Changing Priorities:

The Federal Budget and Housing Assistance, 1976-2002

May 2001

NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION

1012 14TH STREET, N.W.WASHINGTON, DC 20005

202/662-1530WWW.NLIHC.ORG

May 2001

CHANGING PRIORITIES:THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE, 1976-2006

by

Cushing N. Dolbeare

Despite increases in funding for HUD programs for the last three years, an overview of budget

trends shows that this nation’s investment in HUD and low income housing programs has

declined dramatically during the last quarter century. This report provides an overview of actual

budget trends from fiscal year 1976 through fiscal year 2000 and estimated changes from 2001

through 2006, as measured in inflation-adjusted dollars.1 Thus, it covers the period from the

last full year of the Ford Administration through the anticipated actions of the current Bush

Administration as contained in the President’s April 2001 budget request.2 The analysis sets

HUD’s budget as well as the low income “housing assistance” budget category in the context of

the total federal budget, covering both budget authority, or the authorized amount of obligations

in each year regardless of when the spending occurs, and outlays, or actual spending in each

year. It then looks at subsidized housing as a proportion of HUD budget authority, showing

separately the impact of renewing expiring contracts. For the years 1977-2000, the additional

commitments for HUD-subsidized units is shown. Finally, spending trends for a number of

major HUD programs are addressed. In all of this, the graphs and the accompanying tables in

the appendix speak for themselves.

The timing of the budget process does not permit neat divisions between administrations.

Generally, when a new administration takes office, it proposes amendments to the budget for the

current fiscal year as well as proposals for the following year. For example, outgoing President

Carter submitted his proposed budget for FY 1982 on January 15, 1981, just five days before

President Reagan took office. In March 1981, President Reagan submitted a revised budget

which proposed rescissions and supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 1981 budget, as well

as substantial changes in the FY 1982 budget that President Carter had submitted. Even so, the

first budget to fully reflect the priorities of the Reagan Administration was the FY 1983 budget.

President Clinton, on taking office in 1993, proposed some major increases in the HUD budget,

among other initiatives. In contrast to President Carter, he did not submit a budget for next year

before leaving office. President Bush submitted a skeleton budget in late February and his

formal budget in early April. However, the first budget to fully reflect the policies of his

administration will be the proposed budget for 2003, so there may be substantial changes in the

levels projected here for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 .

The Overall Budget Context

An annual feature of the Federal Budget is a set of historical tables. These are the source for the

data contrasting budget authority and outlays for HUD with the overall federal figures.3 A

special analysis of federal tax expenditures has also been part of the overall budget since 1976.

The housing assistance category, or “subfunction” in budget terminology, consists, as the name

implies, of spending for low income housing assistance, regardless of the agency administering

the program, so the rural rental assistance, mutual and self-help grants and housing assistance

grants are included in this category and, over the years, a number of housing programs

administered by other agencies have been included in this category. However, HUD accounted

for at least 95% of housing assistance budget authority and 98% of outlays during the period

from 1976 through 2000. (See Appendix A for budget accounts currently included in the

targeted low income budget categories.) Over the years, the bulk of HUD’s program

expenditures have been for housing assistance, so the pattern for all HUD BA and outlays,

compared to tax expenditures, is similar. (See Appendix Table 1 for detailed figures.)

As Graph 1 shows, housing-related tax expenditures are far more costly to the Treasury than

housing assistance outlays and have dwarfed budget authority since 1982. Measured in

constant 2001 dollars, housing-related tax expenditures more than trebled, rising by 312%, from

$29.4 billion in 1976 to $121.1 billion in 2001. During the same period, housing assistance

outlays rose by 370%, from $6.6 billion to $31.0 billion and total HUD outlays from $18.5

billion to $37.3 billion, or 101%. Meanwhile, housing assistance budget authority dropped by

51%, from $51.2 billion to $18.5 billion. Moreover, almost all of the 1976 budget authority was

spent on expanding the stock of assisted housing through production, rehabilitation, and rental

assistance, whereas in 1999 most of it was spent on maintaining or improving the existing stock

of housing assistance and renewing expiring subsidy contracts.

From 1976 through 1981, HUD budget authority ranged between 5% and 8% of total budget

authority, a peak reached in 1978. Since then, it has only once risen above 2%: in 1985 when

about $14 billion was used to convert existing public housing debt to save future interest costs.

This apparent increase created no additional public housing units and the expenditure was

GRAPH 1. HUD, HOUSING ASSISTANCE, AND HOUSING-RELATED TAX EXPENDITURES

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06Fiscal Year

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Tax Expenditures

Assisted Housing Budget AuthorityAll Other HUD Budget Authority

All HUD OutlaysAssisted Hsg Outlays

actually a cost-cutting measure of the Reagan Administration that substantially reduced later

outlays.

HUD’s FY 2001 budget of $24.6 billion was little more than a third of the $77.0 million

(adjusted for inflation) that HUD had in FY 1976, the last full year of the Ford Administration.

Meanwhile, total federal budget authority almost doubled, from $1.1 trillion in 1976 to $1.9

trillion in 2001. Graph 2 demonstrates how modest HUD budget authority is and has been as a

proportion of total federal spending commitments (Details in appendix Table 1.)

The outlay picture is somewhat different. While budget authority has dropped dramatically,

HUD outlays have risen substantially in amount, but not as a proportion of total outlays. HUD

outlays have remained at about 2% of all outlays, since 1976. Because they are a relatively

insignificant portion of total federal outlays, Graph 3 does not show that they doubled, rising

from $18.5 billion in 1976 to an estimated $37.3 billion in 2001. Much of this increase is

because of the additional low-income families4 living in HUD-subsidized housing: two million

in 1976 and about five million today. While HUD outlays were rising by 101% between 1976

and 2001, total federal outlays increased by 89%. Thus, the rise in HUD outlays as low income

housing programs have served an increasing number of families is not dramatically out of line

with overall outlay trends. The increase in HUD’s outlays, primarily for low income housing

assistance, during this period is, however, only one fifth of the increase in the cost to the

Treasury of housing-related tax expenditures. (Details in appendix Table 1.)

Source: Compiled by National Low Income Housing Coalition from data contained in FY 2002 Federal Budget CD-ROM, Tables 3.2 and 5.1.

GRAPH 2. HUD AND TOTAL FEDERAL BUDGET AUTHORITY, 1976-2006

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Fiscal year

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

TotalBudgetAuthorityHUDB d t

GRAPH 3. HUD AND TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS, 1976-2006

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06Fiscal year

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

Total Outlays

HUD Outlays

Looking ahead, between 2001 and 2006, housing-related tax expenditures are expected to

increase by $12.1 billion, or 10%. Housing assistance outlays will increase by an estimated

$129 million, or 0%, all HUD outlays will drop by $7.0 billion or 19%. Total HUD budget

authority (BA) is expected to grow by $7.0 billion, or 28%, with housing assistance BA

increasing by $4.9 billion, or 19%.

Trends in Housing-Related Tax Expenditures

“Tax expenditures are revenue losses due to preferential provisions of the Federal tax laws, such

as special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, or tax rates. They are

alternatives to other policy instruments, such as spending or regulatory programs, as means of

achieving Federal policy goals.” So begins the special analysis of tax expenditures for 2001.5

Unlike direct spending, tax expenditures are not subject to budget and appropriation procedures,

either within the administration or in Congress. Once in the tax code, unless there are

provisions for sunset, they stay until they are repealed. Nor is there a realistic way to reduce

tax expenditures and directly transfer the savings into appropriations for direct spending. In large

part, this is because tax changes and appropriations are handled by two different sets of

committees in the Congress, and because Treasury, rather than OMB, is the lead player on tax

matters within the Administration.

The housing-related tax expenditures that are included in this analysis are the homeowner

deductions for mortgage interest, property taxes, capital gains on sale of home where the tax is

exempted or deferred, and some other minor deductions, such as for energy conservation or first-

time purchase that were in effect prior to 1987 as well as investor deductions for tax-exempt

housing bonds, accelerated depreciation, passive losses, the low income housing tax credit, and a

number of lesser deductions, most of which were repealed or substantially reduced in 1986.

Graph 4 shows the profile of these deductions and appendix Table 1 shows their total amount in

each year.

The estimated loss of revenue from these tax deductions was $29.4 billion in 1976. This was

446% of housing assistance outlays and 57% of the housing assistance budget authority level for

that year. By 2001, revenue loss from the tax expenditures had swelled to $121.1 billion. This

was 391% of 2001 housing assistance outlays and 479% of housing assistance budget authority.

Put differently, between 1976 and 2001, revenue losses from housing-related tax expenditures

increased by $91.7 billion, budget authority for housing assistance dropped by $25.9 billion and

housing assistance outlays increased by $24.4 billion or roughly one quarter of the increase in

the cost of tax expenditures.

The bulk of the tax expenditures are for homeowner deductions. In 1976 they accounted for

94% of the housing tax expenditures. By 2001, investor deductions stood at 12% of total

housing tax expenditures, a bit below their 1990 peak of 16%. By far the largest cost was the

mortgage interest deduction, which is the third most costly expenditure in the tax code –

exceeded only by exclusion of employer pension plans and employer health insurance premiums

and contributions. Its cost stood at $63.2 billion in 2001 and constituted 52% of the total cost of

GRAPH 4. HOUSING-RELATED TAX EXPENDITURES, 1976-2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Fiscal year

Mill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

Investor

Other homeowner

Capital gains

Property taxes

Mortgage Interest

GRAPH 5. ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING SUBSIDIES, BY INCOME QUINTILE, 2001

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

Bottom Second Third Fourth TopIncome Quintile

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

Housing outlaysTax expenditures

QuintileTax

expendituresHousing outlays Total Percent

Quintile income limit

Quintile average income

Bottom $0.1 $24.9 $25.0 17.8% $17,242 $9,940Second $0.6 $4.2 $4.8 2.7% $32,034 $24,436Third $4.4 $1.2 $5.6 3.1% $50,851 $40,879Fourth $17.2 $0.5 $17.7 13.8% $79,454 $63,555Top $92.6 $0.1 $92.7 62.5% NA $135,401Total $114.8 $31.0 $145.8 100.0% -- $51,855

housing tax expenditures. Next came property tax deductions, at $23.9 billion or 20% of tax

expenditure costs, capital gains provisions, at 16%, and, finally, investor deductions at 12%.

In 2001, investor housing-related tax deductions stood at $14.9 billion, compared to $1.9 billion

in 1976. While the most prominent deductions since 1986 have been the Low Income Housing

Tax Credit ($3.3 billion) and tax-exempt bonds financing owner-occupied and rental housing

($1.0 billion), these two deductions are expected to account for only 29% of total investor

deductions in 2001. Far larger than either of these programs, which are targeted to providing

housing for low income families, were the permission to use the first $25,000 of some rental

housing passive losses to offset other income ($4.5 billion) and excess or accelerated

depreciation ($5.1 billion).6

A full picture of federal housing expenditures needs to include both housing outlays – or the

annual payments for various forms of low income housing assistance – and the cost to the

Treasury of housing-related tax expenditures. Graph 5 shows the estimated 2001 distribution of

both types of expenditures by income quintile. Housing assistance outlays are estimated at $31.0

billion and tax expenditures at $114.8 billion. Households in the top fifth of the income

distribution will get an estimated $92.7 billion or 63% of the total expenditures – all of it as tax

expenditures. Households in the bottom fifth will benefit from an estimated $25.0 billion, or

18% of all expenditures – all of it in the form of outlays to reduce their housing costs (although a

substantial portion of these subsidy payments will go to higher income recipients and none will

go directly to the assisted households). Households in the second and third quintiles will get an

estimated $10.4 billion (6%) – a mix of outlays and tax expenditures. Households in the fourth

quintile will get an estimated $17.7 billion (14%), almost entirely in the form of tax

expenditures.

Given this picture, one might wonder why it is that housing assistance outlays receive such

careful scrutiny by both Administration and Congress, regardless of which party is in control,

while the cost and benefits of the tax expenditures appear to be untouchable, except for

occasional reviews and restructuring of investor deductions.

Trends in Outlays and Budget Authority for Housing Assistance

Housing assistance outlays have grown substantially since 1976, but they still constitute a small

proportion of all federal expenditures. Graph 6 compares these outlays with those of all targeted

low income programs and with total federal outlays. In this context, the 346% increase in these

outlays between 1976 and 2001 is barely visible. (See Table 3 for details).

While housing assistance outlays were growing from $6.7 billion in 1976 to $31.0 billion in

2001, Medicaid grew from $22.6 billion to $128.9 billion, or 433%, during the same period, and

food stamps from $21.0 billion to $35.0 billion, or 58%. (See Graph 7.) The range of other

income security programs, that includes TANF, child care, SSI and several smaller programs

rose by 160%, from $32.0 billion to $82.1 billion. (See appendix A for list)

For budget authority (BA), the housing assistance trend is in the opposite direction. It dropped

from $51.9 billion in 1976 to an anticipated $25.3 billion in 2001. Housing assistance was 7% of

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06

Housing Assistance

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

000

Dol

lars

Fiscal Year

GRAPH 6. LOW INCOME HOUSING, OTHER TARGETED LOW INCOME, AND TOTAL OUTLAYS1976-2006

Housing Assistance

Targeted Low Income

Total Outlays

GRAPH 7. OUTLAYS FOR TARGETED LOW INCOME PROGRAMS, 1976-2006

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06Fiscal Year

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

Other income security Food and nutrition assistance Social services Medicaid Housing assistance

all BA in 1976 and 6% in 1977, but has not been above 2% since 1984. (See Graph 8 and Table

4.)

As Graph 9 shows, while BA for low income housing was dropping by 51%, BA for medicaid

was increasing by 474%; BA for other income security, by 109%; BA for food and nutrition

assistance, by 72%; and BA for social services, by 53%. In fact, housing assistance was the

largest of these low income programs until 1981, when the severest cuts began.

Trends in HUD’s Use of Budget Authority 7

HUD programs have evolved over the years and there have been program changes under almost

every HUD Secretary. But, without exception, subsidized housing programs8 have accounted for

the lion’s share of HUD spending. This has been true whether Democrats or Republicans were

in the White House or controlled the Congress. The remainder of this analysis describes trends

in HUD budget authority from 1976 through the Bush Administration’s proposals for 2002.

Few people realize that the $51 billion in subsidized housing budget authority provided to HUD

in FY 1976, during the Ford Administration, is almost twice as much as the Bush

Administration’s request for FY 2002. Indeed, the Democratic Congress made a substantial cut

in the Ford Administration’s FY 1977 request for subsidized housing BA. Then, after the

Carter Administration took office, it increased the Ford request. In 1978, the first full Carter

fiscal year, subsidized housing appropriations reached what is likely to be their all-time high:

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500B

illio

ns o

f Con

stan

t 200

1 D

olla

rs

Fiscal year

GRAPH 8. LOW INCOME HOUSING, OTHER TARGETED LOW INCOME, AND TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY, 1976-2006

Housing AssistanceAll Targeted Low IncomeTotal Budget Authority

GRAPH 9. BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR TARGETED LOW INCOME PROGRAMS, 1976-2006

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Other income security Food and nutrition assistance Social services Medicaid Housing assistance

$74 billion. Graph 10 shows trends in subsidized housing, all other HUD expenditures, and the

impact of renewing expiring subsidy contracts.

The precipitous drop in the early 80's was primarily caused by reductions in program levels. The

spike in 1985 was, as noted on the graph, the result of converting outstanding public housing

debt to capital grants, which saved on later interest payments but added no additional units to the

subsidized housing stock. The much lower level that has persisted since 1985 partly reflects

lower program levels and partly changes in the way subsidized housing has been financed.

Back in the 1960's and 1970's, subsidy contracts ran for 30 years (or 40, in the case of public

housing), so it took a lot of budget authority to finance the developments. This is because the

calculation of budget authority was based on the maximum subsidy commitment multiplied by

the length of the commitment. For those not acquainted with this procedure, low income

housing looked outrageously expensive. So the contract lengths were shortened, to 15 years,

then 10, then 5, then 1, bringing budget authority and outlays more closely into line.

In the early 90's, these subsidy contracts of varying lengths started expiring and, again to cope

with the amount of budget authority generated, the renewal terms were shortened. Thus,

contract renewals will be a continuing component of HUD’s budget for the foreseeable future.

(See detailed figures in appendix Table 5.)

The drop in budget authority in the early 1980's had a dramatic impact on the expansion of

subsidized housing programs. In 1976, the last full year of the Ford Administration, HUD

GRAPH 10. HUD BUDGET AUTHORITY TRENDS, 1976-2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02Fiscal year

Bill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

000

Dol

lars

ALL OTHER

RENEWALS

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING BA, NET OF RENEWALS

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of HUD Budget Summary data. Note: 1985 BA included $13.7 billion for one-time conversion of outstanding public housing debt. This saved money in the outyears, but added no additional units.

GRAPH 11. HUD COMMITMENTS (RESERVATIONS) FOR ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, 1976-2000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00Fiscal year

Home ownership

New rental

Existing rental

allocated funds, known as “reservations” to 435,362 additional units under seven different

subsidy programs. (See appendix Table 6.) During that year HUD also provided additional

rental assistance to over 100,000 troubled HUD-assisted or HUD-held units.9 As Graph 11

shows, 1976 was the high watermark of subsidized housing assistance, a level never previously

achieved and never duplicated.

In January 1977, the outgoing Ford Administration submitted to Congress a budget request that

would have funded 506,000 additional low income housing units (400,000 Section 8, 6,000

Indian housing, and 100,000 home ownership). No HUD budget since has proposed a greater

increase in the number of incremental low income housing units. If we had provided 500,000

additional low income units every year since 1976, we would now have about 14 million

families living in federally assisted low income housing. But we moved in the opposite direction

and now there are more very low income renter households with “worst case” housing needs

than there are families living in federally subsidized low-income housing.

By FY 1982, subsidized housing commitments had dropped to 60,590 and they remained in the

60,000-100,000 range until 1995, when the number dropped to 33,491, and then in 1996, to

8,493, before recovering significantly. Along with the reduction in additional units came a shift

from a blend of production, rehab, and tenant-based assistance – based largely on local needs as

identified in their housing plans submitted annually to HUD – to reliance almost entirely on

vouchers. The Section 8 new construction and substantial rehabilitation programs were

terminated, except for housing for the elderly and handicapped and a moderate rehabilitation

program which was later shifted to homeless programs and still continues.

In addition to the overall picture described above, there have been significant changes over the

years in HUD’s use of its budget authority. Details on major program trends are set forth in

Appendix Table 7.10 Graph 12 shows the use of budget authority for major low income housing

programs and the extent to which the renewal of expiring contracts eats up subsidized housing

funds. While it is critical to preserve these units, it is equally important to expand federal

housing assistance. It will not be possible to reduce waiting lists or meet a significant portion of

critical housing needs without returning to the production levels of the late 1970's. Even at those

levels, it will take years.

Graph 13 shows patterns of spending within the public housing program and, particularly, the

impact of terminating almost all public housing development in the early 1980's. The visibility

of the relatively small portion of public housing that was concentrated in large high-rise projects

has tended to obscure the fact that in many communities public housing is a primary source of

decent, affordable housing.

Finally, Graph 14 provides data on four programs administered by the Office of Community

Development and Planning: CDBG, the various homeless programs, the HOME Housing

Partnership program and Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids.

BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR SELECTED HUD PROGRAMS IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2001 DOLLARS, 1977-2002

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of annual HUD Budget Summary data.

����

��������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������

������������

������������������������������������������������

����������������������

��������������������������������������������

GRAPH 12. BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

Fiscal year

Mill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

Renewals And Extensions����������

���������

�� Public and Indian Housing

Elderly and HandicappedRental Assistance Section 8 Project-Based

GRAPH 13. BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC HOUSING

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02Fiscal year

Mill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

Drug elimination grantsOperating subsidiesHOPE VI/Severely distressedModernization/capital fundIndian housing developmentPublic housing development

GRAPH 14. CDBG, HOMELESS, HOME, HOPWA

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

Fiscal year

Mill

ions

of C

onst

ant 2

001

Dol

lars

CDBG (net of setasides) HOME grants

Homeless programs HOPWA

APPENDIX A. PROGRAMS/ACCOUNTS INCLUDED IN TARGETED LOW INCOME BUDGET CATEGORIES

Category Department Bureau name Account name

Housing assistanceAgriculture Rural Housing Service Mutual and self-help housing grantsAgriculture Rural Housing Service Rental assistance programAgriculture Rural Housing Service Rural housing assistance grantsHUD Community Planning and Development Home investment partnership programHUD Community Planning and Development Homeless assistance grantsHUD Community Planning and Development Housing opportunities for persons with AIDSHUD Community Planning and Development Rural housing and economic developmentHUD Community Planning and Development Youthbuild programHUD Housing Programs Congregate servicesHUD Housing Programs Flexible Subsidy FundHUD Housing Programs Homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere grants (HOPE grants)HUD Housing Programs Housing for special populationsHUD Housing Programs Nehemiah housing opportunity fundHUD Housing Programs Other assisted housing programsHUD Management and Administration Salaries and expensesHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Drug elimination grants for low-income housingHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Housing certificate fundHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Low-rent public housing--loans and other expensesHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Native American housing block grantHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Public housing capital fundHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Public housing operating fundHUD Public and Indian Housing Programs Revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI)

Social Services

EducationOffice of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Rehabilitation services and disability research

HHS Administration for Children and Families Children and families services programsHHS Administration for Children and Families Payments to states for foster care and adoption assistanceHHS Administration for Children and Families Promoting safe and stable familiesHHS Administration for Children and Families Social services block grantHHS Administration on Aging Aging services programs

HHS AllowancesEffect of proposed repeal of obligation delays enacted in P.L. 106-113, Health and Human Services

OtherCorporation for National and Community Service Domestic volunteer service programs, Operating expenses

OtherCorporation for National and Community Service Gifts and contributions

OtherCorporation for National and Community Service Inspector general

OtherCorporation for National and Community Service National and community service programs, operating expenses

OtherCorporation for National and Community Service Payment from the general fund, National service trust fund

Other National Council on Disability Salaries and expenses

MedicaidHHS Health Care Financing Administration Grants to States for Medicaid

Food and nutrition assistance

Other Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency food and shelter programAgriculture Agricultural Marketing Service Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service Child nutrition programsAgriculture Food and Nutrition Service Commodity assistance programAgriculture Food and Nutrition Service Food donations programsAgriculture Food and Nutrition Service Food program administrationAgriculture Food and Nutrition Service Food stamp programAgriculture Food and Nutrition Service Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC)

This category is composed of the budget subfunctions that are fully or predominantly targeted to low income people, plus Medicaid. Obviously, many other programs or functions, such as Medicare, serve low income people as well as others. Moreover, there are differences in the extent of the targeting and some programs in other subfunctions may also be targeted. Nevertheless, this provides a reasonable approximation of federal funds focused on meeting low income needs. Listed below are all OMB accounts, by subfunction, that had either budget authority or outlays in fiscal 2000.

Category Department Bureau name Account nameOther income security

HHS Administration for Children and Families Child care entitlement to StatesHHS Administration for Children and Families Children's research and technical assistanceHHS Administration for Children and Families Low income home energy assistanceHHS Administration for Children and Families Payments to states for child support enforcement and family support programsHHS Administration for Children and Families Payments to States for the child care and development block grantHHS Administration for Children and Families Refugee and entrant assistanceHHS Administration for Children and Families Temporary assistance for needy familiesHHS Department of Health and Human Federal share of child support collectionsOther Social Security Administration Receipts from SSI administrative feeOther Social Security Administration Recovery of beneficiary overpayments from SSI programOther Social Security Administration Supplemental security income programTreasury Internal Revenue Service Payment where child credit exceeds liability for taxTreasury Internal Revenue Service Payment where earned income credit exceeds liability for tax

Source: Compiled by National Low Income Housing Coalition from data contained in CD-ROM, Office of Management and Budget, The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2001, Sheets, Budauth.xls and Outlays.xls.

Total Budget

authority

Discre- tionary Budget

AuthorityTotal

OutlaysBudget

Authority Outlays1976 76,978 56,813 18,522 51,198 6,588 29,4071977 82,923 81,057 14,241 70,199 7,278 25,2681978 87,188 85,641 17,555 74,122 8,438 33,6531979 66,100 64,138 19,570 52,596 9,269 41,1771980 69,885 64,962 24,824 54,447 10,978 50,6341981 60,807 56,050 26,441 47,848 13,775 58,2571982 34,727 31,286 25,296 24,259 14,511 59,2701983 26,344 25,137 25,156 16,699 15,904 55,8431984 27,842 25,624 25,564 19,439 17,290 58,1451985 46,629 25,285 42,652 39,918 37,518 60,2801986 23,098 21,592 20,504 16,884 17,957 70,2611987 20,686 18,164 21,853 13,922 17,862 75,9871988 20,430 17,356 25,881 13,254 19,005 75,6091989 18,881 16,318 25,900 12,592 19,366 91,4851990 21,961 18,332 25,578 14,123 20,155 94,8781991 33,736 28,446 27,775 24,076 20,967 97,1521992 29,701 27,170 29,111 23,479 22,489 100,3841993 30,754 28,084 29,259 24,598 25,030 106,8861994 29,937 27,352 29,395 24,008 27,164 104,9321995 22,042 21,781 32,332 17,057 30,636 104,8491996 22,724 22,103 27,543 17,932 29,199 102,8921997 17,226 16,103 29,468 12,574 29,758 109,2681998 22,189 20,840 31,905 18,457 30,336 111,9581999 27,422 23,070 34,073 21,237 28,809 114,5372000 24,841 21,559 31,483 18,497 29,412 118,0352001 estimate 24,563 28,480 37,299 25,258 30,972 121,1002002 estimate 37,208 29,779 34,076 31,584 31,798 123,6362003 estimate 32,065 30,857 33,466 28,783 31,807 125,7472004 estimate 31,523 31,303 31,453 29,402 31,392 128,0932005 estimate 31,702 31,861 30,784 29,980 31,175 130,3902006 estimate 31,551 32,221 30,309 30,181 31,101 133,225

1976-01 change -52,415 -28,333 18,777 -25,940 24,384 91,693Percent change -68% -50% 101% -51% 370% 312%

2001-06 change 6,988 3,741 -6,990 4,923 129 12,125Percent change 28% 13% -19% 19% 0% 10%

1976-06 change -45,427 -24,592 11,787 -21,017 24,513 103,818Percent change -59% -43% 64% -41% 372% 353%

Source: Compiled by National Low Income Housing Coalition. Budget authority and outlay data from Office of Management and Budget CD-ROM, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 3.2--Outlays by Function and Subfunction: 1962-2006 and Table 5.1--Budget Authority by Function and Subfunction: 1976-2006. Tax expenditure data calculated from Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years 1991 and 1992, Table C-1; Fiscal Year 1993, Table 24-1; and Special Analysis G, 1993 and prior budgets. 1992 figures from Budget Baselines, Historical Data, and Alternatives for the Future, January 1993, Appendix One, Table 2.1. 1993-2006 figures from Budget of the United States Government, Analytical Perspectives, Fiscal Years 1995-2002, Table 5-1.

TABLE 1.

YEAR

HUD TOTALSHOUSING

ASSISTANCEHOUSING RELATED

TAX EXPEND-ITURES

HUD AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE BUDGET SUBFUNCTION LEVELS COMPARED TO HOUSING-RELATED TAX EXPENDITURES, IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2001 DOLLARS

TABLE 2. REVENUE LOSSES FROM TAX EXPENDITURES IN 2001 CONSTANT DOLLARS

Year

Mortgage interest

deductionsProperty tax deductions

Capital gains

Other home- owner

deductionsInvestor

deductionsHomeowner

subtotal Total1976 12,838 10,624 2,333 1,714 1,898 $27,509 29,4071977 11,010 10,311 2,280 245 1,422 $23,846 25,2681978 17,429 12,610 2,444 0 1,170 $32,483 33,6531979 22,806 14,348 3,025 0 998 $40,179 41,1771980 30,438 14,249 3,012 0 2,936 $47,699 50,6341981 35,797 16,215 2,861 0 3,385 $54,872 58,2571982 38,702 13,883 3,670 781 2,234 $57,036 59,2701983 33,087 12,742 3,062 970 5,981 $49,861 55,8431984 34,879 13,531 3,774 913 5,047 $53,097 58,1451985 36,808 13,834 3,869 854 4,916 $55,365 60,2801986 44,136 12,413 4,220 732 8,759 $61,502 70,2611987 49,037 14,516 6,683 64 5,688 $70,300 75,9871988 46,022 13,803 9,075 0 6,710 $68,899 75,6091989 44,996 13,246 20,037 0 13,207 $78,279 91,4851990 47,664 12,075 20,122 0 15,017 $79,861 94,8781991 49,675 13,105 19,368 0 15,004 $82,148 97,1521992 50,834 14,567 20,855 0 14,127 $86,257 100,3841993 56,592 15,169 20,787 0 14,338 $92,548 106,8861994 55,082 15,946 20,848 0 13,057 $91,875 104,9321995 53,524 17,004 21,530 0 12,791 $92,058 104,8491996 51,869 17,353 21,430 0 12,240 $90,652 102,8921997 52,520 18,108 26,479 0 12,161 $97,107 109,2681998 54,570 18,756 25,707 0 12,925 $99,033 111,9581999 59,249 22,083 18,736 0 14,469 $100,068 114,5372000 estimate 61,550 22,610 18,934 0 14,941 $103,094 118,0352001 estimate 63,190 23,920 19,095 0 14,895 $106,205 121,1002002 estimate 64,399 25,045 19,266 0 14,927 $108,709 123,6362003 estimate 65,286 26,115 19,437 0 14,909 $110,838 125,7472004 estimate 66,217 27,325 19,610 0 14,940 $113,152 128,0932005 estimate 67,275 28,511 19,778 0 14,826 $115,564 130,3902006 estimate 68,641 29,944 19,957 0 14,684 $118,541 133,225

1976-01 change $48,712 $11,986 $16,601 -$1,714 $13,043 $75,585 $88,628Percent change 379% 113% 712% -100% 687% 275% 301%

2001-06 change $5,451 $6,024 $862 $0 -$211 $12,336 $12,125Percent change 9% 25% 5% - -1% 12% 10%

1976-06 change $55,802 $19,320 $17,624 -$1,714 $12,786 $91,032 $103,818Percent change 435% 182% 755% -100% 674% 331% 353%

Mortgage interest

deductionsProperty tax deductions

Capital gains

Other home owner

deductionsInvestor

deductionsHomeowner

subtotal Total1976 43.7% 36.1% 7.9% 5.8% 6.5% 93.5% 100.0%1977 43.6% 40.8% 9.0% 1.0% 5.6% 94.4% 100.0%1978 51.8% 37.5% 7.3% 0.0% 3.5% 96.5% 100.0%1979 55.4% 34.8% 7.3% 0.0% 2.4% 97.6% 100.0%1980 60.1% 28.1% 5.9% 0.0% 5.8% 94.2% 100.0%1981 61.4% 27.8% 4.9% 0.0% 5.8% 94.2% 100.0%1982 65.3% 23.4% 6.2% 1.3% 3.8% 96.2% 100.0%1983 59.3% 22.8% 5.5% 1.7% 10.7% 89.3% 100.0%1984 60.0% 23.3% 6.5% 1.6% 8.7% 91.3% 100.0%1985 61.1% 22.9% 6.4% 1.4% 8.2% 91.8% 100.0%1986 62.8% 17.7% 6.0% 1.0% 12.5% 87.5% 100.0%1987 64.5% 19.1% 8.8% 0.1% 7.5% 92.5% 100.0%1988 60.9% 18.3% 12.0% 0.0% 8.9% 91.1% 100.0%1989 49.2% 14.5% 21.9% 0.0% 14.4% 85.6% 100.0%1990 50.2% 12.7% 21.2% 0.0% 15.8% 84.2% 100.0%1991 51.1% 13.5% 19.9% 0.0% 15.4% 84.6% 100.0%1992 50.6% 14.5% 20.8% 0.0% 14.1% 85.9% 100.0%1993 52.9% 14.2% 19.4% 0.0% 13.4% 86.6% 100.0%1994 52.5% 15.2% 19.9% 0.0% 12.4% 87.6% 100.0%1995 51.0% 16.2% 20.5% 0.0% 12.2% 87.8% 100.0%1996 50.4% 16.9% 20.8% 0.0% 11.9% 88.1% 100.0%1997 48.1% 16.6% 24.2% 0.0% 11.1% 88.9% 100.0%1998 48.7% 16.8% 23.0% 0.0% 11.5% 88.5% 100.0%1999 51.7% 19.3% 16.4% 0.0% 12.6% 87.4% 100.0%2000 estimate 52.1% 19.2% 16.0% 0.0% 12.7% 87.3% 100.0%2001 estimate 52.2% 19.8% 15.8% 0.0% 12.3% 87.7% 100.0%2002 estimate 52.1% 20.3% 15.6% 0.0% 12.1% 87.9% 100.0%2003 estimate 51.9% 20.8% 15.5% 0.0% 11.9% 88.1% 100.0%2004 estimate 51.7% 21.3% 15.3% 0.0% 11.7% 88.3% 100.0%2005 estimate 51.6% 21.9% 15.2% 0.0% 11.4% 88.6% 100.0%2006 estimate 51.5% 22.5% 15.0% 0.0% 11.0% 89.0% 100.0%

Millions of dollars

Percent

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition. Calculated from Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years 1991 and 1992, Table C-1, Fiscal Year 1993, Table 24-1, and Special Analysis G, 1993 and prior budgets. 1992 figures from Budget Baselines, Historical Data, and Alternatives for the Future, January 1993, Appendix One, Table 2.1. 1993-05 figures from Budget of the United States Government, Analytical Perspectives, Fiscal Years 1995-2002, Table 5-1.

COMPARATIVE DATA ON HOUSING AND LOW INCOME OUTLAYS IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2001 DOLLARS, 1976-99

Housing assistance Medicaid

Social services

Food and nutrition

assistance

Other income

security

Total targeted

low income1976 $18,522 $980,130 $6,588 $22,588 $11,932 $20,982 $32,046 $94,1351977 $14,241 $1,003,416 $7,278 $24,216 $12,559 $20,908 $31,771 $96,7321978 $17,555 $1,052,724 $8,438 $24,508 $12,823 $20,483 $31,753 $98,0051979 $19,570 $1,069,818 $9,269 $26,335 $13,994 $22,896 $28,359 $100,8521980 $24,824 $1,151,919 $10,978 $27,205 $11,928 $27,321 $33,455 $110,8881981 $26,441 $1,205,212 $13,775 $29,912 $12,161 $28,795 $34,462 $119,1061982 $25,296 $1,238,462 $14,511 $28,880 $9,845 $25,875 $32,838 $111,9491983 $25,156 $1,285,922 $15,904 $30,200 $9,730 $28,557 $33,558 $117,9501984 $25,564 $1,306,909 $17,290 $30,777 $10,992 $27,699 $32,872 $119,6301985 $42,652 $1,405,533 $37,518 $33,644 $9,965 $27,534 $33,734 $142,3951986 $20,504 $1,436,338 $17,957 $36,248 $10,483 $26,976 $35,332 $126,9971987 $21,853 $1,417,172 $17,862 $38,721 $10,410 $26,731 $35,656 $129,3811988 $25,881 $1,454,775 $19,005 $41,630 $10,922 $27,446 $38,128 $137,1311989 $25,900 $1,505,128 $19,366 $45,541 $12,310 $27,890 $39,095 $144,2011990 $25,578 $1,589,472 $20,155 $52,133 $12,332 $30,394 $39,503 $154,5171991 $27,775 $1,616,838 $20,967 $64,132 $14,071 $34,770 $44,541 $178,4811992 $29,111 $1,643,743 $22,489 $80,692 $14,537 $38,809 $51,038 $207,5651993 $29,259 $1,637,753 $25,030 $88,044 $14,361 $40,839 $56,198 $224,4731994 $29,395 $1,662,693 $27,164 $93,301 $15,958 $41,824 $64,191 $242,4381995 $32,332 $1,687,459 $30,636 $99,154 $16,567 $41,850 $67,631 $255,8391996 $27,543 $1,703,208 $29,199 $100,398 $16,119 $41,400 $68,842 $255,9581997 $29,468 $1,714,212 $29,758 $102,291 $16,926 $38,604 $72,680 $260,2601998 $31,905 $1,744,352 $30,336 $106,854 $17,242 $35,449 $74,613 $264,4951999 $34,073 $1,772,721 $28,809 $112,463 $17,543 $34,503 $79,282 $272,6002000 $31,483 $1,826,822 $29,412 $120,426 $18,386 $33,173 $83,204 $321,9912001 estimate $37,299 $1,856,238 $30,972 $128,853 $19,576 $35,005 $82,062 $342,9212002 estimate $34,076 $1,920,272 $31,798 $139,496 $20,851 $35,837 $85,026 $370,8722003 estimate $33,466 $1,934,343 $31,807 $146,513 $21,386 $36,652 $86,650 $391,7722004 estimate $31,453 $1,951,382 $31,392 $155,944 $21,834 $37,204 $87,771 $406,7702005 estimate $30,784 $1,995,926 $31,175 $166,151 $22,222 $37,866 $91,055 $413,0792006 estimate $30,309 $2,004,597 $31,101 $176,987 $22,598 $38,483 $89,537 $420,400

1976-01 change 18,777 876,108 $22,824 $97,838 $6,455 $12,191 $51,158 $227,856Percent change 101% 89% 346% 433% 54% 58% 160% 242%

2001-06 change -6,990 $169,104 $129 $48,134 $3,022 $3,478 $7,475 $77,479Percent change -19% 9% 0% - 15% 10% 9% 23%

1976-06 change 11,787 $1,015,796 $24,513 $154,400 $10,666 $17,501 $57,491 $326,265Percent change 64% 104% 372% 684% 89% 83% 179% 347%

1976+TQ 1.9% 100.0% 7.0% 24.0% 12.7% 22.3% 34.0% 100.0%1977 1.4% 100.0% 7.5% 25.0% 13.0% 21.6% 32.8% 100.0%1978 1.7% 100.0% 8.6% 25.0% 13.1% 20.9% 32.4% 100.0%1979 1.8% 100.0% 9.2% 26.1% 13.9% 22.7% 28.1% 100.0%1980 2.2% 100.0% 9.9% 24.5% 10.8% 24.6% 30.2% 100.0%1981 2.2% 100.0% 11.6% 25.1% 10.2% 24.2% 28.9% 100.0%1982 2.0% 100.0% 13.0% 25.8% 8.8% 23.1% 29.3% 100.0%1983 2.0% 100.0% 13.5% 25.6% 8.2% 24.2% 28.5% 100.0%1984 2.0% 100.0% 14.5% 25.7% 9.2% 23.2% 27.5% 100.0%1985 3.0% 100.0% 26.3% 23.6% 7.0% 19.3% 23.7% 100.0%1986 1.4% 100.0% 14.1% 28.5% 8.3% 21.2% 27.8% 100.0%1987 1.5% 100.0% 13.8% 29.9% 8.0% 20.7% 27.6% 100.0%1988 1.8% 100.0% 13.9% 30.4% 8.0% 20.0% 27.8% 100.0%1989 1.7% 100.0% 13.4% 31.6% 8.5% 19.3% 27.1% 100.0%1990 1.6% 100.0% 13.0% 33.7% 8.0% 19.7% 25.6% 100.0%1991 1.7% 100.0% 11.7% 35.9% 7.9% 19.5% 25.0% 100.0%1992 1.8% 100.0% 10.8% 38.9% 7.0% 18.7% 24.6% 100.0%1993 1.8% 100.0% 11.2% 39.2% 6.4% 18.2% 25.0% 100.0%1994 1.8% 100.0% 11.2% 38.5% 6.6% 17.3% 26.5% 100.0%1995 1.9% 100.0% 12.0% 38.8% 6.5% 16.4% 26.4% 100.0%1996 1.6% 100.0% 11.4% 39.2% 6.3% 16.2% 26.9% 100.0%1997 1.7% 100.0% 11.4% 39.3% 6.5% 14.8% 27.9% 100.0%1998 1.8% 100.0% 11.5% 40.4% 6.5% 13.4% 28.2% 100.0%1999 1.9% 100.0% 10.6% 41.3% 6.4% 12.7% 29.1% 100.0%2000 estimate 1.7% 100.0% 9.1% 37.4% 5.7% 10.3% 25.8% 100.0%2001 estimate 2.0% 100.0% 9.0% 37.6% 5.7% 10.2% 23.9% 100.0%2002 estimate 1.8% 100.0% 8.6% 37.6% 5.6% 9.7% 22.9% 100.0%2003 estimate 1.7% 100.0% 8.1% 37.4% 5.5% 9.4% 22.1% 100.0%2004 estimate 1.6% 100.0% 7.7% 38.3% 5.4% 9.1% 21.6% 100.0%2005 estimate 1.5% 100.0% 7.5% 40.2% 5.4% 9.2% 22.0% 100.0%2006 estimate 1.5% 100.0% 7.4% 42.1% 5.4% 9.2% 21.3% 100.0%

Source: Compiled by National Low Income Housing Coalition from data contained in CD-ROM, Office of Management and Budget, The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 4.1--Outlays by Agency, 1962-2006 and Table 3.2--Outlays by Function and Subfunction: 1962-2006.

TABLE 3

Targeted low income functionsDepartment of Housing and

Urban Development

Fiscal year Total federal outlays

Housing assistance Medicaid

Social services

Food and nutrition

assistance

Other income

security

Total targeted

low income1976 $76,978 $1,109,511 $51,198 $22,434 $13,764 $20,397 $32,779 $140,5721977 $82,923 $1,148,655 $70,199 $25,083 $13,361 $21,762 $33,139 $163,5441978 $87,188 $1,157,871 $74,122 $24,309 $12,773 $20,692 $29,894 $161,7901979 $66,100 $1,186,134 $52,596 $27,859 $14,206 $22,427 $28,849 $145,9371980 $69,885 $1,306,148 $54,447 $28,158 $11,992 $26,851 $34,921 $156,3691981 $60,807 $1,315,487 $47,848 $30,989 $11,101 $29,455 $34,931 $154,3241982 $34,727 $1,339,396 $24,259 $29,915 $10,084 $26,214 $29,514 $119,9861983 $26,344 $1,383,714 $16,699 $23,534 $10,475 $28,878 $33,388 $112,9741984 $27,842 $1,416,723 $19,439 $31,717 $10,612 $27,975 $33,119 $122,8631985 $46,629 $1,527,174 $39,918 $32,443 $10,791 $27,705 $33,413 $144,2691986 $23,098 $1,470,511 $16,884 $35,738 $10,276 $27,268 $35,051 $125,2161987 $20,686 $1,458,091 $13,922 $38,971 $11,169 $27,617 $35,405 $127,0841988 $20,430 $1,491,565 $13,254 $42,050 $12,352 $28,221 $38,884 $134,7601989 $18,881 $1,574,047 $12,592 $45,874 $13,085 $27,982 $38,934 $138,4681990 $21,961 $1,631,341 $14,123 $51,609 $12,337 $31,777 $39,506 $149,3511991 $33,736 $1,692,222 $24,076 $65,183 $14,326 $35,934 $47,566 $187,0851992 $29,701 $1,745,821 $23,479 $82,998 $14,325 $39,805 $51,891 $212,4981993 $30,754 $1,713,175 $24,598 $95,970 $15,555 $45,334 $57,113 $238,5701994 $29,937 $1,739,337 $24,008 $101,312 $18,373 $45,454 $65,669 $254,8171995 $22,042 $1,713,971 $17,057 $99,345 $17,361 $45,439 $69,715 $248,9171996 $22,724 $1,725,275 $17,932 $89,650 $17,018 $44,130 $70,152 $238,8811997 $17,226 $1,758,716 $12,574 $108,350 $17,683 $43,912 $78,224 $260,7431998 $22,189 $1,786,154 $18,457 $105,120 $17,625 $39,941 $77,104 $258,2461999 $27,422 $1,849,200 $21,237 $106,585 $18,125 $37,007 $82,735 $265,6892000 $24,841 $1,863,720 $18,497 $120,245 $17,782 $36,688 $83,346 $276,5572001 estimate $24,563 $1,893,513 $25,258 $128,853 $21,060 $35,068 $84,161 $294,4002002 estimate $37,208 $1,963,355 $31,584 $139,496 $22,840 $36,714 $82,593 $313,2272003 estimate $32,065 $1,959,004 $28,783 $146,513 $21,631 $37,833 $85,935 $320,6962004 estimate $31,523 $1,974,914 $29,402 $155,944 $21,973 $38,355 $87,643 $333,3162005 estimate $31,702 $2,013,464 $29,980 $166,151 $22,415 $38,986 $89,838 $347,3712006 estimate $31,551 $2,029,045 $30,181 $176,987 $22,872 $39,578 $88,308 $357,927

1976-01 change -$52,415 $784,002 -$25,940 $106,419 $7,296 $14,671 $51,382 $153,828Percent change -68% 71% -51% 474% 53% 72% 157% 109%

2001-06 change $6,988 $135,532 $4,923 $48,134 $1,812 $4,510 $4,147 $63,527Percent change 28% 7% 19% 37% 9% 13% 5% 22%

1976-06 change -$45,427 $919,534 -$21,017 $154,553 $9,108 $19,182 $55,529 $217,355Percent change -59% 83% -41% 689% 66% 94% 169% 155%

1976 6.9% 100.0% 36.4% 16.0% 9.8% 14.5% 23.3% 100.0%1977 7.2% 100.0% 42.9% 15.3% 8.2% 13.3% 20.3% 100.0%1978 7.5% 100.0% 45.8% 15.0% 7.9% 12.8% 18.5% 100.0%1979 5.6% 100.0% 36.0% 19.1% 9.7% 15.4% 19.8% 100.0%1980 5.4% 100.0% 34.8% 18.0% 7.7% 17.2% 22.3% 100.0%1981 4.6% 100.0% 31.0% 20.1% 7.2% 19.1% 22.6% 100.0%1982 2.6% 100.0% 20.2% 24.9% 8.4% 21.8% 24.6% 100.0%1983 1.9% 100.0% 14.8% 20.8% 9.3% 25.6% 29.6% 100.0%1984 2.0% 100.0% 15.8% 25.8% 8.6% 22.8% 27.0% 100.0%1985 3.1% 100.0% 27.7% 22.5% 7.5% 19.2% 23.2% 100.0%1986 1.6% 100.0% 13.5% 28.5% 8.2% 21.8% 28.0% 100.0%1987 1.4% 100.0% 11.0% 30.7% 8.8% 21.7% 27.9% 100.0%1988 1.4% 100.0% 9.8% 31.2% 9.2% 20.9% 28.9% 100.0%1989 1.2% 100.0% 9.1% 33.1% 9.5% 20.2% 28.1% 100.0%1990 1.3% 100.0% 9.5% 34.6% 8.3% 21.3% 26.5% 100.0%1991 2.0% 100.0% 12.9% 34.8% 7.7% 19.2% 25.4% 100.0%1992 1.7% 100.0% 11.0% 39.1% 6.7% 18.7% 24.4% 100.0%1993 1.8% 100.0% 10.3% 40.2% 6.5% 19.0% 23.9% 100.0%1994 1.7% 100.0% 9.4% 39.8% 7.2% 17.8% 25.8% 100.0%1995 1.3% 100.0% 6.9% 39.9% 7.0% 18.3% 28.0% 100.0%1996 1.3% 100.0% 7.5% 37.5% 7.1% 18.5% 29.4% 100.0%1997 1.0% 100.0% 4.8% 41.6% 6.8% 16.8% 30.0% 100.0%1998 1.2% 100.0% 7.1% 40.7% 6.8% 15.5% 29.9% 100.0%1999 1.5% 100.0% 8.0% 40.1% 6.8% 13.9% 31.1% 100.0%2000 1.3% 100.0% 6.7% 43.5% 6.4% 13.3% 30.1% 100.0%2001 estimate 1.3% 100.0% 8.6% 43.8% 7.2% 11.9% 28.6% 100.0%2002 estimate 1.9% 100.0% 10.1% 44.5% 7.3% 11.7% 26.4% 100.0%2003 estimate 1.6% 100.0% 9.0% 45.7% 6.7% 11.8% 26.8% 100.0%2004 estimate 1.6% 100.0% 8.8% 46.8% 6.6% 11.5% 26.3% 100.0%2005 estimate 1.6% 100.0% 8.6% 47.8% 6.5% 11.2% 25.9% 100.0%2006 estimate 1.6% 100.0% 8.4% 49.4% 6.4% 11.1% 24.7% 100.0%

TABLE 4

Source: Compiled by National Low Income Housing Coalition from data contained in CD-ROM, Office of Management and Budget, The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 5.2--Budget Authority by Agency, 1976-2006 and Table 5.1--Budget Authority by Function and Subfunction: 1976-2006.

COMPARATIVE DATA ON HOUSING AND LOW INCOME BUDGET AUTHORITY IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2001 DOLLARS, 1976-2006

Fiscal year

Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Total federal budget

authority

Targeted low income functions

Fiscal yearTOTAL

HUD BA

Subsidized Housing

Programs

Renewals And

Extensions All other1976 $75.1 $50.3 $0.0 $24.81977 $83.1 $72.4 $0.0 $10.81978 $87.2 $75.7 $0.0 $11.51979 $66.1 $54.5 $0.0 $11.61980 $69.5 $55.8 $0.0 $13.71981 $59.3 $47.6 $0.0 $11.71982 $33.4 $24.0 $0.0 $9.31983 $25.4 $16.6 $0.0 $8.81984 $27.5 $20.7 $0.0 $6.81985 $46.6 $40.0 $0.0 $6.61986 $23.1 $17.5 $0.0 $5.51987 $20.7 $14.9 $0.0 $5.81988 $20.4 $14.1 $0.0 $6.31989 $18.9 $13.1 $0.0 $5.81990 $22.0 $13.2 $1.5 $7.31991 $33.7 $14.4 $9.6 $9.71992 $29.7 $13.9 $9.0 $6.81993 $30.8 $15.9 $8.0 $6.81994 $30.0 $18.1 $6.0 $5.91995 $22.0 $16.1 $2.4 $3.51996 $22.9 $12.5 $4.4 $6.11997 $17.2 $11.7 $3.8 $1.81998 $22.2 $10.6 $9.5 $2.01999 $27.4 $13.9 $10.0 $3.62000 $20.7 $12.5 $10.9 -$2.62001 $28.5 $13.0 $12.9 $2.62002 $29.8 $10.4 $14.8 $4.6

TABLE 5

HUD BUDGET AUTHORITY TRENDS IN BILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2001 DOLLARS, 1976-2002

Note: Subsidized Housing Programs include the low income housing programs now administered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and by Office of Housing as well as a number of housing programs administered by the Office of Community Development and Planning (CPD). Specifically, “subsidized housing” includes all of the programs administered by PIH; all of the programs administered by the Office of Housing except FHA and the functions of manufactured home inspections and monitoring and interstate land sales registration that were lodged in that office from 1981-90; the homeless programs, HOME Investment Partnerships, Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids, rural housing and economic development, home elderly and disabled, capacity building for community development and housing, rental rehabilitation grants, rehabilitation loans (312), urban homesteading, public housing child care grants and various other CDBG setasides administered by CPD; and, when they were funded separately from the foregoing, housing counseling and the Office of Lead Hazard Control.

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of annual HUD Budget Summary data.

Fiscal yearExisting

housing 1New con-

struction 2 Total Grand total1976 + TQ 4 213,742 203,046 416,788 18,574 435,3621977 251,623 140,480 392,103 4,719 396,8221978 210,527 98,300 308,827 11,738 320,5651979 257,225 90,375 347,600 14,471 362,0711980 58,402 129,490 187,892 58,907 246,7991981 83,520 75,365 158,885 5,102 163,9871982 37,818 18,018 55,836 4,754 60,5901983 54,071 -339 2,630 53,732 56,3621984 78,648 9,619 88,267 930 89,1971985 85,741 16,980 102,721 4,586 107,3071986 85,476 13,109 98,585 5 98,5901987 72,788 20,192 92,980 60 93,0401988 64,270 19,991 -84,261 0 -84,2611989 67,653 14,053 81,706 0 81,7061990 61,309 7,428 68,737 0 68,7371991 55,900 13,082 68,982 0 68,9821992 62,008 23,537 85,545 0 85,5451993 50,162 18,715 68,877 0 68,8771994 47,807 17,652 65,459 0 65,4591995 16,904 16,587 33,491 0 33,4911996 7,055 1,438 8,493 0 8,4931997 9,229 12,449 21,678 0 21,6781998 18,376 17,675 36,051 0 36,0511999 16,225 11,060 27,285 0 27,285

2000 est. 126,000 9,556 135,556 0 135,556

3 lncludes units assisted through the various section 235 programs.

TABLE 6

Source: 1976-79: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of annual HUD Budget Summary data; 1980-2000: 2000 Green Book, Table 15-29. Because of limitations on data availability, there are some inconsistencies in the data, primarily because the 1980-90 data are adjusted by excluding commitments for conversions, replacements of units lost from the assisted stock, and deobligations or cancellations of commitments. This information not available for 76-79 or 1991-2000.

4 1976 + TQ: In 1976 the fiscal year was changed from July 1-June 30 to October 1-September 30. The Transition Quarter (TQ) is the period from July 1-September 30, 1976. However, because the Department was gearing up for the Section 8 program, there were few reservations in the first quarter, so the figures here are for the 15-month period.

HUD-SUBSIDIZED HOUSING COMMITMENTS, 1976-2000

Net new commitments for renters Net new commit-

ments for home buyers

1 Includes units assisted through section 8 certificates and vouchers. Also, after 1979, loan management set-aside (LMSA), property disposition, and moderate rehabilitation programs.

2 lncludes units assisted through the section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation Program, section 202/811 Housing for the Elderly and the Disabled, section 236, and Public and Indian Housing Programs. Excludes units constructed under the Indian Housing Block Grant Program.

Fiscal year

Section 8 Project-

Based

Rental Assist- ance

Elderly and Handi-

capped

Public and

Indian Housing

Renewals And

ExtensionsFiscal year CDBG*

HOME grants

Homeless programs HOPWA

1977 $46,277 $11,993 $2,084 $13,223 $0 1977 $7,719 na na na1978 $30,567 $10,983 $1,721 $19,898 $0 1978 $8,032 na na na1979 $34,790 $10,795 $1,668 $17,882 $0 1979 $7,747 na na na1980 $20,867 $8,066 $1,571 $12,202 $0 1980 $7,291 na na na1981 $18,205 $10,848 $1,416 $13,215 $0 1981 $6,565 na na na1982 $7,066 $7,232 $1,179 $8,328 $0 1982 $5,739 na na na1983 $4,739 $3,202 $795 $6,771 $0 1983 $5,498 na na na1984 $3,727 $3,726 $854 $7,047 $0 1984 $5,320 na na na1985 $2,849 $5,120 $748 $5,991 $0 1985 $5,156 na na na1986 $3,563 $4,579 $715 $5,506 $0 1986 $4,337 na na na1987 $3,261 $2,703 $752 $5,141 $0 1987 $4,234 na $85 na1988 $2,716 $2,769 $783 $5,433 $0 1988 $3,936 na $99 na1989 $1,830 $2,494 $519 $5,021 $73 1989 $3,948 na $166 na1990 $1,853 $2,035 $507 $5,220 $1,476 1990 $3,697 na $360 na1991 $0 $1,655 $0 $7,401 $9,635 1991 $3,923 na $414 na1992 $0 $2,111 $53 $6,978 $9,024 1992 $4,059 $1,784 $535 $571993 $0 $1,477 $159 $7,591 $8,403 1993 $4,924 $1,432 $664 $1161994 $0 $1,631 $586 $7,977 $5,995 1994 $5,744 $1,570 $936 $1771995 $0 $480 $0 $7,980 $2,446 1995 $4,731 $1,559 $1,247 $1901996 $0 $437 $1,187 $6,799 $4,374 1996 $5,020 $1,528 $898 $1871997 $0 $1,220 $898 $6,894 $3,800 1997 $4,929 $1,499 $881 $2101998 $0 $362 $886 $7,220 $9,531 1998 $4,752 $1,583 $869 $2151999 $0 -$197 $889 $7,654 $9,993 1999 $4,443 $1,665 $1,015 $2242000 $0 $859 $930 $7,693 $10,866 2000 $4,326 $1,634 $1,042 $2372001 $0 $967 $994 $7,766 $12,943 2001 $4,399 $1,796 $1,123 $2572002 $0 $596 $980 $6,765 $14,798 2002 $4,309 $1,759 $1,100 $271

Fiscal year

Public housing develop-

ment

Indian housing develop-

ment

Capital fund/

modern- ization

HOPE VI/ Severe- ly

dis- tressed

Operating subsidies

Drug elimin- ation

grants1977 $7,408 $2,587 $1,768 $0 $1,460 $01978 $14,804 $1,599 $1,923 $0 $1,572 $01979 $12,367 $1,856 $2,116 $0 $1,543 $01980 $7,128 $1,653 $1,948 $0 $1,472 $01981 $7,456 $838 $3,019 $0 $1,903 $01982 $2,042 $821 $2,989 $0 $2,476 $01983 $0 $542 $4,082 $0 $2,147 $01984 $1,372 $565 $2,475 $0 $2,635 $01985 $1,397 $431 $2,082 $0 $2,082 $01986 $1,163 $434 $2,090 $140 $1,680 $01987 $705 $346 $2,030 $0 $2,061 $01988 $783 $269 $2,311 $0 $2,070 $01989 $502 $135 $2,170 $0 $2,215 $01990 $31 $173 $2,502 $0 $2,389 $1251991 $1,325 $256 $3,050 $0 $2,587 $1831992 $729 $285 $3,070 $0 $2,697 $1961993 $374 $299 $3,423 $349 $2,943 $2031994 $468 $298 $3,736 $194 $2,980 $3011995 $370 $276 $3,335 $572 $3,228 $1991996 $0 $175 $2,729 $524 $3,056 $3171997 $0 $214 $2,676 $589 $3,105 $3101998 $0 $633 $2,639 $581 $3,061 $3061999 $0 $645 $3,123 $651 $2,933 $3022000 $0 $639 $2,945 $587 $3,205 $3172001 $0 $655 $2,993 $574 $3,235 $3092002 $0 $642 $2,246 $562 $3,315 $0

* This is the CDBG amount net of earmarked program setasides (e.g. Youthbuild), but including the amounts variously described as Secretary’s Discretionary Fund or Special Purpose Grants, since data on these amounts is not included in a number of the early HUD Budget Summaries.

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of annual HUD Budget Summary data.

TABLE 7

BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR SELECTED HUD PROGRAMS, 1977-99, IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2001 DOLLARS

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING CDBG, HOME, HOMELESS, HOPWA

1. All of the figures in this report are adjusted to 2001 dollars, using the GDP deflator. OMB uses this deflator to adjust its budget figures to constant dollars.

2 The fiscal 2000 figures in this report are the most recent actual levels available as ofApril 2001. They are contained in OMB CD-ROM Budget of the United States Government,Fiscal Year 2002 and HUD’s Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary. These contain theAdministration’s proposed budget for 2002, projections through 2006, estimated levels for2001, and a full set of actual figures for 2000. In addition, a series of historical tables containsoutlay data back through 1962 and budget authority data back through 1976.

3. “Because of the numerous changes in the way budget data have been presented overtime, there are inevitable difficulties in trying to produce comparable data to cover many years.The general rule is to provide data in as meaningful and comparable a fashion as possible. To theextent feasible, the data are presented on a basis consistent with current budget concepts. When astructural change is made, insofar as possible the data are adjusted for all years.” (Introduction,Federal Budget Historical Tables, FY 2001.) Because the data are based on current budgetconcepts, not those in place during each year covered, they are adjusted and recalculatedannually. This is the explanation for inconsistencies between the overall HUD budget authorityfigures in these tables with those in the “actual” column of the annual HUD Budget Summaries.

4. “Families” is used in this report as a synonym for households. That is, it includes singlepersons living alone as well as larger households.

5 Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2001, Special Analyses, Chapter 5, TaxExpenditures.

6 Before the 1986 tax reform legislation, that among many other changes created the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit, the major investor deduction was accelerated depreciation of rentalhousing, with more generous provisions for housing targeted for low income households. Ingeneral, the LIHTC substituted for these provisions. However, because the “normal” tax methodsets a 40-year life for depreciable rental property, the current depreciation period of 27.5 yearscreates a tax expenditure in the view of the OMB/Treasury analysts. (Ibid., p. 131.)

7. The primary sources for the information in the remainder of this report are the annualHUD Budget Summaries released by the Department when the budget is submitted to Congress. The HUD Budget Summary is the major source of information provided to the public on HUD’sbudget proposals. Most of its tables provide information on the proposed budget for the nextfiscal year, the estimated amount available for the current fiscal year, and the actual amountappropriated or used in the previous fiscal year. The data in this report is from the “actual”

Endnotes

columns of the relevant HUD Budget Summaries, except FY 2000 and FY 2001.

Wherever possible, the figures in this report are drawn from the summary tables on budgetauthority and outlays by program. These appear annually, although the content and formatchange from time to time. In years where a specific item was not included in this summarytable, the figures contained elsewhere in the HUD Budget Summary are used. Because of theseinconsistencies, there are probably some “apples” and “oranges”. But it is all fruit, and thesedifferences probably have little effect on the overall patterns.

8. This report uses “subsidized housing” to include the low income housing programs nowadministered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and by Office of Housing as wellas a number of housing programs administered by the Office of Community Development andPlanning (CPD). Specifically, “subsidized housing” includes all of the programs administeredby PIH; all of the programs administered by the Office of Housing except FHA and the functionsof manufactured home inspections and monitoring and interstate land sales registration that werelodged in that office from 1981-90; the homeless programs, HOME Investment Partnerships,Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids, rural housing and economic development, homeelderly and disabled, capacity building for community development and housing, rentalrehabilitation grants, rehabilitation loans (312), urban homesteading, public housing child caregrants and various other CDBG setasides administered by CPD; and, when they were fundedseparately from the foregoing, housing counseling and the Office of Lead Hazard Control.

9. The data on commitments (or reservations) is based on HUD actions during the fiscalyear, regardless of the year in which funds were appropriated. Thus, the pattern of commitmentsis somewhat different from the pattern of appropriations.

The 1976 figures are actually for a 15-month period because the fiscal year was changed fromJuly 1-June 30 to October 1-September 30. The Transition Quarter (TQ) is the period from July1-September 30, 1976. However, because the Department was gearing up for the Section 8program, there were few reservations in the first quarter. In contrast, 41% of the reservationscame during the Transition Quarter. While the total is for a 15-month period, most of thereservations came during the last 12 months, so the 1976 figure used here is roughly comparableto subsequent years.

10. It should be noted that HUD Budget Summaries vary from time to time in their formatand how they report information. Beyond that, patterns of housing funding change from year toyear. For example, many of the subsidized housing programs were funded by an appropriationfor “Annual Contributions for Subsidized Housing.” This included Section 8 and manycomponents of public housing expenditures, but not operating subsidies. The CDBGappropriation has often included set-asides for special programs or activities; to the extent theyappear in the Budget Summaries, they have been excluded from the “CDBG (net of setasides)”data. While a major effort has been made to make this information as accurate as possible, theremay be omissions or misinterpretations of the data. However, these are not likely to distort the

funding patterns significantly.