabled-only in the PHAs’ allocation plans but were available to these persons nonetheless. Over half of these units belonged to three PHAs: Chicago had 5,320; Baltimore, 3,662; and Minneapolis, 3,572. Of the 24,902 units designated for elderly residents, 24,471 were previously available to both the elderly and to younger persons with disabilities. About 19 percent of the units that were previously available to both types of tenants were occupied by younger persons with disabilities when the PHAs submitted their allocation plans. An additional 367 units designated as elderly-only were newly constructed or acquired, and 64 were in other types of public housing units. Overall, PHAs reported in our survey that occupancy by both persons with disabilities and the elderly declined slightly across all units between the time the PHAs submitted their allocation plans and November 1, 1997.Specifically, the 56 PHAs that provided complete occupancy data reported that occupancy by persons with disabilities in units now designated for the elderly or persons with disabilities or available to either declined by 533 households—about a 5-percent decrease. The number of units occupied by the elderly declined by 432—not quite a 2-percent decrease. (See fig. 3.) Those PHAs that had specifically designated units as elderly-only reported the same pattern as did PHAs with allocation plans generally. While overall occupancy changed little, the occupancy of persons with disabilities varied depending on whether the units were designated as elderly-only or elderly and disabled. Changes in occupancy also varied by individual PHA. Of the 53 PHAs that designated units as elderly-only and provided complete occupancy data for those units in their survey responses, 25 reported a decline in the number of persons with disabilities residing in elderly-only units. The total decrease of 1,066 occupants represented about one-quarter of the persons with disabilities residing in those PHAs’ units designated as elderly-only. The Chicago Housing Authority accounted for much of this decline, reporting 419 fewer people with disabilities residing in units now designated elderly-only. Thirteen PHAs reported no change, and 15 reported increases. One PHA reported an increase of 52 nonelderly people with disabilities occupying units that had been designated elderly-only. According to an official at this PHA, the allocation plan permits the PHA to accept near-elderly persons—including those with disabilities—if there is an insufficient number of elderly persons to occupy designated units. The increase in persons with disabilities at this PHA is due to the large number of near-elderly persons with disabilities who moved into designated units after the PHA submitted its allocation plan. Forty PHAs that designated units as elderly-only reported that 618 people with disabilities had moved out of the elderly-only units. Some of these PHAs also reported where these persons with disabilities went: 80 moved into other public housing units; 138 moved into private housing using Section 8 certificates or vouchers; and 275 moved into other housing. The PHAs that designated units for the elderly and disabled combined or that had undesignated units available for the elderly and persons with disabilities reported a total increase in the number of persons with disabilities occupying those units. The 47 PHAs in this category that provided complete occupancy data reported 472 more of these units were occupied by persons with disabilities—about a 7-percent increase. The 13 PHAs that designated 788 of their units as disabled-only reported that occupancy of those units by persons with disabilities increased by 20 households—more than a 4-percent increase—between the time they submitted their allocation plans and November 1, 1997. (See table 2.) One reason the provisions in the 1992 act allowing PHAs to designate units for the elderly have had little impact on the availability of public housing for persons with disabilities is that so few PHAs have sought to use the provisions thus far. While we did not attempt to survey the more than 3,100 PHAs that have not submitted allocation plans to designate housing, HUD officials told us that most PHAs do not view developing the plans as a priority or do not believe that designated housing is necessary. Moreover, HUD agreed that designated housing has had little impact on housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. HUD cited the collaborative approach it uses to review plans, coupled with the availability of targeted Section 8 certificates and vouchers, as the factors that have minimized the potential impact. Two-thirds of the PHAs responding to our survey indicated that their designation of housing to date has neither helped nor hindered their ability to meet the housing needs of persons with disabilities. Officials at the three PHAs we visited that had allocation plans confirmed that designating units for the elderly had not had an impact on persons with disabilities. They noted that persons with disabilities were not required to move out of the designated units and that many of them had decided not to relocate. For example, an official at the Dallas Housing Authority said that many of the tenants preferred to stay where they were. At the Fall River Housing Authority, persons with disabilities residing in units designated as elderly-only were offered Section 8 certificates. Some of these residents were able to use these certificates to find housing in the private market, while the other residents remained in their newly designated units. The extent to which Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities have helped meet the demand for affordable housing for persons with disabilities is not yet clear. Fifty-nine housing authorities reported receiving 4,943 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. Thirty-three of these 59 authorities also designated units as elderly-only. About two-thirds of the PHAs with elderly-only units reported that they received more certificates and vouchers than the number of persons with disabilities residing in their elderly-only units. However, as of November 1, 1997, only about one-fourth of the total 4,943 certificates and vouchers reported had been used successfully. Officials from HUD and housing authorities that we surveyed gave various reasons for certificates and vouchers not being used. For instance, because of the time involved in awarding certificates and vouchers to housing authorities, many had not been in a position to issue the new rental certificates and vouchers by November 1, 1997. Statutory restrictions on the funds have limited their use. Persons with disabilities seeking to use certificates and vouchers might have had difficulty finding affordable, privately owned housing in their communities. And many tenants with disabilities might not be interested in moving out of the public housing units they now occupy. The Section 8 Rental Certificate and Rental Voucher program is a federally funded affordable housing option administered by the local housing authorities, which issue the certificates and vouchers to eligible tenants.HUD has made Section 8 certificates and vouchers available for persons with disabilities in two ways: (1) in connection with designated public or privately owned, HUD-subsidized housing or (2) through a mainstream housing opportunities program. Since 1992, a total of $278.9 million has been earmarked for certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. As of November 1, 1997, HUD had made $190.4 million available through four notices of funding availability. As figure 4 shows, only the funds from the March 1995 notice and the April 1997 notice for the mainstream program have been totally awarded to the housing authorities. HUD told us that between November 1997 and March 1998, another $15 million made available through the October 1996 notice was awarded to PHAs with newly approved allocation plans. HUD expects all the funds from the October 1996 notice to be spent by the end of fiscal year 1998. The April 1997 funding notice making $50 million available to PHAs was the result of a set-aside in HUD’s fiscal year 1997 appropriation. The Congress set aside this money to fund Section 8 assistance to persons with disabilities affected by designated public and private housing. Half of the $50 million was earmarked for housing authorities with approved allocation plans, and the other half was earmarked for housing authorities that could identify the impact on persons with disabilities of elderly-only preferences established by privately owned projects in their communities. As of November 1, 1997, none of the $25 million for housing authorities with approved allocation plans had been spent. According to HUD officials, this $25 million will be used once all of the funding made available in the October 1996 notice is awarded. From the $25 million intended to offset the impact of elderly-only preferences established by privately owned projects, HUD had awarded $2.7 million to five PHAs. Appendix V provides further discussion of Section 8 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. A total of 59 housing authorities reported receiving Section 8 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. (Fig. 5 shows their locations.) Six of these housing authorities received awards for both designated housing and mainstream opportunities. They are Rochester, New York; Butler County, Pennsylvania; Kansas City, Missouri; Wilmington, Delaware; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Salem, Oregon. Fifty-nine of the 96 housing authorities we surveyed reported that they had received 4,943 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities from one or more of the four notices of funding availability. However, because of the length of the process used to make awards to housing authorities, many were not in a position to issue the new rental certificates and vouchers awarded from one of the 1997 notices by November 1, 1997. Of the approximately 3,000 certificates and vouchers that were available to housing authorities as of November 1, 1997, 1,558 had been issued to persons with disabilities who, in turn, had used 1,162 to obtain private rental housing and had turned back 174 unused, according to the authorities. Some housing authorities reported that their recipients were still in the process of searching for housing. Persons with disabilities generally have 60 days to use certificates and vouchers and may ask for extensions if necessary. Thirty-three PHAs reported that they designated units as elderly-only and received 2,982 certificates and vouchers, primarily in connection with their designation. About two-thirds of these PHAs with elderly-only units reported that they received more certificates and vouchers than the number of persons with disabilities residing in their elderly-only units.These PHAs issued 1,236 of these certificates and vouchers to persons with disabilities. Of the certificates and vouchers issued, 960 had been used by persons with disabilities to obtain housing and 172 had been turned back to the housing authorities unused. The remaining recipients were still looking for housing. HUD still has funds remaining for certificates and vouchers associated with designated housing, but all the funds for the mainstream program have been awarded. According to HUD officials, there is not much demand for the designated housing certificates and vouchers. The Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers Director told us that PHAs prefer to apply for the mainstream housing opportunities program for persons with disabilities because it is less restrictive, it does not require PHAs to submit allocation plans, and the funds have 5-year terms. HUD officials also told us that the restrictions placed on the $50 million the Congress set aside for persons with disabilities in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation made the funds difficult to award. Consequently, HUD worked with the Congress to make the language less restrictive for the $40 million set aside in the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. The language now states that if the funds cannot be awarded to PHAs that have designated housing or that have identified the impact on persons with disabilities of elderly preferences established by privately owned projects, then the Secretary of HUD may make the remaining funds available for the mainstream program. This language is retroactive to the remaining funds from the fiscal year 1997 appropriation. On April 30, 1998, HUD published a notice of funding availability to disseminate the $87.3 million from these fiscal years and the $48.5 million earmarked for the fiscal year 1998 mainstream program. Our survey found that the number of persons with disabilities living in public housing units managed by those PHAs that have designated housing and received certificates and vouchers actually increased by 198 between the time the PHAs submitted their allocation plans and November 1, 1997.Similarly, occupancy by persons with disabilities increased by 197 households at the PHAs that designated elderly-only units and received certificates and vouchers and that provided complete occupancy data. Most of the persons with disabilities using the certificates or vouchers were not tenants in newly designated units; rather, they had been on the PHAs’ waiting lists for either public housing or Section 8 assistance. As shown in figure 6, only 18 percent of the 1,147 certificates and vouchers whose recipients housing authorities were able to identify were used to move persons with disabilities out of public housing. Fifty-five percent were used by persons with disabilities who had been on the PHAs’ public housing waiting lists, and 27 percent were used by persons with disabilities who had been on the PHAs’ Section 8 waiting lists. The 33 PHAs that made elderly-only designations and received certificates and vouchers reported a very similar pattern of use. Our survey data support the view that tenants with disabilities may be reluctant to move from what they perceive to be a stable, known housing situation into an unknown situation. Those on the waiting lists, however, are seeking affordable housing opportunities and therefore may be more willing to use the certificates and vouchers to improve their housing situation. Depending on the resident and on the housing market, Section 8 certificates and vouchers may or may not be as preferable as public housing. Some PHA officials told us that not every person with disabilities residing in public housing that has been newly designated as elderly-only wants to move. Tenants may want to stay because they have a network of friends nearby, supportive services, and available transportation services. Moreover, moving to Section 8 housing means paying security deposits, which would be an added financial burden for these tenants. In addition, some tenants believe that a certificate or voucher would not be as permanent as public housing. Even at those PHAs that provide incentives, such as paying for moving expenses and phone service transfers, public housing residents with disabilities reportedly do not want to relocate. The Dallas Housing Authority, for example, found that even with incentives, only 20 of the 80 persons with disabilities residing in the newly designated elderly-only buildings were willing to use Section 8 certificates. As more PHAs continue to receive their allotments of certificates and vouchers and to educate their residents on how to use them, this situation may change. At other locations, certificates and vouchers may not be an appropriate option for persons with disabilities because of tight housing markets, rents that are above HUD’s fair market rents (FMR), or the prevalence of older housing that has not been adapted to the needs of people with disabilities.For example, because of the high demand for rental housing in the San Francisco market and the ease with which landlords can get rents higher than HUD’s FMR, landlords may not be willing to rent to subsidized tenants, especially to persons with disabilities for whom they would have to make accessibility accommodations. HUD’s FMR is also an issue in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which recently underwent rent decontrol. The Cambridge Housing Authority used a portion of its Section 8 administrative fees to hire a housing-search worker to help Section 8 recipients find housing. Another PHA we surveyed—in Westbrook, Maine—also cited a tight housing market and a predominance of older, inaccessible housing as obstacles faced by persons with disabilities seeking housing in the private market. Apartments in older buildings usually have small rooms and narrow entrances, making it difficult to improve their accessibility. Despite the difficulties encountered in some housing markets, when persons with disabilities were offered Section 8 certificates and vouchers, they appeared to be able to use them in most locations. Overall, only about 11 percent of the certificates and vouchers had been turned back to the housing authorities unused as of the time of our survey. Half of the housing authorities reported that the rate at which persons with disabilities turned back certificates and vouchers was about the same as that for recipients without disabilities. Moreover, they said that these users were taking about the same amount of time as the other recipients to find housing. However, the housing authorities reported in our survey that persons with disabilities required greater assistance to locate private housing. In our case study interviews, housing authorities’ managers told us that the extra assistance they provided included preparing lists of apartments that accepted Section 8 certificates or vouchers and transportation to the apartments. Where assistance was provided, certificates and vouchers had helped persons with disabilities. In our survey, the majority of housing authorities reported that it was still too early to determine how successful certificates and vouchers have been in helping persons with disabilities rent private housing. This observation was affirmed by our case study work. Four of the six housing authorities where we conducted case studies had received certificates or vouchers, but managers there said that it was too early to determine how successful this Section 8 assistance had been in providing housing options. The Housing Authority of Gloucester County, New Jersey, for example, had only recently hired a full-time person to administer the 130 vouchers it received after it identified privately owned projects that had established preferences for the elderly; as of January 1998, it had successfully utilized 10 vouchers to provide housing. Similarly, the Anaheim, California, housing authority had not yet issued any of the 150 vouchers it had received from the mainstream housing program. It expected that all 150 vouchers would be used, however, and planned to apply for more vouchers because it had 1,500 persons with disabilities on its waiting list. We provided HUD with a draft of this report for review and comment. We met with HUD officials to discuss their comments and our response. Specifically, we met with the following officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing: the Senior Director of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Program, and Legislative Initiatives; the Acting Director of Management and Planning; the Senior Program Manager, Real Estate and Housing Performance Division (Section 8); and the Senior Program Analyst, Customer Service and Amenities Division. We also met with officials from the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and the Special Assistant to the Secretary on Disability Rights. There were four general categories of comments, which are listed below with our response. Comments on our analysis on the allocation plans: HUD requested that we include the most up-to-date information on the number of PHAs with approved allocation plans and the number of designated units. While we did not obtain survey responses from the PHAs that received approval for their allocation plans after November 1, 1997, we have made note of the most recent data provided by HUD. HUD also believed that our analysis showing that the 24,902 units designated as elderly-only represent 7.5 percent of these PHAs’ total units was misleading. HUD said the figure implies that only an insignificant percentage of the available public housing is no longer available to persons with disabilities in communities with approved allocation plans. We have changed the language in the report to reflect that the 24,902 units represent 36 percent of these PHAs’ housing stock for the elderly and for persons with disabilities. HUD requested that we include additional information on the statutory requirements of the designated housing law. Where appropriate, we have done so. Finally, we have incorporated HUD’s position that the reason designating housing for the elderly has had little impact on housing opportunities for persons with disabilities is that HUD worked closely with these PHAs to ensure that they were able to address the needs of the members of all the groups affected by designations. Comments on our analysis on Section 8 certificates and vouchers: HUD believed that because of the length of time taken by the submission and approval of applications and by the execution of annual contributions contracts, many PHAs were not in a position to issue the certificates and vouchers they were awarded from either of the two notices of funding availability published in April 1997 until late October or early November. HUD requested that we add language to state that it should not be surprising that only a small percentage of certificates and vouchers had been issued and used by persons with disabilities as of November 1, 1997. We have added, in the appropriate sections of the report, language to acknowledge the time needed for the submission and approval of housing authorities’ applications and for the issuance and execution of annual contributions contracts before certificates and vouchers are actually available for use. HUD also suggested that we include the fiscal year 1998 funding of $48.5 million for the mainstream certificates and vouchers program. We did so. However, we disagree with HUD’s suggestion that we delete from our analysis the $25 million of the fiscal year 1997 appropriations and the $20 million of the fiscal year 1998 appropriations that were directed at assisting nonelderly persons with disabilities affected by elderly preferences established by privately owned projects. We included these amounts because the Congress requested that our analysis include all new Section 8 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. Comments on our survey instrument: HUD thought that our survey instrument should have included questions pertaining to housing demand, characteristics of persons on public housing waiting lists, and the number of efficiencies and one-bedroom units in family developments. Questions 24, 37, and 38 of the survey instrument asked PHAs to evaluate the impact that designating housing and issuing additional certificates and vouchers have had on their ability to meet the housing needs of persons with disabilities. We expected the PHAs to take demand for housing and the characteristics of the persons on their waiting lists into consideration in their responses to these subjective questions. Public housing waiting lists, we discovered in our pretests, are imperfect measures of demand for housing as they reflect demand only at the time the individual is placed on the waiting list or when the list is updated. Our survey found that 82 percent of the certificates and vouchers were used by persons with disabilities on public housing and/or Section 8 waiting lists. This is consistent with HUD’s point that persons on waiting lists are the group most helped by the targeted Section 8 rental assistance. Furthermore, the focus of the survey questions regarding occupancy was on the designated units and the units available to the elderly and persons with disabilities. These questions did not exclude the possibility of such units in family buildings. Finally, we disagree that our question on how many units PHAs had designated for only persons with disabilities did not differentiate between units designated in the allocation plan and physically accessible units that were not designated in the plan. Questions 11 and 12 of the survey used the language “units you designated in your allocation plan as ’disabled-only,’” which we believe is very clear. We had no indication from either our pretests or our callbacks to housing authorities for response clarification that they were incorrectly interpreting these questions. Comments on our population analysis: HUD believed that we needed to focus more on families with very low incomes (i.e., incomes at or below 50 percent of the median family income for their area) in our analysis, not just low-income families (i.e., those with incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for their area). HUD stated that families with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of the area’s median income qualify for a smaller number of public housing units and generally do not qualify for Section 8 rental assistance. We concurred and made appropriate modifications. HUD also pointed out that our estimates of low-income persons with disabilities meeting HUD’s definition differ significantly from the conclusion HUD reached in its 1997 report to the Congress on worst-case housing needs. While we used the definition of disability used in HUD’s housing programs, HUD, in its report on worst-case housing needs, used a more restrictive definition of disability than it uses in its housing programs. We conducted our review from July 1997 through May 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate Senate and House committees; the Secretaries of HUD and Health and Human Services; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any questions about the material in this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. To estimate the number of households in which the head of the household or spouse meets the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) definition of a low-income person with a disability, we used data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) National Center for Health Statistics. We worked with HHS’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the Special Assistant to the Secretary in HUD’s Office of Disability Policy to develop criteria for using data about income, age, and disabilities from the 1994 survey. HHS then applied these criteria to estimate the number of noninstitutionalized households in which the head of the household or spouse—or the sole person in the case of a single-person household—would be considered under HUD’s definition to be a person with a disability. NHIS, which was first conducted in 1957, is a continuing national survey of civilian, noninstitutionalized households. It is the principal source of information on the health of this population. In addition to the basic survey, NHIS in many years includes supplements covering special topics. For 1994, NHIS covered five special topics, including disability and family resources—both of which were used in the estimates of households meeting HUD’s definition of persons with disabilities. Because NHIS estimates are based on a sample of households, they may differ somewhat from the figures that would have been obtained from a complete census. In 1994, 45,705 households were interviewed, resulting in a sample of 116,179 persons. Since NHIS’s design is a complex multistage probability sample, the estimates provided do have sampling errors; however, HHS did not compute the sampling errors for each estimate. Where we could identify similar estimates published by others, we found that HHS’ estimates were generally in the same range. We did not perform a technical review of HHS’ programming. NHIS excludes members of the armed forces, U.S. nationals living abroad, nursing home residents, and institutionalized persons. According to the 1990 census, 3.3 million Americans lived in institutions, including 1.8 million persons in nursing homes. An additional 340,000 persons lived in other types of institutions, such as psychiatric hospitals and schools, hospitals, or wards for the mentally retarded. Some portion of the 340,000 persons in such institutions, as well as those in nursing homes, might be expected to have conditions that substantially impair their ability to live independently, according to HUD officials. However, these persons are not included in the estimates presented here of the population meeting HUD’s definition for persons with disabilities. The remaining persons in institutions include 1.1 million persons in correctional institutions and 104,200 in juvenile institutions. Low-income and very low-income families are eligible for housing assistance under HUD’s public and assisted housing programs. Generally, low-income families are those with adjusted incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income in their areas, as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families. Very low-income families are those with adjusted incomes at or below 50 percent of their areas’ median income. Very low-income families qualify for public housing and Section 8 rental assistance. Families with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of their area’s median income, however, are eligible for HUD’s public housing programs but generally compete for a smaller number of units, and most do not qualify for Section 8 rental assistance. HUD’s public and assisted housing programs use a definition of disability that includes a measure of functional limitation that is due to a medical condition of a certain duration. Specifically, the programs generally consider a person to have a disability if that person (1) meets the definition used under section 223 of the Social Security Act; or (2) meets the definition for developmental disabilities found in the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; or (3) has a physical, mental, or emotional condition that is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration, substantially impedes the person’s ability to live independently, and is of such nature that the person’s ability to live independently could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. A low-income or very low-income family whose household head or spouse meets HUD’s definition of a person with a disability is ordinarily eligible for housing units available to the elderly, even though the household head or spouse may not be elderly. However, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 allows public housing authorities (PHA) that have approved allocation plans and owners of certain HUD-assisted projects to restrict occupancy in particular units to the elderly only. To identify low-income and very low-income families, we asked that HHS compare total household income—excluding income from persons under the age of 18—recorded in the NHIS data with HUD’s 1994 adjusted median family income for metro and nonmetro areas within the four census regions, adjusted for family size. HHS summarized responses to questions in the family resources supplement of NHIS on components of household income for adult family members—in the case of families—and for the sole person in single-person households. For NHIS, all persons in a household related to each other by blood, marriage, or adoption constitute a family. For about 16 percent of the households, there were no income data; these households were excluded from the estimates provided here. We do not know how the income of those households compared with the income of households for which the data were available. To identify households in which the household head or spouse (or the sole person in the case of a single-person household) was a person with a disability as defined by HUD, we utilized responses to questions about the receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI); any conditions associated with developmental disabilities; the presence of physical, mental, and emotional conditions; the duration of the condition; and the difficulty experienced with activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Specifically, we estimated the number of households in which the household head or spouse or sole individual (1) received SSI; (2) met the definition of disability under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act;(3) had—without the use of equipment, help, or supervision—a lot of difficulty with or was unable to perform one or more ADL or IADL because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition expected to last another 12 months; or (4) had a mental or emotional condition that seriously interfered with his or her ability to work, attend school, or manage day-to-day activities without regard to the duration of this condition. We did not attempt to determine if the person’s ability to live independently could have been improved by more suitable housing conditions. Also, we did not attempt to determine the person’s housing needs or whether a person was currently residing in public or assisted housing. According to the estimates provided by HHS, in 1994 about 9 million low-income households (including about 7 million very low-income households) not living in institutions had as a household head or spouse a person who may have met HUD’s definition of a person with a disability. In almost half of these households, the household head or spouse was a nonelderly adult with a disability. There were an estimated 2.5 million low-income renter households that had as a household head or spouse a nonelderly person with a disability. The overall estimates provided by HHS were within the range of other estimates of the number of persons with disabilities. Specifically, when not considering income, HHS estimated that there were about 11 million households—or almost 14 percent of all households—that had as a household head or spouse a person who met HUD’s definition of a person with a disability. In comparison, a 1996 study estimated that for about 17 million families—or about 24 percent of all families in the 1990 NHIS—the household head, or in the case of “partnered families” one or both partners, had a disability. A study using data from the 1992 Survey of Income and Program Participation estimated that about 48.9 million noninstitutionalized civilians—or about 19.4 percent of this population—had a disability. Of these, about half had a severe disability. Considering that in 1992, households had an average of 2.62 persons, the number of households with a member that had a disability would have been about 19 million, and the number of households with a member that had a severe disability would have been about 9 million. According to the 1990 census, about 22 million noninstitutionalized persons aged 16 and older had a work disability, a mobility limitation, or a self-care limitation. This may equate to about 8.5 million such households. Of the HHS-estimated 46.3 million low-income households, 8.7 million, or about 19 percent, were households that were headed by persons or spouses with disabilities and that had incomes at or below 80 percent of HUD’s adjusted median family income. Of that 8.7 million households, 6.6 million had incomes at or below 50 percent of HUD’s adjusted median family income. A low-income household was more likely than other households to have a person with a disability as a household head or spouse. About half of these households had as a household head or spouse a person with a disability who was younger than age 62. Elderly households represented about 51 percent of the low-income households headed by a person or a spouse with a disability. However, elderly households were twice as likely as younger households to have a household head or spouse with a disability. That is, while 28 percent of low-income elderly households had as a household head or spouse a person with a disability, the figure was 14 percent for younger low-income households. About 45 percent of the low-income households headed by a person or a spouse with a disability rented, rather than owned, their homes. Table I.1 shows the estimated income and disability status of the households included in the 1994 NHIS. Sole person in the case of single-person households. Does not include secondary families and individuals. Head of household or spouse was aged 62 and older. Head of household or spouse was aged 18 to 61. The Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations asked us to assess (1) the impact of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 on the availability of public housing for persons with disabilities and (2) how incremental Section 8 certificates and vouchers that were made available since the passage of the 1992 act were assisting persons with disabilities seeking affordable rental housing. As requested, we also developed estimates of the number of households that may meet HUD’s definition of persons with disabilities. To obtain information for this report, we conducted a survey of the 73 PHAs that, according to HUD, had approved allocation plans as of November 1, 1997. In addition, we sent the survey to 23 other housing authorities that did not have approved allocation plans but had been awarded Section 8 certificates and vouchers for the exclusive use of persons with disabilities as of November 1, 1997. We mailed a questionnaire to each of these 96 housing authorities and made follow-up calls as needed to stimulate responses or verify unclear answers. All 96 housing authorities responded to the survey. The results of the survey are summarized in appendix IV. To supplement the results of the survey, we conducted six case studies at housing authorities and their immediate communities in (1) Fall River, Massachusetts; (2) Dallas, Texas; (3) Corinth, Mississippi; (4) Gloucester County, New Jersey; (5) Anaheim, California; and (6) San Francisco, California. We neither evaluated these housing authorities’ provision of affordable housing for persons with disabilities nor compared one authority’s efforts with those of another. Rather, our aim was to provide a comprehensive picture of housing authorities facing different challenges in providing housing for persons with disabilities. Our criteria for selecting the locations included the following: Size of the housing authority—Our case studies included large and small housing authorities. Size of the housing authority’s community—Our case studies included large cities, suburban communities, and a rural community. Condition of the housing market—Our case studies ranged from a city with a housing market known to be particularly tight to a community with a surplus of affordable housing. Designated housing and Section 8 assistance—Of the six locations, three PHAs had allocation plans for designated public housing and Section 8 certificates and vouchers; two housing authorities had no designated public housing but received certificates and vouchers (one was a housing authority that had no public housing units but administered Section 8 assistance); and one PHA neither had an allocation plan nor received certificates or vouchers for the exclusive use of persons with disabilities. We visited these six locations and interviewed the local housing authority officials about their experience in housing persons with disabilities. We also interviewed representatives of a judgmentally selected number of HUD-subsidized, privately owned projects that provided housing for the elderly and persons with disabilities to determine whether they established preferences for the elderly. Finally, we spoke with advocates for both the elderly and persons with disabilities in the communities we studied, where we were able to identify them. See appendix III for detailed information about the six case studies. To conduct the analysis of the population of low-income persons with disabilities, we asked the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) to conduct population analyses of data from the agency’s National Health Interview Survey, using HUD’s definition of low-income persons with disabilities as parameters. Bob Clark, Senior Program Analyst, and Don Chontos, Programmer, of ASPE developed the analysis. See appendix I for information on the population analysis. Finally, we reviewed the legislative history of the provisions in the 1992 act that allowed housing authorities to seek approval from HUD to designate housing for the elderly, persons with disabilities, or both and the appropriations set-asides for Section 8 certificates and vouchers in fiscal years 1997 and 1998. We interviewed appropriate HUD officials about designated housing, other housing for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and Section 8 certificates and vouchers (see app. V for a discussion on Section 8 certificates and vouchers). We also interviewed representatives of the national associations for persons with disabilities and the elderly. We conducted our review from July 1997 through May 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. To better describe the impact of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 on the availability of housing for persons with disabilities, we visited six locations. Three of the six have housing authorities with approved allocation plans, and two of these also have Section 8 certificates for persons with disabilities. Two other authorities in our case study do not have allocation plans but received vouchers. We selected the final location to review the practicality of certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities in an extremely tight housing market. Table III.1 shows the six housing authorities we visited. Five of the six locations we visited have housing authorities that manage public housing units. Officials from all five told us that mixing elderly and nonelderly persons with disabilities in the same buildings does not always work well. In some cases it was the lifestyles associated with youth, not necessarily disability, that caused the underlying problems, and in other cases, it was younger persons with mental disabilities and their friends and visitors who caused problems for the elderly. All three housing authorities with allocation plans—Fall River, Dallas, and the Tennessee Valley Regional Housing Authority (TVRHA) in Corinth—designated entire buildings for the elderly. The Fall River authority designated six of its federally aided elderly/disabled buildings as elderly-only. It also has one building primarily for younger persons with disabilities, but officials there said they will accept elderly applicants for these units as well. The Dallas Housing Authority designated two of its four elderly/disabled buildings as elderly-only. The other two buildings are for mixed elderly/disabled occupancy. TVRHA in Corinth designated its one high-rise elderly/disabled building for the elderly and near-elderly. HUD awarded Section 8 certificates for those younger persons with disabilities in Dallas who wanted to move out of the buildings designated for the elderly into privately owned rental units in the community. HUD also required the Fall River Housing Authority to offer certain certificates it had been awarded previously to younger persons with disabilities. TVRHA officials told us that they had not requested additional certificates or vouchers for persons with disabilities because there was no need for them. The authority had no elderly or persons with disabilities on its waiting list. Officials at all three housing authorities stated that the elderly and persons with disabilities may apply for appropriately sized units in any of the other buildings the authorities manage. TVRHA reported that elderly and persons with disabilities constitute over two-thirds of their public housing residents. Housing authority officials in Fall River said they constitute almost 39 percent. Table III.2 shows the number of units designated for the elderly and for persons with disabilities as a result of the allocation plans, and also shows the number of units that are not designated but are considered elderly/disabled units. The impact of the allocation plans on affordable housing for persons with disabilities was minimal, at the time of our visits. Occupancy in the buildings designated for the elderly had not changed substantially since the housing authorities submitted their allocation plans, and where certificates and vouchers had been made available, persons with disabilities on waiting lists were able to use them to find housing. TVRHA allowed near-elderly persons with disabilities—those between the ages of 50 and 62—to move into its elderly-only building. Most of the persons with disabilities living in the units designated for the elderly in Fall River and Dallas chose to remain there rather than use the Section 8 certificates allocated for them, according to housing authority officials. In Fall River, where 76 certificates had been set aside for the 77 persons with disabilities occupying units in elderly-only buildings, 22 chose to use a certificate to move. In Dallas, which had 80 certificates allotted, 20 tenants used them. As for the remaining certificates, the Fall River authority offered them to younger persons with disabilities on its other waiting lists, and all have been used. Dallas officials intend to offer them to people from other developments but, at the time of our visit, had not yet made them available. They also told us that 49 additional persons with disabilities had requested the certificates but had subsequently returned them to the authority unused. The officials said they believed these residents decided to stay in their current units because they felt comfortable there, but we did not verify this assertion. Most of the advocates for persons with disabilities we spoke with told us that their clients should be able to choose to live wherever they want. Some prefer to live independently, and some like the security and amenities offered in buildings designed for the elderly. An advocate in Fall River did not consider the building reserved for persons with disabilities an attractive alternative and told us that the trend now is for this population to live in the community and arrange for support services of their own choosing. Similarly, some advocates for the elderly told us that the elderly should have choices and that they prefer to live among other elderly and not among younger people. Officials at all three housing authorities with approved allocation plans told us that the length of time the elderly and persons with disabilities remain on the waiting list is about the same as it was prior to the allocation plans. They said that the average time an applicant remains on the waiting list is between 60 to 90 days in Dallas, about 2 to 3 months in Fall River, and about 30 days in Corinth. While three of the six authorities we visited—Gloucester County, Anaheim, and San Francisco—do not have allocation plans, housing authorities in Gloucester County and Anaheim received vouchers for nonelderly persons with disabilities. The San Francisco housing authority had neither an allocation plan nor special certificates or vouchers for persons with disabilities at the time of our visit, but said it had considered the issue in the past and is likely to submit an allocation plan at some future point. The housing authorities in Gloucester County and Anaheim requested vouchers for persons with disabilities on their waiting lists, but for different reasons. The Housing Authority of Gloucester County manages a Section 8 project that it designated as elderly-only in 1993 because the project was originally built for the elderly. To offset the loss of units to persons with disabilities in this building, the housing authority applied for 130 vouchers—roughly enough to handle all persons with disabilities on its waiting lists. The Anaheim Housing Authority manages no public housing units, so it will use its 100 vouchers for persons with disabilities on its Section 8 waiting list. At the time of our visits, it was too early to determine the impact of these additional vouchers on affordable housing for persons with disabilities, as neither housing authority had been able to issue them all, officials there said. HUD awarded funding for Gloucester County’s vouchers in September 1997. Officials from the authority said they then hired and trained a staff person to assist persons with disabilities. As of January 1998, the authority had interviewed 80 applicants, had successfully utilized 10 vouchers to provide housing, and hoped to utilize 30 more by February 1. Officials from the Anaheim Housing Authority said they had not issued any vouchers at the time of our visit because funding had been awarded only recently. They said they expected all the vouchers to be used and planned to apply for more in the future because of the demand. They also said that with existing Section 8 certificates and vouchers, persons with disabilities and the elderly have been relatively easy to place compared with low-income families because they are less transient than the families that apply for assistance. The only difficulty the officials anticipated was in placing persons with mental disabilities. But, according to its voucher application, the authority plans to help individuals using these vouchers find housing and also work with local agencies to provide additional support services to these tenants. Officials from the San Francisco Housing Authority told us that the use of certificates and vouchers by persons with or without disabilities has been problematic because of the tight housing market there. Rents are very high and usually exceed what a certificate or voucher will cover, making it difficult to find an appropriate apartment using a Section 8 certificate or voucher, they said. Moreover, they have not opened their Section 8 waiting list since 1986, when about 10,000 households applied. An official from the Housing Authority of Gloucester County said that persons with disabilities who apply for certificates or vouchers return them unused at about the same rate as other people. Anaheim authority officials told us that they usually do not have problems placing the elderly or persons with disabilities. However, a San Francisco Housing Authority official said persons with disabilities often have special problems using the certificates or vouchers in that area because apartments are scarce, the process of looking for an apartment is challenging in the hilly city, and discrimination against persons with physical and mental disabilities is believed to be pervasive. In Gloucester County and Anaheim, housing authority officials said that for every three Section 8 certificates or vouchers issued, two are returned and one is used. Gloucester County attributed this high turnback rate, in some cases, to applicants being unable to afford the security deposits or utility bills. They also said that some persons with disabilities who live with their families do not want to move away from home, but take a certificate or voucher to please their families and then return it unused. Fall River is a city of about 91,000 located in the southeastern corner of Massachusetts. The Fall River Housing Authority’s allocation plan, approved in February 1996, designated six public housing buildings for the elderly, with a seventh building primarily serving younger persons with disabilities. When the plan was approved, HUD required the authority to offer Section 8 certificates exclusively to persons with disabilities to compensate for the housing units designated elderly-only. Fall River has a relatively depressed economy. Although vacancy rates in the private housing market are relatively high and rents are relatively low, the area’s high unemployment rate and low income levels mean that many households still pay a large proportion of their income in rent, putting Section 8 certificates and vouchers in high demand. When the waiting list for Section 8 assistance was last opened in September 1997, over 1,100 people applied in a single day. Because vacancy rates are high and landlords generally welcome Section 8 tenants, there is little difficulty with using certificates or vouchers. The housing authority administers 2,181 certificates and vouchers. Fall River has a surplus of public housing, with more than 2,500 public housing units in buildings funded by the federal or state government and nearly 1,700 units in private developments subsidized by the federal or state government. The overall vacancy rate is 9 percent, and waiting times for public housing are short—usually 2 to 3 months—for those who are willing to take the first available unit in any building. The housing authority has recently begun a marketing effort to attract more applicants to public housing. Table III.3 shows the types of public and assisted housing in the community. The housing authority’s allocation plan designated six of its seven federally aided elderly/disabled projects as elderly-only. At the time the plan was approved, 77 younger persons with disabilities lived in those projects. A seventh project, Cardinal Medeiros Towers, remained categorized as elderly/disabled, primarily serving persons with disabilities under the age of 62. A survey by the housing authority found that of the younger persons with disabilities living in the buildings designated elderly-only, 56 percent had physical disabilities and 44 percent had mental disabilities, which included mental illness, retardation, and substance abuse. Officials at the authority said that they decided to submit an allocation plan because of complaints from elderly residents that many of the younger residents played loud music, had undesirable visitors at all hours of the night, or behaved in a generally threatening or disruptive manner. Officials at the authority and an advocate for the elderly said that active hostility between the elderly and the younger residents with disabilities ran both ways, resulting in a tense living environment. They also said that the issue was one of age and not disability. None of the 77 younger persons with disabilities occupying units in elderly-only buildings was forced to move. The authority said it offered each a Section 8 certificate or the opportunity to move to other public housing units, including Cardinal Medeiros Towers, and also offered staff assistance and money to help with the move. Twenty-two of the 77 had moved out of the elderly-only buildings by November 1997, most using Section 8 certificates. Housing authority staff said that it has not been difficult for persons with disabilities to find appropriate apartments in Fall River using the certificates. The rest of the certificates were used by persons with disabilities who had been on the waiting lists for public housing or for Section 8 assistance. Elderly residents are very happy with the results of the allocation plan, according to housing authority officials, who also said that there have been no complaints from younger persons with disabilities. We spoke with a representative of an advocacy group for persons with disabilities who said she was concerned that the allocation plan did not do enough to ensure the availability of accessible housing for persons with physical disabilities. She also did not consider the one federal public housing option left open to younger persons with disabilities, Cardinal Medeiros Towers, to be an attractive alternative. Dallas is the eighth largest city in the United States, with a population of more than 1 million people. In January 1995, the Dallas Housing Authority submitted an allocation plan to designate two of its four elderly/disabled buildings as elderly-only. HUD did not respond within the 90 days established by law, so the plan was approved by default. To provide an opportunity for persons with disabilities living in designated housing to move into the community, the housing authority requested and received 80 Section 8 certificates. Dallas has a tight rental market, with a vacancy rate around 5.5 percent and an estimated average rental cost of $696 for a two-bedroom unit. About 46 percent of low- and moderate-income households pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, and that figure rises to about 72 percent among those with very low incomes, according to HUD data. As of January 1998, 726 of the housing authority’s 4,647 public housing units in four developments were designated for the elderly only or for the elderly/disabled (mixed housing). The authority owns another four buildings with a total of 572 units that receive project-based Section 8 assistance and that are reserved for residents who are elderly or have disabilities. The authority also administers funds to pay for 30 Section 8 units in a property run by the Deaf Action Center. Table III.4 shows the number of HUD-assisted housing units available. The authority developed its allocation plan because concerns arose about mixing elderly residents and younger people with disabilities. Staff told us that some of the elderly residents at the mixed developments had raised noise and security issues. In addition, a resident survey indicated strong support for elderly-only housing. The impact of the housing authority’s allocation plan on persons with disabilities has been minimal thus far. Occupancy in the two buildings designated as elderly-only remained generally the same before and after the designation. The two developments designated, Audelia Manor and Park Manor, had been mixed elderly/disabled housing and had a total of 319 units. The authority requested and received 80 certificates to assist the younger tenants with disabilities expected to move out of the designated units. The authority also provided incentives, offering to pay for moving expenses, moving supplies, and telephone reconnection fees, but did not require anyone to move. At the time of our visit, 20 of the younger tenants with disabilities in the designated developments had used certificates to rent apartments in the private sector. Another 49 had requested certificates but returned them unused. Authority staff told us that many of these residents were reluctant to leave the security of their surroundings. Most still reside in the buildings. The housing authority received permission from HUD to offer the remaining certificates to people with disabilities residing at other developments and, as of April 1998, were offering them to residents at Forest Green and Lakeland Manor. To assist the residents with disabilities eligible for the 80 certificates, the Dallas Housing Authority generally used its regular Section 8 program to locate housing in the community. Under this program, the authority provides lists of landlords willing to rent to Section 8 tenants and takes prospective Section 8 families on van tours to properties that will accept certificates. To further assist the residents moving out of the developments newly designated for the elderly, the housing authority contacted local landlords to find those willing to rent to people with disabilities. Housing authority staff told us that landlords were typically more willing to accept Section 8 individuals who were physically disabled than they were to accept families receiving Section 8 assistance. Advocates for people with disabilities in Dallas said that the housing issues their clients face are usually related to accessibility rather than to the availability of assisted housing. Although the allocation plan did not result in as many of the younger residents with disabilities moving out of the buildings designated for the elderly as the housing authority had anticipated, officials said complaints from elderly residents had declined even though occupancy had not changed dramatically. Designating housing for the elderly has not affected waiting time for units. The waiting time for those needing an elderly/disabled unit is about 60 to 90 days, though the wait may be as long as 6 months if the applicant needs a studio or an accessible unit. This contrasts with an average waiting time of about 60 days for a regular public housing unit. The longer wait for elderly/disabled units stems from the lesser availability of those units, however, not from the impact of the allocation plan. Corinth is a city with a population of fewer than 12,000 in Alcorn County in northeastern Mississippi. Public housing is administered by both the Housing Authority of the City of Corinth and the Tennessee Valley Regional Housing Authority (TVRHA), which serves Alcorn and nine other counties. TVRHA also administers Section 8 certificates and vouchers for its 10-county area. In 1995, TVRHA submitted an allocation plan to designate all 50 units in the development in Corinth known as Fort Robinett Manor as elderly-only. HUD approved the plan on March 30, 1995. TVRHA designated Fort Robinett for elderly residents because 96 percent of its units were occupied by the elderly and the development has amenities ideally suited for the elderly. TVRHA officials also told us that mixing elderly and younger persons with disabilities is not always a good idea. TVRHA has not requested Section 8 certificates or vouchers for the exclusive use of persons with disabilities but administers 168 regular certificates and vouchers in Alcorn County. Corinth has 673 units of public housing, managed by two housing authorities. About 66 percent of the units are occupied by either elderly tenants or persons with disabilities, according to the two authorities. Housing authority officials and managers of private projects said that subsidized housing units are overabundant in Corinth, and managers are concerned about a high vacancy rate of around 11 percent. Corinth has more subsidized housing for its population than any place else in the world, according to an official from the city’s housing authority. The fair market rent for a one-bedroom unit is $290 per month; most units administered by TVRHA rent for $77 plus utilities. Table III.5 shows the categories of public and assisted housing in Corinth. City of Corinth public housing Section 8 certificates, TVRHA (Alcorn County-wide) Section 8 vouchers, TVRHA (Alcorn County-wide) The impact of TVRHA’s allocation plan on housing opportunities for public housing residents with disabilities appears to have been insignificant thus far. At Fort Robinett, occupancy had remained nearly the same. At the time the allocation plan was submitted, 49 of the 50 units were occupied by elderly households. As of November 1, 1997, 44 units were occupied by elderly households, 3 by near-elderly persons with disabilities, and 2 by near-elderly persons without disabilities, for a total of 49 occupied units. When selecting applicants for handicapped-accessible units, TVRHA gives priority to families that include disabled persons who can benefit from those features. TVRHA officials told us they had not requested additional Section 8 certificates and vouchers to offset the impact of designating housing for the elderly because there were no persons with disabilities on the authority’s waiting list. In addition to the handicapped units at Fort Robinett, TVRHA has converted 17 more units for persons with disabilities in Corinth—10 are wheelchair-accessible and 7 are for those who have visual or hearing impairments. Authority officials said that these additional units, along with the normal turnover rate, provide sufficient housing for the younger persons with disabilities who are no longer eligible to live at Fort Robinett. Moreover, the allocation plan states that if any of the designated units are vacant for over 60 days, they will be made available to younger applicants. For Section 8 certificates and vouchers, TVRHA reported that persons with disabilities and the elderly are given priority over single applicants who are not elderly and who do not have disabilities. Renting units with Section 8 assistance is generally not a problem for persons with disabilities, as they usually have a landlord in mind who has been contacted and is willing to work with them, according to TVRHA. However, few landlords are willing to make expensive modifications for tenants they are unfamiliar with because they do not know how long the tenants will stay. A TVRHA official told us that as a result, it may sometimes take persons with disabilities a little longer to secure a lease if units need various changes to comply with HUD standards. TVRHA officials said that persons with disabilities usually prefer public housing instead of certificates or vouchers because the public housing units are better equipped for their needs. An official from the Housing Authority of the City of Corinth told us that the authority had no need to designate housing for the elderly. It operates a 100-unit development for the elderly and persons with disabilities. At the time of our visit, 17 of the units were occupied by persons with disabilities, but most of these tenants were between 50 and 58 years old and fit in well with the older residents. He also told us that younger persons with disabilities do not generally apply to live in this building. Were the situation to change and problems were to develop, the housing authority might consider submitting an allocation plan to designate housing, the official said. Gloucester County, New Jersey, with a population of about 230,000, is located within the highly urbanized Philadelphia metropolitan area, although many parts of the county are rural or small-town in nature. In 1990, about 35 percent of the county’s 79,000 households had low or moderate incomes, according to data provided by Gloucester County. Because housing costs had risen much faster than household incomes, almost 22 percent of all households paid over 30 percent of their gross income for housing costs. The overall housing vacancy rate in the county was 4.4 percent. In 1997, HUD awarded the Housing Authority of Gloucester County 130 Section 8 vouchers for persons with disabilities as an alternative to units in a building the authority had designated for the elderly in 1993. The authority submitted an allocation plan in 1997 to designate additional housing for the elderly, but HUD denied the plan because it lacked necessary information. However, in March 1998, HUD conditionally approved the authority’s revised allocation plan subject to certain revisions. The authority has 262 public housing units and manages another building with 199 units that receive Section 8 project-based rental assistance. With the exception of 20 units for people with mobility impairments, the authority designated this 199-unit building for the elderly in 1993. To compensate for any loss of housing for persons with disabilities, the authority applied for and received 130 additional vouchers because 133 younger persons with disabilities were on its waiting lists for other programs. Of the authority’s 1,485 regular Section 8 certificates and vouchers, 260 were used by persons with disabilities and 252 by elderly persons at the time of our visit. In addition to the Housing Authority of Gloucester County, the Housing Authority of the Borough of Glassboro also administers public housing and Section 8 certificates in Gloucester County. Table III.6 shows the number of subsidized units in the county. Public housing (Housing Authority of Gloucester County) Public housing (Housing Authority of the Borough of Glassboro) Section 8 certificates and vouchers, including 130 vouchers for persons with disabilities (Housing Authority of Gloucester County) Section 8 certificates (Housing Authority of the Borough of Glassboro) State agency certificates and vouchers (State of New Jersey) Besides the units already designated for the elderly, the allocation plan the authority submitted unsuccessfully in 1997 would have limited two high-rise buildings with a total of 200 units to elderly and near-elderly tenants aged 50 and over. The authority’s director told us he plans to modify the plan and resubmit it to HUD for approval. Advocates both for the elderly and for persons with disabilities said the housing problem in Gloucester County was a lack of affordable housing, not necessarily mixing the two populations. Overall, advocates for the disabled said that the younger persons with disabilities should have the freedom to choose where they live because not all of them want to live with the elderly or with other persons with disabilities. However, this group may want to select units in buildings for the elderly because many offer important amenities, such as security, transportation, and supportive services. An official from the county office for the disabled said that security is especially important for people who have visual or hearing impairments. At the same time, younger persons with disabilities who are capable of living independently usually prefer to do so. An official from the department on aging said that she believes the elderly prefer to live among other elderly because of the conflicting lifestyles of younger persons with disabilities. At the time of our visit, it was too soon to determine the impact of the special vouchers on the supply of affordable housing for persons with disabilities because the authority was just beginning to issue them. To administer the 130 vouchers after HUD awarded funding in September 1997, the authority hired a full-time staff person, who had then spent several months in training before working with persons with disabilities full time. As of January 1, 1998, 40 vouchers had been provided to persons with disabilities, 10 of which had been successfully used to obtain housing. An official said it was hoped the other 30 recipients would have housing by February 1. The number of persons with disabilities on the authority’s waiting list has increased in the time since the authority applied for the 130 vouchers. Staff said they would apply for additional vouchers if necessary. The turnback rate for Section 8 certificates and vouchers issued to persons with disabilities is about the same as for other Section 8 applicants—for every three certificates or vouchers issued, two are returned, according to authority officials. Among the reasons they cited were applicants’ not being able to afford security deposits or utility bills and some applicants’ requesting rental assistance as a token effort to please their families, then returning the certificates or vouchers unused. Anaheim is a city with a population of approximately 300,000 in Orange County in southern California. The Anaheim Housing Authority administers no public housing and therefore has no allocation plan, but it provides other housing assistance, including Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers. Housing authority officials told us they applied for 100 vouchers exclusively for persons with disabilities because they had a high number of these people on their waiting list for housing assistance—about 1,500 of the 6,000 individuals listed. The authority recently received those vouchers from HUD’s 1997 funding for Mainstream Housing Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities (the mainstream program). The need for affordable housing in Anaheim, particularly for the elderly and for persons with disabilities, is great, according to officials of the housing authority and of advocacy groups we spoke with. HUD data indicate that 70 percent of the city’s elderly residents pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, with many paying more than 50 percent. According to an advocacy group for persons with disabilities, its clients’ incomes are about $600 a month, making the typical rents for a one-bedroom apartment of $580 to $640 per month unaffordable. Subsidized private housing projects for the elderly and for persons with disabilities provide 391 affordable units in Anaheim. Of the approximately 3,400 low-income households receiving Section 8 certificates and vouchers in Anaheim in 1995, about 1,300 were elderly or persons with disabilities. At the time of our visit, the Anaheim Housing Authority had not yet issued any of the 100 vouchers HUD had awarded under the mainstream program for persons with disabilities. Housing authority officials said they expected to use all of them, however, and planned to apply for more vouchers in the future because of the demand. The effects of the 1992 act in Anaheim have been positive for persons with disabilities, according to the housing authority officials, who believed it had increased the number of affordable housing opportunities for this group. Because of the mainstream program vouchers, they said they expected to be housing persons with disabilities on their waiting list at a faster rate than other applicants. On the basis of their previous experience with regular certificates and vouchers, housing authority officials said they do not anticipate difficulties or delays in using the mainstream program vouchers. They said persons with disabilities and the elderly have been relatively easy to place compared with low-income families, which tend to be more transient and often move out of the Anaheim area before they use their certificates or vouchers. The housing authority officials anticipated greater difficulty with placing persons with mental disabilities. According to these officials, evictions have been more common with this particular group than with others, but they believe that this problem can be averted if these tenants receive the necessary support services. To assist individuals in using the vouchers, the housing authority plans to assemble a list of accessible rental units, provide assistance to landlords willing to make modifications to make their properties accessible, assign a full-time housing counselor to help the mainstream program participants, and work with local nonprofit agencies to get tenants additional support services. The mainstream vouchers will be offered first to the persons with disabilities who have been on the housing authority’s waiting list the longest. Officials of the housing authority and the advocacy group for the disabled with whom we spoke generally agreed that “mainstreaming” is the best housing option for persons with disabilities, although they did not see a particular problem in housing elderly and persons with disabilities together. Housing authority officials qualified this by saying that mainstreaming is usually the best option for persons with physical disabilities, whereas persons with mental and developmental disabilities usually do better in group settings where they get the emotional support and the services that they need. Officials we spoke with at an advocacy group for persons with disabilities fully supported mainstreaming in all cases because they believed that segregation perpetuates stereotypes and prevents persons with disabilities from believing that they can take care of themselves or work. San Francisco is a racially and ethnically diverse city of about 760,000 people in northern California. The San Francisco Housing Authority has not submitted an allocation plan and has not obtained certificates or vouchers exclusively for persons with disabilities. While the authority administers almost 5,000 certificates and vouchers, San Francisco’s housing market is extraordinarily tight and finding landlords willing to accept Section 8 applicants—with or without disabilities—has become a serious problem, according to housing authority officials. The vacancy rate for rental units is very low, and rents have gone up substantially in the past 2 years, with the median market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in larger buildings at over $1,500. According to information provided by the Mayor’s Office of Housing, affordable housing is thus extremely scarce in San Francisco, and 55 percent of low-income and 73 percent of very low-income renter households pay more than 30 percent of their incomes in rent. Overcrowding and homelessness are also significant problems. Advocates for persons with disabilities with whom we spoke universally described the housing situation for persons with disabilities in San Francisco as extremely dire. The housing stock is generally old, and units tend to be small. The topography of the city, with its many hills, limits accessibility for persons with disabilities and makes apartment-hunting difficult. Less than 2 percent of the city’s private rental stock is estimated to be minimally accessible to people with physical disabilities. The situation is particularly difficult because discrimination against persons with both physical and mental disabilities is believed to be pervasive. The San Francisco Housing Authority has 43 developments with a total of 6,722 units of public housing serving 12,436 residents. Twenty-one of these developments, serving 2,165 residents, are intended to be elderly/disabled housing. Roughly 9 percent of the residents of these developments are persons with disabilities who are under the age of 60. The housing authority settled a class-action lawsuit in 1991 by agreeing to increase its number of handicapped-accessible units. A Special Master appointed by the court is assisting in the implementation of the settlement. At the time of our visit, the authority had only 144 accessible public housing units, but it was adapting several hundred more and expected to have 690 accessible or adaptable units within a few years. In addition to public housing, San Francisco has 9,892 project-based units in 87 developments that either have federally insured mortgages or receive federal subsidies. The San Francisco Housing Authority also administers 4,945 Section 8 certificates and vouchers. The authority has not applied for any certificates or vouchers since about late 1995 because of various internal problems, an official said. With the recent tightening of the housing market, finding landlords willing to rent to people with Section 8 certificates and vouchers has become problematic, in large part because HUD’s fair market rents are considered too low, according to both housing authority officials and advocates. Authority staff said that in their experience, about 15 percent of those receiving certificates or vouchers turn them back, mostly because they cannot find affordable rental units; another 30 percent or so have to move outside of San Francisco to find affordable housing. HUD is currently collecting data and considering modifications to its fair market rent in San Francisco. The waiting lists for all types of subsidized housing are very long, according to authority officials. About 11,600 people are on the waiting list for public housing, with an average wait of at least 2.5 to 3 years. For persons with disabilities, the wait is slightly longer because of a shortage of studio and one-bedroom apartments, though for persons requiring handicapped-accessible units the wait is slightly shorter. The waiting list for certificates and vouchers has not been opened since 1986, when about 10,000 people applied; as of February 1998, the authority was still working off that list. The wait for units in the project-based Section 8 developments we visited was at least 3 to 5 years. The authority had put together an exploratory committee in the early 1990s to consider the issue of designating certain buildings of its own as elderly-only, but the committee fell to the wayside because of other pressing concerns. The authority has been working with a HUD recovery team, and authority officials said that once the current restructuring is complete, the issue will be revisited and an allocation plan will likely be submitted to HUD. The authority first explored the possibility of submitting an allocation plan to designate housing because of a perceived conflict between elderly residents and younger persons with disabilities and a strong consensus among the elderly tenants that they would prefer to live among other seniors. Elderly residents complained that younger tenants played loud music; had guests at all hours of the night; and displayed intimidating, threatening, or bizarre behavior. The main source of concern was younger residents who were mentally ill. Housing authority officials estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the younger residents with disabilities had mental rather than physical disabilities. When the idea of designating buildings as elderly-only was initially discussed, many of the younger tenants with disabilities expressed strong concerns. We spoke with representatives of five advocacy organizations for persons with disabilities. Some said that the concerns about mixing the elderly and younger persons with disabilities were misguided and based largely on overreaction and misunderstanding. In general, they feared that elderly-only designations would reduce the housing options for persons with disabilities. This is a special concern in San Francisco, they said, where public housing and project-based Section 8 housing are the only viable alternatives for many persons with disabilities because it is so difficult to find affordable and accessible housing using a certificate or voucher. The advocates opposed segregating persons with disabilities in housing designated disabled-only, which they perceived as isolating, unfair, and antithetical to the ideal of integrating persons with disabilities into mainstream society. Since passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, HUD has made Section 8 certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities available in two ways: in connection with designated housing or through a mainstream housing opportunities program. The funds for these certificates and vouchers, totaling $278.9 million, came from HUD’s administrative set-asides and from congressional set-asides in HUD’s appropriations. The purpose of Section 8 certificates and vouchers awarded in connection with designated housing is to offset the effects of reserving units in public and privately owned, HUD-subsidized housing for elderly residents. To receive certificates and vouchers in connection with designated public housing, a PHA must have a HUD-approved allocation plan. While HUD is more inclined to award certificates and vouchers to a PHA that has designated units for the elderly that were previously available to younger people with disabilities, HUD officials told us that they look at other factors as well in determining how many certificates and vouchers a PHA should receive in connection with designated housing. These factors include the PHA’s vacancy rates, the demand for affordable housing by persons with disabilities, and the availability of other types of housing to persons with disabilities, including efficiencies and one-bedroom units in the PHA’s family developments. The number of certificates or vouchers HUD awards a PHA is not a one-for-one replacement for the units that the PHA has designated as elderly-only. Moreover, designating units as elderly-only does not guarantee that a PHA will receive additional certificates and vouchers. These certificates and vouchers have budget authority terms of 1, 2, and 5 years, depending on the funding. In communities where privately owned, HUD-subsidized projects have established preferences for the elderly, the housing authorities can apply for certificates and vouchers if they can identify the number of nonelderly persons with disabilities who are not receiving housing assistance as a result of these preferences. To prepare their applications, the housing authorities may seek assistance from their local HUD field offices to identify these privately owned projects. These certificates and vouchers have 1-year terms. The mainstream housing program is intended to provide persons with disabilities greater opportunities to find affordable housing of their choice in their communities (hence, the term “mainstreaming”). Any housing authority that administers the Section 8 rental assistance program is eligible to apply for the mainstream certificates and vouchers and may issue them to any persons with disabilities eligible for Section 8 assistance. The requirements for the mainstream certificates and vouchers are less restrictive than those for certificates and vouchers connected with designated housing, and PHAs are not required to submit allocation plans to qualify. The mainstream program’s certificates and vouchers have terms of 5 years. As of November 1, 1997, HUD had made available $190.4 million of the total $278.9 million set aside since 1992 for certificates and vouchers for persons with disabilities. To do so, HUD issued four notices of funding availability: one in March 1995, another in October 1996, and two in April 1997. The remaining $88.5 million was from HUD’s fiscal year 1998 appropriation: $40 million of it to be used in connection with designated public and private housing and $48.5 million to be used for the mainstream program. HUD issued a fifth notice of funding availability on April 30, 1998, for these funds and for the funds remaining from the fiscal year 1997 appropriation of $50 million. As table V.1 shows, only the funds made available through two of the notices have been totally awarded: the $13.3 million made available through the March 1995 notice and the $48.5 million made available through the April 1997 notice for the mainstream program. Of the $78.6 million HUD made available through its October 1996 notice, $48.7 million had been awarded as of November 1, 1997, and HUD was continuing to make awards. HUD said that between November 1, 1997, and March 1, 1998, it had awarded another $15 million from the October 1996 notice to PHAs with newly approved allocation plans. HUD expected to award the remainder of the funds by the end of fiscal year 1998. Table V.1: HUD Notices of Funding Availability for Persons With Disabilities, as of November 1, 1997 Total funds available (millions) Total awarded (millions) Of the $50 million made available under HUD’s 1997 notice made in connection with designated public and private housing, $2.7 million had been awarded as of November 1, 1997. The funds made available through the notice were set aside by the Congress in HUD’s fiscal year 1997 appropriation. Half of the money was earmarked for PHAs with approved allocation plans, the other half for housing authorities that could identify the impact that elderly preferences established by privately owned projects in their communities had on persons with disabilities. As of November 1, 1997, none of the $25 million for PHAs with approved allocation plans had been awarded. HUD officials said the money will be used once all the funding from the October 1996 notice is awarded. Of the $25 million earmarked to offset elderly preferences established by privately owned projects, HUD had awarded $2.7 million to five PHAs that were able to identify the impact the preferences had on persons with disabilities. As mentioned previously, the funding made available under the other notice HUD issued in April 1997—the notice for the mainstream program—had been totally awarded by November 1, 1997. The $48.5 million made available through this notice came from the fiscal year 1997 funds appropriated for the Section 811 program for the capital development of privately owned projects for persons with disabilities. According to HUD, 281 PHAs submitted approvable applications for this disproportionately more popular program, but HUD was able to award funds to only 25, providing them with 1,756 certificates and vouchers. John T. McGrail 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. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 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.

Summary: Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed: (1) the impact of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 on the availability of public housing for persons with disabilities; (2) how incremental Section 8 certificates and vouchers that were made available since the passage of the 1992 act were assisting persons with disabilities seeking affordable rental housing; and (3) the number of households that may meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) definition for persons with disabilities. GAO noted that: (1) provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 allowing public housing authorities to designate units as elderly-only have had little impact on the availability of public housing for people with disabilities; (2) 73 of the 3,200 public housing authorities had allocation plans approved by HUD as of November 1, 1997, allowing them to designate 24,902 of their units as elderly-only, approximately 36 percent of their housing stock for the elderly and persons with disabilities; (3) nearly all of these designated units had been available previously to tenants who were elderly or who had disabilities but were younger than 62; (4) the number of elderly residents and residents with disabilities in these and other housing units for which they were eligible had not changed substantially since the housing authorities began submitting allocation plans; (5) the number of younger tenants with disabilities living in housing designated for the elderly had declined by about 1,100 at the 53 housing authorities that provided complete occupancy data; (6) designating public housing units as elderly-only may have more impact in the future, depending on how many more housing authorities opt to do so and on what the housing alternatives are for younger people with disabilities; (7) it is too soon to determine the extent to which the Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers set aside for persons with disabilities have helped meet housing needs; (8) of approximately 3,000 certificates and vouchers that were available to housing authorities November 1, 1997, the authorities reported that they issued about 1,600 to persons with disabilities who used 1,162 to obtain private rental housing; (9) about 18 percent of the users had been living in public housing that had been designated for the elderly--indicating little movement by persons with disabilities residing in housing now designated as elderly-only; (10) how successful rental certificates and vouchers will be in providing housing alternatives for people with disabilities will be influenced by several factors, including statutory restrictions, local housing markets, and willingness of tenants with disabilities to use certificates and vouchers; and (11) according to housing authorities, those persons with disabilities who used certificates and vouchers required greater assistance than other recipients.