Oregon: More Transparency Needed to Track At Least $547 Million in Federal Emergency Rental Assistance.

A recent Congressional Research Service report HERE shows that Oregon (page 8) is scheduled to be allocated $526 million in Treasury funded federal emergency rental assistance in 2 funding rounds to both state and local recipients. 

This count however omits direct allocations made to tribal governments in Oregon that total $21 million, bringing total Oregon emergency rental assistance scheduled allocations to $547 million. 

The first round of dedicated federal rental assistance funding (ERA-1) came in P.L 116-260 enacted in December of 2020 and the second round (ERA-2) came in P.L 117-2 which was enacted in March of 2021. 

The spending deadline for ERA-1 funding is generally September of 2022 (with earlier reallocation of funds possible and subject to a Treasury determination).

For ERA-2 the spending deadline is September of 2025. My understanding is that at least 40% of ERA-2 funding was to be allocated within 60 days of the enactment of PL-117-2. 

A Recent Oregonian Story Omits ERA-1 Local and Tribal Allocations and All ERA-2 Allocations.

A recent Oregonian story reporting of the status of emergency rental assistance focused  only on the $204 million allocated to Oregon state government (OHCS) in ERA-1, 

This omits reporting on the emergency rental assistance program funding for local and tribal governments in ERA-1 and ALL of the funding in ERA-2 including OHCS and local government scheduled allocations. 

Factoring in ALL ERA Allocations Means:

• $400 Million of the Scheduled $547 Million in Emergency Rental Assistance Allocations is Currently Available. 
• OHCS Has $267 Million Available, not $204 Million. 
• In the Portland Metro Area All ERA Allocations Total $115 million, with $79 Million Currently Available. 

100% of ERA-1 funds ($302 million) have been allocated (AKA "obligated" in budget terminology) including $204 million for OHCS. 

In addition, 40% of ERA-2 funding ($98 million) has been allocated for use. Of that, 

$63 million is available to the state (OHCS) and $35 million is available to local government. (Tribal governments did not receive allocations in ERA-2).

That means that the total ERA current funding available in Oregon is $400 million and that OHCS has $267 million currently available, not $204 million.  

I also calculated a subtotal of the local allocations to 3 Portland metro counties and to the City of Portland.  Allocations to these 4 jurisdictions total $115 million with $79 million currently available. 

NOTE: Access to 40% of ERA-2 funding may be important as some of the ERA-2 statutory requirements are different/reduced/simpler than for ERA-1; see the most recent Treasury FAQ's HERE. 

My table pasted below shows the total scheduled allocations to state, local and tribal governments, as well as the total allocations available now, factoring in the 40% of the ERA-2 allocation that is now available. 

Issues with the Transparency of OHCS Dashboard:

The only Oregon tracking of the use of any portion of the $547 million in ERA funding that I have found so far is on the OHCS dashboard HERE. 

As of July 2nd the dashboard shows $785,427 in actual payments to help 134 renter households.

Recognizing the dashboard is a work in progress there are several issues I see: 

1. It’s not clear if the website is capturing any ERA spending from local or tribal allocations or just from the state allocation. The dashboard map does show applications from jurisdictions with direct allocations, but it isn't clear to me that if the expenditures for approved applications will be charged back against the local allocations or be subtracted from the state allocation. 
2. There is no total of the total ERA funding being tracked in the dashboard and therefore no metric of how much has been used and how much remains. 
3. To see applications, obligations, and expenditures made for specific geographies the dashboard has a pulldown list of acronyms for community action agencies instead of their actual names and county jurisdictions. "CCNO" is not very user friendly; a pull down by county/counties would be far more understandable. 
4. The data underlying the dashboard is not yet available for download. The only download options currently are as PDF file or PowerPoint presentation.

Another Rental Assistance Funding Transparency Issue: Other Federal Funds May Have Provided Additional Rental Assistance, But Unified Tracking for this Rental Assistance is Missing. 

Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Funding in Oregon May Exceed $697 Million 

I couldn't locate a comprehensive set of data for the $150 million for the Oregon Landlord Compensation Fund authorized by the Oregon legislature in 2020 (I will update if I do). 

I have not been able to find definitive confirmation that the LCF was funded with federal funds/Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) but I think it may have been. 

IF the LCF was federally funded that brings total federal funds used for COVID/emergency rental assistance in Oregon to at least $697 million. 

The Oregon total would be even higher if local governments also used their direct CRF allocations for rental assistance. 

For comparison, ANNUAL contract authority for ALL Oregon HUD housing vouchers is currently $307 million. 

As I pointed out previously there is no Oregon site I have found that shows how much of ALL of these federal obligations have been converted into actual payments ("expended") made directly to, or on the behalf of, renter households.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

My Oregon Homeowner Assistance Fund Estimate: Presumptively Socially Disadvantaged Owner Occupants Were 13.4% of All Owner Occupants in 2019

Oregon is slated to receive $90M+ to help homeowners from the American Rescue Plan Home Owner Assistance Fund (HAF).

My read is that Treasury guidance on the HAF is that it requires that funds spent on households above 100% of the household adjusted income limit be prioritized for "socially disadvantaged" homeowners.

That Treasury guidance further provides that African-American, Asian, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and Hispanics are all "presumptively" socially disadvantaged. 

In the absence of any current Treasury guidance on how to count presumptively socially disadvantaged homeowners  I thought it might be useful to look at existing data sources and provide some estimates for Oregon. 

The PDF file HERE and embedded below provides my counts of these presumptively socially disadvantaged homeowners along with their share of all homeowners and my rankings by both shares and counts of socially disadvantaged homeowners. 

Data is presented at the state wide level, at the three Portland Metro county level, and at the individual county level.

(TIP: You may need to scroll to the right to see all the columns in the PDF within your browser; downloading the file to your computer and opening in a PDF reader may allow better viewing of the full document).

My calculations: 

• Statewide 13.4% of owner occupants were presumptively socially disadvantaged owner occupants.
• In the combination of the three Portland Metro counties there was a higher percentage (17.2%) of presumptively socially disadvantaged owner occupants.
• In the rest of the state counties, there was a lower percentage (10.6%) of presumptively socially disadvantaged owner occupants.
• Morrow county had the highest percentage of socially disadvantaged owner occupants, while Baker had the lowest at 3.5%

Potential Uses:

IF counts of seriously delinquent loans are available at the state, county, or census tract levels are available multiplication by the presumptively socially disadvantaged homeowner rates will produce a count of those homeowners that may be helpful for outreach, servicer contacts, and fund allocations. 

[Note that I have previously produced counts of a subset of FHA seriously delinquent loans at the census tract level., using FHA published counts of those census tracts with 11 or more seriously delinquent loans].

These counts provide a baseline target for goal setting. 

• If funds are made available to owner occupants above 100% of median income it's reasonable to expect that the share of recipients in these groups reach these percentages.  
• And, for recipients below 100% of median income, these percentages should be the bare minimum since owner occupants in these presumptively socially disadvantaged groups are likely to have incomes below white owner occupants. 

Data Source and My Methodology: 

I used 2019 ACS 5 year table S2502. I used the five year ACS data because that data is available all the way to the census tract level. 

The link HERE should provide a download of 2019 5 Year ACS Table S2502 data for the state of Oregon, Oregon counties, and Oregon census tracts. Note that margins of error increase at smaller geographic levels.  

To arrive at the total count of socially disadvantaged owner occupants I added the estimates of all owner occupants who were 

1. Black, 
2. Asian, 
3. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders
4. American Indian and Alaska Natives, 
5. Some other races
6. Two races
7. White Hispanics. [I derived that count by subtracting the count of White Not Hispanics from the White one race count] I included the resulting white Hispanic count because Hispanics are already included in the other race categories and including the full count of Hispanic owner occupants would result in double counting. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

New OHCS Proposed Annual 5% Rent Increase Limit Raises a Large Number of Questions/Issues.

For the first time OHCS is proposing a rent increase limit of 5% annually for tenants in projects that OHCS finances, including LIHTC projects. Owners can appeal for increases beyond that level, according to the proposal scheduled to be considered by the Oregon Housing Stability Council at their Friday April 6th meeting. The 3 page proposal from the meeting packet is HERE and embedded below. 

The proposal raises a large number of impact, transparency, and process questions and issues, including these:

1. When will the new rule go into effect? Since the effective date for the HUD FY 2018 income limits was April 1, 2018 can we assume the proposed rule does not impact rents that do not exceed the allowable maximums that result from those new income limits?  IF the rent increase restrictions apply to projects 45 days after April 1st-or May 15th/16th, does that provide owners enough time to understand and generate a complete package of information necessary to request a rent increase? 
2. IF an owner wants to adopt up to a 5% increase, AND if that rent is within the maximum rent permitted by the relevant current fiscal year HUD income limits, does a rent increase of 5% or less require any submission/notice to OHCS?  
3. If allowable rents are restricted at a specific project, will income restrictions match the restricted rents for new tenants (as well as existing tenants)?  If not then new tenants at maximum incomes could pay less than 30% of income at admission. 
4. Will the rule require administrative rule making and an opportunity for public comment?
5. What are the planned public disclosure provisions for requests, processing times, and approvals?  Should performance measures be adopted to track this activity?
6. Which specific OHCS programs are subject to this rule?
7. How many total projects and units are subject to the rule? (OHCS table HERE shows 28 pages of just LIHTC projects, at conservative count of 40 per page, that would be in excess of 1,000 projects?). 
8. Does OHCS have the staff capacity and the skills to handle rent increase requests every year from all of the projects subject to this rule? Will an increase in admin fee be required to pay for the extra costs of rent reviews? 
9. Do owners have the staff capacity and the skills to generate budget based rent requests annually?
10. Will a new 5% annual rent increase limit decrease the value of tax credits to investors and thus increase the need for additional public gap financing?
11. What are the standards/metrics that will be used to make rent increase determinations? For example, what updated market data will be use to determine comparable rents?, what is a reasonable reserve for replacement level, and how will capital needs be determined? What specific exhibits will be required to submit a rent increase request? 
12. Are their new or existing mechanisms to insure that increased project income from increases in median income levels stay with the project to benefit the tenants?
13. How will the public, and existing or prospective tenants know the maximum rent they can be charged at an individual project? What rent limit will be used for prospective tenants or existing tenants who want to move into a larger bedroom sized unit/ the same bedroom size but in a different floor or building?
14. 100% LIHTC projects-Over income tenants and rent equity issues: I assume that the vast majority of LIHTC projects have 100% LIHTC assisted units. After the first year annual recertification with third party documents my understanding is that there is no effective restriction on the income of these tenants (even if they self certify and disclose higher incomes). 

• Does imposing a 5% annual cap increase the likelihood that over income tenants will continue to occupy (for years) units intended for lower income families? [Staying in a unit with a annual rent increase limit would be more seemingly more attractive than competing NON LIHTC units without annual rent increase restrictions]. 
• IF the income of these post year 1 tenants increases more than 5% [or the approved rent increase %], the share of their income for rent will decline, and perhaps below 30% . In contrast, a low income voucher holder paying 30% of their income for rent could end up paying a greater percentage of income for rent. 
• For 100% LIHTC projects how will OHCS measure rent burdens as part of the evaluation process for rent increase requests? 
• With new income averaging rules will there be any effective limit on future incomes for long term LIHTC residents in 100% LIHTC projects?  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog 

Correction: 2013 Oregon LIHTC NOFA Selections: 43% Of All Units Are in High Poverty Rate Census Tracts: Only 18% Are in CT With Low Poverty Rates.

OHCS staff pointed out an error in the attached spreadsheet. I have corrected that and changed the text in the headline and below accordingly to reflect a lower percentage of units in High Poverty CT's in the 2013 cycle (but that is the same percentage as units placed in service from 2000-2010). 

I regret the error and appreciate the timely feedback from OHCS. 
----
The Excel worksheet HERE and embedded below has the details.  

Readers may recall my prior August 2012 analysis HERE of Oregon LIHTC project poverty rate data for projects placed in service from 2001 to 2010. Two related observations:

1. Projects selected in the 2013 NOFA had the SAME higher rates of location in HIGH poverty rate census tracts than did projects placed in service from 2001 to 2010. (43% ).  
2. Projects selected in the 2013 NOFA also had higher rates of location in LOW poverty rate census tracts than did projects placed in service from 2001 to 2010. (18% vs 13%). 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

OHCS Announces NOFA Winners.

OHCS has announced HERE the winners of this years NOFA.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am on the Board of the Housing Development Center. HDC played a role in three of the funded applications: Orchards at Orenco, Glisan Phase II, and Rosewood Plaza. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregon Sec of State Audit of OHCS Program Duplication.

Haven't read but report and appendices are available HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

2013 OHCS QAP Includes Several Fair Housing/Housing Choice Improvements and Increased Transparency, Jump Starting Conversations for 2014 QAP/CFC.

The Housing Council package for the May 17th meeting contains the final QAP for Council consideration as well as a summary of comments received on the earlier draft and OHCS staff responses. [ A permanent link to all Housing Council meeting packets for 2013 is in the right pane under Oregon Housing Council Materials].

Along with the Fair Housing Council, for 2013 I had suggested the addition of a discretionary basis boost for project applications in low poverty neighborhoods. I had suggested also that the QAP expand the transparency of waivers, and add an explicit acknowledgement that they had the authority to grant waivers to affirmatively further fair housing.

I am pleased to see that those recommendations were incorporated in the 2013 QAP.
Moreover, I am pleased that OHCS acknowledges the need for an more extensive fair housing conversation and policy review for the 2014 QAP /CFC saying 

" Within the next six months OHCS will facilitate a work group to research and recommend Fair Housing policies for program adoption that will be incorporated into Permanent Rules."

(My 2013 QAP comments included a listing of the kinds of topics I think should be included in that conversation and policy review).

In response to FHCO comments, OHCS has indicated the scoring panels will receive Fair Housing training. I anticipate this will include examples of how an application in a low income area can claim points in the scoring criteria. 

Note: For non QAP policies, OHCS will be adopting temporary administrative rules and producing other related policy guidance.  The OAR chapter for OHCS is HERE; looks like Division 90 contains the rules for the LIHTC program (but rule changes might also occur in other Divisions of the OHCS rules).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

OHCS Presentation on Reorg and Human Services and Housing Connections.

PDF of presentation before Joint Ways and Means Committee is HERE.  Web page for hearing is HERE (also includes background material for bill to fund veterans housing via additional document recording fee; that portion of hearing is not in the video).

Video of presentation and questioning is HERE and embedded below.


Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Audio, Day 2 of Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearing on OHCS Budget.

I have posted audio HERE.

Written testimony, including mine, is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

My First Ever Written Testimony to Oregon Legislative Committee: For Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearing Today on OHCS Budget.

The Ways and Means Transportation and Economic Development Subcommittee hearing on the OHCS budget today includes the opportunity for public testimony.

Some background: 
The OHCS budget bill (HB 5015) shows a proposed General Fund biennium allocation of $7,760,573.

In the legislatively approved budget for FY 2011-2013 the OHCS General Fund biennium allocation was $10,018,855, with 22% of that allocated to non housing uses (food programs), leaving $7,845,788 for 3 housing programs (that serve the lowest income Oregonians):

• Statewide Homeless Assistance Program
• Emergency Housing Assistance Program
• Low-income rental assistance program

To help put the size of OHCS General Fund needs in perspective I submitted written testimony; this is the first time I have ever submitted testimony before an Oregon legislative committee.

A PDF with my testimony is HERE, and it and other written testimony are also posted HERE for the 1 PM Tuesday hearing.

The first of two graphs in my testimony is pasted below:

 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Audio: OHCS Budget Hearing, Day 1.

I have posted audio from budget presentation from OHCS Director Van Vliet is HERE.

Documents for that hearing are HERE.  

Public testimony will be heard tomorrow and posted HERE.


Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

House Hearings This Week on OHCS Restructuring.

The Oregon House Human Services and Housing Committee is holding meetings on Wednesday and Friday with invited testimony only from Oregon Housing and Community Services on the Governor's proposed restructuring of OHCS. 

You can view live streaming of Oregon Legislative hearings (on day of hearing) HERE, look for hearing rooms/times below. 

For any meeting materials for this Committee go to website HERE and select meeting date in right pane and then back in left pane select tab "meeting materials". (Selecting individual bills within each date can produce relevant meeting materials; for meetings below I do not see a specific bill for OHCS restructuring).

Wednesday-March 13
Time:  3:00 P.M.
Room: HR D
=========
Friday-March 15
Time:  3:00 P.M.
Room: HR D 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Release of LIHTC Tenant Demographic Data: Not This Year or Anytime Soon that I Can See.

2008 Recovery Act legislation required state Housing Finance Agencies (HFA's) to submit LIHTC tenant demographic information to HUD (see statutory reference HERE).  The HFA submissions to HUD in the fall of 2011 was at least the second year the data was submitted to HUD.

After waiting for several months for state level summaries of tenant  demographic data from HUD, I asked HUD HQS staff this week via email and was advised that because of funding constraints HUD would NOT be doing any state level summaries of the LIHTC tenant data submitted by HFA's in the fall of 2011. (In my prior post HERE I linked project (not tenant) LIHTC data that HUD has recently updated with 2010 poverty data from ACS).

With HUD appropriations not likely better in FY 2013 than in FY 2012, it seem highly unlikely that HUD will produce summaries of LIHTC tenant demographics any time soon, rendering the statutory reporting requirement somewhat meaningless.  It also appears that HUD is out of statutory compliance with the requirement that : 

(c) Public availability: The Secretary shall, not less than annually, compile and make publicly available the information submitted to the Secretary...

With HUD's failure to post already collected LIHTC tenant demographic data, I expect the better local approach to find out who is served by LIHTC projects will be to refocus attention on getting OHCS to compile and publish state and LIHTC tenant demographic local summaries, since they are still required to submit data annually to HUD.  (My prior post on OHCS tenant data collection efforts is HERE).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregon Housing Council Package for Friday Uploaded.

Link HERE in right pane , Oregon Housing Council Materials, has been updated with materials for Friday July 13th meeting. Because of CFC recommendations package for this meeting is longer than usual at 108 pages.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Correction: MY Estimate of OHCS 2012 CFC Funding Recommendations: 801 Units, $138 Million

Correction:
My headline said $128 M, it should have read $138 M and has been changed.
----------
Three BIG Caveats:

1. Decisions on funding will be made by the Housing Council at their July 13th meeting, these are RECOMMENDATIONS only.
2. For projects recommended for funding, units or recommended allocations might vary from requested amounts, although I expect those changes to be minor. (For example, the sum of requested OATC for recommended applications at $15,153,825 in my Excel file slightly exceeds the $15 million mentioned in the Director's summary letter HERE). 
3. Details on FINAL recommendations will be found in the July 13th Council Meeting Package; that should be posted by the end of this week at the July 13th Council meeting package web page HERE.

My Estimate: 801 Units, $138 Million; 42% of Requested Units/ 40% of Requested $$.
I have completed a DRAFT comparison of recommended CFC allocations to applications, by combining the list of projects recommended for funding by OHCS with the list of applications. 

Notes and Observations: 

1. 26 Projects were recommended for funding out of 50 accepted applications.
2. IF projects recommended for funding were funded at the requested amounts and units, it appears that total recommended funding was for $138,462,269 and 801 units. (Some of those resources [HOME for example] may have been contributed by other partners).
   
3. The "2012 CFC Apps and Recos" worksheet in the Excel workbook below has a column that I added to the far right indicating whether the project was recommended for funding.
4. The workbook includes a pivot table set up by default to show the sum of ALL $$ and units by county. A pull down at the top allows easy view of $$ and units for projects recommended for funding or not recommended for funding.
5. The workbook contains a summary table by county showing the ratio of $$ and units recommended for funding vs applications.The ratio columns in the far right of the worksheet are conditionally formatted to show counties that had a higher ratio of recommended $$ or units than the statewide average. 
6. Among 4 Portland metro counties only Washington and Yamhill counties had a rate of recommended total $$ and units vs application total $$ and units that exceeded the statewide average.
7. I will UPDATE/CORRECT/FINALIZE this Excel workbook once more information becomes available about the details of recommended projects or approved funding levels.

You can take view/download the Excel file in my SkyDrive in the embed below or at the URL HERE.  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Updated: New Jersy Publishes Proposed LIHTC Qualifed Allocation Plan With Changes to Increase Housing Choice.

Updated: I found the reference to LIHTC concentration on page 36 and have bookmarked and highlighted it in the PDF file and have changed references in text below. 
=========
Readers my recall a prior post HERE with PR indicating the NJ was going to revise their selection criteria for Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects. The PR said the purpose was to:

"..increase the construction of affordable units in high achieving school districts, encourage the development of mixed income properties and limit further development in areas already containing large amounts of federal and state financed low and moderate income housing."

Today NJ published the draft rule in the New Jersey Register and I have downloaded a copy HERE.  Comments will be accepted until August 31st. 

A summary on page 12 of the proposed QAP shows these changes related to schools and jobs/housing imbalances: 

III. add a new N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.15(a)14iii to provide two points for projects that are fully located within an elementary school district wherein 66 percent or more of the students are either proficient or advanced proficient on the most recent NJ ASK 4 in both math and language arts based on the most recent data available from the New Jersey Department [page=1824] of Education as of the application deadline; and IV. add a new N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.15(a)14iv to provide two points for projects that are fully located within a municipality with fewer housing units than total public and private sector jobs and to provide that, in order to confirm that a project satisfies this point category, the Agency will use the annual average of total public and private sector jobs for the most recent full year available as of the application deadline from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Municipal Annual Reports, and the number of housing units according to the most recent available five-year American Community Survey, Table B25001, U.S. Department of the Census as of the application deadline;

Page 36 references the (generous) limit on the concentration of LIHTC units.

 17. Projects located in census tracts wherein 30 percent or more of the existing housing units are low income housing tax credit units shall not be eligible for funding unless the following criteria are met:
i. The project must be part of a community revitalization plan;
ii. The project does not add more low-income units to the census tract;
iii. The project plan includes relocation options to higher opportunity areas and mobility counseling assistance for existing residents; and                    iv. The application includes a municipal resolution that references this paragraph (N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.12(c)17) and supports the allocation of housing tax credits for the development.

I didn't readily see any specifics about policies to limit development where there is a documented concentrations of subsidized housing; I am sure others will provide additional insight and comment on the specifics of the proposed NJ QAP and I will do additional posts as that commentary becomes available. 

Oregon's Qualified Allocation Plan for this year is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Correction: Oregon Housing Publishes List of Projects Recommended for CFC Funding.

Correction: Removed 2nd reference list of recommended projects; only recommended list currently available is found in OHCS Director's letter. 
=======
Letter from OHCS Director is HERE, projects listing is on second page but does not include unit counts or dollars. 

I will update once more information becomes available.

2012 applicant list is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Updated: New Moody's Report on HFA Delinquencies Includes Oregon Data/OHCS Serious Delinquency Rate is Less than Other Loan Types.

Update:

• I added an observation comparing the OHCS serious delinquency rate with the Oregon serious delinquency rate for all loans from MBA for Dec 2011.
• I added an observation that the OHCS Dec 2011 serious delinquency rate was the 10th best of 30 rated state HFA's with SF whole loan programs.
• I added a second worksheet in the workbook showing counts of loans by state HFA's for Dec. 2011, including loans in default, total loans, and serious deliquency rates.

---------
Report is HERE; story from NCSHA is HERE.

Oregon data is found on several pages of the report. 

My observations about reported OHCS SF delinquency and foreclosure rates 2005-2011: 

1. The  serious delinquency rate using the MBA definition (90+ day defaults PLUS foreclosures) as of 12/2005 was 2.71% and as of 12/2011 it was 4.29%, an increase of 58%.
2. There were 331 loans in the serious delinquency category as of 12/2011 and 184 as of 12/2005, an increase of 147 loans.
3. The OHCS SF serious delinquency rate of 4.29% as of 12/2011 was  substantially lower than the rate for all loan types in Oregon metro areas except Corvallis (2.4% ). Other Oregon metro serious delinquency rates for all loans were Bend 9.9%; Eugene 6.7%; Medford 9.1%; Portland 7.6%; and Salem 8.5%. (The Foreclosure Response default and foreclosure data for 12/2011 for all metro areas can be found in an Excel workbook HERE).
4. I calculate that the Idaho HFA had a 12/2011 serious delinquency rate of 7.41% (Idaho had 594 90+day delinquencies PLUS foreclosures out of a universe of 8,020 loans). That Idaho HFA rate is 73% HIGHER than the OHCS 12/2011 4.29% SF serious delinquency rate.
5. The total inventory of OHCS loans increased by 925 loans (14%) from 12/2005 to 12/2011, from 6,787 loans to 7,712 loans. 
6. Update: The MBA reported serious delinquency for Oregon for all loan types as of 12/11 was 5.89%, 37% higher than the OHCS serious delinquency rate of 4.29%.
7. Update: Oregon had the 10th lowest serious delinquency rate among 30 state housing finance agencies with whole loan programs as of 12/11. State data and rankings are found on the second worksheet that I have added to the embedded SkyDrive Excel file.

Upcoming Housing Council Briefing on SF; My Prior Posts
My memory is that the agenda for the July 13 Housing Council meeting is scheduled to include an update on the OHCS SF program; readers may recall that at a prior Council meeting there was a detailed single family briefing that I summarized in posts HERE and HERE.

I have embedded a SkyDrive Excel file below with OHCS loan data from 2005-2011 below; a direct link is HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Way More than You Ever Knew about Oregon Affordable Housing Preservation.

At the State Housing Council meeting today there was a presentation delivered by long time colleague and friend Rob Prasch, from the Oregon Housing Preservation Project. 

The PDF file HERE is 25 pages long; image below shows the  wide variety of detail provided in the presentation on the status, funding, location, and demographics of affordable housing projects preserved in Oregon. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Projection: 57,000+Oregon Children Served in LIHTC, Voucher, Project Based S 8, and Public Housing Programs; Improvements Next Year Should Provide Rich Local Detail.

I recently completed a review of tenant data from a LIHTC data base provided to me by OHCS staff.  This database has a number of shortcomings that should be greatly improved next year, but for now I was able to develop a projection of children served by the LIHTC program in Oregon.  I then combined that projection with projections of children served by the HUD voucher, HUD Project Based Section 8, and public housing programs.

A simple breakout of the 57,597 projected children served by these select subsidized housing programs is in the table below; the detailed table HERE shows how data was calculated and also data sources. 

Oregon Children Served by TANF Likely Less Than Children Served by All Subsidized Rental Programs.
As a point of reference, the latest TANF reports show a total of 59,000 Oregon children served by the single parent and dual parent TANF programs. 

The 57,597 assisted rental housing child count in this projection does not include children in units funded by HOME, CDBG, or HUD Homeless funding unless they also live in a LIHTC, Project Based Section 8 or public housing unit or are receiving a HUD voucher. 

This projection also does not include counts of children in Rural Development assisted rental units unless that unit is also a LIHTC unit or receiving project based Section 8 or the family is receiving HUD voucher assistance.

If those programs were included I am confident that the count of children served by subsidized housing programs would exceed the 59,000 children served by the TANF program in Oregon. 

Improvements in Data Reporting Coming Next Year, Including Local Data
This first statewide estimate of children served by these programs is a prelude to what should be a enhanced version of tenant demographic data reporting for next year, including geographic data down to at least the county level.

OHCS staff have advised that tenant demographic reporting will begin in the new year using software that should greatly improve the completeness and accuracy of tenant data reporting. In addition to being able to drill down to geography below the state level the tenant data should allow timely reporting of elderly and disabled households served by the LIHTC program as well as providing information about tenant incomes and race and ethnicity. 

Improved reporting will allow all of us to see more clearly at the local level detailed demographics of the residents helped by assisted housing rental programs in Oregon. 

BIG thanks to OHCS Chief Information Officer Bill Carpenter and his staffer Ron Pickett for the time and effort that made it possible to produce this initial effort and for their work to expand and localize this demographic data in the coming year.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.