The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit An Analysis of the First Ten Years

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has been the de facto federal rental housing production program since its creation in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In this article, using a detailed database on 2,554 LIHTC projects, we analyze the costs of building these projects, where they are built, their financial viability, whom they serve, who finances them, and the size of the subsidies provided to them.

The LIHTC is a flexible program that has built different types of housing in various markets. While LIHTC projects serve low‐ and moderate‐income households, their rents are beyond the reach of many poor households without additional subsidy. Revenues just cover costs for many LIHTC projects. Over time, considerably more of each tax‐credit dollar has ended up in the projects, and returns to equity investors have dropped significantly, perhaps reflecting an increased understanding of project risks. We estimate that LIHTC projects developed by nonprofits are 20.3 percent more expensive than those developed by for‐profits.     

Moving out of poverty: Expanding mobility and choice through tenant‐based housing assistance

Abstract

Historically, federal housing policy has contributed to the concentration of poverty in urban America. Moving out of poverty is not the right answer for every low‐income family, but tenant‐based housing assistance (Section 8 certificates and vouchers) has tremendous potential to help families move to healthier neighborhoods. This article explores the role of tenant‐based housing assistance in addressing the problem of concentrated inner‐city poverty.

The Section 8 program by itself does not ensure access to low‐poverty neighborhoods, particularly for minority families. Supplementing certificates and vouchers with housing counseling and search assistance can improve their performance; a growing number of assisted housing mobility initiatives are now in place across the country. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should continue to fund these initiatives and increase their number over time. HUD should also strengthen incentives for all housing authorities to improve locational outcomes in their Section 8 programs.     

Housing,Welfare Reform,and Self‐Sufficiency: An Assessment of the Family Self‐Sufficiency Program

Abstract

Recently passed welfare reform legislation may have adverse impacts on the incomes of public and assisted housing residents and hence on the rental income of housing authorities. One way to dampen these impacts is to help welfare‐reliant tenants find jobs. The Family Self‐Sufficiency (FSS) programs sponsored by many housing authorities may be an important means of doing this. This article presents the findings of an early study of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's FSS program and explores the program's potential for dampening the impacts of welfare reform. The study involved a mail survey of the coordinators of 564 FSS programs.

The survey results indicate a surprising lack of interest in the early FSS program among potential participants. The results also indicate that these programs are inadequately staffed, and that the programs’ potential to dampen the effects of welfare reform are limited by the relatively small percentage of welfare‐reliant residents enrolled.     

The Use of Rental Housing Assistance by Immigrants in the United States and New York City

Abstract

The large influx of immigrants to the United States and New York City from poorer countries has sparked considerable debate as to whether immigrants are becoming a “public charge” to American society. Most arguments have centered around immigrants’ use of cash assistance programs. This article compares immigrants’ receipt of rental housing assistance with that of native‐born Americans.

Bivariate analyses reveal that immigrants, as a group, are no more likely than native‐born households to use any form of rental housing assistance. Indeed, in most instances immigrants are less likely than native‐born households to receive assistance, with two exceptions: immigrants who have been in the United States since 1970 and immigrants from the former Soviet Union in New York City. Multivariate analyses reveal similar results, except that immigrants who have been in the United States since 1970 are no more likely than other immigrants to receive housing assistance when we control for other factors.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”: Why public housing authorities remain the best solution for running the housing voucher program

Abstract

Katz and Turner propose that the Section 8 program be administered regionally at the metropolitan level by a single organization awarded the contract through a competitive bidding process. We disagree. Local public housing authorities have been successful in providing family housing choice and moving families from the worst neighborhoods through the Section 8 program. The factors that inhibit mixed‐income communities and family mobility, resulting in concentration of poverty, are beyond the control of these authorities and will be affected little by a change in administration. Moreover, the additional cost of these changes would decrease the number of families served and at the same time increase bureaucracy.

We welcome the discussion the proposal has caused. Misperceptions exist about the program, even among those close to it. True, effective program reform can be engendered only by an honest dialogue among housing advocates, administrators, and consumers, both tenants and owners.     

Order and democracy: Trade‐offs between social control and civil liberties at Lake Parc Place

Abstract

This article applies the classic theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill to the issue of maintaining order, using Chicago's Lake Parc Place public housing project as a case study. I find that public housing residents living in frightening circumstances may be willing to give up some liberties to gain stability and order, but that very order can in turn provide them with the civil space necessary for them to become active participants in their own governance. While Lake Parc Place residents willingly submitted to strict rules to secure a sense of safety, as Hobbes would suggest, once order was established they chose Mill's path, becoming involved in managing their own community. Thus, policies restricting liberties to increase safety have the potential to increase civic participation.     

What Can We Learn About the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program by Looking at the Tenants?

Abstract

Several recent studies have found that homeownership has positive effects on children's development. This article extends these studies by testing whether these effects depend on neighborhood conditions. This extension is important because many low‐income families that become homeowners under current policies promoting homeownership for the poor are likely to purchase homes in troubled or distressed neighborhoods.

Homeownership in almost any neighborhood is found to benefit children, while neighborhood effects are weak. This suggests that the children of most low‐income renters would be better served by programs that help their families become homeowners in their current neighborhoods instead of helping them move to better neighborhoods while remaining renters. However, the positive effects of homeownership on children are weakened in distressed neighborhoods, especially those that are residentially unstable and poor. Thus, helping low‐income families purchase homes in good neighborhoods is likely to have the best effects on children.     

The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is now 20 years old. With the maturing of the program, the use of tax credits has become commonplace in the development of rental housing across the nation. This article examines how the program has changed both financially and spatially. Specifically, the article asks whether it provides a mechanism that can help deconcentrate impoverished renters by providing access to low‐poverty neighborhoods.

This research finds that as the price for tax credits rises, the program becomes increasingly popular with developers who are helping it make inroads in low‐poverty suburbs. By entering the suburbs, the LIHTC program is meeting and even exceeding the performance of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in terms of offering opportunities to live in low‐poverty settings.     

Comment on Jennifer Steffel Johnson and Emily Talen's “affordable housing in New Urbanist Communities: A survey of developers”

Abstract

A long‐time criticism of New Urbanism has been that the housing it provides is affordable only to middle‐ and upper‐income families. Johnson and Talen's survey of New Urbanist developers and developments is intended to see whether this criticism is justified. Although the methodology is limited, the results of this survey would seem to indicate that it is.

Because Johnson and Talen's survey is restricted to New Urbanist developments, it is not possible to compare the results with those for other, more conventional developments to see whether New Urbanist developments may actually contain more affordable units than comparable conventional projects. Also, limiting the definition of affordability to the cost of housing alone prevents the authors from seeing whether the housing New Urbanist communities provide would be considered less expensive if housing and transportation costs were combined.     

Section 8 and Movement to Job Opportunity: Experience after Welfare Reform in Kansas City

Abstract

This research addresses the extent to which tenant‐based rental assistance, before and after welfare reform, helps households move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. It was thought that the threat of losing their welfare benefits would encourage participants in the Section 8 program to use the mobility it offers to move to neighborhoods with greater opportunities for employment.

Two samples of Section 8 program participants, one taken before welfare reform and the other taken after it was enacted, have been examined. With the strong economy after welfare reform, more Section 8 households are employed and fewer are on welfare. However, the analysis finds that, independent of welfare reform, households did not use their housing subsidy to move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. Program participants typically remained in racially concentrated areas of the central city, away from those neighborhoods with job growth or large numbers of jobs.