Update: Baltimore Regional AI Demonstration Notice Coming Tomorrow, Using FHA Multfamily Financing Incentives as Carrot.

Update: 
Have added link to Court Settlement item in NLIHC Memo to Members that provides more context for regional AI demonstration
--------
Notice will be in Federal Register on Wednesday, I have posted advance notice HERE. 

Notice indicates FHA financing incentives will be offered for projects that either project base vouchers or offer below market rents for 2 or more bedroom non elderly units. Projects participating in the demonstration will also be required to accept voucher holders (appears similar to the requirement for LIHTC projects, but all units in these projects may not have rents affordable to voucher holders).

Eligible projects will also be limited to "areas of opportunity" that are part of a prior court settlement. NLIHC Memo to Members court settlement update is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Updated: Proposed Voucher Rule, Including Project Based Vouchers, Open for Comment Until July 16th.

Update: 
Added link to NLIHC summary of proposed rule.
------
Docket for this proposed rule is HERE; The Federal Register publication of the proposed rule can be found HERE. 

NLIHC summary of proposed rule is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Key Indicators of Well Being of Children Report, 2011.

Report is HERE, housing data is found on printed page 32. (Missed opportunity to include data on counts and percentages of children in poverty served by HUD rental programs, IMHO).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregon Counties: 2008 HUD Vouchers Per 100 Occupied Rental Housing Units Updated with 2010 Census Data.

My post just prior to this one includes an Oregon census tract level map showing the rate of HUD housing vouchers per 100 occupied rental units, using 2008 HUD voucher counts and counts of occupied rental units as of 2000.

I thought it would be useful to aggregate and update this data to make comparisons at the county level.   So I prepared a ranked table HERE that shows the rate of vouchers per 100 occupied rental units, with breakouts and rankings that use Census 2000 and Census 2010 data. Note that this table does NOT include any project based HUD subsidized projects or public housing, it ONLY includes HUD housing choice vouchers. It also includes only vouchers where  a census tract geocode was available; other HUD databases might include additional vouchers without geocodes, but those are likely to be relatively small numbers of vouchers.

Some observations

1. Statewide from 2000 to 2010 , the rate of HUD vouchers per 100 occupied rental units declined from 6.5 to 5.4 because the number of Oregon occupied rental units increased by 20.5%/97,781 units from 2000 to 2010. (The actual rate in 2000 was likely somewhat less than 6.5 since the count of vouchers in 2000 was somewhat less than it was in 2008).
2. Using 2010 Census data, the average rate for three Portland metro counties of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington was 4.4 HUD vouchers per 100 occupied rental units; the average rate of 6.3 vouchers per 100 occupied rental units for all other counties was 43.6% higher than the combined average for these three counties. (The 6.3 average rate for the rest of the state outside the 3 county Portland metro area was 17.2% higher than even Multnomah County, which had a 2010 rate of 5.4 vouchers rate per 100 occupied rental units). 

TWO TAKE AWAYS:  

1. HUD vouchers outside of the Portland metro area help a larger share of the rental housing market than they do in the three Portland metro counties ;
2. The share of the total rental market helped by HUD vouchers statewide declined from 2000 to 2008/2010.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Tacoma Housing Authority Vouchers/Gates Foundation $$ To Test Voucher Impact on Elementary Students AND Schools.

Like Home Forward, Tacoma Housing Authority is a HUD approved Moving to Work agency. 

Tacoma PR HERE explains purpose of their education project: 

The purpose of ..[this] Project is to find out how a public housing authority can help the children it houses succeed in school and help improve schools that serve its communities.

Main web page for their education efforts is HERE. 

Earlier PR HERE provides more details.

High turnover, high homeless populated McCarver Elementary School is one part of this initiative. More details about this program for this school can be found HERE. A description of this effort is also found on PDF page 25 of the Tacoma Housing Authority Moving to Work Plan for 2011 HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

New Data Useful for Analysis of Impediments/Opportunity Mapping: 3 County PDX Racial /Ethnic Rates of Use of HUD Housing Vouchers.

In discussions about the budget and program analysis what is often missing are discussions about who benefits from specific programs at the local level. 

For that reason I thought it might be instructive to look at the uses of HUD housing vouchers by race and ethnicity in the 3 county Portland Metro area.

I choose HUD housing vouchers because they are the largest source of HUD federal rental assistance in Oregon.

The data may be useful for Analysis of Impediments purposes but may have equal value in thinking about how to better use a large 3 Portland metro county existing housing resource [$60 Million+ annually @$6,000 per unit] to use the mobility feature of vouchers to encourage voucher holders to voluntarily tap into public agency efforts to better define areas of opportunity.

My analysis is found on the 3 page PDF HERE; it includes counts of renters and voucher holders, counts of all renters, and usage rates, all broken out by race and ethnicity. By dividing the total number of renters in racial and ethnic groups by the number of voucher holders in those groups I was able to estimate county level usage rates for individual groups and the share of vouchers used by different racial and ethnic groups.  Page 1 is a graph of voucher usage, pages 2-3 are detailed data tables.

My observations [3 county unless noted]:

1. 3 County total of 10,539 vouchers/240,331 rental households=overall utilization rate of 4.38 vouchers for every 100 renter households.
2. 1 in 5 African American renters (20.7%) use a HUD housing voucher; the rate varies from as low as 13.3% in Clackamas County to 22.4% in Multnomah County.  
3. The White utilization rate is 3.8%  and varies from 3.3% in Multnomah County to 4.3% in Washington County.
4. 2.8% of Hispanic renters use a HUD housing voucher; the rate varies from 1.9% in Clackamas County to 3.4% in Washington County. 
5. Alaska Native/American Indian renters rate of usage is 5.6% , that varies from a high of 17.8% in Clackamas County to a low of 1.5% in Washington County.  
6. The rate of use by Asian renters is 4.4%, and varies from 1.4% in Clackamas County to 7.3% in Multnomah County.
7. For Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders the overall rate of usage is 5.5%, but that varies from a reported zero vouchers used by this renters in this group in Clackamas County to a rate of 9.6% in Washington County.
8. Details on the % of all vouchers in use by racial and ethnic group are found in table 5 of the attachment. Table shows for example that 25% of the 10,539 vouchers in use in three Portland metro counties are used by African American renter households, [37% of all vouchers in Multnomah County] and 7.2% of all vouchers are used by Hispanic renter households. Data in this table can be compared to the share of all renters in each racial and ethnic group found in Table 4.

READ: Data Sources and Caveats

1. Data Sources: For renter counts, ACS 2007-2009. For voucher renters in Clackamas and Washington County, HUD MTCS Tenant Characteristics Report; for Multnomah County /HAP, the most recent HAP Dashboard Report.[Updated Census 2010 renter data should become available late Summer or early Fall, 2011].
2. In the MTCS report and HAP Dashboard report the data field for White is not clearly defined. The ACS data has a field for White Non Hispanic and I have elected to treat the MTCS and HAP Dashboard White data field as representing White, Non Hispanic renters. If that is not accurate that would under count the number of White renters and voucher holders, and change the usage rates for whites. When I do a revision to these tables after Census 2010 data becomes available I will attempt to refine this calculation; for now I would look at the estimates for White voucher holders and White usage rates as subject to a greater margin of error than other racial and ethnic groups. 
3. IMPORTANT: While this data shows rate of use for ALL renters; the ideal comparison would be the rate of use for income eligible renters (generally below 50% MFI). As minority renters generally have incomes less than whites this would change the usage rates for some or all minority groups, but perhaps in a variable manner. [Not clear to me when and if this level of county level renter income data by tenure will be available from Census]. 
4. Note that undocumented status would reduce the eligible universe for any group, and increase the usage rate.
   
5. Data on vouchers used in Clackamas and Washington County are based on income verification forms during reporting period [1,503 and 2,705 units]; this is close to but less than entire universe of all voucher holders; inclusion of additional units would increase usage rates. HAP voucher data is from their monthly Dashboard report and should be close to complete.
6. Usage rates generally are conservative and do not include all HUD rental assistance programs.
7. Inclusion of Public Housing would increase the rate of use of HUD rental assistance by all groups; that data is available at the local level.
8. Inclusion of Project Based rental assistance would also increase the rate of use of HUD rental assistance by all groups, but that data is not available on the local level.
9. Other forms of HUD funded rental assistance like HOME and short term rental assistance programs are also not included in this analysis; those programs may offer lesser levels of income support than vouchers, public housing, and project based rental assistance. This data by racial and ethnic group is likely not available at the local level.
10. As always, I consider this research a starting point and not an ending point and I welcome additional work by others to further refine this kind of analysis; readers can of course download ACS, MTCS, and HAP Dashboard data to construct their own analysis.  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Portland Conversion of Public Housing to Project Based Vouchers Moving Forward.

On Thursday May 12 a public notice in the Oregonian announced PHB's intent to request HUD release of funds for disposition, acquisition, and asbestos abatement in several public housing projects. (I could not locate this Notice on either the PHB or Oregonian websites, but have hard copy in hand).

Included in the listing of projects were 6 projects that had a dollar amount for the projected voucher costs. ["$XX in vouchers" is exact language in the public notice].

I looked at the HAP YTD Board Packages [right pane] for CY 2011 and found the number of units in those six projects and prepared the table below showing the projected annual voucher costs and my calculation of the cost per unit for each of those projects.  (Note that if unit counts per project change from number shown in HAP CY 2011 YTD Board Packages, this would change the per unit per month cost for the voucher),

You can see that my calculations show estimated voucher costs per unit per month vary from $655 to $804 per month: 

An earlier post about these planned conversions is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Voucher Expense Data, US, States, Oregon, and Oregon PHA's.

I have constructed two HUD voucher tables for Oregon HERE, including NEW cost data in the second table. Tables show:

• For all Oregon PHA's the number of vouchers under lease, and the use for select programs. (This was included in earlier post).
• For all Oregon PHA's total voucher costs (including administrative expenses) and monthly per unit costs for these vouchers. This is a NEW table, and includes the calculations and comparisons explained below.
• The Oregon statewide average is calculated, along with an average for the three Portland metro PHA's (Clackamas, Portland, and Washington). [I slipped in Vancouver PHA data at bottom of table]. 
• Comparisons between the Oregon statewide average and the national average per unit costs are shown as is a comparison of the 3 county Portland metro per unit average monthly costs compared to the Oregon statewide average per unit monthly costs.

Some caveats:

1. Voucher housing costs [HAP, Housing Assistance Payments] do NOT include any tenant rent contributions. Housing lower income tenants will increase HAP costs, even if PHA's used the same fair market /comparable rent level.
2. Voucher counts and expenses shown are as of the FIRST of the month (September 2010). Leases terminated or added during month may impact total and per unit costs. Use of data from other months could also return different results.
3. PHA data entry errors or system errors (along with my human errors) could result in incorrect information being shown in the underlying database or in these reports. [I encourage PHA's to let me know if they see significant discrepancies between these tables and the data they reported to HUD].

Some observations: 

1. Annualized, the monthly HAP of $15,461,220 for all Oregon PHA's would total to more than $185 million in annual HAP payments or an average of $5,773 per family. Monthly admin expense of $1,879,026 would add $702 annually per family.
2. Oregon monthly average HAP per unit ($481) was 76.4% of national average ($630).
3. Oregon monthly average admin expense per unit ($58) was 87.3% of the national average ($67).
4. Oregon FSS monthly average expense per unit ($3.67) was 196.8% of the national average ($1.86). 
5. Three County Portland Metro monthly HAP ($566) was 118% of the Oregon statewide average ($481).
6. Three County Portland Metro monthly admin expense ($56) per unit was 96% of the Oregon statewide average ($58).
7. Three County Portland Metro FSS monthly average expense per unit ($1.66) was 45% of the Oregon statewide average ($3.67).
   

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Voucher Sept 2010 Data: Select Uses in US, Oregon, and In Oregon PHA's.

I have prepared two tables HERE that show the number of leased HUD Housing vouchers and a select breakout of uses for different voucher types, including:

• Veterans Supported Housing   
• HOPE 6  
• Enhanced  
• Home-Ownership   
• Tenant Protection
• Project-Based

First page is a table with a breakout of more than 32,000 vouchers leased in Oregon, including a breakout by Oregon PHA's. (You will notice that I also snuck in data for Vancouver Housing Authority at the bottom of the Oregon PHA table). Final two pages are a table that show the US and state distribution of more than 3 million vouchers.

All data is as of September 2010.

Observations: 

1. The data indicates that three Portland metro counties [Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington] accounted for only 37% of all the vouchers under lease in Oregon; this means that almost 2 out of 3 leased HUD housing vouchers in Oregon are outside those three metro Portland counties. Any funding reductions for vouchers would thus have a statewide impact.
2. The three Portland metro PHA's in Oregon had an even LOWER share of the statewide total for enhanced vouchers (5%), tenant protection vouchers (19%), and home ownership vouchers (4%). 
3. All of the HOPE VI and Project based vouchers reported under lease in Oregon were in the three Portland metro counties.  
4. (Oregon PHA's also manage another 5,000+ HUD funded public housing units, so voucher program in Oregon is about 6 times larger than public housing. Any funding reductions for the voucher program therefore would have a MORE significant impact in Oregon than in states where public housing represents a greater share of affordable rental housing.  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Tease of Data for 32,000+ HUD Housing Voucher Units in Oregon: Oregon Ranks #1 in West and #6 Nationwide in Percent of Vouchers that are Project Based.

I have starting to analyze HUD voucher data I have recently discovered that includes use and cost data on more than 2 million HUD voucher units under lease as of September 2010.

As a tease, below is a table that ranks the top 10 states by the percentage of leased vouchers used for project based assistance.  

Table shows that Oregon ranks #1 in states West of Mississippi and Oregon ranks #6 nationwide. Oregon's high rank is due almost entirely based on project basing from the Housing Authority of Portland who had 1,133 (98%) of the total 1,158 Oregon PHA project based voucher units.   

Note ALSO that Oregon had 32,141 vouchers under lease as of September 2010; I will look more closely at the distribution, use and cost of those vouchers in future posts.

State	Total Vouchers Leased	Project Based Vouchers	% Project Based Vouchers	State Rank
All States	2,078,353	37,572	1.8%
DC	10,866	1,443	13.3%	1
VT	5,811	751	12.9%	2
NH	9,140	479	5.2%	3
RI	8,506	357	4.2%	4
ME	12,040	492	4.1%	5
OR	32,141	1,158	3.6%	6
MA	72,268	2,413	3.3%	7
PR	28,059	933	3.3%	8
MN	29,728	985	3.3%	9
LA	42,988	1,334	3.1%	10

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Long Delayed South Waterfront Affordable Housing Project To Take Step Forward this Week.

Daily Journal of Commerce story is HERE; actual development agreement referenced in the story is HERE.  From news story:

REACH Community Development will develop the project and relocate its offices and 50 employees to the building’s ground floor...The building will be 6 stories tall. Out of 209 housing units there, 42 will be leased to homeless veterans. The remaining units will be available to people making between 0 and 50 percent of the median family income.

(I am guessing that the 42 units of housing for homeless veterans may  use project based HUD vouchers, or another type of HUD funded HAP administered rent subsidy program, using their Moving to Work authority).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

CBPP Has Projections on Impacts of Possible Budget Cuts to HUD Vouchers.

Full CBPP report is HERE. 

Oregon projections can be found on page 10; the projection is for a reduction in the number of households served from 576 up to 7,088 households under various likely budget scenarios.[Note that across the board cuts would also presumably impact other HUD funded rental assistance programs].

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregon Gets $1.2 Million for 235 HUD Housing Vouchers for Oregon Homeless Veterans.

HUD national PR is HERE; Oregon amounts by housing authority are pasted below:

Recipient	City	VA Medical Facility	Units	Funding
TOTAL			235	$1,239,904
Housing Authority of Portland	Portland	Portland VAMC	60	$     361,915
Housing Authority of Douglas County	Roseburg	Roseburg VAMC	25	$      67,566
Housing Authority & Comm Svcs of Lane Co	Eugene	Roseburg VAMC	25	$     132,189
Housing Authority of the City of Salem	Salem	Portland VAMC	25	$     134,544
Klamath Housing Authority	Klamath Falls	White City VAMC	25	$     113,394
Coos-Curry Housing Authority	North Bend	Roseburg VAMC	25	$      96,879
Housing Authority of Washington County	Hillsboro	Portland VAMC (Hillsboro)	25	$     178,596
Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority	Redmond	Portland VAMC (Bend CBOC)	25	$     154,821

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Wednesday Webinar: NOFA for Vouchers for Non Elderly Persons with Disabilities.

Thanks to tip from blog subscriber, heads up about a Wednesday April 28 (9 AM-11 AM PDT) webinar from the Technical Assistance Collaborative to help PHA's and others apply for HUD funding for vouchers for non elderly persons with disabilities.

Registration IS required and is available HERE.

Additional TAC background materials are HERE; HUD NOFA, which has an application deadline of July 7th, is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Today's House Financial Services Preservation Hearing: PDF AND Audio/Video Recordings Posted.

The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity held a hearing today (Wednesday March 24th) on a previously introduced housing preservation bill from Chair Frank (H.R. 4868).

I have assembled all the written testimony from that hearing into a single PDF file HERE. (Witness list is pasted below at bottom of this post).

Audio/Video Files (1 hour, 48 minutes):

• I have also created an AUDIO recording of the hearing and have posted it to the Internet Archive page HERE. (File is 74 MB's). [Notes; 1.You may also play audio file on line as streaming audio, look in left pane of the Internet Archive page. 2. I noticed that MP3 file not playing properly on my Iphone, but works fine when playing on PC. Have tried a couple of solutions but not fixed yet, so for now, play file on your PC].
  
• The VIDEO recording I created is posted on a separate Internet Archive page HERE. I posted as a MPEG 4 file,but it is HUGE at 465 MB's).
  

Some provisions of the bill were opposed by some of committee Republicans and by those testifying; look at the written testimony for details.

Witness list, in order of testimony:

• Ms. Carol Galante, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multi-Family Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Ms. Tammye Treviño, Administrator, Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
• Mr. George Caruso, Executive Vice President, Edgewood Management Corporation, on behalf of the National Affordable Housing Management Association
• Mr. Toby Halliday, Vice President for Public Policy, National Housing Trust, on behalf of the National Preservation Working Group
• Mr. Ricky Leung, Treasurer, National Alliance of HUD Tenants, and President of the Cherry Street Tenants Association
• Ms. Michelle Norris, Senior Vice President, Acquisitions and Development, National Church Residences, on behalf of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
• Mr. Raymond K. James, Partner, Coan and Lyons on behalf of the National Leased Housing Association
• Mr. William C. Shumaker, President of the Board, the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, and Vice President of The Provident Companies

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

More Details on Amendment to Add Housing Trust Fund to Defense Appropriations, Including Project Based Vouchers.

Culled this from (Connecticut) Partnership for Strong Communities website HERE.

Amendment is HERE; would provide $1 Billion AND $65,000,000 for project based vouchers OR project based assistance.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Gives Waiver to Allow Housing Authority in Florida to Use Public Housing Capital Fund to Pay for Section 8 Voucher Costs.

This seems very weird to me, but that is what story HERE in FloridaToday says:

More than 700 landlords will get full rent in December for nearly 1,350 Brevard County families in the federal Section 8 program.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will allow Brevard Family of Housing Authorities to take money from its capital fund to cover a $765,000 shortfall this year.

Would love to see the details of THAT waiver; I HOPE this is at best a short term loan of Capital Fund proceeds.

Brevard Family of Housing Authorities website is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Orfield Visit Follow Up: Interesting Housing Links.

For those who attended one of three Orfield presentations, I found several items of potential interest after the session I attended in Clackamas on Tuesday morning.

1. The housing arm of the Minneapolis Metropolitan Council is the Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority (MHRA). Their website is HERE.
2. MHRA directly administers both Public Housing and Section 8 vouchers. More than 6,600 units (which may include LIHTC and project based Section 8) are funded or administered by MHRA.
3. In their HUD required 5 year plan HERE (MS Word) you will see that MHRA recently received HUD approval to convert their small 150 public housing unit program to project based Section 8 housing assistance and their voucher administration includes 283 project based section 8 vouchers.
4. A draft July 2009 report (A Comprehensive Strategy to Integrate Twin Cities Schools and Neighborhoods) from Orfield provides the same kinds of analysis for the Minneapolis region as was presented in the Portland Metro analysis, and a LOT more. Beginning towards bottom of page 27 of that analysis HERE, affordable housing programs (including LIHTC, project based section 8, and HUD vouchers) are examined AND changes in the distribution of that supply are used to illustrate how affordable housing might make a MAJOR contribution to solving the problems of African American racial segregation. Some of the report findings:

In 2004, there were 17,109 Section 8 vouchers used for housing in the Twin Cities. The vouchers contributed to residential segregation because, as Map 13 shows, they were used disproportionately in the central cities and stressed suburbs. The central cities contained less than 23 percent of the region’s population but they had 47 percent of the metro’s Section 8 vouchers.
....Fifty-eight percent of black households used their vouchers in the central cities while only 46 percent of all the Section 8 voucher users were located in the central cities.
LIHTC ...units are disproportionately located in Minneapolis neighborhoods, where the share of minority and low-income residents are already high. The map also highlights the concentration of LIHTC units within Minneapolis in “qualified census tracts,” demonstrating how the program’s incentives to locate units in these tracts contributes to residential segregation within Minneapolis as well.

IF anyone has additional thoughts/follow up from the three sessions held in Portland, I invite you to post them as comments below so all interested can get a better feel for discussions held in all of the sessions.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Harvard Joint Center Study on HUD Voucher Impact for TANF Families.

Thanks to NLIHC M2M item HERE, a link to a follow up Harvard Joint Center study on the impact of HUD housing vouchers and TANF families is HERE.

From the Executive Summary:

The voucher program has some effect on reducing the percentage of families with children that live in highly concentrated poverty and for permitting particular families to move away from the neighborhoods with the greatest poverty concentrations. However, the effects are modest in size, and further analysis of data from the Housing Voucher Evaluation finds that the effects are concentrated among families who lived in the most concentrated poverty to begin with—in particular, in public housing.
...we cannot rely on vouchers by themselves and as currently implemented to reduce racial concentrations and increase access to high opportunity neighborhoods. Other “mobility” efforts are needed and might include changes to the way the voucher program is administered, counseling programs to help families use their vouchers to move to better neighborhoods, or use of vouchers in combination with supply-side rental subsidy programs.
Programs designed to prevent homelessness should be concentrated—explicitly or indirectly—on communities with high proportions of African Americans.
The best predictor of homelessness as revealed by this study is previous housing instability: not having a place of one’s own or moving frequently. Those who are living with friends or relatives at baseline are at risk of being homeless at a later point, particularly of having to stay with friends or relatives in the future. Programs that attempt to target families at highest risk of homelessness should look for these patterns in screening interviews.
We also find that those who continue to hold vouchers at follow-up are faring better than those who have relinquished them. These patterns point toward the effectiveness of vouchers as a source of income support for poor families for children. However, families with vouchers often give them up because of the program’s administrative failures or because of lack of information, and families who give vouchers up end up in worse circumstances that those who go on using vouchers. The program’s rules do need to be redesigned to help families keep their assistance….those who use vouchers to become independent remain in precarious circumstances—for example, they have more food insecurity.
We also find, by looking at what happens to families after they relinquish their vouchers, that vouchers do not seem to create a platform on which families with children can build to a point at which they can afford to rent on their own without an excessive rent burden. These findings imply that additional work supports (perhaps an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit) are needed. They also imply that time limiting vouchers or creating a voucher subsidy that “steps down” or phases out would leave formerly assisted voucher families in precarious economic circumstances.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

How Was 1st $100 Million in Additional HUD Voucher Funding Distributed/How Much Did Oregon Get?

NLIHC' Memo to Members had a piece HERE with a link to a HUD website that had a PDF listing of housing authorities who got the first $100 million in additional HUD voucher funding.

Since it was impossible to make comparisons between areas using the PDF file, I copied 11 pages into an Excel file (a real pain in ...) and created some comparisons by HUD region and by state. You can find those comparisons in the PDF file I created HERE.

Big winner was California which received 36% of the additional $100 million allocation; Region 10 , including Oregon, got 1.8% of this round of additional voucher funding.

In perhaps somewhat of a surprise to most, Oregon housing authorities DID receive a total of $491,000+ in this first round of additional HUD funding. Josephine County got the most in Oregon with $289,000+.

NOTE that this first round of funding DOES NOT include an additional $795,000 in voucher funding provided LATER to the NW Oregon HA, meaning that TOTAL additional HUD funding for Oregon vouchers now exceeds $1.28 Million.

Additional voucher amounts by purpose/rationale and Oregon housing authority in this first round of funding were:

Purpose	HA NAME	$$ Amount
	TOTAL	$ 491,613
Unforeseen Circumstances	Central Oregon	$ 9,814
PORTABILITY	CENTRAL OREGON REGIONAL HA	$ 24,336
PORTABILITY	HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND	$ 63,966
Additional Leasing	HOUSING AUTHORITY OF YAMHILL COUNTY	$ 44,710
Additional Leasing	JOSEPHINE HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOP	$ 289,409
PORTABILITY	KLAMATH HOUSING AUTHORITY	$ 1,161
Additional Leasing	LINN‐BENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY	$ 15,916
PORTABILITY	MARION COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY	$ 23,664
PORTABILITY	NORTHWEST OREGON HOUSING AGENCY	$ 18,637

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog