National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

1. The original charts were released as HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research, Recent Research Results (Dec. 1995), pp. 4-5, available at www.huduser.org/publications/periodicals/rrr/characte.html. They were also reprinted at HUD Issues Data on Populations Served by Its Rental Programs, 26 HOUS. L. BULL. 9 (Jan. 1996).
2. Source: HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. Public housing and tenant-based Section 8 data are from a February 1997 extract of the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS); project-based program data are from a June 1997 extract of the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). Program totals are based on budget andaccounting data.

1. Other private project-based are households in multifamily projects that receive only shallower subsidies, for example, units with interest reduction subsidies under Section 236, but no Section 8 assistance.
2. This total does not include Indian housing and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation. These programs have 100,000 households each, raising the total of assisted households to 4.5 million.
3. Occupied units, not total units under contract including vacancies.
4. Units under contract, regardless of vacancies or underutilization.
5. Changes from previous facts sheets should be interpreted cautiously because of variations in reporting. This fact sheet weights data for PHA-administered programs to control totals.
6. All households with children regardless of the age of the head of household or disability status.
7. Households whose head is 62 years of age or older regardless of disability status.
8. Primary income source means the largest of four categories of income: wages, public assistance, Social Security/pensions, other. For public housing and tenant-based Section 8 programs, economic statistics exclude households with zero incomes because of suspected reporting problems.
9. Public assistance includes state General Assistance for all programs. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) also is included in public assistance for public housing and tenant-based Section 8, but in Social Security/pension income for private project-based programs.

For public housing and tenant-based Section 8 programs, not always the actual rent paid by tenants, for example, because of public housing ceiling rents or voucher families renting above or below Fair Market Rent.

Families Non-elderly
with with Total Childrena Elderlyb Disabilities Other
 

	Total	Families With Childrena	Elderlyb	Non-elderly with Disabilities	Other
Public Housingc
Median Income	$6,939	$6,633	$7,451	$6,258	$6,639
Average Income	$8,535	$8,473	$8,614	$7,363	$9,654
Average Rentd	$188	$181	$188	$169	$234
Average Income for Those with Wages	$12,667	$12,477	$12,127	$12,200	$13,591
Section 8 Tenant-Basedc
Median Income	$7,547	$8,068	$7,506	$6,670	$6,740
Average Income	$8,922	$9,392	$8,352	$7,525	$8,281
Average Rentd	$195	$200	$187	$175	$211
Average Income for Those with Wages	$12,806	$13,177	$12,734	$11,300	$10,671
Section 8 Project-Based
Median Income	$7,501	$6,562	$8,227	$6,554	$5,723
Average Income	$8,365	$7,992	$9,094	$7,255	$7,112
Average Rentd	$181	$172	$191	$163	$184
Average Income for Those with Wages	$11,622	$11,972	$13,424	$9,848	$10,310
Other Private Project-Basede
Median Income	$13,326	$16,629	$10,669	$7,375	$15,188
Average Income	$15,024	$17,899	$11,781	$8,735	$16,526
Average Rentd	$342	$397	$276	$218	$379
Average Income for Those with Wages	$19,491	$20,347	$19,197	$11,855	$18,630

3. Source: HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. Public housing and tenant-based Section 8 data are from a February 1997 extract of the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS); project-based program data are from a June 1997 extract of the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). Program totals are based on budget and accounting data.

1. All households with children regardless of the age of the head of household or disability status.
2. Households whose head is 62 years of age or older regardless of disability status.
3. For public housing and tenant-based Section 8 programs, economic statistics exclude households with zero incomes because of suspected reporting problems.
4. For public housing and tenant-based Section 8 programs, not always the actual rent paid by tenants, for example, because of public housing ceiling rents or voucher families renting above or below Fair Market Rent.
5. Other private project-based are households in multifamily projects that receive only shallower subsidies, for example, units with interest reduction subsidies under Section 236, but no Section 8 assistance.

On income, nearly one half of the families with children in public housing and the certificate and voucher programs relies primarily upon welfare. By the same token, nearly half relies primarily upon earned income or pensions and Social Security. Welfare recipients make up a significantly lower percentage of project-based Section 8 tenants (38 percent) and of other private project-based tenants (10 percent). These figures are also lower than those in the 1995 charts in which the percentage of welfare recipients was 51 percent in public housing and 46 percent in project-based Section 8. It seems hard to believe those changes are a product of changes in the welfare program, which only began to take effect on the state level in 1997. The other factors may be improvements in the economy or in PHA reporting. In addition, the percentage of welfare recipients in the certificate and voucher programs rose from 47 percent in 1995 to 49 percent now.

The certificate and voucher programs serve substantially more families with children than the other programs. The comparisons are 65 percent for certificates and vouchers, 46 percent for public housing, 38 percent for other private project-based and 35 percent for Section 8 project-based. That no doubt reflects the fact that it is easier to gain local government and neighborhood acceptance for housing projects for the elderly, and that developers prefer such housing over housing for families with children. Certificates and vouchers, in contrast, are handed out without regard to age of the household head and now without regard to family size. On the other hand, households without children whose household head is not elderly or a person with a disability show up much more often in the other private subsidized projects (23 percent) and public housing (13 percent) than in the tenant-based and project-based Section 8 programs (7 percent). These households are probably non-elderly singles or adults whose children have moved out. The figures also show that certificates and vouchers (combined) and public housing serve more families with three or more children, 21 and 16 percent respectively, than project-based Section 8 (8 percent) and other private project-based developments (7 percent). Those private projects rarely have units with more than two bedrooms.

The average and median incomes for certificate and voucher holders, project-based Section 8, and public housing tenants have stayed fairly close together. But the average and median incomes of tenants in the other, non-Section 8, private projects are significantly higher, i.e., in the $13,000 to $15,000 range, instead of the $7,000 to $8,000 range. In addition, the median incomes of families with children in public housing and project-based Section 8 are significantly lower — about $6,660 — that the median incomes of those families in the certificate and voucher programs — $8,000.

The average incomes of public housing and Section 8 tenants who primarily rely upon wages for income — about $12,500 per year — are considerably higher than the average incomes for all tenants in those programs — about $8,500. Although the tables do not report the average income for welfare households, it would be considerably below $8,000. Even though the average wage income ($12,500) is below the national poverty level, it still creates a considerable amount of economic mix within the public and assisted housing populations.

Another very interesting fact shows up in the new data on the median and average incomes as a percentage of area median. During the past few years, housing authority trade associations, HUD officials and others have attacked the public housing income targeting provisions and federal preferences, asserting that HUD figures show that the average public housing incomes are at 17 or 18 percent of area median figures. They have claimed that those figures have dropped precipitously since the early 1980s and that it was the federal preferences and targeting provisions that caused that decline. Others have criticized those alleged HUD figures and asked for substantiation, without any success. Now it is revealed that the average public housing income is at 24 percent of the area median, leading one to think that some of the attacks on targeting and preferences are, and continue to be, unfounded.