New GAO Report on Collaboration and "Consideration of Consolidation" of Housing Assistance Programs.

98 page report is HERE.  Quick take is that document provides useful background and catalog of housing programs, but GAO recommendations for action pretty weak:

The Secretaries or other designated officials of HUD, USDA, and VA, and the Director of OMB should take steps to establish a more rigorous approach to collaboration..
...To further improve HUD, USDA, and Treasury’s efforts through the Rental Policy Working Group to consolidate and align certain requirements in multifamily housing programs, the Rental Working Group should take steps to document collaborative efforts in strategic and annual plans to help reinforce agency accountability for these efforts.
...the Secretaries or other designated officials of HUD, Treasury, USDA, and VA should evaluate and report on the specific opportunities for consolidating similar housing programs, including those that would require statutory changes. 

 Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD State Data: 3 Out of 4 HUD Assisted Renter Households are Headed by Women.

A prior post HERE included national only data and pointed out that reductions in HUD rental assistance would have an disproportionately adverse impact on women, who represent 3 out of 4 HUD assisted renter households. 

HUD has made 2009 PUMS sample state level demographic data for HUD assisted  renter households available at the website HERE. This sample data includes Public Housing programs (including vouchers) as well as HUD Multifamily project based assistance. It does not include HUD CDBG, HOME, or homeless program funded rental assistance.  

To see more background about the data and a listing of ALL of the fields available, including income and household type fields, open the MS Word data dictionaries for public housing and multifamily.

Using the PUMS data I constructed the Excel workbook HERE that summarizes by state the percentage of HUD assisted renter households headed by women. This is the ONLY breakout I have ever seen of HUD assisted renter heads of households, by gender, and by state.

The Excel file opens with a worksheet I constructed showing a table of the female HH % by state, and if you scroll to the right you will see a horizontal bar graph with all state female HH %'s. (Graph is pasted below as an image). 

Note that Oregon's female headed HUD rental assistance percentage is 76%, while many southern states have HUD female head of household percentages of 85%+

The workbook includes a worksheet that combines both HUD public housing and multifamily PUMS data for ALL states (I added a column that substitutes names for codes showing the type of family in the "H6" field and a column showing whether the program field is for public housing or multifamily). 

The workbook also contains a pivot table worksheet that uses the data worksheet; this pivot table will allow users to look at other dimensions beyond the gender of head of household that is the focus of this post. 

Both the national data and state level PUMS data demonstrate that reductions in HUD rental assistance would CLEARLY have a disproportionate impact on female headed households. 

Talk about eliminating HUD may be mere campaign rhetoric, but future reductions in HUD rental assistance will also be seen by some as part of the politically charged "War on Women".

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

HUD Publishes Comprehensive List of Exclusions from Income.

While this information may be in other existing HUD administrative guidance, HUD has published FR Notice with a comprehensive listing of sources of income that are NOT counted when computing eligibility and tenant share of income for rent payments in HUD programs. (Last prior notice in Federal Register was in 2001).

FR Notice with listing of exclusions from income is HERE; some examples of income excluded are food stamps, WIC payments, and veteran's disability payments. (Some exclusions are limited to specific HUD programs so read the Notice carefully).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Corrected:New VA Report on Risk of Homelessness Indicates Female Veterans Use HUD-VASH at Higher Rate than Male Veterans.

Corrected incorrect link to prior post about use of HUD rental assistance by women heads of households
----
From VA IG, report is HERE.

Lots of details, one caught my eye. Female veterans use HUD VASH housing program at a substantially higher rate (looks to be almost double) than male veterans. (PDF page 51, hard copy page 40). 

My prior post pointing out high use of HUD rental assistance programs by women is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

"HUD May Not Be Around Later": And the Republicans Wonder Why They Have a Problem with Women?

Former Governor Romney is quoted as recently suggesting that HUD may not be around if he should get elected (WaPo  story HERE). 

I am sure his dad understood who benefited from HUD rental assistance programs, but appears that his son either doesn't know or doesn't care.   

To help, I dug out some details on the sex of heads of households in HUD rental assistance programs from the most recent HUD Annual Fair Housing report HERE. 

As picture pasted below shows, women in 2010 represented nearly 3 out of 4 heads of households in HUD rental assistance programs, some 3.2 million women heads of households. 

And the Republicans wonder why they have a problem with women? 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Improper Payments Comparisons FY 2010; HUD Improper Rental Assistance Payments and Rates Were Far Less than for Key Medical/Food Programs.

The administration has a reduction of improper payments initiative underway that includes a data set of improper payments by agency and program that can be found HERE.

I went in and dug out some data for FY 2010 for some select programs including HUD Public Housing and Rental Assistance programs . This includes public housing, project based, and voucher based rental assistance outlays of $30.015 Billion. 

I prepared two graphs HERE that show the improper payment percentage and dollars for these select programs. 

Some observations:

The improper payment percentage for HUD was 3.1%, or $925 million spent improperly (of $30.015 billion in outlays). HUD's percentage and $$ improperly spent was substantially lower than other well known programs:

• The combined improper payment rate for 3 medical programs [ Medicare Advantage, Medicare fee for service, and Medicaid] was 10.6%, with $70.4 billion spent improperly.
• The combined improper payments rate for 3 food programs [SNAP/"Food Stamps", School Breakfast, and School Lunch] was 6.9%, with $4.278 billion spent improperly in FY 2010.
• The improper payment rate for 3 medical programs was 345% of the HUD rate [245% higher], and the improper payment rate for 3 food programs was 225% of the HUD rate [125% higher].
• The amount of improper payments for 3 medical programs was 76.15 times the amount of HUD improper payments and for 3 food programs the improper amount was 4.63 times the HUD amount.

Note: HUD's 3.1% improper spending rate included 1% that was under spent [payments were lower than they should have been] so FY 2010 net overspending was 2.1% or $630.2 million instead of $925 million; breakouts of under and overspending was not available for all programs so comparisons on net overspending between programs was not possible.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Evidence Matters Newsletter.

I am a bit slow in posting, but Spring 2011 issue of HUD's Evidence Matters newsletter focuses on rental housing.  

Lot's of good stuff, including coverage of Oregon's Network for Affordable Housing [NOAH, see pg 11], and sweet cover pic, HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregon Census Tract Map: The Rate of 2008 HUD Housing Vouchers Per 100 Occupied Rental Housing Units in 2000.

I have created a new map (Google Fusion table link is HERE ; map legend and embedded map are below) that shows the rate of HUD housing vouchers in 2008 per 100 occupied rental units in 2000 for all Oregon Census Tracts.  

I believe this is the first time any web map/table with HUD voucher data for all of Oregon census tracts has ever been publicly posted. As with many other projects posted on the blog this map is intended to demonstrate what is possible --I encourage others to build on what I have posted.

Notes: 

1. Statewide in 2008 there were 6.5 HUD housing vouchers for every 100 rental housing units that were occupied in 2000. (31,215 vouchers/476,772 occupied rental housing units).
2. The census tract with the highest concentration of vouchers is 41051008901 in SE Portland. It had 113 vouchers in 2008 and as of 2000 there were 349 occupied rental housing units; using this data the rate of vouchers per 100 renter occupied housing units was 32.4. (See Important Caveats section below).
3. At the bottom of this post I explain the methodology used to create the map. 
4. A Google account is likely required to view/work with the Google Fusion files. 
5. When in the map if you click a census tract you will see the CT name and city, if any, and the 2008 count of vouchers; the 2000 Census count of rental occupied and home owner occupied units; and the rate of housing vouchers per 100 occupied rental units.

IMPORTANT CAVEATS:  

1. Voucher data is as of 2008, while counts of rental units are from 2000 Census. As the number of occupied rental units in Oregon increased by 20.5% (97,685 units) from the 2000 to 2010 Census, the rate of voucher units per 100 occupied rental units in 2008 is overstated statewide and in a variable way at the census tract level. Using the Census 2010 count of 574,453 occupied rental units the statewide rate of 2008 vouchers per 100 occupied rental units would fall from 6.5 to 5.4 per 100 occupied rental units. 
2. Because the addition of just one rental housing project between 2000 and 2010 could significantly change the voucher rate per 100 occupied rental housing units at the census tract level, extreme caution should be used in drawing final conclusions about the rate of voucher use at the census tract level. For census tracts with apparent high rates of voucher usage I would check other resources like ACS to see if the count of occupied rental housing units has changed significantly from 2000. (For example, for the CT with the highest apparent rate of usage [41051008901] ACS 2005-2009 data HERE shows an estimate of 708 occupied rental housing units; this is 74% more occupied rental units than the 349 counted in the 2000 Census. This higher count of occupied rental housing units would DECREASE the rate of vouchers per 100 renter occupied units from 32.4 to 18.6).
3. In a subsequent post I will include a link to a table showing what the voucher rate per 100 rental units was by county using actual occupied rental housing counts from the 2010 Census.
4. My hope is that the next set of HUD Picture of Subsidized Housing data will count voucher units using 2010 census tract boundaries so that the higher count of Census 2010 occupied rental housing units in each census tract can be used in a revised set of CT level maps.
5. The map and table do NOT include project based HUD rental units. Voucher counts only include counts where census tracts are identified; it is possible that other HUD databases may include counts of voucher units without identified census tracts.

Methodology

I recently downloaded a national HUD file HERE with 2008 housing voucher counts and related data down to the census tract level. Using that data and others I then created and uploaded a CSV file to Google Fusion that included

1. Census 2000 counts of occupied housing units by tenure.
2. The count of HUD vouchers in each census tract as of 2008.
3. A calculated ratio of HUD housing vouchers per 100 occupied rental housing units. 

Using free Shpescape.com and Google Fusion "cloud" software tools I then uploaded a SHAPEFILE of 2000 Oregon census tracts boundaries and merged that data with the housing voucher/housing unit count file that I had previously uploaded. From the merged table I then used the visualize tools in Google Fusion to create the map embedded in this post.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Has State Fact Sheets on Assisted Housing and Renters; Oregon Assisted at 54,000+

Combined fact sheets for all states is HERE, including Oregon (page 38) and Washington (page 48). CBPP PR is HERE. 

I noticed that:

1. Assisted unit counts do not include Low Income Housing Tax Credit units (unless those units are assisted by other programs).
2. 59.5% of all assisted rental housing units in Oregon were housing vouchers, while 16.8% were public housing units. This means that even without taking into account other affordable units they may own that Oregon housing authorities administer at least 76% of all Oregon assisted rental housing.

Also from the Oregon Fact Sheet: 

Federal rental assistance programs enable more than 54,044 low-income households in Oregon to rent modest housing at an affordable cost. About 61 percent of these households are headed by people who are elderly or have disabilities; approximately 30 percent are families with children...133,660 low-income renter households pay more than half their monthly cash income for housing costs. On average, these households have incomes of $999 and pay housing costs of $837, leaving only $162 to pay for other necessities. About 39 percent of these cost burdened renters are elderly or people with disabilities, while 25 percent are families with children.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

A Modest HUD Budget Proposal: Limit Growth to No More than Growth in Mortgage Deduction and Property Taxes.

With the federal budget promising to be more contentious than ever it occurred to me that the HUD budget discussions might benefit from a benchmark to help evaluate any proposed increase or decrease.

Although hundreds of billions of additional federal dollars have been committed to home ownership via various bailouts (GSE's, TARP, passive loss tax breaks etc,) the mortgage interest and property tax deductions are the major ongoing federal expenditures for home ownership; they should therefore serve as a good long term benchmark to evaluate changes in the HUD budget (which primarily, but NOT exclusively focuses on rental assistance related costs).

Fortunately, the PEW Foundation has posted a new federal tax expenditure database. I was able to extract from it the projected costs of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions for 2011-2015 from two sources: the Joint Tax Committee and the Treasury Department.   

The table HERE presents the results of my analysis; some observations: 

1. In 2011 the combined cost of these tax deductions is estimated at $128 to $145 billion. 
2. In 2015 the cost of these tax deductions is estimated at $183 billion.
3. One year cost increases are estimated at 8.8% to 14.1%; 4 year cost increases are estimated at 42.9%.
4. One year cost increases are estimated between $12.7 and $18.1 billion;  4 year cost increases are estimated at $55 billion.     

Bottom line: One year growth restrictions in the 8-14% range for the HUD budget would keep it below the expected one year increase in federal costs for the mortgage interest and property tax deductions. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.
       

Good News: Ambitious 15.8 Million Unit Two Year Nationwide Affordable Rental Housing Goal; Bad News: Goal is for China, Not United States.

Bloomberg News has story HERE. 

Some tidbits (and analyst says that even these goals may not be sufficient):

China....has completed 3.7 million of the 5.8 million low-cost homes targeted for 2010...China invested 470 billion yuan ($71 billion) in the construction of social housing this year, accounting for 60 percent of the year's budget, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development said Sept. 20 in a statement. China also allocated a 69.2 billion yuan subsidy for the construction of such homes this year, the ministry said...The social housing plan may add 1.5 percentage points to China’s economic growth in both 2010 and 2011, Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit said in a Dec. 15 report. The brokerage estimated that the 5.8 million units, which include 3 million new homes and 2.8 million refurbished apartments, will cost 700 billion yuan this year. The 10 million planned next year will add a further 1.3 trillion yuan, it said.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Video and Audio Posting of Metro Adoption of Capacity Ordinance, December 16, 2010.

I have posted to the Internet Archive both video and audio of the portion of the Portland Metro Council meeting of December 16, 2010 that relates to adoption of the Capacity Ordinance. File includes discussion of the adopted amendment to defer action on the Title II affordable housing provisions that would apply to urban growth areas. 

Video is HERE, Audio is HERE, both can be watched on line OR downloaded to your PC. [Caution, video download is  400+MB's and audio is 100+ MB's].

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Harvard Joint Center Paper: Low Income Housing Tax Credit Policy Issues.

Thanks to tip from the weekly Novogradac Podcast, recent Harvard Joint Center for Housing Policy paper is HERE.

Questions addressed in the paper include the following:

1. Where does LIHTC fit in national affordable housing policy?
2. Should the tax credit be made flexible enough to reach those with the lowest incomes or encourage mixed income developments?
3. Should the LIHTC program provide special incentives to produce housing in middle and higher income communities?
4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the LIHTC program structure?
5. Is the LIHTC program transparent enough to support housing policy research and evaluation?
6. What additional federal policy objectives could the LIHTC program serve?
7. How broad should the LIHTC investor base be?
8. How can LIHTC be redesigned to mitigate “tax liability” risk?
9. Can the housing tax credit be made more liquid?
10. Is there any way to address geographic differences in demand?
11. Do program regulations and incentives effectively support operating costs and future capital needs of LIHTC properties?
12. Is there adequate provision made for asset management during the initial 15-year compliance term?
13. Are incentives aligned for the best outcomes at the end of the initial compliance period?

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

New HUD Study: Quality Control for Rental Assistance Subsidies Determinations Final Report for FY 2009.

Extensive report with LOTS of detail is HERE.

Report includes breakout of subsidy errors by program administrator and type of error.  Executive summary [recommended read] says that NET overpayment of rent subsidy would total $173 million extrapolated to all rent assisted households; 19% rate of subsidy overpayment is only marginally higher than 18% rate of subsidy underpayment. (This means that 63% of households received the correct amount of subsidy/paid the correct amount of rent).

Table showing $$ of extrapolated rent subsidy overpayment and underpayment by Administrator is on PDF page 14, Exhibit ES-3 and is also pasted below:
 

Administration Type	Subsidy Overpayments	Subsidy Underpayments	Net Erroneous Payments	Gross ErroneousPayments
Public Housing	$85,040	$45,227	$39,813	$130,268
PHA-Administered Section 8	$268,791	$171,497	$97,294	$440,288
Total PHA-Administered	$353,832	$216,725	$137,107	$570,556
Owner-Administered	$122,667	$86,788	$35,880	$209,455
Total	$476,499	$303,512	$172,987	$780,011
95% Confidence Interval	±$113,911	±$76,928	±$107,263	±$162,116

Perspective:
IF Total Rent subsidy paid was $30 Billion annually, net rent subsidy OVERPAYMENT of $173 million would amount to .6% . (For a certain demographic, that is almost as pure as Ivory soap):


To further keep HUD rent subsidy errors in perspective, visit the government wide Payment Accuracy website HERE for details about payment errors in other programs. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.
 

Consumer Law Group Report Says HUD Could Save $1 Billion Annually on Rental Assistance with Energy Conservation.

National Consumer Law Center report is HERE.

Report says 7 "free" ways to achieve savings are:

1. Tapping more effectively into the estimated
$4.5 billion utility companies and
energy efficiency program administrators
spend each year on energy efficiency so
that a proportionate share of the funding
reaches low-income, multifamily housing;
2. Providing ongoing support to subsidized
housing owners that will allow them to
coordinate better with the existing lowincome
Weatherization Assistance Program
(“WAP”) which pays for insulation
and other energy-efficiency related investments
in low-income housing;
3. Better coordination between WAP and
HUD’s Community Development Block
Grant (“CDBG”) program so that energy
efficiency investments can be more easily
piggy-backed on work already being done
on the home through CDBG;
4. Providing assistance to smaller housing
authorities so they can utilize “energy
performance contracts” that are now
almost exclusively used by large, wellstaffed
housing authorities to improve
their energy efficiency;
5. Facilitating greater use of energy efficient
“utility allowances,” thereby providing
better incentives for housing authorities
and private, subsidized owners to invest
in energy efficiency;
6. Collecting much better data on energy
usage in HUD-subsidized housing; and
7. Setting and attaining energy savings
targets for HUD’s housing stock, as
Congress has mandated. A 20% savings
goal, which could be met over the next
decade, would save $1 billion and more
annually.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregonian Front Porch Has Story on Housing Affordability, by Occupation.

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.

Oregon MF Assisted Operating Expense Data Used to Calculate FY 2010 Oregon OCAF.

With the invaluable assistance of Will White from Senator Merkley's Office, HUD HQS has provided me with some of the data used to make the FY 2010 Oregon Operating Cost Adjustment (AKA, "OCAF").

I appreciate the willingness of HUD HQS to provide the data in the face of other pressing tasks. For me the data provides useful context to help understand how OCAF was/is determined for Oregon. Because of their Privacy Act concerns, HUD did not provide unit counts or county/city locations, so the analysis that can be done is somewhat limited, but still provides some useful insights (I think).

In particular the data provides counts on the number and kinds of projects that HUD used to make Oregon's 3.2% OCAF adjustment for FY 2010. (See my prior OCAF post HERE for more background).

My Take on What the FY 2010 Oregon OCAF Data Shows:

1. 72 projects were used to determine the FY 2010 OCAF for Oregon. Only those projects that file financial statements with HUD are used to determine OCAF. This means that the OCAF determination did NOT include include any OHCS bond financed project based Section 8 projects since these 122 projects do not have FHA insurance and do NOT file financial statements with HUD.
   
2. Bottom line is that only about 22 % of all MF assisted projects in Oregon (72 out of the 332 MF Assisted Projects I count in Oregon) were used to determine the FY 2010 OCAF. Despite this small sample, the OCAF determination is then used for ALL MF assisted projects in Oregon that can use OCAF to adjust annual rents (and I believe this is the vast majority of MF assisted projects in Oregon). [My guess is that Oregon's sample % is toward the low end of other states, which likely have a greater share of FHA insured properties that file financial statements with HUD].
   
3. Older Assisted Projects, including Section 236 and 221d3 projects comprised 53% of the projects sampled.
4. Older Assisted Projects, Including Section 235 and Section 221d3 projects, had lower rates of operating expense increase then the overall HUD OCAF for Oregon. This means that if their operating expenses had increased MORE, the OCAF for ALL MF HUD assisted projects would have been higher than 3.2%.
5. The most recent average operating expenses for Older Assisted Projects like Section 236 and 221d3 were lower than the average for all projects, meaning that increases in expenses in these project would likely still result in average expenses LOWER than the average for the other HUD MF project types in Oregon.
   

Tables Displaying These Results in Detail.
I have prepared the tables HERE to illustrate the results summarized above. Note the IMPORTANT caveats at the bottom of the first two tables, so you understand the limits of the analysis. (For example in Table one you will see a calculated overall average OCAF of 3.52% instead of the actual 3.2% for FY 2010; this occurs because I averaged across projects, since I could not weigh by unit counts which HUD did not provide).

• The first table shows my calculations of the % increase in operating expense by Program and Section of the Housing Act
• The second table shows my calculations of the most recent operating expense average per unit, per annum, by major program and Section of the Act.
• The third table is ALL of the data I received from HUD Hqs for these 72 properties.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

First Take: Public Housing Per Unit or Per Capita Subsidy Costs are Lowest of HUD Assisted Rental Programs in Oregon, 2008.

HUD has recently posted data on subsidized housing in 2008 HERE.

For first time geographic specific information can be downloaded and analyzed. You can download the data code book/dictionary HERE and the introduction HERE.

I did a quick download of Oregon statewide data and made some additional calculations, including some per capita calculations of "spending"/subsidy and total "rent" (paid by tenant, including utilities).

It may surprise SOME , but using this data, Oregon PUBLIC HOUSING appears to have the LOWEST subsidy cost to HUD (This was true even when household size is used to calculate per capita "spending"/subsidy costs):

• Public Housing "spending" /subsidy costs (which may NOT include capital spending were $292 per household).
• Voucher "spending"/subsidy costs were $698 per household for vouchers (this may NOT include admin fees).
• Project based new construction/sub rehab Section 8 "spending"/ subsidy costs were $522 per household.

(While the lower cost for public housing may surprise some, note that HUD FY 2011 budget is asking for MORE money to convert existing public housing to a form of project based voucher. Note also that most public housing has no /little debt, allowing lower subsidy costs)

I have pasted my initial Oregon table below:

Metric	All HUD	Public Housing	Voucher	S8 NC/SR	S236	MF/Other
total_units	N/A	3,936	N/A	5,098	748	1,676
number_reported	25,206	3,206	15,261	4,249	865	1,625
people_per_unit	2.0	2.2	2.3	1.3	1.9	1.3
people_total	51,375	6,896	35,204	5,523	1,657	2,095
rent_per_month	$ 286	$ 240	$ 322	$ 226	$ 241	$ 233
CALC: rent per capita	$ 143	$ 109	$ 140	$ 174	$ 127	$ 179
spending_per_month	$ 581	$ 292	$ 698	$ 522	$ 457	$ 273
CALC: Spending Per Capita	$ 291	$ 133	$ 303	$ 402	$ 241	$ 210
CALC: Rent +Spending Per Month	$ 867	$ 532	$ 1,020	$ 748	$ 698	$ 506
CALC: PER CAPITA Rent +Spending Per Month	$ 434	$ 242	$ 443	$ 575	$ 367	$ 389
Household Income	$ 11,600	$ 12,100	$ 12,000	$ 10,400	$ 11,200	$ 10,900

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog

Edited--Audio/Video From Feb 3rd HUD FY 2011 Budget Briefing on Proposed Transforming Rental Assistance Program.

Edit: I had to remove the video embed as it was not working properly; you can still view/download the video file from the Internet Archive website below.
Edit 2: In watching video I noted that it has some sync issues between audio and video; I can't correct them so be forewarned about this problem.
----

I was able to create audio and video files from the HUD web cast of Wednesday on the proposed FY 2011 Transforming Rental Assistance program.

The audio and video files include slides, the remarks of the presenters, and questions and answers; total length is 24 minutes. (My earlier/first post about this HUD budget proposal is HERE).

Audio File

• The MP3 audio file I created can be downloaded HERE.

Video File

• A link to the Internet Archive website where I uploaded the video is HERE; You can view online or download the file in a variety of formats and (large) file sizes.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.