|
34
<br />funding flexibility through conversion to project -based Section 8
<br />contracts. After applications for participation in RAD reached the
<br />initial limits, Congress raised the cap to 225,000 units for fiscal year
<br />2017. At last count 423 public housing authorities (14 percent) are
<br />currently participating in the demonstration.
<br />The impending expiration of affordability restrictions on federally
<br />subsidized units presents another preservation challenge. Over the
<br />next 10 years, 530,000 rentals with project -based rental assistance,
<br />478,000 units with LIHTC subsidies, and 136,000 units with other
<br />types of subsidies will reach the end of their required affordability
<br />periods (Figure 341. While some of these properties are owned by
<br />nonprofits and other mission -driven organizations, many are pri-
<br />vately owned and at risk of converting to market rate. Properties
<br />located in areas with high or rising rents are particularly vulner-
<br />able to loss from the affordable stock.
<br />Expirations of LIHTC affordability restrictions are set to increase
<br />in 2020 as the oldest units built under the program reach the
<br />30 -year mark. In response, several states have enacted mandates to
<br />extend the affordability periods of LIHTC properties. For example,
<br />California now requires 25 years of additional affordability, while
<br />New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont require 69 years. However, these
<br />state -level actions do not include funding for maintenance expen-
<br />ditures and were mostly undertaken after 2000, implying that they
<br />will only have an impact after 2030. Additional preservation efforts
<br />are therefore necessary to keep LIHTC units with expiring afford-
<br />ability restrictions in the subsidized housing stock.
<br />Finally, after a decade of tight rental markets and rising rents,
<br />the stock of privately owned low-cost units continues to shrink.
<br />These losses are particularly concerning in metros with rapid
<br />rent growth, where downward filtering and conversions from the
<br />owner -occupied stock have done little to offset the disappearance
<br />of low-cost rentals. To combat losses of naturally occurring afford-
<br />able housing, nonprofit organizations have begun to acquire and
<br />manage at -risk properties to keep rents affordable to current and
<br />future tenants.
<br />TRACKING HOMELESSNESS
<br />In the early 2000s, HUD launched an initiative challenging cities to
<br />develop plans to end chronic homelessness within ten years. The
<br />2010 Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness sub-
<br />sequently broadened this effort, setting goals to end chronic and
<br />veteran homelessness within five years and homelessness among
<br />families with children and unaccompanied youth within ten years.
<br />Efforts to reduce homelessness appear to be working, at least
<br />at the national level. According to HUD's Annual Homelessness
<br />Assessment Report (AHAR), the number of people who were home-
<br />less on a single night in January fell 15 percent from 647,000 in 2007
<br />to 550,000 in 2016. Nearly all of this decline is due to decreases in the
<br />number of unsheltered homeless people, with the number of shel-
<br />tered homeless people remaining almost constant. The reductions
<br />are also largest among the groups most likely to be unsheltered,
<br />including the chronically homeless (down 35 percent in 2007-2016)
<br />and homeless veterans (down 47 percent in 2010-2016). Less prog-
<br />ress has occurred in reducing homelessness among families with
<br />children (down 17 percent in 2007-2016).
<br />The point -in -time count, however, provides only a conservative esti-
<br />mate of the number of people and families that experience homeless-
<br />ness over the course of a year, An alternative AHAR measure of the
<br />extent of homelessness is that nearly 1.5 million people spent at least
<br />one night in a shelter in 2015. Even this figure is low, given that it does
<br />not include the unsheltered homeless or at -risk individuals living in
<br />doubled -up or other unstable housing situations. The national esti-
<br />mates also mask considerable variation across locations. Metros with
<br />the highest rates of homelessness are frequently those with the high-
<br />est median rents (Figure 35), raising concerns about the consequences
<br />of tight conditions in these high-cost markets.
<br />Achieving further reductions in homelessness will require atten-
<br />tion to the needs of multiple subpopulations. A recent analysis of
<br />HUD's Family Options Study suggests that housing vouchers may be
<br />nut �r mhh m�1st,e t ulSu,, n
<br />4Ax , r '
<br />Homelessness Is Especially High
<br />in More Expensive Rental Markets
<br />Homelessness Rate IForcenO
<br />05 ...-...-..-. ............... _._.....___ ............. _. .._. _._...........
<br />® Now York
<br />Da
<br />•...nla_'"° _� San ean.ia..
<br />s
<br />03:..:...: ............-_..._.. •Boston .......... .:.....
<br />• son plea.
<br />TS >Pnnlane, OR W"Irl mn, BC
<br />5 Ant.iri. Innaepolla r ♦Bahama
<br />! �Pho I marri
<br />0.1 cto�ie'
<br />s•o.v.a ...sal a +rPwera as
<br />-
<br />pelma prlenao
<br />xauamn
<br />0.0
<br />$700 $900 $1,100 $1,300 $1,500 $1,700
<br />Median Rent
<br />Nates, Included metros are the 21 metropolitan statistical areas IMSASI among rho 25 largest WAS by lots)
<br />population for which at least 80% of population fells within one or more metro Continuums of Care (COGS).
<br />Mom CtCs are defined here as having at least 90% of their population falling within one MSA. Median rent is
<br />median grass rent including utilities, Homelessness rate is the printintime count of inmates people, both
<br />sheltered and unsheltered, divided by the MSA population,
<br />Sources'. UCHS tabulations of US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016 Point mi Count of
<br />Homelessness, and US Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1 year Estimates.
<br />
|