Federal Housing Assistance: Comparing the Characteristics and	 
Costs of Housing Programs (31-JAN-02, GAO-02-76).		 
                                                                 
For more than 60 years, the federal government has sought to	 
improve the condition and reduce the cost of rental housing for  
poor Americans. In fiscal year 1999, 5.2 million low-income	 
households received $28.7 billion in federal housing assistance  
through more than a dozen programs. Despite this assistance, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that 
9 million other very-low-income households still have serious	 
unmet housing needs. The most widespread problem facing these	 
households is a lack of affordable housing; many pay more than 30
percent of their income for rent. The housing provided under the 
six active federal programs varies by such characteristics as	 
age, building type, unit size, location, and services. GAO	 
estimates that, for units with the same number of bedrooms in the
same general location, these production programs cost more than  
housing vouchers. Across the six active programs, the federal	 
government and tenants pay most of the programs' total costs.	 
Except for one program, the federal government pays the largest  
percentage of the average total per-unit costs. GAO's work raises
several housing policy issues, including the relative costs and  
benefits of the voucher and production programs and whether	 
opportunities exist to control costs and stretch federal housing 
dollars. The absence of comprehensive and consistent data is an  
impediment to monitoring and evaluating housing programs.	 
Although production programs cost more than vouchers, all housing
programs provide benefits in addition to housing the poor. For	 
example, production programs seek to increase the supply of	 
affordable housing, accommodate special needs, and revitalize	 
distressed communities, while housing vouchers try to promote	 
mobility and neighborhood choice. Accordingly, these benefits	 
must be weighed against program costs.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-76						        
    ACCNO:   A02723						        
  TITLE:     Federal Housing Assistance: Comparing the Characteristics
and Costs of Housing Programs					 
     DATE:   01/31/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Comparative analysis				 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Federal aid for housing				 
	     Low income housing 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     Rental housing					 
	     HUD HOPE VI Program				 
	     HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program 		 
	     HUD Low-Income Housing Tax Credit			 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     HUD Section 202 Elderly Housing Program		 
	     HUD Section 515 Housing Program			 
	     HUD Section 811 Housing Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-76
     
United States General Accounting Office

                   GAO Report to Congressional Committees

January 2002

FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

Comparing the Characteristics and Costs of Housing Programs

                                      a

GAO-02-76

Contents

Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Programs Provide a Wide Range of Housing and Services
Production Programs Cost More Than Vouchers
The Federal Government and Tenants Pay the Largest Shares of

Total Costs Housing Policy Issues Federal Agency and State Association
Comments and Our

Evaluation Scope and Methodology

                                                                 1 3 5 9 17

25 33

38 40

Appendixes

                                Appendix I:

                  Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV:

                                Appendix V:

                                Appendix VI:

                               Appendix VII:

                               Appendix VIII:

Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs of Federally
Assisted Housing Programs 44
Previous Studies 44
Conceptual Framework 46
Estimating Program Costs 47
Comparing Program Costs 51
Cost Shares 56
Sources of Data Used in the Analysis 61

Sensitivity Analysis 64

Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance Programs 71

Federal Expenditures on Housing Programs 77 Defining Budgetary Outlays 77
Program Outlays for Fiscal Year 1999 77 Problems With Comparing Program
Outlays 80

Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban
Development 81
GAO Comments 89

Comments From the U.S. Department of Agriculture 91
GAO Comment 93

Comments From the National Council of State Housing
Agencies 94
GAO Comments 101

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 103
GAO Contacts 103

                                  Contents

                            Acknowledgments 103

Tables Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4: Table 5:

Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9:

Impact of Contributions From State, Local, and Private Sources on the
Average First-Year Costs of Two-Bedroom Units for Tax Credit Properties in
Boston and New York Average Total Development Costs Per Unit, by General
Location and for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars Average Present
Discounted Value of Development Subsidies Per Unit, by General Location and
for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars AverageMonthlyRents,by General
Location and forSeven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars Average First-and
30-Year Total Costs Per Unit: Housing Production Program Costs Compared With
Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Unit Size, in 1999 Dollars
Average First-and 30-Year Total Costs of One-and Two-Bedroom Units, by
General Location, in 1999 Dollars Average First-and 30-Year Total Costs of
One-Bedroom Units, by General Location and for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in
1999 Dollars Average First-and 30-Year Total Costs of Two-Bedroom Units, by
General Location and for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars Average
Share of First-and 30-Year Total Costs of One-Bedroom Units Paid by the
Federal Government, Tenants, and Others, in 1999 Dollars

                                     33

                                     48

                                   49 50

52 54 55 56 57 58

59

60

Table 10: Average Share of First-and 30-Year Total Costs of Two-Bedroom
Units Paid by the Federal Government, Tenants, and Others, in 1999 Dollars

Table 11: Average First-and 30-Year Federal Costs Per Unit: Housing
Production Program Federal Costs Compared With Voucher Federal Costs
Adjustedfor GeneralLocation, Unit Size, and Tenant Contribution, in 1999
Dollars

Table 12: Average First-and 30-Year Federal Costs for One-Bedroom Units:
Housing Production Program Federal Costs Compared With Voucher Federal
Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Tenant Contribution, in 1999
Dollars

Contents

Table 13: Average First-and 30-Year Federal Costs for Two-Bedroom Units:
Housing Production Program Federal Costs Compared With Voucher Federal
Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Tenant Contribution, in 1999
Dollars 61

Table 14: Average 30-Year Total Costs of Housing Programs Per Unit Under
Different Rates of Inflation, by General Location, in 1999 Dollars 64

Table 15: Average 30-Year Total Costs Per Unit Under Different Rates of
Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs Compared With Voucher Costs,
Adjusted for General Location and Unit Size, in 1999 Dollars 65

Table 16: Average 30-Year Total Costs of One-and Two-Bedroom Units Under
Different Rates of Inflation, by General Location, in 1999 Dollars 67

Table 17: Average Federal Share of 30-Year Total Costs Per Unit Under
Different Rates of Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs Compared With
Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location, Unit Size, and Tenant
Contribution, in 1999 Dollars 68

Table 18: Average Federal Share of 30-Year Total Costs of One-Bedroom Units
Under Different Rates of Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs
Compared With Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Tenant
Contribution, in 1999 Dollars 69

Table 19: Average Federal Share of 30-Year Total Costs of Two-Bedroom Units
Under Different Rates of Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs
Compared With Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Tenant
Contribution, in 1999 Dollars 70

Table 20: Multifamily Housing Programs, by Type of Subsidy, in Order of Year
Authorized 73 Table 21: Federal Outlays for Major Assisted Housing Programs
in Fiscal Year 1999 78

Figures  Figure 1:    Budgetary Outlays and Tax Expenditures for Active and Inactive
                              Housing Assistance Programs, Fiscal Year 1999,
                                           Dollars in Millions                           7
         Figure 2:            Housing Provided Under the Six Active Programs            10
         Figure 3:       Distribution and Average Size of Units in the Six Active
                                             Housing Programs                           13

Contents

Figure 4: General Location of Units in the Six Active Housing Programs 15
Figure 5: Demographic Characteristics of Neighborhoods Where Assisted
Housing Is Located 16 Figure 6: Average Total 30-Year Cost of One-Bedroom
Units, by General Location 19 Figure 7: Average Total 30-Year Cost of
Two-Bedroom Units, by General Location 20

Figure 8: Average Shares of Total 30-Year Costs for One-Bedroom Units Paid
by the Federal Government, Tenants, and Others 26

Figure 9: Average Annual Incomes of Households Served Under the Six Active
Programs 28

Figure 10: Comparison of the Average Federal Cost of One-Bedroom Units in
Metropolitan Areas for Production Programs and Vouchers, Adjusted for
Household Income and Rent Burden 30

Figure 11: Comparison of the Average Federal Cost of One-Bedroom Units in
Nonmetropolitan Areas for Production Programs and Vouchers, Adjusted for
Household Income and Rent Burden 31

Abbreviations

BMIR below-market interest rate
CMT constant maturity treasuries
FHA Federal Housing Administration
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IRS Internal Revenue Service
NCSHA National Council of State Housing Agencies
PDV present discounted value
RAP rental assistance payment
RHS Rural Housing Service
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

A

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

January 31, 2002

Congressional Committees

For more than 60 years, the federal government has provided assistance to
improve the condition and reduce the cost of rental housing for low-and
very-low-income households.1 In fiscal year 1999, about 5.2 million such
households received about $28.7 billion in federal housing assistance
through more than a dozen programs. Despite this level of assistance, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that almost 9
million other very-low-income households still have serious housing needs.
The most widespread problem facing these households is a lack of affordable
housing; many pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent.2 To help
the Congress and others better understand how federal resources are used to
respond to these needs, we analyzed the characteristics and costs of the
housing under various federal programs. Our analysis focuses on six active
programs that continue to increase the number of households assisted by the
federal government.3 These programs, as described below, include the Housing
Choice Voucher Program (housing vouchers), which is the largest source of
federal funds for housing assistance, and five production programs, which
currently receive federal funds to construct or substantially rehabilitate
units.

* Housing Vouchers supplement tenants' rental payments in privately owned,
moderately priced apartments chosen by the tenants.

* Low-Income Housing Tax Credits provide tax incentives for private
investment and are often used in conjunction with other federal and

1Federal rental assistance programs define "low-income" households as those
with incomes 80 percent or below of area median income and "very-low-income"
households as those with incomes 50 percent or below of area median income.

2See HUD's A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity
Amid Continuing Challenges, January 2001. According to HUD, almost 5 million
of these unassisted households have "worst-case" housing needs, meaning that
they pay over 50 percent of their income for rent, live in substandard or
overcrowded housing, or both.

3This analysis does not treat the HOME program as a separate production
program because HOME grants are often used in conjunction with other housing
production programs. The HOME funds provided with the production programs
discussed in this report are included in our analyses of these programs'
costs.

state subsidies in the production of new and rehabilitated affordable
housing units consistent with state-determined housing priorities.

* HOPE VI provides grants-coupled with funds from other federal, state,
local, and private sources-to revitalize severely distressed public housing,
support community and social services, and promote mixed-income
communities.4

* Section 202 provides grants to develop supportive housing for the elderly.

* Section 811 provides grants to develop supportive housing for persons with
disabilities.

* Section 515 provides below-market loans to support the development of
housing for families and the elderly in rural areas.

To obtain information on how federal housing resources could be used more
effectively, the Congress directed in the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 that we compare the total per-unit costs of
housing assistance programs, taking into account qualitative differences in
the programs. In response to the mandate and as agreed with your offices, we
(1) described characteristics of the housing provided under the six active
housing assistance programs; (2) estimated the per-unit cost of each of
these programs; (3) computed the portion of each program's per-unit cost
paid by the federal government, tenants, and others (state, local, and
private sources); and (4) identified public policy issues raised by our
study, taking into account tradeoffs between the programs' costs and
qualitative differences. We developed and presented preliminary responses to
these questions in an interim report.5

4HOPE VI replaces existing public housing units and, therefore, does not
increase the supply of affordable housing. Since 1994, public housing has
not received new appropriations to fund incremental units. Nonetheless, we
included HOPE VI among the active housing programs because it represents an
ambitious effort to improve the quality of the housing provided under the
program. Additionally, while other modernization efforts are funded through
public housing's capital fund, the HOPE VI program was able to provide more
extensive cost data, which greatly facilitated our analysis.

5Federal Housing Programs: What They Cost and What They Provide
(GAO-01-901R, July 18, 2001).

To perform our work, we collected and analyzed data on housing costs and
characteristics and tenant income for the nation as a whole and for seven
metropolitan areas, three of which we visited to observe qualitative
differences in representative properties provided under each of the
programs. We obtained the data for our analysis from HUD and other federal
agencies, public housing authorities, state housing finance agencies,
property managers, industry groups, and previous studies on tax credits.6
While the average total per-unit costs of housing vouchers and the
production programs can be estimated over any period, we developed 30-year
(life-cycle) cost estimates. We chose 30 years for our life-cycle estimates
because this is generally the minimal length of time that properties
developed through federal housing programs can be expected to serve
low-income households. Appendixes I and II provide more details on our
methodology and cost estimates.

Results in Brief The housing provided under the six active federal programs
varies widely in certain characteristics, such as age, building type, unit
size, location, and services, both across and within programs. Housing
vouchers are used almost exclusively in existing, older multifamily and
single-family properties in the private housing market. The housing voucher,
tax credit, and HOPE VI programs make available a broad range of building
types and unit sizes. By contrast, the Section 202, Section 811, and Section
515 programs typically deliver a narrower range of building types and
provide smaller units. Most of the assisted housing are located in suburbs
and central cities, except for Section 515 developments, which are situated
in rural areas. Compared with the neighborhoods where other program
properties are located, HOPE VI neighborhoods are poorer, with higher
percentages of minority households and lower percentages of homeowners. The
HOPE VI program offers a broad array of services and amenities to residents,
including employment and child care services. The Section 202 and Section
811 programs provide specific services and amenities that are targeted to
the special needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities,
respectively. For the remaining programs, the level of specific services and
amenities varies from property to property.

6Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing
Program (GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, Mar. 28, 1997) and Building Affordable Rental
Housing: An Analysis of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, City Research
(Boston: 1998).

We estimated that, for units with the same number of bedrooms in the same
general location, the production programs cost more than housing vouchers.
According to our estimates, in metropolitan areas, the average total 30-year
costs of the production programs range from 8 percent greater for
one-bedroom units under the Section 811 program to 19 percent greater under
the tax credit program. For two-bedroom units, the average total 30-year
costs range from 6 percent greater under the Section 811 program to 14
percent greater under the tax credit program. Although data were not
available to present total costs by unit size for the HOPE VI program, the
total cost of a HOPE VI unit with an average size of 2.4 bedrooms is about
27 percent more expensive than vouchers. These differences in costs between
the production programs and vouchers are greater in nonmetropolitan areas
than in metropolitan areas. Across the production programs, the total costs
of one- and two-bedroom units are generally similar. Despite these
programwide averages, the costs of individual properties vary substantially,
primarily because of differences in rents and total development costs.

Across the six active programs, the federal government and tenants pay the
majority of the programs' total costs. For all of the programs except tax
credits, the federal government pays the largest percentage of the average
total per-unit costs (from 65 percent for vouchers to 71 percent for HOPE VI
over 30 years). Under the tax credit program, the tenants pay the largest
share of the total cost (54 percent over 30 years); however, they have
higher incomes, on average, and pay a larger percentage of their income for
rent than other assisted households. If the incomes and rent burdens of
voucher households equaled those for each of the production programs, the
federal government would pay more for one- and two-bedroom units under the
production programs than under the voucher program. Contributions from
state, local, and private sources are generally small as a percentage of
total costs (from 2 percent for Section 202 to 7 percent for HOPE VI over 30
years); however, larger-than-average contributions in certain locations can
reduce rents paid by tenants and the federal cost of rental assistance.

Our work raises a number of housing policy issues, including the relative
costs and benefits of the voucher and production programs and whether there
are opportunities for controlling costs to stretch federal housing dollars
as far as possible. The absence of comprehensive and consistent data is an
impediment to monitoring and evaluating housing programs. While production
programs cost more than vouchers, all housing programs provide benefits in
addition to housing the poor. Production programs

have other goals, such as increasing the supply of affordable housing,
accommodating special needs, or revitalizing distressed communities. Housing
vouchers also have other goals, such as promoting mobility and neighborhood
choice. Accordingly, the benefits derived from achieving these goals must be
weighed against the programs' costs. Increasing contributions from
nonfederal subsidy providers could free federal funding to serve additional
households, and further research might identify opportunities to better
contain development costs. Additionally, cost control strategies must take
into account the costs to the federal government of setting aside sufficient
reserves to meet future capital needs. To evaluate the relative
effectiveness of the six housing programs in meeting national housing policy
objectives and to identify opportunities for controlling costs, further
research is needed. However, the comprehensive, consistent data required for
such research are not always readily available. For example, for tax
credits, the largest housing production program, there is no centralized
national database that includes information on costs.

Background The federal government has helped to provide affordable housing
to low-income households since the passage of the United States Housing Act
of 1937. Since then, federal housing programs have either subsidized the
construction of housing for the poor or provided rental assistance to
tenants in existing privately owned housing. Until 1974, federal housing
programs primarily supported the construction of affordable housing. Then,
in 1974, the Congress added Section 8 of the 1937 Act, which established a
new certificate program that relied on existing, privately owned rental
housing. The certificate program was merged in 1998 with a similar program
and renamed the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Under the voucher program,
the subsidy is tied to the household (tenant-based). The household can
choose to use the subsidy at any available unit that meets the program's
standards, and, if the household chooses to move, the subsidy continues as
long as the new unit also meets the program's standards. Since the early
1980s, housing vouchers have been the centerpiece of federal housing
assistance. Conversely, under the production programs, the subsidy is tied
to the unit (project-based), and the household can benefit from the subsidy
only while living in the subsidized unit. (See app. III for more information
on the evolution of federal housing assistance programs.)

Of the approximately 5.2 million renter households assisted by the federal
government in 1999, about 2.7 million were assisted by programs that no
longer receive appropriations to produce additional units. We refer to these

programs as "inactive." Appropriations are, however, provided to fund
project-based rental assistance, interest reduction payments, and operating
subsidies for the units developed under these programs in previous years.
The remaining 2.5 million units are subsidized under the six active programs
that receive appropriations both to add new units and to subsidize units
funded in previous years. In addition, households in some units benefit from
overlapping subsidies. For example, about 6 percent of voucher households
rent units developed under the production programs, particularly under tax
credits.

In fiscal year 1999, the federal government spent about $28.7 billion,
including $3.5 billion in tax credits, for both the active and inactive
housing programs. Of this combined amount, about $15.1 billion supported
units funded under the inactive programs, and about $13.6 billion in
budgetary outlays and tax credits supported the active programs. As shown in
figure 1, the voucher program is the largest of the active programs,
accounting for about 52 percent of the federal funding for them. The tax
credit program accounts for about 26 percent of the federal funding for
active programs, the HOME program about 10 percent, the Section 202 and
Section 811 programs about 5 percent, the Section 515 program about 5
percent,7 and the HOPE VI program about 2 percent. Appendix IV contains
detailed information on the federal expenditures on housing programs,
including the number of units and the costs associated with each of the
active and inactive programs in fiscal year 1999.

7We include outlays for rental assistance provided to Section 515 units
under the Section 521 program.

Figure 1: Budgetary Outlays and Tax Expenditures for Active and Inactive
Housing Assistance Programs, Fiscal Year 1999, Dollars in Millions

Note: Total equals $28.7 billion in budgetary outlays and tax expenditures.
Outlays for Section 8 project-based include New Construction/Substantial
Rehabilitation, Loan Management Set-Aside, Property Disposition, Section
236, and Rent Supplement. Outlays for "other" include Section 202, Section
811, Section 515, Section 521, and HOPE VI. As previously stated, we
identify HOME as an active program, but our analysis does not treat it as a
separate program because HOME grants are often used in conjunction with
other housing programs.

In the private rental housing market, the rent covers the total cost of
providing a housing unit, including the operating expenses (e.g.,
administrative expenses, utilities, routine maintenance, and property
taxes); debt service; deposits to a replacement reserve for major capital
improvements over time; and a market return to equity investors. Under the
voucher program, the rent also covers the total cost of providing a

housing unit. The assisted household generally pays 30 percent of its income
for rent, and the voucher makes up the difference between the household's
contribution and the market rent. In addition, the federal government pays a
fee, equal to about 7 to 8 percent of the rent, to the public housing
authority that administers the voucher program locally on HUD's behalf.
Thus, under the voucher program, the following formula applies:

Total Costs = Rents + Administrative Fee

In this formula, rents include contributions by the voucher program and
assisted household.

Under the production programs, the federal government provides development
subsidies for new construction or substantial rehabilitation and frequently
provides rental assistance. State and local governments or private entities
may provide additional development subsidies. These federal and nonfederal
subsidies can take various forms, including grants, low-interest-rate loans,
and tax credits. The subsidies can lower the rents, provide additional
services or amenities, or both. When the federal government provides rental
assistance, the assisted household generally pays 30 percent of its income
toward rent, and the government makes up the difference.8 Thus, under the
production programs, the following formula applies:

Total Costs = Rents + Development Subsidies

Rents also include contributions by the housing program and assisted
household.9

For both vouchers and the production programs, our estimates of total costs
recognize that rents are paid over many years and development

8The public housing residents of HOPE VI properties; most Section 202,
Section 811, and Section 515 households; and, according to our estimate,
about 40 percent of tax credit households receive rental assistance, pay
about 30 percent of their income for rent, or both.

9We did not include the costs incurred by federal and other government
agencies to administer and monitor the programs since these costs are not
identified in sufficient detail in the agencies' records. However, we
believe these costs to be extremely small relative to those costs that we
have accounted for.

subsidies are paid either up front or over many years. Appendix I provides
further details on the conceptual framework for our methodology.

Vouchers and the production programs are subject to and insulated from
different cost risks over time. Whereas vouchers are vulnerable to inflation
in market rents, the production programs are less vulnerable because of
federal regulations or limits on rents associated with development
subsidies. However, the production programs can pose substantial cost risks
if capital reserves are underfunded, as they often have been in the past.
Vouchers pose no such risk because the federal government has no commitment
to specific units.

Both the voucher and the production programs are subject to cost-containment
guidelines. For the voucher program, HUD sets payment standards that are
based on fair market rents for over 2,700 market areas, taking into account
unit size (number of bedrooms). These payment standards are intended to give
assisted households a selection of units and neighborhoods while containing
costs. Public housing authorities can ask HUD to increase local rent
ceilings if they believe increases are warranted. For the production
programs, the cost-containment guidelines are intended to provide properties
of modest design. These guidelines may establish cost limits that vary by
location, type of building (e.g., elevator or garden-style), and unit size,
or they may simply require assurances that the costs of proposed properties
are reasonable.

With two exceptions, federal housing assistance programs are administered by
HUD. The exceptions are the Section 515 program, which is administered by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Housing Service (RHS), and
the low-income housing tax credit program, whose administrative
responsibilities are shared by state and local housing finance agencies and
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) within the Department of the Treasury.
The state and local agencies allocate tax credits to individual properties
within their jurisdictions, set cost-containment guidelines, and provide
general oversight. IRS oversees compliance with the Tax Code.

Programs Provide a Under the six active programs, properties vary in age,
type, the number of

units, the number of bedrooms within units, location, neighborhood,Wide
Range of Housing amenities, and condition. The emphasis placed on social
services also and Services varies considerably. Figure 2 illustrates some of
the many types of housing

provided under the six active housing programs.

          Figure 2: Housing Provided Under the Six Active Programs

Note: The pictures contained in this figure illustrate the following: (a)
vouchers-an 80-year-old three-story apartment complex in central Boston; (b)
tax credits-a rehabilitated single-room-occupancy dwelling for the homeless
in a Baltimore suburb; (c) HOPE VI-a newly constructed apartment complex in
central Atlanta; (d) Section 202-a newly constructed, elevator high-rise for
the elderly in a Baltimore suburb; (e) Section 811-a rehabilitated group
home for persons with mental disabilities in a Fort Worth suburb; and (f)
Section 515-a newly constructed, walk-up apartment for the elderly in rural
Wachusetts, Mass.

Age, Type, and Size of Program Properties

Housing vouchers are used almost exclusively in existing properties whose
median age nationwide is about 35 years, ranging from about 65 years in the
Northeast to about 30 years in the West. According to HUD data, about
three-quarters of vouchers are used in multifamily dwellings, and the
remainder are used in single-family homes. Production program properties are
either newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated. For example, the
HOPE VI program replaces or renovates severely distressed public housing
developments as part of a broader community revitalization strategy. The new
or rehabilitated properties often include special design features that are
intended to integrate the public housing community with the neighborhood.
HOPE VI properties, which have an average of nearly 300 units, span the full
range of building types, from detached homes to row houses to elevator
buildings.

The tax credit and Section 811 programs also provide newly constructed and
substantially rehabilitated properties. Most tax credit properties are
multifamily buildings, including single-room-occupancy dwellings, walk-up
apartments, town houses and row houses, and elevator buildings, and have an
average of 77 units. This average does not include tax credit properties
with Section 515 mortgages.10 Section 811 properties are predominantly of
two types-independent living projects and group homes. Independent living
projects generally provide separate apartments with individual kitchens and
bathrooms, while group homes typically include a bedroom for each resident
and a common kitchen, dining, and living area. Section 811 properties range
from single-family dwellings to walk-up apartments and have an average of
about 12 units. Group homes, however, must house no more than six persons.

Finally, the Section 202 and Section 515 programs primarily provide newly
constructed properties. Section 202 properties are generally mid-and
high-rise buildings with elevators, averaging 45 units nationwide, whereas
most

10For the nation, the average size of tax credit properties with Section 515
mortgages is 32 units. The average size of all tax credit properties is 57.

Section 515 properties are walk-up apartments and often consist of no more
than 24 units, which is a size consistent with the lower population
densities of rural areas.

Average Size and Across the six active programs, units vary in their average
size (as Distribution of Program measured by the number of bedrooms) and
distribution across size, as Units shown in figure 3. The average number of
bedrooms ranges from 1.0 for

the Section 202 and Section 811 programs to 2.4 for the HOPE VI program.
Vouchers and tax credits provide higher percentages of larger family units,
while the Section 515 program includes a mixture of larger units for
families and smaller units for the elderly.

 Figure 3: Distribution and Average Size of Units in the Six Active Housing
                                  Programs

          Note: Average number of bedrooms appears in parentheses.

Location of Program Properties

Most assisted housing is located in metropolitan areas-a broad term that
includes both central cities and suburbs-but the location of properties
varies somewhat by program. As figure 4 indicates, all HOPE VI units are
found in metropolitan areas, with about 90 percent in central cities. In
addition, about 94 percent of tax credit units11 and about 80 percent of
voucher, Section 202, and Section 811 units are located in metropolitan
areas. Moreover, for all of these programs, the majority of the
metropolitan-area units are located in central cities. By contrast, nearly
70 percent of Section 515 units are found in rural nonmetropolitan areas,
with the balance in the rural parts of metropolitan areas.

11This percentage excludes tax credit units in properties with Section 515
mortgages because we included these units in our calculations for the
Section 515 program. If these units were included in our calculations for
tax credits, the percentage of units in nonmetropolitan areas would increase
from about 6 percent to about 22 percent.

Figure 4: General Location of Units in the Six Active Housing Programs

The neighborhoods where assisted housing is located also vary. According to
data from the Bureau of the Census, the census tracts where HOPE VI units
are found are poorer than the census tracts where other program units are
located. HOPE VI census tracts also have higher percentages of minority
households and lower percentages of homeowners. In general, the demographic
characteristics of the census tracts where other program properties are
located are fairly similar, as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Demographic Characteristics of Neighborhoods Where Assisted
Housing Is Located

Note: The data for poverty indicate the percentage of neighborhood
households with incomes below a certain threshold adjusted for family size
as determined by the Bureau of the Census. In addition, the figure excludes
data for Section 515 units because the addresses of Section 515 properties
were not readily available.

Services Provided and Amenities

Besides providing a range of property types with units of different sizes in
different locations, the six active programs vary in the extent to which
they make supportive services12 and amenities available to assisted
households. In general, supportive services are not an integral part of the
voucher, tax credit, and Section 515 programs. However, when individual tax
credit and Section 515 properties serve households with special needs, such
as the elderly or persons with disabilities, they may provide services and
amenities similar to those provided in Section 202 and Section 811
properties. Section 202 properties typically include congregate dining
facilities, and both Section 202 and Section 811 properties include common
rooms and may make transportation, housekeeping, and health care services
available. The HOPE VI program emphasizes services, allowing up to 15
percent of the HOPE VI grant to be used for community and supportive
services. For example, HOPE VI developments often include employment or job
training centers as well as facilities for children. Production program
units are more likely to have modern amenities, whereas voucher units
typically have amenities characteristic of older rental properties. In
addition, although it is expected that new units under the production
programs start out in better condition than the older units under the
voucher program, over time, the condition of these new units, as well as
existing units, depends on the level of maintenance and reinvestment.

Production Programs Cost More Than Vouchers

We estimate that, in the same general location, it costs more, on average,
to provide one-and two-bedroom units under each of the production programs
than it does under the voucher program. The differences between production
programs and vouchers are greater in nonmetropolitan areas than in
metropolitan areas. Across the production programs, the total costs of one-
and two-bedroom units are generally similar. Within individual programs, the
total per-unit costs vary considerably from property to property, even
within the same metropolitan area, largely because of differences in the
properties' rents and total development costs. Actual total costs for the
production programs are higher than our estimates because data on local
property tax abatements

12Supportive services provide residents with the assistance needed to live
independently. In the case of elderly residents, such services can include
transportation, dining services, and recreation.

and the possible underfunding  of reserves to meet future capital needs were
not available.

Production Programs Cost More Than Vouchers in Both Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Areas

In both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the average total 30-year
cost of each of the production programs exceeds the cost of providing a
voucher for a unit with the same number of bedrooms. To control the impact
of unit size on costs, we compared the costs of units with the same number
of bedrooms across programs. We focused on one- and two-bedroom units
because they are provided under most of the programs and generally account
for over 60 percent of each program's units. (We could not include HOPE VI,
the program with the largest average unit size, in this analysis because
data were not available to present total cost by unit size.) As shown in
figure 6, in metropolitan areas, the average total cost ranges from $139,520
for vouchers to $166,610 for tax credits. Compared with vouchers, the
production programs cost from 8 percent more for Section 811 units to 19
percent more for tax credit units.13 In nonmetropolitan areas, the average
total cost ranges from $95,890 for vouchers to $138,060 for tax credits,
and, compared with vouchers, the production programs cost from 35 percent
more for Section 811 units to 44 percent more for tax credit units.

13In our July interim report, we presented total costs for 30 years and for
the first year. This report also presents total costs for 30 years, with
first-year costs presented in appendix I. The total cost in the first year
is the sum of the rent paid in the first year plus the annual payment for
all development subsidies, assuming a 30-year life. Under both cost
estimates, production programs are more expensive than vouchers. The
disparities in costs between each of the production programs and vouchers
are more pronounced in the first year than over 30 years because rents are
higher for vouchers than for the production programs, which use development
subsidies to reduce rents (see table 4 in app. I). As a result, rent
inflation has a more significant impact on the cost of vouchers than on the
costs of the production programs, thereby narrowing the disparities in costs
between the two over time.

Figure 6: Average Total 30-Year Cost of One-Bedroom Units, by General
Location

Note: Since Section 515 is a rural program, we present our cost estimate of
Section 515 for nonmetropolitan areas only.

The drop in average total cost from metropolitan to nonmetropolitan areas
for one-bedroom units is greatest for the voucher program. Vouchers in
nonmetropolitan areas cost 31 percent less than vouchers in metropolitan
areas. For the production programs, nonmetropolitan units cost from 14
percent less than metropolitan units under Section 811 to 17 percent less
under tax credits.

As shown in figure 7, examining the costs of two-bedroom units yields
similar results. In metropolitan areas, the average total costs range from
$161,650 for the voucher program to $184,130 for the tax credit program.
Compared with vouchers, the production programs cost from 6 percent more for
Section 811 units to 14 percent more for tax credit units. In
nonmetropolitan areas, the production programs cost from 20 percent more for
Section 515 units to 38 percent more for tax credit units.14 Again, the drop
in total cost from metropolitan to nonmetropolitan areas for two-bedroom
units is greatest for the voucher program.

Figure 7: Average Total 30-Year Cost of Two-Bedroom Units, by General
Location

14In the seven metropolitan areas we selected for review, one- and
two-bedroom production program units are also more expensive than one- and
two-bedroom voucher units, respectively. Costs for one-and two-bedroom units
for the seven metropolitan areas are provided in tables 7 and 8 in appendix
I.

Note: Section 202 is not included in this analysis because it produces
mainly efficiencies and one-bedroom units. Also, since Section 515 is a
rural program, we present our cost estimate of Section 515 for
nonmetropolitan areas only.

For units greater than two bedrooms, cost data were available for two
programs-tax credits and vouchers. We estimate that the average total cost
of three-bedroom units in metropolitan areas is about $203,510 for tax
credits and $196,470 for vouchers-a difference of about 4 percent. In
nonmetropolitan areas, the average total cost is about $179,400 for tax
credits and $131,580 for vouchers-a difference of about 36 percent. Overall,
we find that the cost differentials between production programs and vouchers
decrease as unit size increases.

We could not include the HOPE VI program in figures 6 and 7 because, again,
data were not available to present total costs by unit size. However, the
total cost of an average HOPE VI unit, with 2.4 bedrooms, is $223,190- this
figure includes only housing-related construction costs. We estimate that
the average voucher cost of a 2.4-bedroom voucher unit is $175,580.
According to these estimates, the HOPE VI program is about 27 percent more
expensive than the voucher program.15 If the costs of remediation,
demolition, construction of housing and community facilities, relocation,
and community-based planning and participation-in addition to
housing-related construction costs-were included, the average total cost of
the program would be $248,720 or 42 percent more expensive than vouchers.

Across the production programs, the average total costs are very similar to
each other. For one-bedroom units in metropolitan areas, the average 30-year
cost of the most expensive program (tax credits) is 10 percent greater than
that of the least expensive one (Section 811). In nonmetropolitan areas, the
difference in the average total cost for one-bedroom units between the most
expensive program (tax credits) and the least expensive one (Section 811) is
even smaller-only 6 percent. The average total costs of two-bedroom units
are also similar across production programs in metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas.

15This comparison of HOPE VI and voucher costs follows the method employed
in our interim report, in which we compared the cost of each of the
production programs with the cost of vouchers. In that report, we took the
actual rents for voucher units of different sizes and interpolated a rent
consistent with the average bedroom size for each specific production
program. Because these pairwise cost comparisons use a different average
unit size for each of the programs, we cannot compare costs across the
production programs. We did not normalize all of the production programs to
2.4 bedrooms because this size is considerably larger than the typical units
under the other programs. Figures 6 and 7 permit comparisons for the most
common unit sizes.

Total Costs Vary Across Individual Properties

The average total costs of the voucher and production programs vary across
individual properties, even within the same metropolitan area, primarily
because of variations in the rents charged for the voucher program and by
the development costs for the production programs.16 For example, in the
Boston metropolitan area, the market rents for two-bedroom voucher units
range from about $540 to $1,300 per month, and the average total development
costs of two-bedroom tax credit units range from about $44,800 to $293,340
per unit.

Neighborhood characteristics may influence market rents and total
development costs (in particular, the value of land). Under the voucher
program, variations in market rents within a metropolitan area for
similar-sized units may be influenced by neighborhood differences, such as
quality of schools, crime rates, and pollution.17 Market rents may also be
influenced by the quality of the units, proximity to jobs and shopping
centers, and the amenities and services offered. Under the production
programs, variations in total development costs within a metropolitan area
reflect not only differences in neighborhoods but also in property and unit
amenities, project sponsors, program requirements, and a host of other
factors.18

16For some of the programs reviewed, variances in the costs of individual
properties in certain locations can also be due to their small sample sizes.

17A detailed discussion of the impact of housing characteristics and public
amenities on housing rents is found in chapters 3, 4, and 14 in Denise
DiPasquale and William C. Wheaton, Urban Economics and Real Estate Markets
(1996).

18The impact of property and neighborhood characteristics on total
development costs for the tax credit program is analyzed in Jean L. Cummings
and Denise DiPasquale, "The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: The First Ten
Years," Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 10, Issue 2 (1999), pp. 251-307. GAO
also analyzed these issues in Tax Credits: Reasons for Cost Differences in
Housing Built by For-Profit and Nonprofit Developers (GAO/RCED-99-60, Mar.
10, 1999). For more information, HUD measured and explained the differences
in total development costs among the inactive housing production programs in
The Costs of HUD Multifamily Housing Programs, HUD, Office of Policy
Development and Research (1982).

For HOPE VI and tax credits, we find high-cost properties located in very
poor neighborhoods where market rents would be insufficient to generate new
construction. Often, production programs, by design, build housing in
neighborhoods where the market would not. There may be additional costs of
building in these neighborhoods. Additional costs may also result from
compliance with federal wage and hiring regulations19 and from participation
of less experienced developers, such as housing authorities or neighborhood
groups, that may be less efficient than larger developers who have better
construction management capacity.20 Nonetheless, it is doubtful that these
factors alone account for the high costs of the most expensive projects in
our database, some of which exceed $200,000 per unit.

19According to HUD, all HOPE VI developments must follow these regulations,
including the Davis-Bacon Act, Section 3 requirements to hire small and
minority contractors, and resident participation requirements. For example,
HUD stated that, depending on the local construction labor market,
Davis-Bacon alone, which requires construction workers to receive locally
prevailing wages and fringe benefits, can increase construction costs by as
much as 25 percent.

20HOPE VI officials recognized that, unlike private sector developers, many
housing authorities hire program and construction managers to oversee HOPE
VI developments, which can increase costs. Also, see Cummings and DiPasquale
(1999), pp. 260 and 261.

Data Were Not Available to Account for Local Property Tax Abatements and
Underfunding of Capital Reserves

Actual total costs for the production programs are somewhat higher than our
estimates because our estimates do not reflect the value of abated property
taxes or shortfalls in capital reserves. Under each production program, some
properties receive tax abatements, and, historically, sufficient reserves
for capital replacements and improvements have not been set aside.21 Indeed,
if future subsidies are needed to maintain the properties under the
production programs, our cost estimates understate the actual costs.
Although data were not available to estimate the additional costs of
property tax abatements and capital reserve shortfalls for individual
properties, we estimated, on the basis of industry averages, that under a
worst-case scenario (i.e., total tax abatements and no payments to
reserves), the total 30-year costs would be understated by nearly 15
percent.22 This scenario is most applicable to the HOPE VI program, in which
full property taxes are not paid and capital reserves are not fully funded.
Under the other four production programs, many properties fund capital
reserves and pay full property taxes. For these programs, our cost estimates
are likely to be understated by less than 15 percent.

21One HUD study estimates that modernization needs of public housing are
nearly $20,000 per unit. If these needs were met, the ongoing annual accrual
needs of public housing are estimated at almost $1,700 per unit. See Capital
Needs of the Public Housing Stock in 1998, Abt and Associates Inc. (2000).
However, given the unique nature of public housing, its history may not shed
much light on the future of other current programs. Perhaps more relevant,
another HUD study estimates that the annual accrual needs of FHA-insured
multifamily properties are almost $1,100 per unit. See Status of HUD-Insured
(or Held) Multifamily Rental Housing in 1995, Abt Associates, Inc. (1999).

22This percentage represents an increase of $35,220 to the total 30-year
cost of $223,190 for the HOPE VI program. Our estimate of this increase is
based on the national average property tax rate of $11 per $1,000 in
property value, according to the 1999 American Housing Survey, and an annual
set-aside of $600 per unit. About 25 percent of this increase is
attributable to shortfalls in capital reserves and 75 percent to property
tax abatements. Interviews with industry officials indicate that annual
set-asides for new construction under the tax credit program are about $300
per unit. HUD officials, on the other hand, argue that the history of public
housing and other federal multifamily housing programs suggests that a
set-aside of about $1,000 per unit is more appropriate. When an annual
shortfall of $300 per unit is assumed and no changes are made to the
property tax abatement estimates, our total 30-year cost estimate increases
by 14 percent. When $1,000 per unit is assumed, our total 30-year cost
estimate increases by 18 percent.

The Federal Government and Tenants Pay the Largest Shares of Total Costs

Across the six active programs, the federal government and tenants pay the
majority of the programs' average total costs. For all of the programs
except tax credits, the federal government pays the largest percentage of
the average total costs. For tax credits, the tenants pay a slightly higher
percentage, but they have higher incomes, on average, and pay a larger
percentage of their income for rent than other assisted households. If the
incomes and rent burdens of voucher households equaled those for each of the
production programs, the federal government would pay more for one-and
two-bedroom units under the production programs than under the voucher
program. Contributions from state, local, and private sources are, on
average, small as a percentage of total costs, but in certain locations,
contributions from these sources can reduce rents paid by the tenants and
the federal cost of rental assistance.

The Federal  Government The federal government pays  most of the total costs
for all  of the programs  and Tenants Pay Most of the  with the exception of
tax  credits, for  which tenants  pay the  largest share  of Total  Costs of
Assisted total costs.  As figure 8 shows, the federal share, as a percentage
of average

total costs, is about 65 percent for vouchers; 60 percent for Section
515;Housing and 70 percent for HOPE VI, Section 202, and Section 811. The
federal share is the smallest for tax credits-about 40 percent.

Figure 8: Average Shares of Total 30-Year Costs for One-Bedroom Units Paid
by the Federal Government, Tenants, and Others

Notes:

1. The cost shares for HOPE VI are for all units, not one-bedroom units,
because the program does not identify costs by the number of bedrooms.

2. This figure presents data on average cost shares for the nation, which
are similar to those for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.

3. "Other" includes state, local, and private funding sources.

As figure 8 shows, tenants contribute between 21 percent (HOPE VI) and 54
percent (tax credits) of the total housing costs over 30 years. The tenant
share for each of the programs is dependent on the average income of the
households served and the average portion of this income paid for rent. The
more the assisted households pay, the less the federal government needs to
contribute.

As figure 9 shows, compared with the other programs, tax credit households
have the largest average income, about $14,150 (in 1999 dollars), 23 and pay
the largest portion of their income for rent-about 35 percent
overall-compared with about 30 percent for most of the households assisted
through the other programs.24 As a result, the tenant share of total cost is
the largest for the tax credit program. The other active housing programs
target households with lower average incomes, and, therefore, tenants under
these programs pay a smaller share of the average total per-unit costs. Most
of these households receive rental assistance and pay about 30 percent of
their income for rent, leaving the federal government and, to a far lesser
extent, other subsidy providers to cover the remaining costs. Figure 9
displays the average incomes of the households assisted through the six
active programs.

23The tax credit program serves two distinct groups. The first group, which
we estimate includes about 40 percent of tax credit households, has an
average income of $8,350 (in 1999 dollars), comparable to the average
incomes of households assisted through the other active programs. This group
receives rental assistance and pays about 30 percent of its income for rent.
The second group, on the other hand, has a larger average income of $17,750,
does not receive rental assistance, and faces much higher rent burdens,
sometimes exceeding 50 percent of its income. (See GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, p.
41.)

24According to our most recent letter on tax credits, Tax Credits:
Characteristics of Tax Credit Properties and Their Residents
(GAO/RCED-00-51R, Jan. 10, 2000, pp. 6 and 7), about 57 percent of tax
credit households paid 30 percent or less of their income for rent, about 21
percent paid between 31 and 40 percent, about 8 percent paid between 41 and
50 percent, about 8 percent paid over 50 percent, and 5 percent paid an
unknown percentage.

Figure 9:  Average Annual Incomes of Households Served  Under the Six Active
Programs

Sources:   GAO's   analysis   of   data  from   HUD's   Multifamily   Tenant
Characteristics  System  and  APicture  ofSubsidizedHouseholds,  RHS  agency
officials, and GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55.

After Adjustments, the Federal Cost of the Production Programs Is Greater
Than Vouchers

If the average incomes of tax credit and voucher households were equal25 and
if both groups of tenants paid the same percentage of their income for rent,
it would cost the federal government about 30 percent more for the tax
credit program than for housing vouchers for a one-bedroom unit in
metropolitan areas (fig. 10). Similarly, if the average incomes of the other
production programs and voucher households were equal and if both groups of
tenants paid the same percentage of their income for rent, it would cost the
federal government, in metropolitan areas, from 7 percent more for Section
811 to 16 percent more for Section 202 for one-bedroom units over 30 years.
For two-bedroom units, it costs the federal government, in metropolitan
areas, 2 percent more for Section 811 and 15 percent more for tax credits.
The federal cost of an average-size HOPE VI unit (2.4 bedrooms) is 24
percent more than vouchers, and if all costs, in addition to housing-related
expenses, were considered, the federal cost of HOPE VI would be 43 percent
more.26 We also estimated the federal cost of three-bedroom units, where
data were available, and found that tax credit units in metropolitan areas
cost the federal government 3 percent less than vouchers.

25Since differences in household incomes and rent burdens can have a
significant impact on federal costs, we adjusted the rent paid by the
voucher household to equal the rent paid by the tax credit household. We
also made similar adjustments for the comparisons between vouchers and the
other production programs.

26Because data for the HOPE VI program were not available by unit size, we
followed the approach used in our interim report to estimate the program's
federal cost. For the other programs, we were able to compare cost across
different unit sizes.

Figure 10: Comparison of the Average Federal Cost of One-Bedroom Units in
Metropolitan Areas for Production Programs and Vouchers, Adjusted for
Household Income and Rent Burden

Note: Since Section 515 properties are located in rural areas, they are not
included in this figure. Due to data limitations, HOPE VI cost data reflect
the average for all units, not one-bedroom units. Also, it is not
appropriate to compare across production programs because the assumed tenant
rental contribution for housing vouchers is different for each of the
production programs.

As shown in figure 11, in nonmetropolitan areas, the differences in the
comparative federal cost of vouchers and production programs are greater.
For example, the federal cost of one-bedroom tax credit units is about 180
percent more than the federal cost of vouchers in nonmetropolitan areas,
compared with about 30 percent more in metropolitan areas. The federal costs
for the other production programs are from 57 percent (Section 811) to 67
percent (Section 202) greater than for vouchers in nonmetropolitan areas.
For two-bedroom units, it costs the federal government, in nonmetropolitan
areas, 103 percent more for tax credits. For the other programs, the federal
costs in nonmetropolitan areas are 28 percent greater

for Section 515 and 39 percent greater for Section 811. Finally, the federal
cost of three-bedroom tax credit units in nonmetropolitan areas is 102
percent more than vouchers. Additional data on the federal costs of one-and
two-bedroom units appear in tables 12 and 13 in appendix I.

Figure 11: Comparison of the Average Federal Cost of One-Bedroom Units in
Nonmetropolitan Areas for Production Programs and Vouchers, Adjusted for
Household Income and Rent Burden

Note: Since HOPE VI properties are located exclusively in metro areas, they
are not included in this figure. Also, it is not appropriate to compare
across production programs because the assumed tenant rental contribution
for housing vouchers is different for each of the production programs.

Contributions From Other Sources, While Generally Small, Can Reduce Rents or
Lower Federal Costs

Contributions from state, local, and private sources, as shown in figure 8,
cover a small share of the total costs of the production programs.27 At the
national level, these contributions do not exceed, on average, 7 percent
over 30 years. This percentage, however, would be somewhat higher if data
were available to account for the impact of property tax abatements, as
previously discussed in this report.

Even though the share of total costs paid by these sources is, on average,
small, we identified state and local subsidies that, in certain locations,
had a significant impact on rents or federal costs. For example, a
comparison of the subsidies provided to properties in the New York and
Boston metropolitan areas demonstrates the impact of a significant
nonfederal subsidy. As shown in table 1, the average contribution from
state, local, and private sources for a two-bedroom tax credit unit is over
five times greater in New York than in Boston in the first year. At the same
time, both the total and federal per-unit costs were about the same for both
cities. Because of the difference in subsidies from state, local, and
private sources, the average monthly rent paid by a tax credit household was
about $820 in Boston and about $430 in New York-a difference of nearly 90
percent. The primary reason for the difference in tax credit rents is that
New York City provides virtually all of the mortgages for tax credit
properties, at rates averaging about 1 percent-a very significant subsidy.
Conversely, in the Boston metropolitan area, the state provides about
two-thirds of the mortgages at interest rates that are very close to market
rates. In addition, rent reductions resulting from state and local subsidies
present opportunities to decrease the federal cost of providing rental
assistance to these units.

27These contributions are not applicable to the voucher program.

Table 1: Impact of Contributions From State, Local, and Private Sources on
the Average First-Year Costs of Two-Bedroom Units for Tax Credit Properties
in Boston and New York

Note: To
illustrate
clearly the
impact  of  these
subsidies  on the
resulting  rents,
we chose  to present the average total costs in  the first year, rather than
over 30 years. Also, the tenant shares of costs for both Boston and New York
are less  than the  average annual rents  charged for the  units because the
tenant  shares do not include the  estimated rental assistance payments paid
by the federal government.

After Adjustments, the Total Government Cost of the Production Programs Is
Greater Than Vouchers

Our data also allow us to compare the total government (federal, state, and
local) cost of production programs and vouchers, while making the same
assumptions concerning household income and rent burdens as in the federal
cost comparisons.28 In metro areas, the total government costs for a
one-bedroom unit under the production programs, compared with vouchers, are
12 percent more for Section 811, 20 percent more for Section 202, and 53
percent more for tax credits. The total government cost for an average-size
unit under HOPE VI is 37 percent more. In nonmetropolitan areas, the total
government costs for a one-bedroom unit under the production programs,
compared with vouchers, are 60 percent more for Section 811, 67 percent more
for Section 202, 75 percent more for Section 515, and 214 percent more for
tax credits. The differentials in total government costs are similar for
two-bedroom units.

Housing Policy Issues The overriding goal of the federal housing programs we
reviewed is to house the poor. However, the housing programs have additional
goals- vouchers provide mobility and neighborhood choice, and production
programs have additional goals, from creating new affordable units, to
meeting the needs of the elderly or persons with disabilities, to promoting
community development. Whether the benefits derived from these additional
goals justify the programs' additional costs is a major housing policy
question. For all of the programs, controlling costs is important to

28 Our estimate  of  total government  cost may  include  private subsidies.
However,  these  subsidies generally make  up a  very small fraction  of the
total cost of the programs.

ensure the efficient use of federal subsidies. Increasing contributions from
nonfederal sources could stretch federal housing dollars for the production
programs, and further research might suggest opportunities for containing
development costs. Cost control strategies must include the potential costs
to the federal government of setting aside sufficient funding for capital
reserves. Assessing the extent to which the programs are collectively
addressing the nation's affordable housing needs and controlling costs is
difficult because detailed data on the various housing programs are not
consistently available.

               Achieving the Goals of Federal Housing Policy

If costs were the only consideration, our estimates would suggest that the
production programs should be replaced with vouchers. However, federal
housing programs deliver benefits that must be taken into account when
addressing costs. Voucher recipients can choose housing in neighborhoods
that offer better educational and employment opportunities, or they can also
choose to remain in place while paying less for rent. In many markets,
production programs are the only sources of new affordable rental units, and
use restrictions will keep these units affordable for decades to come,
limiting the impact of market forces. These units can be crucial, especially
when housing markets are tight or landlords are unwilling to rent to voucher
recipients. Certain housing authorities have found that the fair market
rents in some metropolitan areas are too low, making it difficult for
voucher recipients to find housing.29

29Comprehensive and current data on success rates for the nation were not
available. HUD is completing The Voucher Success Rates study based on sample
data from 48 metropolitan public housing authorities. Anecdotal evidence,
while not conclusive, points to the difficulty of finding housing with
vouchers. A search of the NEXIS database found over 70 news articles
published over the past year about the challenges faced by voucher
recipients. We found references to this problem reported for certain
high-cost areas, such as Boston and San Francisco, and also for certain
low-cost areas, such as Little Rock, Ark. For example, see "Many Housing
Vouchers Forfeited: Lack of Affordable Units Undermining Section 8," The
Boston Globe, Mar. 24, 2001; "Desperate Clutch for Subsidized Shelter; S.F.
Applicants in Frenzy," The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2001; and
"Project Tenants to Enter Tight Housing Market," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,
Feb. 18, 2001.

In addition, there are substantial differences in the housing and services
provided under each of the production programs that must also be considered.
For example, the Section 202 and Section 811 programs make available
services that are not readily found in affordable housing in the private
rental market. These services can be particularly important for frail
elderly residents or persons with disabilities, for whom housing vouchers
are probably not a reasonable alternative. As the nation's population ages,
production programs for the elderly may become an even more important part
of national housing policy. Finally, in many urban areas, the production
programs have formed an integral part of an overall community development
strategy, as in the case of the HOPE VI program. As a matter of public
policy, the benefits of mobility, increasing the supply of affordable
units,30 providing additional services for special needs populations, or
revitalizing distressed communities must be weighed against the costs of
these efforts.

Controlling Federal Costs Opportunities to control the federal cost of
housing assistance are limited. Shifting more of the cost to very-low-income
households would not be practical, given that the federal government and
tenants cover the majority of costs for all programs and very-low-income
tenants can contribute only a very small portion of the total cost. Without
contributions from other sources, the federal cost share inevitably
increases as tenant income declines. Thus, the bottom line is that housing
very poor households is expensive for the federal government under all
programs. To shift more of the cost burden to tenants, the programs would
have to serve higher income households.

In some instances, increasing contributions from state and local sources may
be an option for limiting federal expenditures for some of the production
programs, as our discussion of New York City's mortgage interest subsidy
indicated. Substantial subsidies from these sources could eliminate or
reduce the need for federal rental assistance, freeing federal funds to
assist other households. However, state and local governments

30A 1999 study measured the impact of production program subsidies on the
supply of housing. It found that, with the exception of public housing,
these subsidy programs most likely add little or nothing to the total
housing stock because they were simply displacing private, unsubsidized
construction. The study concluded that public housing has steadily added to
the housing stock since its inception. See Michael P. Murray, "Subsidized
and Unsubsidized Housing Stocks 1935 to 1987: Crowding Out and
Cointegration," Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 18 (Jan.
1999).

vary in their ability and willingness to support affordable housing. Federal
incentives, such as additional tax credit or grant awards for major
financial commitments, might promote greater nonfederal participation.

Further research on projects' adherence to cost-containment guidelines could
identify opportunities for controlling development costs. Our data on the
production programs show wide variation in the costs of projects under the
same program in the same metropolitan area. While the higher costs of some
units reflect the cost differential between new construction and
rehabilitation or the premiums paid for special features, the reasons for
the higher costs of other units are less obvious. Understanding the
considerable variation in per-unit costs requires more work on the
determinants of development costs and the effectiveness of current
cost-containment guidelines. To the extent that a property's development
costs can be contained and a production program's objectives still achieved,
federal dollars can go further.

Further research on the adequacy of the production programs' capital
replacement reserves would put the federal government in a better position
to manage potential long-term cost risks. As we previously noted, the
production programs could pose a cost risk to the federal government if
capital reserves are underfunded. The experience with modernization programs
for public housing and other production programs suggests that this cost
risk can be large. It is still too early to tell whether tax credit
properties will suffer from capital shortfalls as they age. However, even if
they do suffer, the structure of the tax credit program may limit the risk
to the federal government. The government does not own the units or hold the
mortgages on most of them. As a result, the potential role of the federal
government is unclear if these units were to need an infusion of capital. It
is possible that, as the ownership of tax credit properties changes over
time, new owners will apply for tax credits to rehabilitate the properties,
but their applications will have to be assessed by the relevant state
agencies, which will have no statutory obligation to provide the credits.

Availability of Housing Cost Data

Our analysis for this report, which required detailed, consistent data on
housing characteristics, services, and costs for the six active programs,
relied on information collected and centralized by HUD and RHS but was
hampered by gaps in the data for some programs. For example, HUD's
centralized data on the Section 202 and Section 811 programs do not include
information on the sources of funds other than the capital advance. For the
HOPE VI program, data were available on total costs and on HUD's portion of
the total costs, but information on tax credits and state, local, and
private funds was limited.31 To varying degrees, HUD and RHS have data on
tenant characteristics and on property revenues and expenses. Cooperation
and coordination across federal agencies to establish standards for
collecting data on housing programs would facilitate the development of
information to further our understanding of federal housing programs.

For the tax credit program, no federal agency is responsible for collecting
and centralizing data from the state and local housing finance agencies that
administer the program. While IRS oversees compliance with the federal
regulations for using tax credits, it does not oversee the program's impact
on national housing policy, including its relationship to other federal
housing programs. Recognizing the importance of the tax credit program, HUD
established a limited national database on tax credit properties. This
database has information, which the housing finance agencies have
voluntarily reported to HUD, on the properties placed in service through
1998, including their location, number of units, number of bedrooms per
unit, type of construction (new or rehabilitated), and type of sponsor
(nonprofit or for-profit). However, HUD's database does not include
information on tenant characteristics, project costs, and property operating
revenues and expenses. These data, though generally available from the
housing finance agencies, have not been centralized, making analysis and
evaluation of the program difficult. As a result, for this report, we relied
on a database constructed by a private research firm.

Given the size of the tax credit program-soon to exceed $4 billion per
year-it is important to monitor and evaluate the program's impact on
national housing policy. However, no federal agency has been designated to
perform this role, and no requirements have been established for state

31 HOPE VI program  officials, however,  are revising their  data collection
procedures to provide more details on all sources of funds.

finance agencies to report data on project costs and households served.
Accordingly, there is a need for a national, centralized database on the tax
credit program to serve as the basis for evaluating the program's success in
serving various populations, assessing how federal funds are being used,
determining to what extent other sources of funding are being leveraged,
gauging projects' compliance with cost-containment guidelines, and
monitoring projects' ongoing and long-term financial viability. To develop
this database, a federal agency would have to be explicitly designated as
responsible for collecting the information and establishing reporting
requirements for the housing finance agencies that manage the program. The
costs and benefits of designating such an agency and requiring more detailed
reporting by the housing finance agencies would have to be weighed before
any action could be taken.

Federal Agency and State Association Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided HUD, USDA, and the National Council of State Housing Agencies
(NCSHA) 32 with a draft of this report for their review and comment. HUD
commended us for our effort in collecting data from various sources to
address the "critical question" concerning the relative costs of federal
rental housing programs. HUD's primary concern was that it believes our
30-year cost estimates understate the costs of the production programs
because the history of previous production efforts suggests that capital
reserves for future replacements and improvements are often underfunded and,
as a result, substantial amounts of additional subsidies may be necessary in
later years. We agree in part. While past production programs have received
additional subsidies to maintain their properties in satisfactory condition,
the extent to which newer programs, such as tax credits and the capital
advance programs under Section 202 and Section 811, will require additional
subsidies to maintain the properties is currently unknown. To address these
concerns, we include additional information on the impact of different
amounts of capital reserve shortfalls on our 30-year cost estimates. HUD
recommended that we shorten our life-cycle cost period to 15 years to reduce
the uncertainties concerning these additional future subsidies. We did not,
however, shorten our cost period because development subsidies are intended
to buy low-income housing for more

32NCSHA is a national nonprofit organization created in 1970 to assist state
housing agencies in advancing the interest of low-income people through the
financing, development, and preservation of affordable housing. NCSHA's
members operate in every state and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

than 15 years; most production programs today require that housing remain
affordable for at least 30 years.

HUD was also concerned that the title of the report, as well as certain
parts of the draft, suggested that production programs respond to broader
objectives than the voucher program. HUD believes that vouchers provide
benefits in addition to affordable housing, including mobility. We have
changed the title of the report and, where appropriate, added discussions
about the additional benefits derived from vouchers. The complete text of
HUD's comments and our response are included in appendix V. HUD also
provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated into the report,
as appropriate.

USDA generally agreed with our comparison of costs across programs and
stated that further research is needed on the adequacy of production
programs' capital replacement reserves in order to address long-term federal
cost risks. In addition, USDA stated that cooperation and coordination
across federal agencies is needed to establish standards for collecting data
on housing programs. According to USDA, standardized reporting format would
greatly reduce the complexity and cost of compliance for owners, property
managers, and government agencies. The complete text of USDA's comments and
our response are included in appendix VI.

NCSHA commented that, in its opinion, comparing costs across programs, and
especially comparing the costs of production programs and housing vouchers,
is not useful. We disagree. While it is true that each program has some
unique objectives, fundamentally, housing vouchers and housing production
programs share a core objective of providing housing for low-and
very-low-income households. In addition, since housing subsidies are not an
entitlement and only about one-third of eligible households receive
assistance, it is imperative that scarce subsidies dollars be used as
efficiently as possible. NCSHA's comments suggest that it believes that the
unmeasured benefits of the tax credit program exceed those of vouchers and
should eliminate the gap between the costs of vouchers and of tax credit
units. However, NCSHA provides no support for this view. The work presented
in our report provides a starting point for assessing the relative costs of
housing assistance programs. The cost differentials we present provide an
estimate of how large the additional benefits would have to be to justify
the additional costs. As HUD points out in its comments, future work should
focus on measuring these additional benefits to provide a fuller picture of
the relative costs of these housing assistance programs.

NCSHA questioned the need for a national database on costs for the tax
credit program, arguing that the tax credit is one of the most exhaustively
studied programs. We disagree. There are very few studies of the tax credit
program that assess the costs of providing housing under the program, the
financial viability of tax credit projects over time, or the households
served by the program because such analysis requires an exhausting data
collection effort. For the two most detailed studies on the national costs
of tax credits-ours (1997) and that of Cummings and DiPasquale (1999), data
collection from a variety of disparate sources took well over a year.
Cummings and DiPasquale have the most recent cost information, and their
data end in 1996. Our 1997 study provides the only description of the
characteristics of tenants in tax credit developments for the nation, and
our data are only for developments placed in service between 1992 and 1994.
Michael A. Stegman, in a 1999 review, argued that we know very little about
the tax credit program.33 He noted that estimates vary on even very basic
facts, such as how many units have been developed. The tax credit program
consumes real taxpayer resources, and as with any government program,
taxpayers deserve to know what is being purchased with their dollars and at
what cost. The complete text of NCSHA's comments and our response are
included in appendix VII.

Scope and Methodology

To accomplish our objectives, we collected and analyzed data on housing
costs and characteristics and tenant income for the nation as a whole and
for seven metropolitan areas-Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth,
Denver, Los Angeles, and New York. These locations are geographically
diverse and representative of both low-cost and high-cost housing markets.
We obtained the data for our analysis from a variety of sources, including
HUD, RHS, the Bureau of the Census, public housing authorities, state
housing finance agencies, property managers, industry groups, and previous
studies on tax credits.34 We also visited representative properties in three
of the seven metropolitan areas to observe qualitative differences in the
housing and services provided under each of the programs.

33Michael A. Stegman, "Comment on Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale's
`The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years':
Lifting the Veil of Ignorance," Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 10, Issue 2
(1999).

34GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, and Building Affordable Housing: An Analysis of the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, City Research (Boston: 1998).

To estimate the cost of each of the six active housing programs, we
developed a 30-year (life-cycle) cost estimate. We chose 30 years for our
life-cycle estimates because this period is generally the minimal length of
time that properties developed through federal housing programs can be
expected to serve low-income households. We presented our cost estimates, as
applicable, for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas to illustrate the
impact of location on cost. To account for differences in unit size, we
determined the cost of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units for each of the
programs, where possible. This approach enabled us to compare costs across
programs for units of the same size.

To compute the portion of each program's cost paid by the federal
government, tenants, and others, we identified the amounts in rents and
development subsidies paid by these sources. In comparing the relative
federal cost of production programs and vouchers, we made adjustments to
account for differences among the programs in tenants' rental contributions,
which affect the size of the federal rental assistance subsidy. As we did
for total costs, we accounted for differences in unit size by determining
the cost of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, where possible. Our
methodology is described further in appendix I.

We performed our work from September 1999 through November 2001 in
accordance with generally accepted government accounting standards.

As arranged with your offices, we will send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees and Members of Congress; the Secretary
of Agriculture; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the
Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Executive Director,
Millennial Housing Commission; and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-7631. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Stanley J. Czerwinski Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Jack Reed Chairman The Honorable Wayne Allard Ranking Minority
Member Subcommittee on Housing

and Transportation Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United
States Senate

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Chairwoman
The Honorable Christopher S. Bond
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Veteran Affairs, HUD

and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Marge Roukema
Chairwoman
The Honorable Barney Frank
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
Committee on Financial Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable James T. Walsh
Chairman
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Appendix I

Methodology  for Estimating  Per-Unit  Costs of  Federally  Assisted Housing
Programs

A key objective of this report is to compare the total costs of providing
housing to low-and very-low-income households under the six active federal
housing programs. Previous studies on the relative costs of housing programs
have generally found that vouchers are less expensive and more
cost-effective than production programs. However, most of these studies are
over 20 years old, and, as a result, they do not provide information on the
newer active housing programs. Valid cost comparisons require that we
compare the costs of providing similar units in similar locations. In
addition, the structure of the subsidies provided under the programs varies
in ways that significantly affect cost comparisons. Vouchers are short-term
commitments to provide housing assistance, while production programs provide
units with certain restrictions to ensure that the units will remain
affordable in the future, often over 30 years. To account for differences in
the timing of investments under the various programs, we estimated their
30-year life-cycle costs.35 Once we determined the cost of each program, we
identified how these costs are shared by the federal government, assisted
households, and other sources-state, local, and private entities. Finally,
the available cost data varied considerably across the six programs,
requiring us to piece together data from many different public and private
sources.

Previous Studies The role of production programs has been a central issue in
major national housing policy reviews of the last four decades-the Kaiser
Committee in 1968, the President's Commission on Housing in 1982, and the
National Housing Task Force of 1988. The focus of these reviews shifted from
increasing the physical quality of the housing stock in the Kaiser
Committee, to increasing housing affordability in the President's Commission
on Housing, to addressing housing availability and affordability in the
National Housing Task Force.36 Since the early 1980s, vouchers have been the
centerpiece of federal housing assistance. With the

35Life-cycle cost is the total cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a
property over its useful life. In this analysis, we assume a useful life of
30 years. Also, for the purposes of comparison, we provide in this appendix
detailed data on the first-year costs, which appeared in our July 2001
interim report. The total first-year cost is the rent paid in the first year
plus the annualized present value of all development subsidies, paid over 30
years at the government discount rate of 6 percent.

36Langley C. Keyes and Denise DiPasquale, " Housing Policies for the 1990s,"
in Building Foundations: Housing and Federal Policy, ed. Denise DiPasquale
and Langley C. Keyes (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990).

Appendix I
Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

HOPE VI program and the creation and extension of the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit program, the debate concerning the role of production programs has
continued. In his review of the cost effectiveness of alternative housing
assistance programs, William C. Apgar argues that there is a role for
production programs in housing policy, concluding that "economic theory and
recent empirical evidence suggest that [vouchers] are not best at all times
and under all situations."37

In a comprehensive 2001 review of federal housing programs, Edgar O. Olsen
argues that the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches in assisting
low-income households must be considered if the federal government is to
assist as many households as possible.38 Measuring cost-effectiveness
involves comparing the total cost of providing the assisted housing and its
estimated market rent. The study reviews the housing cost literature and
finds that these studies unanimously conclude that the cost of production
programs, such as Public Housing, Section 8 New Construction, and Section
236, exceeds their market value. Those studies that looked at vouchers found
that voucher rents were very close to their market rents. According to
Olsen, the estimates in these studies probably understate the inefficiency
of construction programs relative to housing vouchers because, among other
things, all indirect subsidies are not fully included, such as the value of
donated land and property tax exemptions or abatements. The review finds
that the small number of studies on the cost-effectiveness of housing
programs is not conclusive in establishing whether subsidized new
construction is needed in localities with the lowest vacancy rates. The
review concludes, "whether there are any market conditions under which
construction programs are more cost-effective than vouchers is surely one of
the most important unanswered questions in housing policy analysis."

For the most part, the housing programs evaluated in the studies reviewed by
Olsen are no longer active. While we can still learn a great deal from this
work, the current active housing programs have features that distinguish
them from earlier programs. Most of the research done on the costs of these
programs is over 20 years old. Some of the most detailed analyses

37William C. Apgar, "Which Housing Policy is Best?" Housing Policy Debate,
Vol. 1, Issue 1 (1990).

38Edgar O. Olsen, "The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Methods of
Delivering Housing Subsidies," Thomas Jefferson Center for Political
Economy, Working Paper 351 (Dec. 2000), available at
http://www.virginia.edu/~econ/TJpapersx.htm.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

are  based on  the housing  experiments of the  1970s, and  we have not  had
anything close to the quality and depth of those data.

                                 Conceptual
                                  Framework

We started our analysis by constructing the total costs of a unit under each
program, regardless of who bears the costs. As discussed in this report, in
the private rental housing market, rents cover the total costs of providing
a housing unit. The total costs include operating expenses (e.g.,
administrative expenses, utilities, routine maintenance, and property
taxes); debt service; deposits to a replacement reserve for major capital
improvements over time; and a market return to equity investors. We defined
the total costs of vouchers as the sum of the total rent paid by both the
federal government and the assisted household and the fee paid by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the local housing
authority to administer the program:

Total Costs = Rents + Administrative Fee

For production programs, costs are more complicated because an asset with a
long useful life is produced. In the private housing market, the value of
the housing equals the present discounted value (PDV) of the net rental
income stream over the useful life:

Value = PDV(Net Rental Income)

The rental income stream must cover the total costs: 39

PDV(Rental Income) = Total Costs = Total Development Costs + PDV(Operating
Costs)

In the private market, if the present discounted value of market rents does
not cover total costs, the housing development will not be built. Federal

39We did not include the costs incurred by federal agencies (HUD, the Rural
Housing Service, and the Internal Revenue Service) to administer and monitor
the programs, since these costs are not identified in sufficient detail in
the agencies' records. However, we believe these costs to be extremely small
relative to those costs that we have accounted for. In addition, we did not
include the cost to the government in forgone taxes due to depreciation
because the rationale for the depreciation deduction in tax law is to permit
investors to realize the real costs associated with a structure's wearing
out over time. However, to the extent that a building's tax life (27.5
years) is generally shorter than its economic life, some portion of the
depreciation benefit may be viewed as a subsidy.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

production programs generally provide housing at below-market rents or
provide housing in locations where market rents would be insufficient to
cover costs. In either case, the difference between total rents paid and
total costs is covered by development subsidies. Therefore, for production
programs, the relationship is as follows:

Total Production Program Costs = PDV(Rental Income) + PDV(Development
Subsidies)

Estimating Program Costs

Table 2 presents the average total development costs per unit for the
productions programs by general location and for seven metropolitan areas.
Information on housing vouchers does not appear in the table because the
program relies on existing housing. Nationally and in most metropolitan
areas, the total development costs are considerably higher for HOPE VI than
for the other production programs. The HOPE VI figures for most of our seven
metropolitan areas incorporate data for only two developments. As a result,
the average for a particular metropolitan area can be skewed by the presence
of large projects with high or low development costs. In the New York
metropolitan area, for example, one very large HOPE VI development involved
rehabilitation, which can cost much less than new construction, and,
consequently, the average HOPE VI development cost for New York is unusually
low. At the same time, three HOPE VI properties in the Baltimore
metropolitan area involving new construction had development costs very
similar to each other.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

 Table 2: Average Total Development Costs Per Unit, by General Location and
 for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars HOPE VIa Location Tax credits
                             Seven metro areas

                     Housing-related
                                costs  All costs  Section 202   Section 811    Section 515
  Nation    $73,590      $117,920      $143,450     $73,510       $70,430          $58,280
  Metro      75,690      117,920        143,450      75,430        73,020                b
 Nonmetro    62,010                 b          b     60,270        63,120           58,280
        Baltimore           77,360      166,380     221,210     80,250      69,420     b
         Boston             116,710     197,000     261,610     94,160      96,000     b
         Chicago            79,340      102,470     108,950     75,020      71,370     b
    Dallas/Fort Worth       60,100      78,920      96,460      52,390      66,710     b
         Denver             72,650      102,170     126,440     72,160      74,640     b
       Los Angeles          104,750     113,060     154,310     94,360      97,520     b
        New York            111,580     76,710      107,010    101,730     116,180     b

aThe total development costs for HOPE VI reflect mostly planned figures.
Housing-related costs exclude the costs of remediation, demolition, the
construction of housing and community facilities, relocation, and
community-based planning and participation, most of which are not applicable
to the other housing programs. These other expenses are included, along with
the housing-related expenses, in the "All costs" column.

bSince Section 515 primarily serves nonmetropolitan areas, we do not show
Section 515 data for metropolitan areas. Also, since HOPE VI exclusively
serves metropolitan areas, we do not show HOPE VI data for nonmetropolitan
areas.

For some programs, the entire development cost is subsidized with up-front
grants, while for others, it is subsidized over time with tax credits or
below-market loans. Table 3 presents our estimates of the present discounted
value of the average development subsidies per unit in 1999 for the five
production programs we reviewed, both for the nation and for seven
metropolitan areas. For HOPE VI, Section 202, and Section 811, the federal
government pays the total development costs up front with grants; as a
result, the development subsidies are equal to the total development costs.
Section 515 provides below-market fixed-rate loans of 1 percent with 50-year
terms. To estimate the subsidy provided through a below-market interest-rate
loan, we compared the rate on the loan with the rate on 30-year constant
maturity treasuries (CMT)-which is a very conservative indicator of market
interest rates. We estimated the value of the subsidy by taking the spread
between the 30-year CMT and the actual interest on the loan and by
calculating the forgone interest over the life of the loan. We took the
present discounted value for the flow of interest

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

subsidies over 30 years. We assumed a discount rate of 6 percent,
representing the government cost of funds according to data published by the
Office of Management and Budget. We assumed the project would be sold in
year 30. For tax credits, the federal government provides investors with a
flow of tax credits over 10 years. In addition, state and local governments
or private entities may provide grants or below-market loans. For tax
credits, the present discounted value of the development subsidies is the
sum of (1) the present discounted value of the flow of the tax credits, (2)
any grants provided, and (3) the present discounted value of the flow of the
interest subsidies on any below-market loans.40

Table 3: Average Present Discounted Value of Development Subsidies Per Unit,
by General Location and for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars

              HOPE VIa Location Tax credits Seven metro areas

               Housing-related
                         costs  All costs    Section 202a    Section 811a      Section 515
  Nation       $50,350 $117,920  $143,450           $73,510         $70,430        $41,730
   Metro        52,790 117,920     143,450           75,430          73,020              b
 Nonmetro             44,690 b           b           60,270          63,120         41,730
        Baltimore            51,780     166,380     221,210      80,250      69,420     b
          Boston             50,630     197,000     261,610      94,160      96,000     b
         Chicago             62,190     102,470     108,950      75,020      71,370     b
    Dallas/Fort Worth        31,470      78,920      96,460      52,390      66,710     b
          Denver             29,080     102,170     126,440      72,160      74,640     b
       Los Angeles           81,380     113,060     154,310      94,360      97,520     b
         New York           111,780      76,710     107,010     101,730     116,180     b

aFor the HOPE VI, Section 202, and Section 811 programs, total costs are
paid entirely up front and no debt service payments are made for these
units. As a result, the total development subsidies are equal to the total
development costs.

bSince Section 515 primarily serves nonmetropolitan areas, we do not show
Section 515 data for metropolitan areas. Also, since HOPE VI exclusively
serves metropolitan areas, we do not show HOPE VI data for nonmetropolitan
areas.

As shown in table 3, the development subsidies for the tax credit and
Section 515 programs are generally lower than for the HOPE VI, Section

40We estimated the interest subsidies using the same procedure we used for
Section 515 below-market loans.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

202, and Section 811 programs, whose total development costs are covered by
federal grants. However, the development subsidies for tax credit properties
in the New York metropolitan area are quite high. In New York, the city
provides all first mortgages on tax credit projects at steep discounts,
substantially increasing the level of development subsidies. In the Los
Angeles metropolitan area, state and local governments have given priority
to tax credit proposals for single-room-occupancy developments and have
provided substantial subsidies.

As shown in table 4, voucher rents, which include both the tenant and
federal contributions, are higher than rents for the five housing production
programs. Unlike the production program rents, which are reduced by
development subsidies, the voucher rents are consistent with market rents.
Development subsidies can be used to lower rents, pay for additional costs,
and/or provide additional amenities. For the HOPE VI, Section 202, and
Section 811 programs, rents need only cover operating costs and replacement
reserves, since up-front federal grants pay the total development costs. For
the tax credit and Section 515 programs, under which portions of the
development costs are financed and rents must cover debt service payments,
rents are somewhat higher than for the other production programs but are
still generally below market rents.

      Table 4: Average Monthly Rents, by General Location and for Seven
  Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars Production program Seven metro areas

              Housing
 Location   vouchersa  Tax credits   HOPE VI b   Section 202   Section 811     Section 515
  Nation         $610          $540        $430          $340          $320           $380
  Metro           650           530         430           350           340              d
 Nonmetro         440           450           c           300           280
           Baltimore               630         510       c      380         250         d
            Boston                 880         820       c      420         470         d
            Chicago                640         500       c      470         450         d
          Dallas/Fort              650         670       c      310         310         d
             Worth
            Denver                 710         700       c      290         350         d
          Los Angeles              730         440       c      380         440         d
           New York                750         430       c      490         550         d

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

aFor  vouchers, the average  rent does not include  a monthly administrative
fee, which,  at the national level, averages about $48  per unit and, in the
seven metropolitan areas, ranges from $42 per unit in Denver to $61 per unit
in Los Angeles.

bOur estimate of  HOPE VI "rent" is based  on the national average operating
subsidy plus tenant contribution for all public housing units.

cFor individual metropolitan areas, reliable cost data were not available.

dSince Section 515 units are located in rural areas, rent data are presented
for nonmetropolitan areas only.

Comparing Program Costs

In this report, we estimated total program costs over 30 years.41 In this
appendix, we also provide estimates of costs in the first year, as reported
in our interim report. For vouchers, the total life-cycle cost is the
present discounted value of a 30-year flow of rents plus the present
discounted value of the administrative fee over 30 years. We assumed an
annual rent inflation rate of 3 percent.42 Furthermore, as discussed in
appendix II, we tested the sensitivity of our cost estimates to different
inflation rates. For the production programs, we calculated the present
discounted value of the rental income stream over 30 years, again assuming
an annual rent inflation rate of 3 percent, plus the present discounted
value of the development subsidies.43 For the development subsidies, we took
the actual payments made over time for each of the subsidies and summed the
present discounted value of each of those flows using the 6-percent
government discount rate. For example, for tax credits, we took the present
discounted value of the 10-year flow of credits to investors. In estimating
the first-year cost of vouchers, we simply added the total annual rent in
the first year and the annual administrative fee. For the production
programs, we added the total annual rent in the first year and the present
value of the development subsidies, annualized over 30 years at the
government discount rate of 6 percent.

41We assumed a 30-year holding period because each of the housing production
programs we evaluated has a low-income-use restriction of at least 30 years.

42To project out rents over 30 years, we used a constant rate of 3 percent,
which was based on a 10-year average rate of rent inflation for the nation
according to the Consumer Price Index.

43Assuming the same rate of rent inflation for vouchers and the production
programs may overstate the costs of the production programs. Under the
housing production programs, increases in rents are restricted by the
programs' guidelines. For example, rents in tax credit properties are
usually limited to 30 percent of either 50 or 60 percent of the area median
income, adjusted for unit size.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

Table 5 shows our estimates of the total average per-unit costs of the six
active housing programs. Columns 2 and 5 provide the average per-unit costs
of production programs for the first year and 30 years, respectively.
However, these averages do not reflect adjustments for the differences in
unit size shown in column 1.

Table 5: Average First- and 30-Year Total Costs Per Unit: Housing Production
Program Costs Compared With Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location and
Unit Size, in 1999 Dollars

                            First year 30 years

                                                Program                            Program
                                     Adjusted  total cost           Adjusted
                                                   as                         total cost as
                  Average             total                       total
                                    per-unit  a percentage        per-unit    a percentage

                  number of  Total    cost of of adjusted    Total   cost of   of adjusted
                              per-                            per-

                  bedrooms    unit    voucher voucher cost    unit   voucher  voucher cost
                             cost                            cost
Program/Location    (1)      (2)      (3)         (4)       (5)       (6)         (7)

Vouchers

aa aa

Nation 2.2 $7,870 $160,580

aa aa

Metro 2.2 8,350 170,370

aa aa

Nonmetro 2.1 5,660 115,500

Tax credits

            Nation 1.9 10,110 $7,380 137% 181,870 $150,470 121%

Metro 1.9 10,200 7,770 131 182,710 158,510

Nonmetro 2.0 8,610 5,390 160 154,100 109,990

HOPE VI

Metrob

Housing-related 2.4 13,730 8,610 159 223,190 175,580 costs

All costs 2.4 15,580 8,610 181 248,720 175,580

Section 202

       Nation         1.0     9,420     6,480     145      156,590      132,110
       Metro          1.0     9,790     6,840     143      162,720      139,520        117
      Nonmetro        1.0     7,950     4,700     169      132,600       95,890        138
    Section 811
       Nation         1.0     8,930     6,480     138      148,290      132,110        112
       Metro          1.0     9,320     6,840     136      154,820      139,520        111
      Nonmetro        1.1     7,800     4,770     164      129,620       97,310        133
    Section 515
     Nonmetroc        1.6     7,640     5,190     147      135,840      105,800        128

                              aNot applicable.

Appendix I
Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

bAll of HOPE VI's units are located in metropolitan areas.

cSince Section 515 units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

In this report, we examine the cost of one-and two-bedroom units. For HOPE
VI, we did not have data on individual unit sizes. To compare HOPE VI costs
with voucher costs, we took the actual average rent for a voucher unit with
a given number of bedrooms and interpolated a rent consistent with the
average number of bedrooms for HOPE VI. For example, the average size of a
HOPE VI unit was 2.4 bedrooms in 1999, and all of these units were located
in metropolitan areas. The average rent for the voucher program at that time
was $610 for a two-bedroom unit and $752 for a three-bedroom unit in
metropolitan areas. We subtracted these two rents and multiplied the
difference ($142) by the fraction by which the size of the average HOPE VI
unit exceeded two bedrooms (0.4). We added the resulting product ($57) to
the average rent for a two-bedroom voucher unit to derive our estimate of
the rent for a 2.4-bedroom voucher unit-about $667. Finally, we added the
average administrative fee, which is about $50 per month in metropolitan
areas. The resulting total cost of vouchers is about $717 per month, or
about $8,610 per year (see table 5).

In our interim report, we made these interpolations for unit size to compare
the cost of vouchers with the cost of each production program. In table 5,
columns 3 and 6 provide the adjusted voucher costs. These adjustments may
narrow or widen the gap between the costs of vouchers and of a specific
production program. Tax credit, Section 202, and Section 811 units are
smaller, on average, than voucher units. As a result, this adjustment widens
the gap between the costs of these programs and vouchers. Columns 4 and 7
present the total cost of the production programs as a percentage of the
costs of adjusted vouchers. Although all of the production programs are more
expensive than vouchers, both in the first year and over 30 years, the
difference is smaller over 30 years. The magnitude of the difference
decreases over time because the government subsidies for the production
programs are fixed while the voucher subsidies increase with market rents.
Furthermore, because of the development subsidies, the rents for production
program units are lower initially than the rents for voucher units, as was
shown in table 4. Therefore, even though we assumed the same rate of rent
inflation for both types of units, the impact of rent inflation is less for
the production programs because their starting rents are lower than voucher
units.

A problem with the adjusted costs presented in table 5 is that they provide
for cost comparisons between vouchers and only one production program

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

at a time. Because of differences in average unit size across the production
programs, we could not compare costs across these programs. To provide for
cost comparisons across all of the programs, we used a second approach,
calculating the average first-year and 30-year costs for one-and two-bedroom
units, as shown in table 6. For vouchers, we knew the number of bedrooms for
each recipient, so we simply calculated the average rents for one-and
two-bedroom units. For the production programs, except HOPE VI, we knew the
rents by the number of bedrooms. Table 6 does not include the HOPE VI
program because cost data were not available by the number of bedrooms. For
each project that has one- or two-bedroom units, we calculated the average
development subsidy per unit. Since projects may have a mixture of units of
different sizes, there will be some error in assigning an average per-unit
subsidy across all units.

   Table 6: Average First- and 30-Year Total Costs of One-and Two-Bedroom
    Units, by General Location, in 1999 Dollars First year 30 years Unit
          size/Program Nation Metro Nonmetro Nation Metro Nonmetro

One-bedroom Two-bedroom

     Vouchers         $6,480   $6,840     $4,700     $132,110      $139,520        $95,890
   Tax credits         9,100   9,280      7,600       164,270      166,610         138,060
   Section 202         9,250   9,480      7,950       153,510      157,410         133,070
   Section 811         8,850   9,140      7,850       146,600      151,280         129,890
   Section 515             a          a   7,470               a             a      132,890
     Vouchers           7,460    7,920      5,390     152,170      161,650         110,050
    Tax credits        10,080    10,240     8,500     182,150      184,130         151,350
    Section 811         9,690    10,350     8,430     160,370      171,240         139,480
    Section 515             a           a   7,500             a            a       132,600

Note: Due to data limitations, we cannot present HOPE VI cost by bedroom
size. Also, Section 202 does not generally develop two-bedroom units and, as
a result, is not included in our two-bedroom analysis.

aSince Section 515 units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

Table 7 presents our estimates of the total costs of one-bedroom units in
metropolitan areas nationwide and in the seven metropolitan areas we
selected for review. This table does not include information for the HOPE VI
program because data were not available to identify costs by unit size for

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

these metropolitan  areas. The table also excludes data  for the Section 515
program because it is primarily used in nonmetropolitan areas.

Table 7:  Average First-  and 30-Year Total  Costs of One-Bedroom  Units, by
General Location and for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars

First year 30 years

Tax Location Vouchers credits Section 202 Section 811 Vouchers Tax credits
Section 202 Section 811

    Metro $6,840 $9,280 $9,480 $9,140 $139,520 $166,610 157,410 $151,280

                             Seven metro areas

   Baltimore     6,740   9,460   10,380         a  137,410   169,980   173,160          a
    Boston       9,480  10,900   12,050   12,290   193,400   205,950   201,310    204,440
    Chicago      6,620  10,310    9,760   10,040   135,000   181,210   163,000    170,320
 Dallas/ Fort    6,150   8,030    7,480   8,540    125,400   152,130   127,350    142,080
     Worth
    Denver       6,330   9,380    8,660   10,700   129,160   180,760   141,890    182,290
  Los Angeles    7,820  10,200   10,980   12,950   159,550   177,320   178,460    214,340
   New York      8,200  12,410   13,290         a  167,300   201,820   222,030          a

Note: Section 515 is not included in this table because it develops
properties in rural areas. Due to data limitations, we cannot present HOPE
VI cost by bedroom size.

aThere were too few properties to estimate the average cost of one-bedroom
units.

Table 8 provides our estimates of the total cost of two-bedroom units in
metropolitan areas nationwide and in our seven metropolitan areas. Besides
excluding the HOPE VI and Section 515 programs, this table excludes the
Section 202 program because it primarily provides one-bedroom units.
Information for the Section 811 program was also very limited.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

Table 8:  Average First-  and 30-Year Total  Costs of Two-Bedroom  Units, by
General Location and for Seven Metropolitan Areas, in 1999 Dollars

First year 30 years

 Location Vouchers Tax credits Section 811 Vouchers Tax credits Section 811

          Metro $7,920 $10,240 $10,350 $161,650 $184,130 $171,240

                             Seven metro areas

        Baltimore          7,830     10,720          a   159,760     198,190            a
         Boston            10,900    14,270          a   222,350     263,980            a
         Chicago           7,940     11,400    12,280    161,970     202,480      213,500
    Dallas/Fort Worth      7,690     9,930           a   156,780     189,000            a
         Denver            8,420     10,820    10,020    171,690     207,760      160,610
       Los Angeles         9,410     13,520    13,170    192,020     232,040      217,380
        New York           9,710     14,290    13,970    198,090     232,690      231,350

Note:  Section  515  is  not included  in  this  table  because it  develops
properties  in rural  areas. Also,  Section  202 does not  generally develop
two-bedroom units  and, as a result,  is not included in  this table. Due to
data limitations, we cannot present HOPE VI cost by bedroom size.

aThere were too few properties to estimate the cost of two-bedroom units.

Cost Shares Table 9 presents the average share of the total per-unit cost of
a one-bedroom unit paid under the various programs by the federal
government, tenants, and other sources, including state, local, and private
entities. With the exception of vouchers, housing programs make different
sources of funding available to varying degrees. The tax credit program, for
example, involves more development subsidies from state, local, and private
entities than the Section 202 and Section 811 programs. For all programs
except tax credits, we obtained the average federal rental assistance
payment and tenant contribution for each property. For the tax credit
program, no data were available on the amount of rental assistance provided
by the federal government. Using data from our 1997 report on tax credits,
we estimated the percentage of average rent paid for all units by the
federal government in the form of Section 8 tenant-based and project-based
assistance.44 In our

44According to our report entitled Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve
Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program (GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, Mar. 28,
1997), the average annual rent for 1992 to 1994 was $5,760 and the average
Section 8 subsidy was about $1,500 for all units. When we divide the average
subsidy by the average rent, the resulting percentage is 26 percent.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

30-year analysis, we increase  both the federal and tenant contributions for
rent at the same rate.

Table  9: Average  Share of  First- and  30-Year Total Costs  of One-Bedroom
Units Paid by the Federal Government, Tenants, and Others, in 1999 Dollars

First year 30 years

         Nonmetro 4,800 2,280 390 7,470 81,010 46,510 5,370 132,890

Note: Since Section 515 units are located in rural areas, it is more
appropriate to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan
areas.

a"Other cost share" includes state, local, and private funding sources.

bNot applicable.

Table 10 presents the share of costs paid by these different sources for
two-bedroom units. Although data were not available to calculate cost shares
for HOPE VI units of different sizes, we included the cost share for the
average HOPE VI unit, with 2.4 bedrooms. Also, since we did not have HOPE VI
data on operating subsidies and tenant contributions for individual
properties, we applied the average per-unit operating subsidy and tenant
contribution for all public housing units. Finally, Section 202

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

does not  provide two-bedroom  units and, consequently,  does not appear  in
table 10.

Table 10:  Average Share  of First- and  30-Year Total Costs  of Two-Bedroom
Units Paid by the Federal Government, Tenants, and Others, in 1999 Dollars

First year 30 years

Program/ Federal Tenant cost Other cost Federal Tenant cost Other cost
Location cost share share sharea Total cost cost share share sharea Total
cost

Vouchers

          Nation $4,760 $2,700 b $7,460 $97,160 $55,020 b $152,170

             Metro 5,110 2,820 b 7,920 104,230 57,420 b 161,650

            Nonmetro 3,220 2,180 b 5,390 65,680 44,380 b 110,050

Tax credits

        Nation 4,450 4,840 $790 10,080 72,540 98,670 $10,930 182,150

         Metro 4,470 4,820 950 10,240 72,740 98,280 13,110 184,130

         Nonmetro 4,090 3,820 600 8,500 65,180 77,980 8,200 151,350

HOPE VI

Metroc Housing-10,210 2,320 1,190 13,730 159,350 47,400 16,430 223,190
related costs

     All costs 11,900 2,320 1,360 15,580 182,650 47,400 18,660 248,720

Section 811

         Nation 7,020 2,180 480 9,690 109,190 44,550 6,630 160,370

     Metro        7,680   2,120    540   10,350    120,430    43,320    7,490      171,240
    Nonmetro      5,760   2,300    370    8,430     87,490    46,960    5,020      139,480
  Section 515
   Nonmetrod      4,890   2,280    330    7,500     81,540    46,510    4,550      132,600

Note: Section 202 does not generally develop two-bedroom units and, as a
result, is not included in the two-bedroom analysis.

a"Other cost share" includes state, local, and private funding sources.

bNot applicable.

cAll of HOPE VI's units are located in metropolitan areas.

dSince Section 515 units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

Using the approach in our interim report, table 11 presents our estimates of
the average federal per-unit costs of the six housing programs. Columns 2
and 5 provide the average federal costs for the first year and 30 years,
respectively. In comparing the federal costs of the production programs

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

and vouchers, we made adjustments to reflect the differences in average unit
size, as shown in column 1, and in average tenant contributions. To estimate
federal voucher cost that accounts for differences in tenant contribution,
we simply subtracted the average tenant contribution for each of the
production programs from the interpolated total voucher costs (shown in
table 5, columns 3 and 6). This adjusted federal cost appears in columns 3
and 6 in table 11. In other words, we assumed that the average tenant
contributions under the voucher program were the same as those under the
production programs.

Table  11:  Average  First-and  30-Year  Federal  Costs  Per  Unit:  Housing
Production  Program  Federal  Costs  Compared  With  Voucher  Federal  Costs
Adjusted for  General Location, Unit Size,  and Tenant Contribution, in 1999
Dollars

                            First year 30 years

                                                   Actual                           Actual
                                             federal cost                     federal cost
                                                     as a                             as a
                                                                        Adjusted percentage
                                   Adjusted percentage of                               of
           Average      Actual  federal per-     adjusted      Actual  federal per-adjusted

          number of federal     unit voucher      federal      federal unit voucher federal
                    per-                                          per-
Program/   bedrooms  unit cost         cost  voucher cost   unit cost    cost voucher cost
Location     (1)        (2)         (3)          (4)          (5)            (6) (7)

Tax credits

             Nation 1.9 $4,500 $2,610 172% $73,010 $53,190 137%

Metro 1.9 4,510 3,060 147 73,020 62,420

Nonmetro 2.0 4,050 1,430 283 65,040 29,070

HOPE VI

Metroa

Housing-related 2.4 10,210 6,280 163 159,350 128,170 costs

All costs 2.4 11,900 6,280 189 182,650 128,170

Section 202

               Nation 1.0 6,920 4,200 165 107,130 85,610 125

                Metro 1.0 7,050 4,470 158 109,090 91,080 120

               Nonmetro 1.0 5,960 2,790 214 92,630 57,000 163

Section 811

       Nation         1.0     6,680     4,440     150      104,100       89,780        116
       Metro          1.0     6,940     4,760     146      108,410      100,240        108
      Nonmetro        1.1     5,800     2,840     204      88,860        60,280        147
    Section 515
     Nonmetrob        1.6     4,960     2,910     170      83,690        59,290        141

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

aAll of HOPE VI's units are located in metropolitan areas.

bSince Section 515 units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

The comparison of federal cost can also be analyzed by unit size. Table 12
presents the average federal per-unit costs for one-bedroom units. As in
table 11, we adjusted the federal voucher cost by assuming that the
households assisted with vouchers made the same average contribution toward
rent as the households under the production programs.

Table 12:  Average First-  and 30-Year Federal Costs  for One-Bedroom Units:
Housing  Production  Program Federal  Costs  Compared  With Voucher  Federal
Costs,  Adjusted  for  General Location  and  Tenant  Contribution, in  1999
Dollars

First year 30 years

                       Adjusted  Actual federal                             Actual federal
                        federal       cost as a                  Adjusted        cost as a
                       per-unit  percentage of                    federal    percentage of

Program/     Actual     voucher     adjusted        Actual                         adjusted
            federal                 federal        federal       per-unit          federal

Location    per-unit       cost   voucher cost     per-unit   voucher cost    voucher cost
              cost                                   cost

Tax credits

               Nation $4,020 $2,140 188% $65,480 $43,530 150%

Metro 4,090 2,500 164 66,420 51,060

Nonmetro 3,380 970 348 55,290 19,740

Section 202

Nation 6,810 4,220 161 104,900 86,050

Metro 6,900 4,470 154 106,230 91,260

Nonmetro 5,960 2,720 219 92,630 55,560

Section 811

Nation 6,570 4,480 147 102,040 91,360

Metro 6,780 4,820 141 105,370 98,310

                 Nonmetro 5,780 2,770 209 88,530 56,560 157

Section 515

                Nonmetroa 4,800 2,420 198 81,010 49,380 164

Note: Due  to data  limitations, we cannot  present HOPE VI  cost by bedroom
size.

aSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

Similarly,  table 13  presents  the average  federal costs  for  two-bedroom
units.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

Table 13:  Average First-  and 30-Year Federal Costs  for Two-Bedroom Units:
Housing  Production  Program Federal  Costs  Compared  With Voucher  Federal
Costs,  Adjusted  for  General Location  and  Tenant  Contribution, in  1999
Dollars

First year 30 years

                                    Actual federal                           Actual federal
                                        cost as a                                cost as a
                          Adjusted  percentage of                  Adjusted  percentage of
Program/       Actual federal          adjusted         Actual federal             adjusted
             federal  per-unit         federal        federal  per-unit            federal

Location     per-unit voucher cost  voucher cost      per-unit voucher cost   voucher cost
                cost                                     cost

Tax credits

               Nation $4,450 $2,620 170% $72,540 $53,500 136%

Metro 4,470 3,100 144 72,740 63,370

Nonmetro 4,090 1,570 261 65,180 32,070

Section 811

Nation 7,020 5,280 133 109,190 107,620

Metro 7,680 5,800 132 120,430 118,330

Nonmetro 5,760 3,090 186 87,490 63,090

Section 515

Nonmetroa 4,890 3,110 157 81,540 63,540

Note: Due  to data  limitations, we cannot  present HOPE VI  cost by bedroom
size. In addition, Section  202 does not generally develop two-bedroom units
and, as a result, is not included in the two-bedroom analysis.

aSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

Sources of Data Used in the Analysis

The sources of data used in our analysis vary by program and by our seven
metropolitan areas. The primary sources of these data were the headquarters
and field offices of HUD and of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Housing Service (RHS), public housing authorities, and managing agents
and owners of federally assisted properties. For the tax credit program, we
also relied heavily on tax credit data collected and analyzed by a private
research firm, supplemented by data we collected from state housing finance
agencies. We attempted to verify the accuracy of the data collected and
corrected any observed errors. We converted all development cost and rent
data to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For all of the
programs, we relied on the information provided by the various offices.
However, we contacted the appropriate officials or property management
agents to correct any apparent inaccuracies in the data we received.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

Housing Vouchers We obtained from HUD national and aggregate
metropolitan-area data from the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics Systems
on gross rents, housing assistance payments, tenant contributions, and
incomes for the housing voucher and certificate programs. We also collected
information from HUD and individual housing authorities on the average
administrative fee paid to housing authorities. These data were provided for
about 1.4 million households participating in the programs in 2000.

Tax Credits Because of the decentralized nature of the tax credit program,
there is no national database to evaluate the program's characteristics,
including costs. Consequently, we relied extensively on rent and development
subsidy data collected and analyzed by City Research, which is a private
research firm located in Boston. City Research assembled and analyzed
detailed data on over 2,500 tax credit properties, with over 150,000 units,
which were acquired by 4 national syndicators.45 These units were estimated
to represent about 25 to 27 percent of those generated under the program
from 1987 through 1996. The results of City Research's analyses were
published in a report and in a housing journal.46 We compared the nationwide
rent data collected by City Research with the data collected for our 1997
study47 and supplemented City Research's data with our data on tax credit
properties placed in service in 1999 within the seven metropolitan areas.

HOPE VI We obtained data from HUD on the total development costs for 130
planned and completed HOPE VI developments, which contained about 63,560
planned units as of 2000. Approximately 10 percent of these properties were
either completed or substantially completed. HOPE VI properties use multiple
sources of funding, but the data were not sufficiently detailed to identify
funding by individual sources other than the HOPE VI and HUD

45The four syndicators were Boston Capital Partners, Inc.; Boston Financial;
Enterprise Social Investment Corporation; and the National Equity Fund, Inc.
Each of these syndicators has a national portfolio and has been active in
the tax credit market throughout the tax credit program's history.

46Building Affordable Rental Housing: An Analysis of the Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (Feb. 1998) and "The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: The First Ten
Years," Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 10, Issue 2 (1999).

47GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55.

                                 Appendix I
                  Methodology for Estimating Per-Unit Costs
                   of Federally Assisted Housing Programs

grants. For properties in the seven metropolitan areas, we contacted public
housing authorities and were able to obtain complete data on their sources
of funds. For our national cost estimate, we based the distribution of costs
paid by state, local, and private entities on the actual cost shares in our
seven metropolitan areas. The properties in the seven metropolitan areas
constituted about 20 percent of the units in our HOPE VI inventory. The HOPE
VI program also funds various types of activities (e.g., property
demolition, tenant relocation, and community services) in addition to
housing-related construction. We estimated both housing-related costs and
all costs for the HOPE VI program.

Public housing, in general, does not identify revenues and expenses on a
property-by-property basis. This information also is not available for the
HOPE VI program. Consequently, to estimate a national rent for the HOPE VI
program, we obtained from HUD the average tenant rental contribution and
operating subsidy paid by HUD for all public housing units. Together, these
payments constitute an approximation of a traditional rental payment.

Section 202 and Section 811 HUD identified about 135 properties, comprising
about 6,040 units, that were placed in service nationwide in fiscal year
1998 under the Section 202 program and about 115 properties, comprising
about 1,420 units, under the Section 811 program. From the list provided, we
contacted 39 HUD field offices to obtain detailed data on the properties'
total development costs and the sources of funds used to pay these costs. We
also obtained data from the field offices on properties' rents. Most of the
seven metropolitan areas did not have enough properties placed in service in
1998 to compute meaningful averages for development costs and rents.
Consequently, we asked the field offices to identify the properties placed
in service from 1996 to 1999 to ensure that we would have at least four
properties under each program to better compute such averages.

Section 515 RHS state offices identified 53 Section 515 properties,
containing about 1,250 units, that were placed in service in fiscal year
1998. The state offices provided data on total development costs, including
the sources and terms of funds used to finance these costs. The state
offices also provided information on 1999 rents. Since Section 515 is a
rural program, we did not include it in our analysis of the seven
metropolitan areas.

Appendix II

Sensitivity Analysis

To test the robustness of the results presented in this report and
illustrate the sensitivity of our estimates to specific assumptions about
rental market conditions, the following tables provide estimates of the
30-year total costs of the six housing programs when two different rates are
used to increase rents over time. In the letter and appendix I, our base
30-year cost estimates assume an annual rate increase of 3 percent, which
approximates the annual average rent inflation for the past 10 years (about
2.9 percent), according to the Consumer Price Index. We discounted the
annual costs by 6 percent, which is the approximate 30-year discount rate
published by the Office of Management and Budget. In tables 14 through 19,
we estimate the average 30-year total costs of the housing programs using
rates of rent increases that are 2 percentage points above and below our
base rate.

Overall, an increase in the rate of inflation from our base estimate of 3
percent to 5 percent decreases the difference in total cost between the
production programs and vouchers. As noted in appendix I, the production
programs are less vulnerable than vouchers to inflation in market rents
because, among other things, development subsidies are fixed over time.
Consequently, rent inflation has a smaller impact on the production programs
than on vouchers because the starting rents are lower for the production
programs than for vouchers.

Table 14:  Average 30-Year  Total Costs of  Housing Programs Per  Unit Under
Different Rates of Inflation, by General Location, in 1999 Dollars

 30-year total costs at an inflation rate of: Program/Location Average unit
                          size 1 percent 5 percent

Vouchers

                        Nation 2.2 $127,710 $206,510

                         Metro 2.2 135,490 219,090

                        Nonmetro 2.1 91,860 148,540

Tax credits

                         Nation 1.9 154,950 219,490

                         Metro 1.9 156,120 219,870

                        Nonmetro 2.0 131,710 185,400

HOPE VI

Metroa

                 Housing-related costs 2.4 201,640 253,290

                       All costs 2.4 227,170 278,820

                      Appendix II Sensitivity Analysis

                        (ContinuedFromPreviousPage)

 30-year total costs at an inflation rate of: Program/Location Average unit
                          size 1 percent 5 percent

Section 202

                         Nation 1.0 139,770 180,660

                         Metro 1.0 144,040 186,380

                        Nonmetro 1.0 118,170 153,890

Section 811

                         Nation 1.0 133,540 172,480

                         Metro 1.0 138,500 178,890

                        Nonmetro 1.1 117,050 150,320

Section 515

                       Nonmetro b 1.6 116,570 162,750

aAll HOPE VI units are located in metropolitan areas.

bSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

Table  15: Average  30-Year Total  Costs Per  Unit Under Different  Rates of
Inflation:  Housing Production  Program Costs  Compared With  Voucher Costs,
Adjusted for General Location and Unit Size, in 1999 Dollars

30-year total costs at an inflation rate of:

1 percent 5 percent

                                          Production                            Production
                       Average                              Average
                        total             program cost       total             program cost
                  per-unit     Adjusted               per-unit     Adjusted
                  cost of      total             as a cost of      total              as a

   Production      production  per-unit   percentage    production per-unit      percentage
                               cost of    of                       cost of              of
program/Location      program    voucher  voucher cost     program    voucher  voucher cost

Vouchers

aa aa

Nation $127,710 $206,510

aa aa

Metro 135,490 219,090
Nonmetro 91,860 148,540
Tax credits
Nation 154,950 $119,670 129% 219,490 $193,500 113%
Metro 156,120 126,060 124 219,870 203,840 108
Nonmetro 131,710 87,470 151 185,400 141,450 131
aa aa

HOPE VI

Metrob

Housing-related 201,640 139,640 145 253,290 225,790 112 costs

             All costs 227,170 139,640 163 278,820 225,790 123

                      Appendix II Sensitivity Analysis

                        (ContinuedFromPreviousPage)

                30-year total costs at an inflation rate of:

                            1 percent 5 percent

                                          Production                            Production
                       Average                              Average
                        total             program cost       total             program cost
                  per-unit     Adjusted               per-unit     Adjusted
                  cost of      total             as a cost of      total              as a

   Production      production  per-unit   percentage    production per-unit      percentage
                               cost of    of                       cost of              of
program/Location      program    voucher  voucher cost     program    voucher  voucher cost

Section 202

Nation 139,770 105,070 133 180,660 169,890

Metro 144,040 110,960 130 186,380 179,420

Nonmetro 118,170 76,260 155 153,890 123,310

Section 811

Nation 133,540 105,070 127 172,480 169,890

Metro 138,500 110,960 125 178,890 179,420

Nonmetro 117,050 77,390 151 150,320 125,130

Section 515

Nonmetroc 116,570 84,150 139 162,750 136,060

aNot applicable.

bAll HOPE VI units are located in metropolitan areas.

cSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

                      Appendix II Sensitivity Analysis

Table  16: Average 30-Year  Total Costs  of One-and Two-Bedroom  Units Under
Different Rates of Inflation, by General Location, in 1999 Dollars

                30-year total costs at an inflation rate of:

  1 percent 5 percent Unit size/Program Nation Metro Nonmetro Nation Metro
                                  Nonmetro

One-bedroom Two-bedroom

    Vouchers        $105,070   $110,960    $76,260     $169,890    $179,420       $123,320
  Tax credits        139,750   142,120     116,980     198,520      200,820        167,510
  Section 202        137,010   140,490     118,170     176,550      181,060        153,890
  Section 811        130,990   135,260     116,150     168,410      173,660        149,080
  Section 515              a           a   113,930             a            a      159,390
    Vouchers          121,020   128,560      87,520     195,690     207,880        141,530
   Tax credits        154,840   156,930     129,770     220,300     222,130        181,500
   Section 811        143,370   153,100     124,710     184,130     196,580        160,100
   Section 515              a           a   114,110             a           a      158,450

Note: Due to data limitations, we cannot present HOPE VI cost by bedroom
size. Also, Section 202 does not generally develop two-bedroom units and, as
a result, is not included in the two-bedroom analysis.

aSince Section 515 units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

                      Appendix II Sensitivity Analysis

Table  17: Average  Federal  Share of  30-Year  Total Costs  Per Unit  Under
Different Rates of Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs Compared With
Voucher  Costs,  Adjusted  for  General  Location,  Unit  Size,  and  Tenant
Contribution, in 1999 Dollars

                30-year total costs at an inflation rate of:

                            1 percent 5 percent

                                   Actual federal                            Actual federal
                                       cost as a                                 cost as a
                                   percentage of                             percentage of
                        Estimated      estimated                  Estimated      estimated
                     federal          federal           Actualfederal               federal
Program/     Actual  voucher          voucher         federal voucher              voucher
             federal
Location       cost          cost           cost         cost          cost           cost

Tax credits

              Nation $66,000 $42,310 156% $82,810 $68,410 121%

Metro 66,100 49,640 133 82,700 80,270

Nonmetro 59,210 23,110 256 73,190 37,390

HOPE VI

Metroa

Housing-related 147,510 101,940 145 175,900 164,830 costs

All costs 170,810 101,940 168 199,200 164,830

Section 202

Nation 99,670 67,780 147 117,550 109,600

Metro 101,520 71,720 142 119,650 115,970

Nonmetro 85,990 44,190 195 101,920 71,450

Section 811

Nation 96,490 71,540 135 114,740 115,670

       Metro            100,280       77,060     130      119,770       124,610         96
      Nonmetro          83,210        45,430     183      96,770         73,450        132
    Section 515
     Nonmetrob          73,950        47,160     157      97,300         76,240        128

aAll of HOPE VI units are located in metropolitan areas.

bSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

                      Appendix II Sensitivity Analysis

Table 18: Average Federal Share of 30-Year Total Costs of One-Bedroom Units
Under Different Rates of Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs
Compared With Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Tenant
Contribution, in 1999 Dollars

                30-year total costs at an inflation rate of

                            1 percent 5 percent

                                    Actual federal                            Actual federal
                                         cost as a                                 cost as a
                                    percentage of                              percentage of
                          Estimated      estimated                 Estimated       estimated
                Actualfederal           federal          Actual federal
Program/      federal voucher          voucher         federal  voucher       federal voucher
Location         cost          cost           cost        cost          cost            cost

Tax credits

              Nation $59,090 $34,620 171% $74,400 $55,970 133%

Metro 60,050 40,610 148 75,330 65,660

Nonmetro 49,810 15,700 317 62,960 25,390

Section 202

Nation 97,840 68,440 143 114,770 110,660

Metro 99,180 72,580 137 116,070 117,360

Nonmetro 85,990 44,190 195 101,920 71,450

Section 811

Nation 94,770 72,660 130 112,200 117,490

Metro 97,790 78,180 125 115,960 126,420

Nonmetro 82,840 44,980 184 96,480 72,730

Section 515

Nonmetroa 71,560 39,270 182 94,200 63,490

Note: Due  to data  limitations, we cannot  present HOPE VI  cost by bedroom
size.

aSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

                      Appendix II Sensitivity Analysis

Table 19: Average Federal Share of 30-Year Total Costs of Two-Bedroom Units
Under Different Rates of Inflation: Housing Production Program Costs
Compared With Voucher Costs, Adjusted for General Location and Tenant
Contribution, in 1999 Dollars

                30-year total costs at an inflation rate of:

                            1 percent 5 percent

                                    Actual federal                           Actual federal
                                        cost as a                                cost as a
                                    percentage of                            percentage of
                         Estimated      estimated                 Estimated      estimated
                Actualfederal          federal          Actual federal              federal
Program/      federal voucher          voucher        federal  voucher             voucher
Location         cost         cost           cost        cost          cost           cost

Tax credits

              Nation $65,430 $42,550 154% $82,480 $68,800 120%

Metro 65,650 50,400 130 82,630 81,490

Nonmetro 59,560 25,510 233 73,030 41,250

Section 811

Nation 101,310 85,590 118 120,210 138,400

Metro 111,160 94,100 118 133,380 152,170

Nonmetro 82,340 50,170 164 94,680 81,140

Section 515

Nonmetroa 72,570 50,530 144 94,080 81,710

Note:  Due to  data limitation, we  cannot present  HOPE VI cost  by bedroom
size. Also, Section 202 does not generally develop two-bedroom units and, as
a result, is not included in the two-bedroom analysis.

aSince Section 515  units are located in rural areas, it is more appropriate
to compare the costs of Section 515 units in nonmetropolitan areas.

Appendix III

Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance Programs

Federal housing assistance, which began with the enactment of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, involves subsidies to construct new affordable housing
and to make rents affordable in existing rental housing. From 1937 through
1974, the emphasis was almost exclusively on new construction. Then, with
the enactment of Section 8 of the 1937 Act, as amended in 1974, tenant-based
rental assistance programs assumed growing importance. Finally, the Tax
Reform Act of 1986 gave renewed impetus to new construction, and, over the
last decade, the voucher and tax credit programs have provided the bulk of
the new federal housing subsidies.

The federal government has supported several types of new construction
programs, starting with public housing. Under this program, authorized in
1937, the government financed properties owned and managed by local public
housing authorities. In 1966, it began contracting with private developers
to build housing for low-income households in rural areas under the Section
515 Rural Rental Assistance program. Other early programs, including the
Section 202 Elderly and Disabled Housing Direct Loan program and the Section
221(d)(3) Below-Market Interest Rate (BMIR) program, provided
low-interest-rate loans to nonprofit organizations and cooperatives. In
1968, the Section 236 program succeeded the Section 221(d)(3) BMIR program
and encouraged for-profit developers to produce affordable housing by
subsidizing mortgage interest rates.

Questions about the cost-effectiveness of new construction led the Congress
to explore options for using existing housing to shelter low-income
families. In 1965, it tested one such option, enacting Section 23 of the
1937 Act, which authorized public housing authorities to lease private
unsubsidized apartments for households eligible for public housing. In 1974,
it added Section 8 to the 1937 Act and created the certificate program, the
first major program to rely on existing privately owned rental housing and
to provide tenant-based, rather than project-based, assistance. Another type
of Section 8 assistance, the voucher program, started as a demonstration
program in 1983, was made permanent in 1988, and operated simultaneously
with the certificate program until 1998. At that time, the Congress
consolidated the two programs into the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which
combined features of both earlier programs. This program is now the largest
federal housing assistance program.

From 1974 to 1986, federal housing policy emphasized the use of existing
housing over new construction. Then, with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the
Congress renewed its commitment to housing production while continuing

Appendix III
Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance
Programs

to support tenant-based assistance. The 1986 Act substituted tax credits for
older incentives to construct low-income housing, such as accelerated
depreciation. Under the tax credit program, approximately 700,000 to 800,000
units have been built. In 2000, the Congress increased the per-capita
allocation of tax credits from $1.25 to $1.50 beginning in 2001. In 2002,
this allocation is scheduled to rise to $1.75, and beginning in 2003, the
allocation will be adjusted for inflation. The program will likely soon
become the second largest housing program (after vouchers) for low-income
households. In large part because of the renewed emphasis on new
construction through tax credits, the majority of the additional recipients
of federal housing assistance since 1990 have received project-based
assistance.

Other funds for new construction have come through the HOME Investment
Partnerships Program, enacted in 1990, which awards block grants to state
and local governments, primarily for the development of affordable housing.
In addition, the HOPE VI program has provided grants since 1993 for local
housing authorities to demolish their worst properties and replace them with
lower density developments. Table 20 summarizes the history of federal
housing assistance programs, including their authorization date and current
status.

Appendix III
Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance
Programs

Table 20: Multifamily Housing Programs, by Type of Subsidy, in Order of Year
Authorized

Year Program Type of subsidy authorized Status Description

    Public                                                Pays for developing, operating,
   Housing       Project-based:      1937    No new                      and modernizing
                Operating subsidy                        projects owned by local public
                                          commitments
                                                                    housing

                      Grant                since 1994    authorities. Before 1987, funds
                                                                 paid off debt
              Debt-service payment         (see HOPE   service for project development
                                                       costs over 20 to
                Payment in lieu of            VI)            40 years. From 1987 to 1994,
                      taxes                                            development costs
                                                       have been financed with up-front
                                                       grants. Since
                                                       1970, the program has also paid
                                                       approximately
                                                         the difference between housing
                                                                  authorities'
                                                       formula-determined cost levels and
                                                                      rent
                                                        collections and other receipts.

 Section 202        Project-based:      1959    No new           Provides direct loans at
                                                               below-market rates for up
 Elderly and                                              to 40 years to finance the
                Direct loan with below-      commitments
                                                          construction of rental
   Disabled                                                   housing for the elderly and
   Housing      market interest rates         since 1991          disabled. All projects

 Direct Loan       Rental assistance                       built since 1974 also receive
                       paymenta                                   Section 8 rent
   Program                                                          subsidies.

Section 221(d)(3)      Project-based:      1961    No new        Provides subsidies that
                                                                reduce to 3 percent the

   Below-Market     Below-market interest       commitments  interest rate on private
                            rate                             40-year mortgages for

  Interest Rate             loan                 since 1968  multifamily rental housing.
                                                             Tenants in certain
                     Mortgage insurance                          units receive rent
                                                                     subsidies.
                      Rental assistance
                          paymenta

 Section 515 Rural     Project-based:      1962  Active          Provides direct loans to
                                                               developers at a 1-percent

 Rental Assistance Direct loan with below-                   interest rate. Supplementary
                                                                    rental assistance is

                    market interest rates               provided to approximately half of
                                                        the units
                      Rental assistance                 through Section 521. Some units
                          paymenta                      also receive
                                                          rental assistance through the
                                                                    Section 8
                                                                    programs.

Rent Supplement      Project-based:     1965    No new    Provides rental assistance for
                                                          housing projects
                    Rental assistance                      insured under certain Federal
                        payment               commitments             Housing

                                              since 1973   Administration (FHA) mortgage
                                                                     insurance
                                                               programs. Most outstanding
                                                                       commitments under
                                                          rent supplement programs have
                                                          been converted
                                                          to Section 8 rental assistance.

  Section 23       Project-based:      1965    No new    Local public housing authorities
                                                                      leased
    Leased       Lease of privately                         acceptable units from private
   Housing             owned                commitments             landlords and sublet

                       units                 since 1973       these units to eligible
                                                               households at below-
                                                         market rents. This program was a
                                                         precursor of
                                                          the Section 8 Existing Housing
                                                                   Certificates
                                                                     program.

Section 236       Project-based:      1968    No new     Provides monthly subsidies that
                                                                   reduce to 1
              Interest rate subsidy                        percent the interest rate on
                                            commitments
                                                                 private 40-year
                Mortgage insurance                       mortgages for multifamily rental
                                            since 1973
                                                                       projects. Tenants
                 Rental assistance                          of certain units receive rent
                     paymenta                                      subsidies through the
                                                         rental assistance program (RAP).
                                                                   Many units
                                                        receiving RAP have been converted
                                                                            to Section 8
                                                                   assistance.

Appendix III
Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance
Programs

                        (ContinuedFromPreviousPage)

Year Program Type of subsidy authorized Status Description

Section 521       Project-based:       1968  Active   Provides rental assistance payments
                                                                               to owners
             Rental assistance payment              and developers of RHS-financed
                                                    rental units
                                                         under Section 515 and farm labor
                                                                           housing loans
                                                          and grants (Section 514/516) on
                                                                           behalf of low-
                                                               income tenants.

  Section 8 New      Project-based:      1974    No new     Provides rent subsidies in
                                                            new or substantially

Construction and    Rental assistance         commitments   rehabilitated projects.
                         payment                            Subsidy initially covered

   Substantial    Tax-exempt financinga        since 1983,         the difference between
                                                               tenants' payment and fair

 Rehabilitation    Mortgage insurancea         except for   market rent, as determined by
                                                                    HUD. Subsidy
                  Below-market interest                       contracts were for 20 to 40
                          rate                 Section 202         years. Tax incentives

                          loana               program (see   and financing arrangements
                                                                  also may reduce
                                                 above)      owners' effective mortgage
                                                                 interest rates and
                                                            project rents. Current
                                                            restructuring of ongoing
                                                              contracts will result in
                                                               realignment of subsidy
                                                                     payments.

Section 8 Loan      Project-based:     1974    No new      Provides subsidies to units in
                                                                    financially troubled
Management Set-    Rental assistance                          projects in the FHA-insured
                       payment               commitments            inventory and on the

   Aside and                                                sale of HUD-owned projects,
                                                                  respectively.
   Property                                               Subsidies ensure improved cash
                                                                    flows and
  Disposition                                               preserve projects for lower
                                                                 income tenants.
                                                         Subsidies cover the difference
                                                         between tenant
                                                         payments and unit rents, which
                                                         often are below
                                                            market rates because of other
                                                                      federal subsidies.

 Section 8 Existing    Tenant-based:      1974  Merged in   Aids low-income households to
                                                                      rent housing units
      Housing         Rental assistance        1998 with     in the market. Rent cannot
                          payment              the                 exceed the HUD-

   Certificates                                 Section 8  established fair market rent
                                                           for the geographical

                                                 Voucher    area. HUD pays the difference
                                                                    between the
                                                              actual unit rent and the
                                                 program          tenant payment.
                                                           Administered by local public
                                                           housing authorities,
                                                             which enter into contracts
                                                                  with landlords.

  Community   Project-based: 1974  Active           Distributes grants to local and state
                                                                             governments
 Development                                         by formula for community development
                  Grant
                                                                             activities.
Block Grants                                The Housing and Community Development Act of
                                          1974 established this program. Rehabilitation
                                          and other housing activities now consistently
                                          represent the largest single use of funds.

Section 8      Tenant-based:       1983   Merged in   Similar to the Section 8
                                                      Certificate program in

 Vouchers     Rental assistance           1998 with   that assisted households could live
                  payment                             in privately
                                          Existing      owned units and public housing
                                                                 authorities
                                           Housing       administered the program. Unlike
                                                                         the Certificate

                                        Certificates  program in that recipients could
                                                      occupy units
                                                      whose rents exceeded the voucher
                                                      payment
                                                      standard-roughly equivalent to the
                                                      fair market
                                                      rent-if they paid the difference.
                                                      If rents were
                                                      below the payment standard,
                                                      households could
                                                       keep the difference (also known as
                                                                          the "shopper's
                                                                 incentive").

Appendix III
Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance
Programs

                        (ContinuedFromPreviousPage)

Year Program Type of subsidy authorized Status Description

 Low-Income  Project-based: 1986  Active The Tax Reform Act of 1986 substituted tax
Housing Tax                               credits for existing tax incentives to construct
               Tax credit
                                                                                      low-
  Credits                                       income housing, such as accelerated
                                         depreciation. The maximum tax credit allowed
                                              per year is about 9 percent of a newly
                                         constructed project's development costs, less
                                          land and certain other costs. Project owners can
                                         claim the tax credit award annually on their tax
                                                       returns for 10 years.

  Affordable       Project-based:      1989 Active                     Provides grants or
                                                         reduced-interest-rate loans for
    Housing                                         the production of affordable rental
    Program             Grant                       and owner-
                Below-market interest               occupied housing. Program was
                        rate                        intended to

                        loan                            expand the Federal Home Loan Bank
                                                                                system's
                                                    overall involvement in community
                                                    lending and
                                                     promote the production of low-income
                                                                                housing.

  Section 202        Project-based:      1990  Active     Provides capital advances to
                                                                  finance the
   Supportive    Capital advance (grant)                 construction or rehabilitation of
                                                                       rental housing for
Housing for the     Rental assistance                 very-low-income elderly households.
                         payment                      Capital
    Elderly                                              advances do not have to be repaid
                                                                           as long as the
                                                             housing remains available for
                                                                        occupancy by very-
                                                      low-income elderly households for
                                                      40 years.

 Section 811       Project-based:      1990  Active  Provides capital advances to finance
                                                                     the
 Supportive   Capital advance (grant)                    construction or rehabilitation of
                                                                       rental housing for
 Housing for  Rental assistance payment                       very-low-income persons with
                                                                    disabilities. Capital

Persons with                                          advances do not have to be repaid as
                                                                              long as the

Disabilities                                                 housing remains available for
                                                                        occupancy by very-
                                                      low-income persons with disabilities
                                                                            for 40 years.

  HOME   Multipurpose (project-and 1990  Active     Provides formula grants to states and
                                                                             localities.
              tenant-based):                     Communities use these grants, often in
             Development grant                   partnership with local nonprofit groups,
                                                                               to build,
         Rental assistance payment                    buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable
                                                                        housing for rent
         Homeownership assistance               or homeownership or to provide
                                                tenant-based
                                                rental assistance to low-income
                                                households.

HOPE VI                            1993  Active         Provides grants to public housing
              Project-based:                                              authorities to
             Operating subsidy                       transform severely distressed public
                                                                           housing sites

                   Grant                        into economically viable communities and
                                                to
                                                        support service programs.

                                Appendix III
                   Evolution of Federal Housing Assistance
                                  Programs

                        (ContinuedFromPreviousPage)

                                        Year
Program      Type of subsidy      authorized  Status Description
Housing
Choice       Tenant-based:
Voucher      Rental assistance
Program      payment

1998 Active Aids low-income households to rent housing units in the market.
Public housing authorities have discretion to set voucher payment standards
anywhere between 90 and 110 percent of the local fair market rent. HUD pays
the difference between the payment standard (or, if less, the unit's rent)
and the total tenant payment, which is usually at least 30 percent of
adjusted household income. If the unit's rent exceeds the payment standard,
the tenant can pay the difference, provided that household initial rent
burden does not exceed 40 percent of adjusted income.

aThe subsidy is provided by another housing program.

Source:  GAO  adaptation  of  the  analysis  in  CurrentHousing  Problemsand
Possible Federal Responses, Congressional Budget Office (Dec. 1988).

Appendix IV

                  Federal Expenditures on Housing Programs

An outlay is generally a payment of an obligation incurred, representing
federal spending for programs at a particular time. In fiscal year 1999, the
federal government provided housing assistance to about 5.2 million renter
households at a cost of about $28.7 billion in budgetary outlays and tax
credits. This assistance was delivered through both tenant-based and
project-based programs. Since federal outlays cover expenditures for
everything from development to rental assistance and since the timing of
these outlays varies, using federal outlays to compare per-unit costs across
programs would be misleading. Nevertheless, outlays are useful as indicators
of federal spending for programs at a particular time. Determining how much
the federal government spends each year to assist households under a
particular program is complicated when units or households benefit from more
than one subsidy.

Defining Budgetary Outlays

An outlay is generally defined as the payment of an obligation incurred in a
previous year or in the same year. Although outlays measure federal spending
for programs at a particular time, they do not represent, nor were they
intended to represent, the total costs of housing to all parties, including
state and local governments, private entities, and assisted households. For
assisted housing programs, outlays cover the federal costs. More
specifically, for housing vouchers, outlays cover the cost of the
tenant-based rental assistance provided to low-income households and the fee
paid to local housing authorities for administering the program. For housing
production programs, outlays pay for a broader range of activities that vary
by program, from the project-based rental assistance provided for the
Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation program to the
operating, capital improvement, and debt-service subsidies provided for
public housing.

Program Outlays for Fiscal Year 1999

Table 21 presents the outlays for housing assistance programs administered
by HUD and RHS. Also included are the estimated forgone taxes for the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program administered by the Internal Revenue
Service. The table categorizes these programs as inactive or active. Whereas
the outlays for inactive programs support existing units and do not
currently fund the production of any new units, the outlays for active
programs provide assistance to previously built units while continuing to
fund new units of affordable housing. Within both the inactive and active
project-based categories, an assisted property can be

                                 Appendix IV
                  Federal Expenditures on Housing Programs

privately or publicly owned. In the case of vouchers, assistance is provided
to the tenant.

Table 21: Federal Outlays for Major Assisted Housing Programs in Fiscal Year
                                    1999

                                                                                 Operating
                                 Operating                                        subsidy/
             Total units  subsidy/Rental       Development/                         Rental
            funded as of        assistance    Modernization  Total outlays      assistance
 Program          FY '99    (in millions)     (in millions)   (in millions)      per unita

Inactive

Publicly owned, project-based Public Housing 1,273,500 $3,860b $3,080 $6,940
                   $5,450 Privately owned, project-based

      Section 8 New Construction/Substantial         643,600   4,320   - 4,320     6,710
                  Rehabilitation
         Section 202 Elderly and Disabled            207,100   1,190   - 1,190     5,750
                Housing Direct Loan
          Section 8 Property Disposition             60,300     360    -  360      5,970
        Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside          409,000   1,650   - 1,650     4,030
                  Rent Supplement                    20,900      60    -   60      2,870
                    Section 236                      464,000    610    -  610      1,310
      Section 221(d)(3) Below-Market Interest        145,000      -    -    -           -
                       Ratec

Active

Tenant-based

Section 8 Certificates/Vouchers 1,580,500 7,010 -7,010 4,440 Publicly owned,
             project-based Public Housing: HOPE VId --320 320 -

Privately owned, project-based

     Section 202 Supportive Housing for the        65,500    80    500     580     1,220
                    Elderly
       Section 811 Supportive Housing for          17,800    20    110     140     1,120
           Persons With Disabilities
        Section 515 Rural Housing Rental          484,700     -       90   90           -
                   Assistance
                  Section 521                     264,700   560         -  560     2,120
        Low-Income Housing Tax Creditse           700,000     -   3,500   3,500         -

Multipurpose

              HOME Investment Partnerships Programf ---1,350 -

                  Total 5,247,300g $19,710 $8,950 $28,670 -

Appendix IV
Federal Expenditures on Housing Programs

Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.

aPer-unit calculations cannot be done for outlays used to construct new
units because outlays for one particular year do not correspond to the
number of units actually placed in service that year. Only rental assistance
is included in the per-unit cost estimates, with the exception of Public
Housing (see note b).

bOutlays for operating expenses include $2.9 billion in operating subsidies,
$705 million in annual debt service payments on the costs of developments
constructed before 1974, and $283 million for the Drug Elimination program.
The outlay per unit for public housing's operating subsidy is $2,260.
Outlays for development and modernization under HOPE VI are broken out
separately from those for Public Housing.

cInterest rate subsidies were made at closing and accordingly would not be
reflected in 1999 outlays.

dAs of 2000, the HOPE VI program had demolished over 30,000 units and
constructed over 7,000 units of public housing units.

eSince there is no official estimate of the number of units developed under
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, we relied primarily on estimates
from HUD's National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit database.

fBecause reliable data were not readily available, this table excludes
substantial numbers of commitments made through the HOME Investment
Partnerships Program. In addition, HOME funds can be used for tenant-based
assistance or assistance to new homebuyers. These funds can also be used for
acquisition, rehabilitation, or in limited circumstances, construction of
both rental and owner-occupied housing.

gThe total number of units is adjusted to account for cases in which one
particular unit may be receiving subsidies from two different programs. For
instance, approximately 40 percent of tax credit units receive Section 8
project-based or tenant-based assistance.

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. Forgone taxes resulting from the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program are from Estimates ofFederal
TaxExpenditures forFiscal Years 1999-2005, prepared by the Joint Committee
on Taxation for the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate
Committee on Finance.

Overall, rental assistance accounted for nearly $15.9 billion of the $28.7
billion in federal outlays and tax credits for the major housing assistance
programs in fiscal year 1999. Operating and other related subsidies for
public housing cost another $3.9 billion. The remaining $9 billion covered
$3.1 billion for public housing capital and management improvement efforts,
$3.5 billion in forgone tax revenue for the development of affordable
housing under the tax credit program,48 and $2.4 billion in subsidies for
the development of affordable housing under the other active housing
programs. In other words, nearly 70 percent of the 1999 federal expenditures
provided for rental assistance of existing units, and the remainder was used
to develop additional units of affordable housing.

48While forgone tax revenue is not a budgetary outlay, we include its
estimated value in table 21 because it represents a significant cost to the
federal government for what is currently the largest program supporting the
development of affordable housing.

                                 Appendix IV
                  Federal Expenditures on Housing Programs

Problems With Comparing Program Outlays

Because the annual federal per-unit outlays for different housing programs
often cover different housing costs, they should not be used to compare
subsidy costs across programs. For example, the annual federal per-unit
outlays for housing vouchers cover all of the government's costs. By
contrast, the annual outlays for the housing production programs often do
not include all of the subsidy costs. Specifically, they may not include-nor
were they intended to include-the up-front development costs paid in
previous years when properties were built; the indirect costs of forgone
taxes to federal, state, or local entities; or the costs of funding capital
replacement reserves.

Computing the costs of federal housing assistance programs is further
complicated when subsidies overlap-that is, when rental assistance is
combined with development subsidies to make units affordable for
very-low-income households, both in older and in newly developed properties.
We estimate that about 1.1 million households receive overlapping subsidies.
Specifically, we estimate that about 85 percent of the units that received
interest rate subsidies under the Section 236 program also receive Section 8
project-based assistance. In addition, according to our September 1999
estimate,49 about 10 to 14 percent of the households in tax credit units
also receive tenant-based housing vouchers. To the extent that rental
assistance lowers the costs of serving households in Section 236 and tax
credit units, the average annual per-unit outlays understate federal
expenditures for those units.

49Tax Credits: The Use of Tenant-Based Assistance in Tax-Credit-Supported
Properties (GAO/RCED-99-279R, Sept. 17, 1999).

Appendix V

Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

                               See comment 1.

                               See comment 2.

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

                               See comment 3.

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

                               See comment 4.

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

                               See comment 5.

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

                                 Appendix V
                   Comments From the Department of Housing
                            and Urban Development

The  following are  GAO's comments on  the Department  of Housing and  Urban
Development's letter dated January 10, 2002.

GAO Comments 1.

2.

3.

As suggested in HUD's comments, we have expanded the discussion of federal
costs in the letter and included figures 10 and 11 on the differences in the
federal costs of production programs and vouchers for one-bedroom units.
Detailed data on federal costs are still included in appendix I.

Contributions from state and local sources are generally a small share of
the 30-year total costs of housing programs. Nonetheless, given the emphasis
placed on leveraging nonfederal funding by many of the programs, we have
incorporated a brief discussion of the total government costs of the various
housing programs, as suggested in HUD's comments. We have revised the draft
to clarify that the administrative costs of the production programs are not
fully accounted for because of data limitations.

We recognize in our report that if current set-asides for future capital
improvements were insufficient, our estimates of total costs will be
accordingly understated. To address the issue of underfunded capital
reserves, we revised the draft to include two additional scenarios
evaluating the possible impact of shortfalls above and below our initial
base estimate. We find that over 30 years, these shortfalls make up a small
part of the average total costs.

HUD also comments that the history of federal housing programs indicates
that additional subsidies are often required within the first 15 years to
maintain the physical and financial viability of subsidized properties. We
have revised the draft to include a note citing two studies prepared for HUD
that estimate the capital needs of public housing and FHA-insured
properties. However, the extent to which the experience of the older
programs reviewed in these HUD studies is a good predictor of the future
requirements of newer programs, such as tax credits, Section 202, or Section
811, is simply not known. For this reason, we refer to the importance of
having current data on the financial condition of these properties.

We disagree with HUD's suggestion that we shorten our cost period to 15
years because, in general, development subsidies buy more than 15 years of
affordable housing.

Appendix V
Comments From the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

4. We focused on one- and two-bedroom units because the large majority of
units (over 75 percent) developed under the production programs (except HOPE
VI) have either one or two bedrooms. Nonetheless, we revised the draft to
include cost estimates for three-bedroom units for the tax credit and
voucher programs-both of which had sufficient data for this analysis. As
noted in this report, data for three-bedroom units were not available for
the other programs.

Single unit-weighted cost figures were presented in our interim report (July
18, 2001) and are also presented in appendix I. We believe that our cost
estimates in this report control for differences in unit size more
rigorously than the single unit-weighted estimates. HUD states that we
averaged total development costs evenly across units of different sizes,
thereby reducing the accuracy of our cost estimates in the letter. In
reality, we averaged total development subsidies across all units. For tax
credits and Section 515, total development subsidies are less than total
development costs, which means that the unsubsidized portion of total
development costs is captured in the rents, which account for about 70
percent of the 30-year total cost estimates. In the case of grant programs,
such as Section 202 and Section 811, the total development cost is
completely subsidized. However, these two programs tend to develop
properties that comprise units with the same number of bedrooms.

5. We agree that vouchers also respond to objectives other than providing
affordable housing. We have revised the draft to include a discussion of
these benefits and changed the title of this report so as not to imply that
we have assessed how well production programs meet their stated objectives.

Appendix VI

Comments From the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Note: The GAO comment supplementing those in the report text appears at the
end of this appendix.

Appendix VI
Comments From the U.S. Department of
Agriculture

                                See comment.

                                 Appendix VI
                    Comments From the U.S. Department of
                                 Agriculture

The following  is GAO's  comment on the  Department of Agriculture's  letter
dated January 14, 2002.

GAO  Comment  We  are retaining  the  estimated annual  average income  that
appeared in the draft report since it is based on data for fiscal year 1998,
the year for which we collected cost data from RHS.

Appendix VII

Comments From the National Council of State Housing Agencies

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end
of this appendix.

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

                               See comment 1.

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

                               See comment 2.

                               See comment 3.

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

                               See comment 4.

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

                               See comment 5.

                               See comment 6.

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

                                Appendix VII
                    Comments From the National Council of
                           State Housing Agencies

The following  are GAO's comments on  the National Council of  State Housing
Agencies' (NCSHA) letter dated January 11, 2002.

GAO Comments 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

We agree that tax credits tend to produce new or substantially rehabilitated
housing units with amenities and services often not provided by the average
voucher unit. While new or substantially rehabilitated units may, on
average, be of higher quality than the average voucher unit, the age of a
unit may not accurately reflect its quality. In addition, the extent to
which the benefits from the additional amenities and services justify their
costs remains an open question.

We agree that there are potential benefits to the broader community from tax
credits. These potential benefits were discussed in the housing policy
issues section of the draft report.

We assumed an affordability period of 30 years throughout the draft. We
agree with NCSHA that some properties have longer affordability requirements
but note that other properties have shorter affordability requirements as
well. In its comments, HUD requested that we present 15-year estimates
rather than 30-year estimates. For simplicity, we continue to present
30-year estimates. Additionally, because of the time value of money,
projections beyond 30 years will have a small impact on relative costs.

Rent growth for production programs may or may not lag behind that for
vouchers. The tables presented in appendix II provide the opportunity to
consider the impact on rents of other rates of inflation.

We agree that the reserves required for new or substantially rehabilitated
units may be considerably lower than those required for older properties.
HUD raised concerns that our base annual estimate of $600 per unit was too
low, given past experience, while NCSHA argues that the figure is too high.
To address both concerns, we revised the draft to include two additional
scenarios evaluating the possible impact of shortfalls above and below our
base estimate. We find that over 30 years, these shortfalls make up a small
part of the average 30-year total costs.

NCSHA questioned the need for a national database on costs for the tax
credit program, arguing that the tax credit is one of the most exhaustively
studied programs. Few studies of the tax credit program

Appendix VII
Comments From the National Council of
State Housing Agencies

have assessed the costs of providing housing under the program, the
financial viability of tax credit projects over time, or the households
served by the program. Michael A. Stegman's 1999 review attributes our lack
of information to the fact that the program is financed by tax expenditures
rather than by direct appropriations and therefore does not require annual
budget justifications.50 Additionally, he notes that housing advocates have
been reluctant to support independent evaluation of the program. The tax
credit program consumes real taxpayer resources, and as with any government
program, taxpayers deserve to know what is being purchased with their
dollars and at what cost.

50Michael A. Stegman, "Comment on Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale's
`The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years':
Lifting the Veil of Ignorance," Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 10, Issue 2
(1999).

Appendix VIII

                   GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts  Stanley J. Czerwinski (202)  512-7631 Daniel Garcia-Diaz (202)
512-4529

Acknowledgments In addition to the persons named above, Patrick Doerning,
Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Dennis Fricke, and William McNaught made key
contributions to this report. External consultants Denise DiPasquale and
Jean L. Cummings, City Research, and Edgar O. Olsen, Department of
Economics, University of Virginia, also contributed to this report.

GAO's Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
GAO E-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select
"Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO
Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Visit GAO's Document GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th  Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)Distribution
Center Washington, D.C. 20013

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,Waste, and Abuse in E-mail:
[email protected], orFederal Programs 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
(automated answering system).

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
Washington, D.C. 20548

                             Presorted Standard
                             Postage & Fees Paid
                                     GAO
                               Permit No. GI00

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested
*** End of document. ***