The Affordable Housing Reader by J. Rosie Tighe & Elizabeth J. Mueller

Author:J. Rosie Tighe & Elizabeth J. Mueller
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Routledge

Table 18.4 State HOME allocations reserved for CHDOs, 1992 to 1998 (percent)

Sources: HUD (1992–98a) and NCSHA (1992–98).

Note: *Percentage of funds allocated to CHDOs based on HUD data for states that are in the NCSHA data.

To assess the seriousness of these deficiencies, in Table 18.4 we compare data for our sample of state administrators with the cumulative HUD data presented previously. To control for differences in sample coverage, we also report regional and national percentages using HUD data for the same states that are included in the NCSHA sample.

Nationally, the HUD data indicate a lower share of state HOME funds committed to CHDOs over this seven-year period than do the NCSHA data, 20 compared with 25 percent. Data for some regions and states match quite well; others do not match. The smallest differences are found in the Northeast, with above average CHDO participation reported in both data sources (approximately 28 and 29 percent for both sources using comparable samples).

In the West, the difference in reported regional rates is primarily caused by the difference in sample coverage. In the Midwest and the South, however, the HUD data consistently report lower CHDO commitment rates. As noted, the HUD data have been purged of “unsuccessful” commitments. Thus, the differences in reported rates suggest that states in these two regions have more consistently misjudged the translation of CHDO commitments into final projects, or else that these states have simply had more difficulty completing such projects. Significantly, these are the regions in which networks of nonprofits and CDC housing producers are less well developed.

Table 18.5 is based on the NCSHA data. It presents the share of commitments made to nonprofits generally, for each program in each year, by region. The final two columns provide a summary of allocations for different periods.

As expected, the share of state-level HOME funding committed to nonprofits is higher than for CHDOs. In fact, the share is 50 percent higher. In each region, nonprofits receive a larger portion of HOME funding than of LIHTC funding. In light of the comparisons in Table 18.4, however, some of this difference may simply be attributable to overly optimistic reports of HOME nonprofit commitments. Even if the national rate for HOME is only slightly higher than for LIHTC, however, this would result in more than 30 percent of state HOME resources going to nonprofit housing providers.

Table 18.5 also provides a time series, nationally and by region. Nationally, neither of these programs shows much change in reliance on nonprofits over time. This is consistent with the pattern observed in Table 18.1 for several other federal housing programs. This finding is quite surprising for the HOME program, in light of the extensive discussion among policy makers of capacity-building. As noted earlier, there has been a growth in the participation of nonprofits in the LIHTC program since its formative years. The growth reported during the first years of the program appears to have stopped, however.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.