Housing for the Elderly: Information on HUD's Section 202 and HOME
Investment Partnerships Programs (Letter Report, 11/14/97,
GAO/RCED-98-11).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the similarities and
differences between the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
(HUD) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program and HOME
Investment Partnership Program, focusing on: (1) the amount and types of
new multifamily rental housing that each program has provided for the
elderly; (2) the sources of each program's funding for multifamily
rental projects; and (3) the availability of supportive services for
elderly residents.

GAO noted that: (1) during fiscal year (FY) 1992 through FY 1996, the
Section 202 program substantially exceeded the HOME program in providing
multifamily rental housing that was set aside for elderly households;
(2) over 1,400 Section 202 projects opened during this time, providing
homes for nearly 48,000 elderly residents; (3) at the same time, the
HOME program provided housing assistance to 21,457 elderly households,
including 675 elderly residents in 30 multifamily rental projects
comparable to those developed under the Section 202 program; (4) the
Section 202 program produced new multifamily rental housing for
low-income elderly households through new construction, rehabilitation
of existing buildings, and acquisition of existing properties that the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation obtained through foreclosure; (5)
the HOME program provided housing assistance to address the most
pressing housing needs that local communities and states identified
among low-income people of all ages; (6) for the elderly, HOME
assistance helped rehabilitate the homes they already owned and in which
they still lived, provided tenant-based rental assistance, helped new
homebuyers make down payments and pay closing costs, and made funds
available to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate single-family and
multifamily rental housing; (8) in the Section 202 program, the capital
advance, which HUD provides to a project's sponsor, is the only
significant source of funds for developing the project; (9) in general,
a HOME project typically attracts significant levels of additional
public and private funding; (10) HOME multifamily housing that is
similar to Section 202 projects is usually financed with a combination
of HOME funds and other federal and nonfederal funds; (11) HUD does not
pay for supportive services, such as transportation or subsidized meals
programs, through the HOME program but does do so under limited
circumstances through the Section 202 program; (12) the extent to which
the Section 202 and HOME projects provided these services on-site for
their residents usually depended on each project's ability to generate
the operating income needed to pay for the services; (13) these projects
often depended on and referred their residents to community-based
supportive services; (14) five of the eight Section 202 projects that
GAO visited employed a staff person or expected their on-site resident
manager to coordinate services; and (15) both projects in many cases had
common areas or activity rooms that service providers or residents could
use for community-based services, group social or educational
activities, and dining.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-11
     TITLE:  Housing for the Elderly: Information on HUD's Section 202 
             and HOME Investment Partnerships Programs
      DATE:  11/14/97
   SUBJECT:  Housing for the elderly
             Low income housing
             Disadvantaged persons
             Housing programs
             Community development programs
             Rental housing
             Elderly persons
             Comparative analysis
             Cost sharing (finance)
IDENTIFIER:  HUD Home Investment Partnership Program
             HUD Section 202 Elderly Housing Program
             California
             Florida
             North Carolina
             Ohio
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and
Community Development, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, U.  S.  Senate

November 1997

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY -
INFORMATION ON HUD'S SECTION 202
AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
PROGRAMS

GAO/RCED-98-11

Housing for the Elderly

(385681)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CDBG - Community Development Block Grant
  HOME - HOME Investment Partnerships
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-277091

November 14, 1997

The Honorable Connie Mack
Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing
 Opportunity and Community Development
Committee on Banking, Housing, and
 Urban Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported in
1996 that at least 1.4 million elderly individuals nationwide needed
but did not currently receive housing assistance.  These individuals
need housing assistance because most have extremely low incomes, are
paying more than half of their incomes for rent, or often live in
homes that are physically inadequate.  To alleviate these problems,
the federal government provides housing assistance through a variety
of programs that benefit low-income people, including the elderly. 
Two HUD programs--Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)--are receiving federal funds each
year to fully or partially support the production of new multifamily
rental housing for the elderly.  However, only the Section 202
program provides housing assistance exclusively for the elderly. 

As agreed with your office, this report describes similarities and
differences between the Section 202 program and the HOME program in
three areas:  (1) the amount and types of new multifamily rental
housing that each program has provided for the elderly; (2) the
sources of each program's funding for multifamily rental projects;
and (3) the availability of supportive services for elderly
residents.  In general, we have described the programs at the
national level and have illustrated some points with examples drawn
from our visits to selected projects in four states with relatively
high concentrations of low-income elderly residents and numbers of
Section 202 and HOME-funded projects--California, Florida, North
Carolina, and Ohio.  (See app.  I for pictures and descriptions of
the Section 202 and HOME projects that we visited.)


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

During fiscal years 1992 through 1996, the Section 202 program
substantially exceeded the HOME program in providing multifamily
rental housing that was set aside almost exclusively for elderly
households.  Over 1,400 Section 202 projects opened during this time,
providing homes for nearly 48,000 elderly residents.  At the same
time, the HOME program provided housing assistance to 21,457 elderly
households, including 675 elderly residents in 30 multifamily rental
projects comparable to those developed under the Section 202
program.\1 The Section 202 program produced new multifamily rental
housing for low-income elderly households through new construction,
the rehabilitation of existing buildings, and the acquisition of
existing properties that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
obtained through foreclosure.  The HOME program provided housing
assistance to address the most pressing housing needs that local
communities and states identified among low-income people of all
ages.  For the elderly, HOME assistance helped rehabilitate the homes
they already owned and in which they still lived.  It also provided
tenant-based rental assistance; helped new homebuyers make down
payments and pay closing costs associated with purchasing a home; and
made funds available to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate
single-family and multifamily rental housing. 

In the Section 202 program, the capital advance, which HUD provides
to a project's sponsor, is the only significant source of funds for
developing the project.  In general, a HOME project typically
attracts significant levels of additional public and private funding,
such as a grant from a state or local housing program, a conventional
bank mortgage, and proceeds from the syndication of low-income
housing tax credits.  HOME multifamily housing that is similar to
Section 202 projects is usually financed with a combination of HOME
funds and other federal and nonfederal funds. 

HUD does not pay for supportive services, such as transportation or
subsidized meals programs, through the HOME program but does do so
under limited circumstances through the Section 202 program.  The
extent to which the Section 202 and HOME projects that we visited
provided these services on-site for their residents usually depended
on each project's ability to generate the operating income needed to
pay for the services.  These projects often depended on and referred
their residents to community-based supportive services to supplement
those they could provide.  None of the HOME projects that we visited
had a staff person solely responsible for identifying the services
that some or all of the residents needed and for coordinating with
service providers to give the residents access to the services, but
five of the eight Section 202 projects we visited employed such a
staff person or expected their on-site resident manager to coordinate
services.  In addition, all of the Section 202 projects and six of
the eight HOME projects that we visited had common areas or activity
rooms that service providers or residents could use for
community-based services, group social or educational activities, and
dining.  The two HOME projects that did not have such common areas
housed families and individuals as well as the elderly. 


--------------------
\1 In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD said that the HOME
program--which began in fiscal year 1992--could not have produced as
much multifamily rental housing as the Section 202 program because
constructing multifamily rental projects requires lead time for their
planning, selection, and construction.  We agree and note that the
number of such HOME-funded projects would have been somewhat higher
during this time period if the program had begun several years
earlier. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In general, federal housing assistance is available only to people or
households that have low incomes.\2 Consequently, income, not age, is
the single biggest factor in deciding on an elderly person's need and
eligibility for federal housing assistance.  HUD also identifies
problems that, regardless of age, exacerbate a person's need for
assisted housing.  These problems include housing that costs more
than 30 percent of a person's income or is inadequate or substandard. 
Figure 1 shows the magnitude of the housing needs among low-income
elderly households in each state. 

   Figure 1:  Low-income Elderly
   Households With Housing
   Problems

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  An elderly household has one or two members and either the
head of the household or the spouse must be at least 62 years of age. 
A household with housing problems pays more than 30 percent of its
income for rent or resides in a unit that (1) lacks a complete
kitchen or complete plumbing or (2) has more than one person per room
(overcrowded). 

Source:  GAO's analysis of HUD's special tabulations of 1990 Census
data. 

According to HUD, the need for housing assistance, for the elderly as
for the general population, far outstrips the federal resources
available to address that need.  As a result, federal housing
assistance, which is provided through a variety of programs, reaches
just over one-third of the elderly households that need assistance.\3
Furthermore, most of the programs are maintaining, rather than
increasing, the level of assistance they provide.  Only two of these
programs--Section 202 and HOME--are under HUD's jurisdiction and are
receiving annual appropriations for the sole purpose of increasing
housing assistance for elderly and other households.\4

Under the Section 202 program, HUD provides funding to private
nonprofit organizations to expand the supply of housing for the
elderly by constructing or rehabilitating buildings or by acquiring
existing structures from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 
Since it was first created in 1959, the Section 202 program has
provided over $10 billion to the sponsors of 4,854 projects
containing 266,270 housing units.\5 At the same time that HUD awards
Section 202 funds, it enters into contracts with these nonprofit
organizations to provide them with project-based rental assistance. 
This assistance subsidizes the rents that elderly residents with very
low incomes will pay when they move into the building.  In addition
to having a very low income, each household in a Section 202 project
must have at least one resident who is at least 62 years old. 
Finally, sponsoring organizations must identify how they will ensure
that their residents have access to appropriate supportive services,
such as subsidized meals programs or transportation to health care
facilities.\6 When HUD evaluates sponsors' applications, it awards
more points to, and is thus more likely to fund, applicants who have
experience providing such services or have shown that they will
readily be able to do so. 

The purpose of the HOME program is to address the affordable housing
needs of individual communities.  As a result, the day-to-day
responsibility for implementing the program rests not with HUD, but
with over 570 participating jurisdictions.  These participating
jurisdictions can be states, metropolitan cities, urban counties, or
consortia made up of contiguous units of general local government. 
HUD requires these jurisdictions to develop consolidated plans in
which they identify their communities' most pressing housing needs
and describe how they plan to address these needs.\7 Each year, HUD
allocates HOME program funds to these jurisdictions and expects them
to use the funds according to the needs they have identified in their
consolidated plans.\8 The legislation that created the HOME program
allows--but does not require--those receiving its funds to construct
multifamily rental housing for the elderly.\9

Although the legislation authorizing the HOME program directs that
its funds address the housing needs of low-income people, it allows
local communities to choose from a variety of ways of doing so. 
These include the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of
rental housing; the rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes; the
provision of homeownership assistance; and the provision of rental
assistance to lower-income tenants who rent their homes from private
landlords.  Finally, the legislation requires that communities target
the rental assistance they choose to provide.  Specifically,
jurisdictions must ensure that for each multifamily rental project
with at least five HOME-assisted units, at least 20 percent of the
residents in the HOME-assisted units have incomes at or below 50
percent of the area's median income; the remaining residents may have
incomes up to 80 per cent of the area's median.\10


--------------------
\2 HUD updates decennial Census data each year to estimate the median
family income for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and adjusts
these estimates for higher-than-average housing costs.  HUD defines
eligibility for housing assistance in terms of the percentage of an
area's median family income that potential residents earn. 
"Low-income" means that a household's income is no more than 80
percent, and "very-low income" means that a household's income is no
more than 50 percent, of the area's median family income. 

\3 Programs under HUD's jurisdiction include the HOME and Community
Development Block Grant programs, public housing, the Section 8
certificate and voucher programs, and private project-based
assistance programs.  The Department of Agriculture's Rural Housing
Service also provides new multifamily assisted housing in rural
areas. 

\4 The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program also helps produce new
housing each year by providing federal tax credits to investors in
privately developed projects to offset the federal taxes they would
otherwise owe.  However, this is not a HUD program and does not
require an annual appropriation.  Moreover, data on the number of
elderly households in properties receiving tax credits are generally
not available.  The Internal Revenue Service and tax credit
allocation agencies in each state administer the program.  The money
private investors pay for tax credits is paid into housing projects
for the elderly and other low-income households as equity financing. 
For more information on the tax credit program, see Tax Credits: 
Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program
(GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, Mar.  28, 1997). 

\5 Prior to fiscal year 1991, HUD provided Section 202 funding via
direct loans to projects' sponsors.  The sponsors, in turn, repay
these loans using the operating revenue they derive from HUD's
Section 8 project-based rental assistance.  Since fiscal year 1991,
HUD has provided Section 202 funding via capital advances that
sponsors do not have to repay as long as they continue to meet HUD's
requirements for keeping rents affordable. 

\6 HUD pays up to $15 per unit per month to fund the costs of
services for the frail elderly and for those determined to be at risk
of being institutionalized in projects funded after fiscal year 1990. 
Otherwise, sponsors must arrange for the provision and financing of
these services on their own. 

\7 The consolidated plans, which participating jurisdictions must
submit every 3 to 5 years and update annually with an action plan,
must explain the jurisdictions' plans to use the funds they receive
through HUD's HOME, Community Development Block Grant, Emergency
Shelter Grant, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
programs. 

\8 The states receive 40 percent of the HOME funds and the remaining
jurisdictions receive 60 percent (after limited set-asides for
insular areas and other purposes).  HUD's allocation to each
jurisdiction is based on a formula that includes factors such as the
number of families at or below the poverty level and local housing
production costs. 

\9 The 1990 Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, P.L. 
101-625, created the HOME program. 

\10 HUD applies a second targeting requirement to the portion of the
annual allocation of HOME funds that each community devotes to rental
units or tenant-based rental assistance.  All of that money must
benefit individuals or families with incomes at or below 80 percent
of the area's median income (low-income) and 90 percent of that money
must benefit those with incomes at or below 60 percent of the area's
median income. 


   HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR THE
   ELDERLY REFLECTS THE PROGRAMS'
   INTENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The Section 202 program, far more often than the HOME program, is the
source of funds for increasing the supply of multifamily rental
housing for low-income elderly people.  In comparison, through fiscal
year 1996, participating jurisdictions have seldom chosen to use HOME
funds to produce multifamily housing almost exclusively for the
low-income elderly.  This result is linked to differences in the
purposes for which each program was created and the persons each was
intended to serve.  The Congress designed the Section 202 program to
serve only low-income elderly households.  In creating the HOME
program, however, the Congress sought to give states and local
communities the means and the flexibility to identify their most
pressing low-income housing needs and to decide which needs to
address through the HOME program.  As is consistent with each
program's intent, the Section 202 program focuses its benefits on the
elderly, while the HOME program benefits those whom local communities
choose to serve--regardless of age--through various kinds of housing
assistance. 

From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1996, over 1,400 Section
202 and HOME program multifamily rental housing projects for the
elderly opened nationwide.  These projects included

  -- 1,400 Section 202 projects with 51,838 rental units, providing
     homes for at least 47,823 elderly individuals,\11 and

  -- 30 comparable HOME projects with 681 rental units, providing
     homes for at least 675 elderly individuals.\12

On average, the Section 202 projects had 37 units, while the HOME
projects had 23 units.  Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of the
total number of projects attributable to each program. 

   Figure 2:  Incremental
   Multifamily Rental Projects in
   Which at Least 90 Percent of
   the Household Heads Are
   Elderly, Fiscal Years 1992-96

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of HUD's program data. 

Although only a small portion of the HOME projects were comparable to
Section 202 projects, participating jurisdictions used HOME funds to
assist low-income elderly people in other ways.  Most of the elderly
households that obtained assistance from the HOME program--over 70
percent--used that assistance to rehabilitate the homes they already
owned and in which they still lived.  The remaining HOME assistance
benefiting the elderly did so by providing tenant-based rental
assistance; helping new homebuyers make down payments and pay the
closing costs associated with purchasing homes; and acquiring,
constructing, or rehabilitating single-family and multifamily rental
housing.  In total, the HOME program assisted 21,457 elderly
households, approximately 40 percent as many as the Section 202
program assisted during the same 5-year period.  Figure 3 illustrates
how the HOME program assisted the elderly during fiscal years 1992
through 1996. 

   Figure 3:  HOME Program
   Assistance Provided to
   Households With an Elderly
   Household Head, Fiscal Years
   1992-96

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Single-family rental projects have between one and four units, at
least one of which is occupied by an elderly household head. 

\b Multifamily rental projects have five or more units, at least one
of which is occupied by an elderly household head. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of HUD's program data. 


--------------------
\11 Prior to fiscal year 1991, projects that received Section 202
funding had to make at least 10 percent of their units accessible to
persons with a handicap and generally available for occupancy by
persons at least 18 years old with a handicap.  Since that time,
Section 202 projects must limit occupancy to elderly households. 
Consequently, we derived a conservative estimate of the number of
elderly households in Section 202 projects by assuming that 90
percent of the units funded before fiscal year 1991 and 100 percent
of the units funded afterwards were occupied by elderly households. 
We also assumed that each household included at least one elderly
person. 

\12 Many of the Section 202 projects that opened from fiscal year
1992 through fiscal year 1996 received their funds before fiscal year
1992 and are thus subject to the requirement to make 10 percent of
their units accessible to and available for occupancy by nonelderly
residents with a handicap.  Therefore, we defined comparable projects
in the HOME program to include only the multifamily rental projects
in which at least 90 percent of the residents were elderly. 


   SECTION 202 PROJECTS RELY ON
   HUD FUNDING, BUT MOST HOME
   PROJECTS LEVERAGE PRIVATE
   FINANCING AND OTHER SUBSIDIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

In nearly all cases, Section 202 projects rely solely on HUD to pay
the costs of construction and subsidize the rents of the low-income
elderly tenants who occupy the buildings.  In contrast, HOME-assisted
multifamily rental housing projects rely on multiple sources of
funding, including private financing, such as bank mortgages and
equity from developers.  At the HOME-funded projects we visited, the
use of HOME funds reduced the amount that the projects' sponsors had
to borrow for construction or made borrowing unnecessary.  Reducing
or eliminating the need to go into debt to build HOME projects
enables the projects to be affordable to households with lower
incomes than would be the case otherwise. 


      SECTION 202 FUNDS GENERALLY
      COVER PROJECTS' COSTS, BUT
      SOME NEED SUPPLEMENTAL
      FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

For the Section 202 projects that became occupied during fiscal years
1992 though 1996, HUD provided over $2.9 billion in capital advances
and direct loans.  The average cost of these projects was about $2.1
million.  HUD expects this assistance to be the only significant
source of funds for the development of Section 202 projects. 
Furthermore, when HUD awards Section 202 funds, it also enters into
contracts with the sponsoring organizations to provide project-based
rental assistance to the tenants who will occupy the buildings once
they open.  As a result, HUD expects that successful sponsors will be
able to develop and build multifamily housing projects that will be
affordable to low-income elderly households. 

The nonprofit sponsors of two of the eight Section 202 projects we
visited said that the Section 202 funds were not sufficient to cover
all of the costs associated with building their projects.  HUD
officials told us that this is usually the case when a sponsor (1)
includes amenities in a project, such as balconies, for which HUD
does not allow the use of Section 202 funds; (2) incurs costs not
associated with the site on which the project is being built, such as
costs to make the site more accessible to public transportation; or
(3) incurs costs that exceed the amount HUD will allow, which can
happen when a sponsor pays more for land than HUD subsequently
determines the land is worth.  Consequently, in some cases, sponsors
of the projects we visited sought funding from other sources to make
up for the shortfall.  Those that found HUD's funding insufficient
primarily cited the high cost of land in their area or factors unique
to the site on which they planned to build as the reason for the
higher costs.  For example, one sponsor in California said that the
Section 202 funding was not sufficient to cover the high cost of land
and of designing a project that was compatible with local design
preferences. 

Several of the Section 202 projects we visited received additional
financial support from their nonprofit sponsors or in-kind
contributions from local governments (such as zoning waivers or
infrastructure improvements).  However, this added support was
typically a very small portion of a project's total costs.  For
example, the Section 202 funding for the construction of a project in
Cleveland was nearly $3 million.  However, Cleveland used $150,000 of
its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to help the
sponsor defray costs incurred in acquiring the land on which the
project was built.  Another nonprofit sponsor in California estimated
that the development fee waivers and other concessions the city
government made for its project were worth over $160,000.  The total
cost for this project was over $4 million. 

However, attempts to use other funds have not always been successful. 
For example, one of the Section 202 projects we visited obtained HOME
and CDBG funds from the local county government, but officials from
the HUD regional office subsequently reduced the final amount of the
project's capital advance to offset most of these funds.  The
project's nonprofit sponsor had sought additional funding because the
costs of land exceeded the appraised value that HUD had determined
(and would thus agree to pay) and because the sponsor incurred
additional costs to extend utility service onto the property where
the project was being built.  According to the sponsor, HUD reduced
the project's Section 202 capital advance because the sponsor was
using other federal funds to meet expenses for which HUD had granted
the Section 202 funding. 


   HOME MULTIFAMILY RENTAL
   PROJECTS USUALLY HAVE MULTIPLE
   FUNDING SOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The HOME program is not meant be a participating jurisdiction's sole
source of funds for the development of affordable housing.  By
statute, the local or state government must contribute funds to match
at least 25 percent of the HOME funds the jurisdiction uses to
provide affordable housing each year.  Additionally, one of the
purposes of the HOME program is to encourage public-private
partnerships by providing incentives for state and local governments
to work with private and nonprofit developers to produce affordable
housing.  As a result, HOME projects typically attract significant
levels of additional public and private funding from sources such as
other federal programs, state or local housing initiatives,
low-income housing tax credit proceeds, and donations or equity
contributions from nonprofit groups. 

While a participating jurisdiction could conceivably develop new
multifamily rental housing using only its allocation of HOME funds,
HUD officials questioned why any jurisdiction might choose to do so. 
Multifamily rental housing is costly to build, and one such project
could easily consume a community's entire allocation of HOME funds in
a given year if no other funding were used.  Furthermore, using HOME
funds to leverage other funds can not only significantly increase the
total funding available for housing assistance but also allow
communities to offer more types of housing assistance than if they
devoted their entire HOME allocation to a single multifamily rental
project. 

Overall, with its current funding of $1.4 billion (for fiscal year
1997), the HOME program is a significant source of federal housing
assistance.  However, it has not been a major source of funds for new
multifamily rental housing designed primarily or exclusively to serve
the low-income elderly.  From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year
1996, such projects received a small percentage of the total HOME
funds allocated to participating jurisdictions.  During these 5
years, the jurisdictions built or provided financial support for 30
multifamily rental projects with 681 units, of which the elderly
occupied at least 90 percent.  These projects were financed with over
$12 million in HOME funds.  According to HUD's data, these funds
leveraged an additional $65 million in other public and private
financing.  Figure 4 illustrates the multiple funding sources used
for these HOME projects. 

   Figure 4:  Sources of Financing
   for HOME Multifamily Projects
   Serving Elderly Households

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Includes projects with 90 percent of their units occupied
during fiscal years 1992 through 1996 by elderly heads of household. 

\a Includes HOME program income. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of HUD's HOME program data. 

Six of the eight HOME projects we visited had received funding from
multiple public and private financing sources, reflecting the
national pattern at the local level.  These projects' developers
and/or sponsors told us that using HOME funds in conjunction with
other funding sources enabled them to reduce the amount of debt
service on their projects (or eliminate the need for borrowing
altogether) so that they could charge lower rents and be affordable
to more people with lower incomes.  Two of the projects we visited
were quite unlike the other projects we visited because they did not
use the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and did not
have a conventional mortgage or other bank financing.  The same
participating jurisdiction developed both projects using only public
resources, including HOME and CDBG funds, donations of city-owned
land, and interior and exterior labor provided by the city's work
force. 


   AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTIVE
   SERVICES AT SECTION 202 AND
   HOME PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

HUD does not pay for supportive services through the HOME program but
does, under limited circumstances, do so through the Section 202
program.  Information on the provision of services is generally not
available because neither program collects nationwide data on the
availability of such services at the projects each has funded.  For
most of the Section 202 and HOME projects we visited, some supportive
services, such as group social activities or subsidized meals
programs, were available to the residents on-site, but usually only
to the extent that the projects could generate operating income to
pay for them.  Rather than provide such services themselves, the
projects tapped into and availed themselves of various supportive,
educational, social, or recreational services in their communities. 
Furthermore, most of the projects that we visited included common
areas and activity rooms that gave the residents places to socialize
and provided space for hosting community-based and other services. 


      AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTIVE
      SERVICES AT MOST PROJECTS
      DEPENDED ON HAVING
      SUFFICIENT RENT REVENUE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

All eight of the Section 202 and seven of the HOME projects we
visited ensured that their residents had access to supportive
services.  The range and nature of the services depended on the
amount of operating income that was available to pay for the services
and/or the proximity of community-based services to the projects.  In
addition, one of the Section 202 projects had a grant from HUD to
hire a part-time service coordinator;\13 the remaining Section 202
projects paid for a service coordinator from the project's operating
revenues, expected their on-site resident managers to serve as
service coordinators, or provided services at nearby facilities. 
None of the HOME projects received outside support through grants
from HUD and/or project-based rental assistance to pay for supportive
services. 

Six of the eight HOME projects and all but one of the Section 202
projects that we visited expected an on-site manager to coordinate
the provision of supportive services to elderly residents or relied
on rent revenue to pay for a service coordinator.  The costs of
having on-site managers, like the costs of providing most of the
service coordinators, were covered by the projects' operating
incomes.  One of the Section 202 projects that relied on rent revenue
provided few services on-site, but its residents had access to a wide
variety of services, including a subsidized meals program, at another
nearby Section 202 project developed by the same sponsor.  In another
case, the nonprofit sponsor of the Section 202 project consulted a
nonprofit affiliate that has developed services for various housing
projects developed by the sponsor.  In addition to keeping up to date
with the needs of their residents, the sponsors or management
companies of the Section 202 projects we visited expected their
service coordinators or resident managers to refer residents to
community-based services as needed or to bring community-based
services to their facilities on a regular or occasional basis. 

One of the Section 202 projects we visited had hired a part-time
service coordinator using a grant from HUD's Service Coordinator
Program.  According to HUD, resident managers cannot always provide
supportive services because they may lack the resources to do so
and/or the experience needed to provide such services.  As a result,
the Congress began funding the Service Coordinator Program in 1992 to
help meet the increasing needs of elderly and disabled residents in
HUD-assisted housing and to bridge the gap between these needs and
resident managers' resources and experience.\14 The program awarded
5-year grants to selected housing projects to pay for the salaries of
their service coordinators and related expenses.  The managers of
this Section 202 project doubted that their operating revenues would
be sufficient to continue paying for the coordinator when their HUD
grant expires. 

One Section 202 project that we visited was unique in that it did not
have a service coordinator, but the project's management company had
structured the duties of the resident manager to include activities
that a service coordinator performs.  The project's management
company could do so because it manages over 40 Section 202 projects
nationwide and handles nearly all financial, administrative, and
recordkeeping duties in one central location so that its resident
managers have time to become more involved with their residents. 

The two HOME projects we visited that had neither a service
coordinator nor an expectation that a resident manager would fill
this role were the two projects that housed both the low-income
elderly and families.  At one of these projects, a nearby city adult
center offered numerous opportunities for supportive services similar
to those other projects provided on-site.  At the second project, a
social worker from the city visited the project on a part-time basis
to provide information about and referrals to community-based
services. 


--------------------
\13 A service coordinator's job is to coordinate the provision of
supportive services to the elderly to prevent their premature
institutionalization and to promote independent living.  Examples of
supportive services that elderly residents might need include
transportation to community-based health care providers; subsidized
meals programs (provided either at the project or in the community);
or case management through which the coordinator assesses an elderly
person's needs and identifies social services in the community for
which that person is eligible (such as Medicaid or food stamps). 

\14 The 1990 Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
authorized grants under the Service Coordinator Program to projects
developed under HUD's Section 202 direct loan program (pre-fiscal
year 1991).  Projects receiving Section 202 capital advances are not
eligible for these grants but can fund the costs of a service
coordinator and 15 percent of the costs (up to $15 per unit per
month) of the services for frail elderly residents with operating
funds they derive from their rental assistance contract with HUD. 


      PROJECTS FOR THE ELDERLY
      USUALLY INCLUDED CONGREGATE
      AREAS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

All of the Section 202 projects we visited had common or congregate
areas for group activities, socializing, and supportive services. 
Six of the eight HOME projects we visited had similar common areas. 
At both the Section 202 and the HOME projects, these common areas
were often the places in which residents could take advantage of the
supportive services the project's manager or service coordinator had
provided directly or, in the case of community-based services, had
arranged to come to the project on a regular or occasional basis. 

The only projects that did not have common or congregate areas were
the two HOME projects that housed a mixture of low-income families
and elderly residents.  One was a traditional multifamily apartment
building in which 19 of the 29 units were set aside for the elderly. 
Although this project had no congregate space, it was near one of the
city's adult centers that provides adult education, recreational
classes, and other services for seniors and others from the
community.\15 The second was a single-room-occupancy project in which
about 20 percent of the tenants were elderly, although the project
did not set aside a specific number or percentage of the units for
the elderly.  This project had more limited common areas, parts of
which were devoted to kitchen facilities on each floor because
single-room-occupancy units do not have full kitchens themselves. 


--------------------
\15 In fact, this adult center occupies the ground floor of a HOME
apartment project this community recently built to house only the
elderly. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. 
HUD generally agreed with the information presented in this report
but said that the report (1) understates the contributions of the
HOME program in providing assistance to the elderly and (2) assumes
that the Section 202 model is the preferred way of providing housing
for the elderly, without giving sufficient recognition to the other
kinds of assistance the elderly receive from the HOME program. 

In discussing the relative contributions of the HOME and the Section
202 programs, HUD said that comparable production of multifamily
rental projects for the elderly could not have occurred in the first
few years of the HOME program (which was first funded in fiscal year
1992) because of the lead time necessary for planning, selecting, and
constructing projects.  HUD also questioned whether our data included
all HOME projects that might be comparable to Section 202 projects by
taking into account the (1) projects developed through the
substantial rehabilitation of existing buildings (as opposed to new
construction), (2) projects in which vacant units might later be
occupied by the elderly in sufficient numbers to achieve
comparability with Section 202 projects, (3) projects in which 50
percent or more of the residents were elderly, and (4) projects that
were under way but had not been completed at the close of fiscal year
1996. 

We agree that our review probably would have identified more
comparable HOME projects if the program had been funded before fiscal
year 1992, and we have added language to this effect in the report. 
Our analysis and the data we present include projects from the
Section 202 and HOME programs that were substantial rehabilitations
of existing buildings.  We agree that filling vacant units with
elderly residents could increase the number of comparable HOME
projects in the future, but any such units in our analysis were
vacant as of the close of fiscal year 1996, and our report discusses
each program's activity only through that date.  Data on the HOME
projects in which 50 percent or more of the residents were elderly
are reflected in figure 3 of this report, which illustrates the
different types of HOME assistance the elderly received.  We did not
compare these data with Section 202 data because, as we note,
comparable HOME projects are those in which 90 percent or more of the
households have one elderly resident.  We agree that some HOME
projects that were under way but had not been completed at the close
of fiscal year 1996 might in the future be comparable to Section 202
projects, but we note that the number of comparable Section 202
projects would also be greater because projects funded by the Section
202 program were also under way but had not opened as of this date. 

In stating its belief that this report assumes the Section 202 model
is the preferred way of providing housing for the elderly, HUD
expressed concern that we did not give sufficient recognition to the
assistance the HOME program provides the elderly by other means.  HUD
noted, for example, that the HOME program provides a viable
alternative to multifamily rental housing by offering assistance to
the elderly to rehabilitate the homes they own with special features
that allow them to continue to live independently.  HUD also noted
that smaller rental projects than those we compared with the Section
202 program (projects with 1-4 units) also present a viable
alternative to multifamily rental housing, provided adequate
supportive services are available if needed. 

We disagree with HUD's comment that this report assumes the Section
202 model is the preferred way of providing housing assistance for
the elderly.  In this report, we have described the operations of the
two programs and presented data on the assistance each has provided
nationally and at selected projects.  We have not evaluated the
manner in which either program provides assistance, and we have not
expressed a preference for either approach to delivering housing
assistance to elderly households.  We have added statements to this
effect to the report to address HUD's concern.  We acknowledge that
the HOME program provides housing assistance to the elderly in
several ways other than through the production of new multifamily
rental housing that is set aside almost exclusively for the elderly. 
However, because this report describes comparable Section 202 and
HOME-funded housing assistance and because the Section 202 program
provides only one kind of housing assistance, we focused on the
multifamily rental projects funded by the HOME program that are
comparable to those funded by the Section 202 program.  To address
HUD's concerns and to provide further recognition of the HOME
program's other types of housing assistance, we have revised the
sections of the report cited by HUD to more prominently reflect the
complete range of HOME-funded activities benefiting the elderly. 

HUD also provided several technical and editorial corrections to the
report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.  HUD's comments
are reproduced in appendix II of this report. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

The information we present in this report describes the need for
assisted housing, discusses the operations of the Section 202 and
HOME programs, and presents data on the assistance each program has
provided.  We did not evaluate the manner in which either program
provides assistance, and we did not express a preference in the
report for either one of the approaches to delivering assistance to
elderly households. 

To determine the amount and types of new assisted housing that the
Section 202 and HOME programs have provided for the elderly, we
obtained and analyzed data from HUD headquarters on the Section 202
and HOME projects completed from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year
1996.  Fiscal year 1992 was the first year in which the HOME program
received funding, and fiscal year 1996 was the most recently
completed fiscal year for which data from the programs were available
when we began our review.  Our analysis of the HOME data also
provided information on the amount and sources of funding for
multifamily projects developed under the HOME program.  The Section
202 data did not include information on any other federal or
nonfederal funding these projects may have received because a Section
202 allocation is intended to cover 100 percent of a project's
development costs.  In addition to using these data, we analyzed
special HUD tabulations of Census data to identify the level of need
among the elderly for housing assistance in each state. 

We examined HUD's data on the HOME program to identify all types of
housing assistance that the program has provided for elderly
households, but we also analyzed these data by the type of assistance
in order to obtain information on the HOME projects that are
comparable to Section 202 projects.  To do so, we focused our
analysis on the HOME multifamily projects in which 90 percent or more
of the residents are elderly because, at a minimum, 90 percent of the
residents of Section 202 projects must be elderly (before 1991, 10
percent could be persons at least 18 years old with a handicap). 

Throughout our review, we also discussed housing assistance for the
elderly with officials from HUD's Section 202 and HOME programs,
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research, and the Bureau of
the Census.  In addition, we reviewed relevant documents from each
program and prior HUD and Census reports on housing needs of the
elderly. 

We supplemented this national information on each program by visiting
a total of 16 projects to obtain more detailed data than HUD collects
centrally on the use of other federal and nonfederal funding and the
presence or availability of supportive services for elderly
residents.  Using Section 202 and HOME program data, we judgmentally
selected two Section 202 and two HOME projects in each of four
states--California, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.  We selected
these states because they have relatively high concentrations of
low-income elderly residents and numbers of Section 202 and
HOME-funded projects.  In each state, we selected individual Section
202 and HOME projects that were in the same vicinity and were roughly
comparable in size.  Nearly all of these projects were reserved
exclusively for the elderly or had a portion of their units set aside
for the elderly.  In one case, about 20 percent of a HOME-funded
project's residents were elderly, although neither the project nor
any portion of its units was explicitly reserved for elderly
residents. 

At each project we visited, we discussed the project's history and
financing and the availability of supportive services with the
sponsor or developer and relevant local and HUD officials.  The
observations we make about the individual projects we visited are not
generalizable to all Section 202 or HOME-funded projects because we
judgmentally selected these projects and did not visit a sufficient
number from each program to draw conclusions about the universe of
such projects. 

We did not assess the reliability of the data we obtained and
analyzed from HUD's Section 202 and HOME program databases.  However,
throughout our review we consulted with the appropriate HUD officials
to ensure we were analyzing the relevant data elements for the
purposes of this report.  Furthermore, the information we obtained
from these databases was generally consistent with our observations
during our site visits to the projects we selected using these
databases. 

We conducted our work from April through October 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  We will make copies
available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any
questions about the material in this report.  Major contributors to
this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Stanley J.  Czerwinski
Associate Director, Housing and
 Community Development Issues


SELECTED SECTION 202 AND HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROJECTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

As part of our review, we visited 16 low-income, multifamily rental
projects--4 each in California, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio--to
obtain information that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) does not collect centrally and to discuss with
program participants their experience in applying for, developing,
and operating these projects.  In each state, two of the projects we
visited were funded by the Section 202 program and two received funds
from the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program.  As we noted in
the Scope and Methodology section of this report, we judgmentally
selected these states because, compared with other states, they had
relatively high concentrations of low-income elderly residents and
numbers of Section 202 and HOME-funded projects.  We selected
individual Section 202 and HOME projects that were in the same
vicinity and were roughly comparable in size. 

During each site visit, we discussed the history, financing, and
availability of supportive services with the sponsor or developer of
the project.  We also discussed these issues with on-site management
agents, local officials administering the HOME program, and HUD
Section 202 and HOME field office officials.  At each project, we
walked through the grounds, selected residential units, and any
common areas available to the residents for group activities. 

Typically, the Section 202 projects we visited were high- or mid-rise
apartment buildings with elevators, laundry facilities, and one or
more community rooms in which residents participated in group
activities and, in some cases, meals programs.  In one project, which
consisted of more traditional garden apartments on a single level,
each apartment had its own outdoor entrance and front porch.  Ranging
in size from 42 to 155 units, most of the projects (5 of 8) had a
resident manager.  Current Section 202 regulations require that all
residents of these projects have very low incomes--that is, the must
earn less than 50 percent of the median income for their area. 

The HOME projects we visited, ranging in size from 20 to 120 units,
were more varied than the Section 202 projects.  Several were high-
or mid-rise buildings, although one of these was a
single-room-occupancy hotel.  In the single-room-occupancy hotel, the
units were smaller than in a typical apartment building and much of
the common space consisted of kitchen facilities, which were not
included in the units themselves.  At another project, the ground
floor of the building housed a city-operated adult center offering a
variety of educational and recreational programs.  Other HOME
projects we visited were multi-unit cottages or detached structures,
each of whose units had its own outdoor entrance; one such project
consisted of buildings scattered over three different sites.  Unlike
the Section 202 projects, two of the HOME projects housed both
families and the elderly. 

As we noted earlier in this report, at a minimum, in each multifamily
rental project with at least five HOME-assisted units, at least 20
percent of the residents in the HOME-assisted units must have very
low incomes (at or below 50 percent of the area's median income); the
remaining units may be occupied by households with low-incomes (up to
80 percent of the area's median income).  At the HOME projects we
visited, half designated all of their units as HOME-assisted, meaning
that the HOME program's regulations about tenants' incomes applied to
those units; the other half designated some but not all of their
units as HOME-assisted, meaning that the remaining units in these
projects were subject either to the rules associated with other
sources of funding or to those established by the local jurisdiction. 

The following pages include photographs and other pertinent
information about the various Section 202 and HOME projects we
visited. 


   Figure I.1:  Lytton Courtyard
   Section 202 Project, Palo Alto,
   California

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 50-unit mid-rise independent living facility

  -- One of four projects for the elderly that make up the Lytton
     Gardens complex\1

  -- Located about 4 blocks from the main campus, where the other
     three facilities are located

Interior

  -- Access to units by stairs and an elevator

  -- Appliances such as ranges and refrigerators in units

  -- Laundry facilities on each floor

  -- Little congregate space on-site, but group facilities--large
     community room, separate dining room, and resident-owned thrift
     shop--available at the main campus

Supportive Services

  -- Transportation

  -- Social services

  -- Subsidized meals

  -- Exercise programs

  -- Service coordinator position at the larger Section 202 project
     (220 units) terminated after a grant from HUD's Service
     Coordinator Program expired

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by Community Housing, Inc., a nonprofit organization
     formed by two churches

  -- $5,700,000 in a capital advance from HUD for construction

Special Features

  -- Provides health as well as supportive services to allow elderly
     residents to continue living in the community

  -- Is part of a complex that is located on more than one site


   Figure I.2:  Oceana Terrace
   Section 202 Project, Pacifica,
   California

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 42-unit three-story apartment building opened in September 1995

  -- Overlooks the Pacific Ocean, just south of San Francisco

  -- Land for the project previously owned by the Church of the Good
     Shepherd, adjacent to the property

Interior

  -- 41 one-bedroom units

  -- One 2-bedroom unit reserved for a resident manager

  -- All units accessible to the handicapped; one unit adapted for
     the sight- or hearing-impaired

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Access to units by stairs and an elevator

  -- Appliances such as ranges and refrigerators in units

  -- Laundry facilities on the second floor

  -- One large community room

Supportive Services

  -- Access to an adult day care center that offers social,
     educational, recreational, and therapeutic activities

  -- Subsidized meals program available at the city of Pacifica's
     senior centers

  -- Assistance in arranging transportation provided by the sponsor,
     service coordinator, or volunteers from the nearby parish

  -- Part-time service coordinator to initially assess residents'
     needs for services and monitor ongoing needs as well as provide
     counseling or prepare recovery plans

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by Mercy Charities Housing of California

  -- Land for the project previously owned by the Church of the Good
     Shepherd

  -- $4,053,024 in total funding for development, including

   -- $3,362,000 in a Section 202 capital advance from HUD for
     construction\2

   -- $160,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from
     San  Mateo County for predevelopment expenses

   -- $460,000 in HOME funds from San Mateo County for expenses
     related to the  site's improvement, predevelopment, and
     construction

   -- $71,024 in an equity contribution from the sponsor

Special Features

  -- Economies of scale and wide access to community professional and
     volunteer services through Mercy Services--a nonprofit
     subsidiary of the sponsor--that provides services to residents
     in this and several other Section 202 projects sponsored by the
     archdiocese

  -- Ready access to volunteer services created by the project's
     proximity to the church

  -- Unusual number of funding sources for the development of a
     Section 202 project

   Figure I.3:  Federation Gardens
   II Section 202 Project, Miami,
   Florida

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 50-unit four-story apartment building opened in late 1990

  -- Adjacent to Federation Gardens I, a 110-unit Section 202 project
     opened in 1982 by the same developer

Interior

  -- 37 one-bedroom units, 13 efficiency units

  -- All but one unit reserved for the elderly; one unit reserved for
     the resident manager

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Basic appliances in units

  -- Laundry facilities on the second floor

  -- All units carpeted

Supportive Services

  -- Large multipurpose community room with kitchen facilities and
     other common spaces in Federation Gardens I

  -- Meals on Wheels program sponsored by the Jewish Vocational
     Services

  -- Case management and referral services

  -- Educational sessions on consumer issues, health, and nutrition

  -- Volunteer programs

  -- Access to programs for all ages at the neighboring Jewish
     Community Center

  -- Full-time tenant services director who works out of Federation
     Gardens I and makes services available to residents of both
     projects

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by Jewish Federation Housing, Inc., a subsidiary of
     the Greater Miami Jewish Federation

  -- $2,135,400 in a direct loan from HUD for construction

Special Features

  -- Opportunities for intergenerational interaction afforded by
     proximity to the Jewish Community Center


   Figure I.4:  Coral Bay Terrace
   Section 202 Project, Miami,
   Florida

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 155-unit three-story apartment building opened in October 1993

Interior

  -- 115 one-bedroom and 39 efficiency units; 1 resident manager's
     unit

  -- 16 units accessible to the handicapped; 1 one-bedroom unit
     reserved for a resident manager; all other units reserved for
     the elderly

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Access to units by stairs and an elevator

  -- Basic appliances in units

  -- Laundry facilities on each floor

  -- All units carpeted

Supportive Services

  -- County bus service to nearby meals programs and medical
     facilities

  -- English-as-a-second-language classes held on-site through a
     partnership established with a nearby school

  -- Role of a service coordinator filled by the on-site resident
     manager, who is responsible not only for performing property
     management tasks, such as overseeing routine and periodic
     maintenance, but also for being involved in the community,
     soliciting support from county or charitable service
     organizations, interacting with and becoming familiar with the
     needs of the residents, and helping to find alternative living
     arrangements for residents who become too frail to live
     independently

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by Christian Senior Housing, Inc., a nonprofit
     developer of housing projects for the elderly as well as
     intermediate- and extended-care facilities

  -- $7,556,500 in two separate capital advances from HUD for
     construction

Special Features

  -- Two separately approved capital advances for two projects on the
     same property (approved over 2 years) combined to fund a single
     project; combination feasible because the first project, for 55
     units, was still in the early stages when the second project,
     for 100 units, was approved


   Figure I.5:  Granville Plaza
   Section 202 Project,
   Winston-Salem, North Carolina

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 42-unit mid-rise apartment building opened early in 1995

  -- Situated on a site formerly occupied by an elementary school

  -- Built adjacent to an existing Section 202 property

Interior

  -- All one-bedroom units

  -- All units reserved for the elderly

  -- Four units accessible to the handicapped

  -- All units on a single level

  -- Two emergency pull cords in each unit that trigger an audio
     signal in the hallway

  -- Basic appliances and window treatments in units

  -- Laundry facilities on the ground floor

  -- Congregate space--including a library and a large community room
     with kitchen facilities--for residents' activities

  -- Storage space for each resident on the first floor

Supportive Services

  -- Home health care

  -- Assistance in establishing eligibility and applying for
     participation in the Medicaid and Food Stamp programs

  -- Public and private transportation to medical appointments,
     grocery stores, drug stores, and banks

  -- Monthly on-site blood pressure screening clinic

  -- Quarterly on-site podiatry clinic

  -- Social activities, including a garden club, birthday and major
     holiday celebrations, and monthly covered-dish dinners for all
     residents

  -- Full-time service coordinator position shared with the adjoining
     Section 202 property and supported through project-based rental
     assistance contracts

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by the Winston-Salem Housing Foundation, Inc., a
     nonprofit organization that also helped to develop the Assembly
     Terrace project

  -- $2,218,400 in a capital advance from HUD for construction

Special Features

  -- Developer, the oldest nonprofit developer of assisted housing in
     the Winston-Salem area, involved in six other Section 202
     projects


   Figure I.6:  Assembly Terrace
   Section 202 Project,
   Winston-Salem, North Carolina

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 60-unit low-rise apartment building opened late in 1994

  -- Located in a single-family neighborhood on a site adjacent to
     the First Assembly of God Church, one of the project's nonprofit
     cosponsors

  -- Site about 1/2 mile from medical facilities and grocery, drug,
     and other retail stores

Interior

  -- All units reserved for elderly persons capable of living
     independently and taking care of themselves

  -- Five units accessible to the handicapped

  -- All units on one level

  -- Two emergency pull cords in each unit that trigger a visual and
     audio signal in the hallway

  -- Basic appliances, such as ranges and refrigerators, in units

  -- Laundry facilities on the ground floor

  -- Congregate space for residents' activities, including a library
     and a large community room with kitchen facilities

Supportive Services

  -- Arrange for services to be provided through existing community
     resources

  -- Home health care

  -- Assistance with financial planning and with Medicare/Medicaid
     paperwork

  -- Social activities such as potluck dinners, parties, and outings

  -- Mental health counseling

  -- Part-time service coordinator position supported through a
     project-based rental assistance contract

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by the First Assembly of God Church and the
     Winston-Salem Housing Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization
     that also helped to develop the Granville Plaza project

  -- $3,367,400 in a capital advance from HUD for construction

Special Features

  -- Project jointly developed by a church, with a history of service
     to and volunteer activities in the community, and a foundation
     that is the oldest nonprofit developer of assisted housing in
     the area and has been involved in the development of six other
     Section 202 projects


   Figure I.7:  Abyssinia Towers
   Section 202 Project, Cleveland,
   Ohio

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 70-unit high-rise apartment building opened in mid-1987

  -- Constructed on a formerly vacant, deteriorated site

Interior

  -- 50 one-bedroom units, 19 efficiencies, and 1 two-bedroom
     resident custodian's unit

  -- 90 percent of the units reserved for the elderly and 10 percent
     available for the nonelderly handicapped

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Access to units by stairs and an elevator

  -- Appliances such as ranges and refrigerators in units

  -- Laundry facilities on the second and fourth floors

  -- A library and one large community room with kitchen facilities
     available for groups

  -- Arts and crafts room

Supportive Services

  -- Group shopping trips arranged

  -- Free transportation arranged to services in the community

  -- Community-based services, such as Meals-on-Wheels, provided
     on-site

  -- Home care services arranged for those who need help with
     housekeeping

  -- Help in obtaining assisted living arrangements provided as
     necessary to residents and their families

  -- Part-time service coordinator position supported by a multiyear
     grant from HUD's Service Coordinator Program

Development and Financing

  -- Development initiated by the Greater Abyssinia Baptist Church

  -- $150,000 provided by the city of Cleveland to acquire land

  -- $2,683,500 in a direct loan from HUD for construction

Special Features

  -- Some units available for nonelderly tenants because the project
     received its Section 202 direct loan before 1991

  -- Project developed to revitalize the community as well as provide
     housing for the elderly; was initiated by a church that wanted
     to stabilize and develop the neighborhood and received some
     funds from the city, which supported the church's goals


   Figure I.8:  Robert L.  Bender
   Senior Apartments Section 202
   Project, Massillon, Ohio

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 50-unit complex opened in mid-1992

  -- Consists of small, attached, cottage-style buildings, each
     containing six to eight units that residents enter from the
     outside

  -- Buildings wrapped around a cul-de-sac, encircling an additional
     building in the center of the property

Interior

  -- All one-bedroom units

  -- One unit reserved for the resident manager; all other units
     reserved for the elderly

  -- Resident manager's unit, large community room with kitchen
     facilities, and coin-operated laundry facilities located in the
     central building

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Basic appliances in units

  -- All units carpeted


Supportive Services

  -- Dinner, for which residents pay a voluntary donation, served in
     the community room 5 days a week by a Meals on Wheels program
     based in Canton, Ohio

  -- Access to a variety of community-based services, such as
     programs sponsored by the area's Agency on Aging

  -- Some transit service provided by the community

  -- On-site services, such as periodic visits from a podiatrist

  -- Residents' social club that plans trips and other events

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by a nonprofit group that sponsors and develops
     affordable housing using a variety of federal and nonfederal
     programs

  -- Work to extend utilities to the site donated by the city

  -- $2,346,800 in a direct loan from HUD for construction

Special Features

  -- Layout of the project gives each unit space in which residents
     can do limited landscaping


   Figure I.9:  The Carroll Inn
   HOME Project, Sunnyvale,
   California

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 120-unit single-room-occupancy project opened late in 1994; one
     additional unit for a resident manager

  -- Constructed on a site originally purchased by the city for use
     as a parking lot

  -- Includes a landscaped interior courtyard and a children's play
     area

Interior

  -- No fixed number or percentage of units reserved for the elderly

  -- Most units occupied by one person (though single parents with
     one child also accepted as tenants)

  -- Kitchen facilities available for all residents in the common
     space on each floor

  -- Televisions, exercise equipment, and laundry facilities also
     provided in the common space


Supportive Services

  -- Counseling and referral to appropriate community-based services
     provided to residents by a part-time social worker from the city
     of Sunnyvale

Development and Financing

  -- Jointly developed and financed by the city of Sunnyvale and the
     Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a nonprofit organization that
     develops and manages different kinds of affordable housing for
     low- and moderate-income families, senior citizens, and the
     disabled throughout the Bay Area

  -- $6,716,911 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $3,831,238 in net proceeds from the sale of tax credits

   -- $150,000 contributed by the general partner, the Mid-Peninsula
     Housing Coalition

   -- $1,446,415 in grant funds from a state rental housing
     construction program

   -- $964,750 in HOME funds from the city of Sunnyvale

   -- $200,008 in HOME funds from Santa Clara County

   -- $124,500 in grant funds from a private foundation

Special Features

  -- Affordability of all units to low-income tenants (with incomes
     at or below 40 percent of the area's median income) required for
     at least 55 years

  -- About 20 percent of the units occupied by elderly tenants at the
     time of our visit


   Figure I.10:  Pinole Grove
   Senior Housing HOME Project,
   Pinole, California

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 70-unit low-rise mix of one-, two-, and three-level
     Spanish-mission style buildings opened in late 1994

  -- A balcony with storage space and a carport provided for each
     unit

  -- Project located on the site of a former elementary school

  -- A garden, a hair salon, and a crafts room on-site

Interior

  -- 56 one-bedroom and 14 two-bedroom apartments

  -- All units on a single level

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Various appliances, including dishwashers, in units

  -- A community room and laundry facilities on-site

Supportive Services

  -- Project located within walking distance of a city senior center
     that provides some meals and group activities for the elderly

  -- Off-site coordinator for some services, such as visiting nurses
     and nutrition counseling

Development and Financing

  -- Jointly developed and financed by the city of Pinole, the
     Community Development Department of Contra Costa County, and
     Bridge Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer of assisted
     housing

  -- $6,846,833 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $3,739,008 in proceeds from the sale of tax credits

   -- $1,450,000 in a bank loan/mortgage

   -- $900,000 in a loan from the city's redevelopment agency

   -- $357,825 in an equity contribution from Bridge Housing
     Corporation

   -- $200,000 in CDBG funds from Contra Costa County provided in the
     form of a fully deferred, forgivable loan

   -- $200,000 in Contra Costa County HOME funds provided in the form
     of a fully deferred loan

Special Features

  -- 55-year period of affordability for low-income households
     required under the terms of the tax credit award and the city's
     and county's loan terms

  -- 1995 "Gold Nugget" Award for best Senior Development from the
     Pacific Coast Builders' Conference


   Figure I.11:  20 West 6th
   Street HOME Project, Hialeah,
   Florida

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 57-unit four-story housing project opened in March 1997

  -- Built on a parcel of land directly across from city hall

Interior

  -- Mix of one-bedroom and efficiency units

  -- All units reserved for the elderly

  -- 20 units accessible to the handicapped

  -- Entire ground floor and two open-air courtyards in the center of
     the building used for an adult center

  -- Access to units by stairs or elevators that lead to breezeways
     surrounding the two courtyards

  -- Basic variety of kitchen appliances in units

  -- Coin-operated laundry facilities on each floor


Supportive Services

  -- Supportive, educational, and recreational services available to
     resident and nonresident senior citizens at the adult center

  -- Subsidized meals available at the center for senior citizens

  -- Assistance in applying for benefits provided at the center to
     potentially eligible senior citizens by representatives from
     social services programs, such as Medicare or Social Security

  -- Adult education classes (e.g., painting, ceramics, or English as
     a second language) offered to elderly and nonelderly residents
     of Hialeah

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by the city of Hialeah on city-owned land

  -- $4,300,000 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $2,262,000 in HOME funds for the residential portion of the
     building

   -- $800,000 in CDBG funds for the adult center

   -- $1,238,000 in the value of contracting services and labor
     provided by the city

Special Features

  -- Construction costs minimized by designating the city as the
     general contractor for the project and using its work force
     wherever possible (e.g., for landscaping, irrigation, and
     cabinetry work)


   Figure I.12:  51 East 9th
   Street HOME Project, Hialeah,
   Florida

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 29-unit multifamily apartment complex opened in mid-1995

  -- Includes two adjacent mid-rise buildings

Interior

  -- Mixture of one- and two-bedroom apartments

  -- 19 units reserved for the elderly

  -- Access to units by stairs and elevators

  -- Basic variety of kitchen appliances in units

  -- Coin-operated laundry facilities on the ground floor of each
     building

  -- No community or other multipurpose room

Supportive Services

  -- Free transportation provided by the city, under a contract with
     the local housing authority, to and from sites (including the
     HOME housing project for the elderly on West 6th Street) where
     other social service agencies operate subsidized meals programs
     for the elderly

  -- Other supportive, social, educational, and recreational
     activities provided at the West 6th Street project's adult
     center

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by the city of Hialeah

  -- $1,534,795 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $338,669 in CDBG funds for land acquisition

   -- $1,089,700 in HOME funds for construction

   -- $106,426 in funds generated locally by city-owned housing
     projects, also for construction

Special Features

  -- Only public funds used to develop and finance this project


   Figure I.13:  Rockwood Cottages
   HOME Project, Durham, North
   Carolina

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 20-unit complex opened early in 1996

  -- Consists of five newly constructed buildings that form a
     semicircle around a cul-de-sac

  -- A front porch and a rear deck on each building

  -- Access to the units in each building through the front porch

  -- Use of the rear deck shared by the first-floor residents of each
     building

Interior

  -- 15 one-bedroom and 5 two-bedroom apartments--3 one-bedroom units
     and 1 two-bedroom unit in each building

  -- All units on a single-level, but the two-bedroom units include a
     stairway to the second floor on which they are located

  -- Basic variety of appliances (but no dishwasher) in each unit

  -- Laundry facilities in the basement of one building available for
     all residents

  -- One room in the basement of one of the buildings set aside for
     group activities and socializing


Supportive Services

  -- No service coordinator

  -- On-site resident manager

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by a private developer of low-income housing
     properties

  -- $1,427,304 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $691,000 in HOME funds contributed by the city of Durham

   -- $466,260 in tax credit proceeds

   -- $260,000 in City Housing Bond funds loaned to the developer at
     no interest with no payments required until a balloon payment
     comes due at the end of a 30-year term

Special Features

  -- Single-family appearance of individual buildings consistent with
     the architecture of the neighborhood


   Figure I.14:  Mountain Springs
   Apartments HOME Project,
   Asheville, North Carolina

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 44-unit development opened in late 1995

  -- Consists of six buildings in three locations (four buildings in
     one of the locations)

  -- One one-story building with 12 units

  -- Four one-story buildings, each with two units

  -- One two-story building with 24 units

  -- All units with a porch, patio, or balcony


Interior

  -- All one-bedroom units on a single level

  -- Four units accessible to the handicapped (one each at the first
     two locations and two at the third location)

  -- Basic appliances (but no dishwasher) in each unit

  -- Laundry facilities in the 12-unit and 24-unit buildings

  -- Community room in the two-story building for group activities
     and socializing

Supportive Services

  -- Coordination with local organizations provided by the resident
     manager to obtain services such as

  -- Transportation to medical appointments, shopping, and a senior
     center

  -- Health care

  -- Blood pressure screening

  -- Meals on Wheels

  -- Educational lectures

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by Douglas Company, Inc., a private developer of
     low-income housing properties in multiple states

  -- $2,543,300 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $1,084,300 in tax exempt bond proceeds

   -- $843,556 in HOME funds ($686,213 from the state of North
     Carolina and $157,343 from the Asheville Regional Consortium,
     consisting of local governments in Buncombe, Henderson, Madison,
     and Transylvania counties)

   -- $300,000 in a bank loan/mortgage

   -- $119,744 in private grants

   -- $102,000 in proceeds from the sale of tax exempt bonds
     contributed by the North Carolina State Housing Finance Agency

   -- $42,657 in matching local funds

Special Features

  -- Units in three separate locations that are close to one another

  -- Funding from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and
     private sources


   Figure I.15:  Ascension Village
   Apartments HOME Project,
   Cleveland, Ohio

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 60-unit mid-rise (three-floor) apartment building for people age
     55 and over; opened in 1994

  -- Located next to a church that leases the land and supported the
     development of this project

Interior

  -- Mixture of one- and two-bedroom units

  -- Access to units via stairs and an elevator

  -- Basic kitchen appliances (but no dishwasher) in each unit

  -- Emergency pull cords in all units

  -- Carpeting in all units

  -- Coin-operated laundry facilities on each floor

  -- Multipurpose community rooms and lounge areas on the ground
     floor

Supportive Services

  -- Resident council active in arranging services

  -- Access to volunteers and activities for senior citizens through
     the neighboring church

  -- No service coordinator

Development and Financing

  -- Developed by Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Cleveland,
     through a nonprofit subsidiary established to create affordable
     housing for the elderly

  -- Land leased from Ascension Catholic Church

  -- $3,056,928 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $1,664,000 in tax credit proceeds

   -- $828,400 in a bank loan/mortgage

   -- $363,000 in HOME funds contributed by the city of Cleveland

   -- $141,528 in a Federal Home Loan Bank Board Affordable Housing
     Program grant

   -- $60,000 in a state grant

Special Features

  -- Development initiated in response to an annual request from the
     city for proposals to develop affordable housing using its
     allocation of HOME and CDBG funds

  -- Award of HOME funds from the city a catalyst for other funding


   Figure I.16:  59 Duncan Place
   HOME Project, Massillon, Ohio

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Exterior

  -- 66-unit nine-story apartment building opened in mid-1994

  -- Located in downtown Massillon in renovated commercial space that
     had been vacant for 10 years

Interior

  -- Office space for the project management company and additional
     commercial space available for lease on the ground floor

  -- Residential units on the remaining eight floors

  -- All residential units reserved for the elderly

  -- Access to units by stairs and an elevator

  -- Emergency pull cords in units

  -- Basic kitchen appliances in each unit

  -- Carpeting in all units

  -- Coin-operated laundry facilities on each floor

  -- Community rooms dedicated to different purposes (e.g., library,
     exercise room) on several floors

  -- Large multipurpose community room with kitchen facilities and a
     large observation deck with picnic tables off of the seventh
     floor

Supportive Services

  -- Access to subsidized meals and other services at a nearby city
     senior center arranged by on-site management staff

  -- Recreational opportunities available in community rooms (e.g.,
     reading, television viewing, stationary bicycling, and other
     exercise equipment)

  -- Educational and/or social activities (e.g., periodic on-site
     health and wellness seminars and community outings) coordinated
     by on-site management staff

  -- No service coordinator

Development and Financing

  -- Jointly developed and financed by the city of Massillon, the
     state of Ohio, a private developer of low-income housing tax
     credit projects, and a nearby nonprofit group specializing in
     assisted housing and economic development

  -- $4,057,102 in total funding for the project, including

   -- $2,267,102 in proceeds from the syndication of tax credits
     allocated by Ohio's Housing Finance Agency

   -- $1,300,000 in a bond-financed permanent loan from the city

   -- $415,000 in HOME funds loaned by the state's Department of
     Development to the nonprofit housing and economic development
     group, which invested the loan funds in the project

Special Features

  -- Community revitalization as well as affordable housing goals
     served by project; vacant space in a prominent location
     converted to desirable uses

  -- City's loan a catalyst for other funding



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II

--------------------
\1 The other three projects, located on the main campus, are (1) a
220-unit Section 202 project, (2) a 100-unit multifamily project that
includes 50 assisted living units, and (3) a 145-bed nursing home
that offers rehabilitation services as well as subacute and long-term
care. 

\2 The Section 202 capital advance is $430,000 lower than the advance
HUD originally approved because the Section 202 program's rules
preclude the use of other federal assistance, such as the HOME and
CDBG funds this project received, for most of the purposes for which
the sponsor sought the the funds. 


COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Judy A.  England-Joseph,
Nancy Simmons,
Alice Feldesman,
Bill MacBlane
William Sparling
Robert Dolson
Elizabeth R.  Eisenstadt

CHICAGO/DETROIT FIELD OFFICE

Gwenetta Blackwell


*** End of document. ***