NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION
SARAH ABDELHADI
Senior Research Analyst
ANDREW AURAND
Senior Vice President for Research
A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE 2023
RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMS DATABASE
STATE AND LOCAL
INVESTMENTS IN
RENTAL HOUSING:
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
We would like to thank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, especially Peggy Bailey, Mari
Castaldi, and Monique King-Viehland, for their generous support of the Rental Housing Programs
Database and report. We would also like to thank former NLIHC research analyst Neetu Nair for
planning and initiating data collection for the database while at NLIHC.
INTRODUCTION �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1
Key Findings ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1
Methodology Highlights ��������������������������������������������������������������������������2
STATE AND LOCAL RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMS IN 2023 ���� 2
Characteristics of Rental Assistance Programs ����������������������������������������3
Characteristics of Capital Resources Programs ���������������������������������������6
Characteristics of Tenant Tax Relief Programs �����������������������������������������7
Funding for Rental Housing Programs �����������������������������������������������������8
ONWARD: LOOKING FORWARD ����������������������������������������������� 9
REFERENCES............................................................................. 11
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY �������������� 12
About the Rental Housing Programs Database (RHPD) ������������������������ 12
Important Note �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12
Methodology ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12
APPENDIX B: RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMS BY
STATE, CITY, AND PROGRAM TYPE ������������������������������������������ 15
– 1 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
INTRODUCTION
As 2023 draws to a close, low-income renters in the U.S. are facing an increasingly dire housing crisis.
Over the last two decades, the national median rent increased by 17.9% while the median income of renter
households increased by a mere 3.2% (Bailey, 2022). Furthermore, the U.S. currently has a decit of 7.3 million
affordable and available rental homes for extremely low-income renters,
1
the majority of whom are severely
cost burdened and must spend more than half of their incomes on rent to remain housed (Aurand et al.,
2023). A 2023 report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicates that 8.53
million unsubsidized, very low-income renters
2
are severely cost-burdened, live in severely inadequate housing
conditions, or both – the highest number ever recorded – with Black and Hispanic renters particularly affected
(Alvarez & Steffen, 2023). Meanwhile, only one in four eligible low-income households receives long-term federal
housing assistance due to limited funds, and those funds could face substantial cuts in the upcoming scal year
(Gartland, 2022).
State and local investments in rental housing play a critical role in keeping individuals and families safely and
stably housed in their communities of choice. The National Low Income Housing Coalition’s (NLIHC) Rental
Housing Programs Database (RHPD) was created to generate a better understanding of the diverse ways in which
state and local governments use their own nancial resources to close the gap between available federal funding
for rental housing and the unmet needs of renters in their communities. The database also serves as a resource
that enables housing advocates, state and local agencies, policymakers, and other interested parties to learn
about initiatives around the country that can serve as models for programs in their own communities.
This report summarizes ndings from this year’s updated Rental Housing Programs Database. To explore the
database, please visit this webpage.
1 “Extremely low-income renters” are those with incomes at or below the federal poverty guideline or 30% of their AMI.
2 “Very low-income renters” are those with incomes at or below 50% of AMI.
KEY FINDINGS
We identied 353 active rental housing programs across the country, including 281 state-funded
programs and 72 locally funded programs among the largest cities. Over half of these programs provide
capital for the construction, rehabilitation, purchase, and operation of affordable rental housing properties.
For rental assistance programs, the most common income eligibility thresholds are at or below 50% of
area median income (AMI) (23.1%), at or below 80% of AMI (22.2%), and at or below 30% of AMI (14.8%).
Experiencing or being at risk of homelessness is the most common non-income eligibility criterion,
required by 60.8% of rental assistance programs (n = 120).
Tenant-based rental assistance programs tend to provide shorter term assistance than project-based
rental assistance programs. Over half (53.7%, n = 82) of tenant-based programs provide rental assistance
for less than two years, while over 80% (n = 18) of project-based programs provide assistance for more
than two years or do not have a predetermined time limit.
Most capital resources programs (60.3%, n = 156) require affordability periods longer than 20 years.
Forty percent of tax relief programs require applicants to have an annual income at or below $35,000.
The majority of programs prioritize elderly renters (69.6%, n = 23) and nearly half (47.8%) target renters
with disabilities.
More rental housing programs rely on general revenue than on any other type of funding (39.4%). At
least a fourth (23.5%) of all programs are supported by dedicated revenue streams. However, only a tenth of
tenant-based rental assistance programs receive funds from dedicated funding streams, in contrast to roughly
a third each of project-based rental assistance programs and capital resources programs. Nearly one in ve
programs utilize special one-time funding, including federal SLFRF funds and non-federal sources.
– 2 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
Methodology Highlights
The RHPD contains information on state and locally funded programs that create, preserve, or increase access
to affordable rental housing. An update to the database in 2014 identied a total of 313 active programs that
provide either development capital or rental assistance, including 242 state-funded programs and 71 locally
funded programs in the largest cities. In 2023, we further expanded the scope of the RHPD to consider programs
that provide tax relief to renters separately from rental assistance programs. We also included programs funded in
whole or in part by the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program, a $350 billion exible
resource for pandemic recovery and resiliency initiatives created by the 2021 “American Rescue Plan Act” (ARPA)
and managed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). Although SLFRF is a federal funding source,
state and local governments were given considerable exibility to use this funding for a wide range of initiatives,
and many have chosen to invest in new or existing rental housing programs. In contrast, we did not include rental
housing programs funded exclusively through the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program.
Using an extensive internet search, we created a list of hundreds of rental housing programs led by governments
from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 70 of the largest U.S. cities. We then invited administrators from
each program to complete a survey with questions on program characteristics. After the survey period closed,
the NLIHC Research Team conducted internet searches for information on programs for which an administrator
response was not received. For many programs, we were not able to obtain complete information on every
characteristic we sought to understand. Throughout this report, where complete information is not available for all
programs, we specify the number of programs considered in the analysis (e.g., “(n = 100)”).
For a more detailed overview of our data collection methodology, please see Appendix A.
STATE AND LOCAL RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMS IN 2023
We identied a total of 353 active state and locally funded rental housing programs across 48 states, the District
of Columbia, and 41 cities as of August 2023 – up from 313 programs in 2014 (Figure 1). California (21 programs),
Massachusetts (18), and Minnesota (18) had the most state-level programs. We found no active state or locally
funded rental housing programs in Arkansas or Wyoming; however, this nding may simply reect a lack of online
information about existing programs. Chicago (6 programs), New York City (5), and Atlanta (5) had the most local-
level programs.
Map data: Tilegrams/NPR
*Note: The count of programs includes those funded by states, the 50 largest cities in the U.S., and the largest city in each state without a top 50 city.
Number of Active Rental Housing Programs Identified
Figure 1: Number of Programs by State
0
1-7
7-9
9-17
≥17
HI
AK
CA
OR
WA
ID
NV
MT ND MN WI
MI
NY
VT NH
ME
MA RI
WY SD IA IL IN OH PA NJ CT
CO NE MO KY WV VA MD DE
NM
KS AR TN NC SC DC
AZ OK
TX FL
LA MS AL GA
UT
– 3 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
We categorized each rental housing program as belonging to one of ve program types:
• Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: Programs provide a subsidy to cover the difference between total
housing costs up to a specied payment standard and what a tenant can afford to pay. These subsidies are
associated with the tenant and can often “move” with them to new housing.
• Project-Based Rental Assistance: Programs provide a subsidy to landlords to partially cover the
operating costs of a rental property, thereby reducing the costs passed on to tenants through rent. These
subsidies are associated with the property itself rather than an individual tenant.
• Capital Resources: Programs provide funding to developers or other entities for the construction,
acquisition, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable rental housing properties.
• Combination (Rental Assistance + Capital Resources): Programs offer a combination of rental assistance
and capital resources funding as described above.
• Tenant Tax Relief: Programs offer a state or local tax credit or refund that can be claimed directly by an
eligible tenant, or by the owner of a rental unit in exchange for reducing the tenant’s rent.
Capital resources programs were the most ubiquitous, accounting for more than half of all programs identied and
existing in every state except Arkansas and Wyoming, including the District of Columbia (Table 1). Tenant-based
rental assistance programs were the second most common type, accounting for 26.9% of programs identied.
We explore each rental housing program type in further detail below.
Characteristics of Rental Assistance Programs
Rental assistance programs provide a subsidy to help lower the amount tenants are required to pay to remain
housed. Tenant-based programs provide a subsidy to cover the difference between total housing costs up to a
specied payment standard and what a tenant can afford to pay. These subsidies are associated with the tenant
and can often “move” with them to new housing. Project-based programs provide a subsidy to cover some of
the operating costs of rental properties, thereby reducing the costs passed on to tenants through rent. These
subsidies are associated with the property itself rather than an individual tenant.
We identied a total of 112 active rental assistance programs across 38 states and 17 cities. In this section, we also
consider the rental assistance component of the 21 combination programs that provide both rental assistance and
capital resources. Unless otherwise specied, percentages presented in this section are out of 133 total programs.
Most programs provide only tenant-based rental assistance (71.4%) or project-based rental assistance (18.0%). At
least 7.5% of programs, including Minnesota Housing’s Housing Trust Fund program, provide both tenant-based
and project-based rental assistance. Rental assistance type was not available for four programs (3.0% of all rental
assistance programs).
*Note: See Appendix B for more information on programs by type within each state and city.
Program Type
Capital Resources
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
Tenant Tax Relief
Combination
Project-Based Rental Assistance
Total
150 53.4%
77 27.4%
25 8.9%
18 6.4%
11 3.9%
281 100.0%
45 62.5%
18 25.0%
0 0%
3 4.2%
6 8.3%
72 100.0%
195 55.2%
95 26.9%
25 7.1%
21 5.9%
17 4.8%
353 100.0%
State Programs
# %
Local Programs
# %
Total
# %
Most State and Locally Funded Rental Housing Programs Provide Capital Resources
Table 1: Number of Rental Housing Programs Type and Geography
– 4 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
Income eligibility for rental assistance programs is largely based on how a tenant’s household income compares
to the AMI within a specic geographic area, like a tenant’s state or county. The most common income eligibility
thresholds for rental assistance programs are at or below 50% of AMI (23.1%), at or below 80% of AMI (22.2%),
and at or below 30% of AMI (14.8%). This pattern holds for programs that provide tenant-based assistance only,
project-based assistance only, and both. Thirteen percent of programs do not limit eligibility based on tenant
income. Instead, these programs target specic populations, such as individuals who are currently experiencing
homelessness, exiting the foster care system, or have severe mental illness.
Most rental assistance programs assess additional tenant characteristics to determine eligibility and prioritize
applicants. Table 2 shows the top six tenant characteristics considered by rental assistance programs. Named
as an eligibility criterion by 60.8% (n = 120) of programs and a priority area by 40.7% (n = 91) of programs,
experiencing or being at risk of homelessness is by far the most common non-income eligibility criterion for rental
assistance programs, regardless of the type of assistance provided. Roughly a fth of programs limit eligibility to
persons with mental illness (23.3%) or persons with disabilities (18.3%); in addition, these groups are prioritized
for assistance in 16.5% and 17.6% of programs, respectively. Six percent of programs, including the Connecticut
Department of Housing’s Rental Assistance Program, do not consider additional criteria beyond income thresholds
when assessing tenant eligibility.
At least seven programs restrict tenant eligibility for rental assistance based on a tenant’s eviction or rent
payment history, and at least ve restrict eligibility based on a tenant’s criminal conviction history (n = 79). These
constraints create additional barriers for tenant populations already at high risk for housing instability and can
disproportionately impact renters of color (Wu et al., 2023).
Like many social programs, rental assistance programs often require tenants to submit documentation to prove
that they meet eligibility criteria. The majority of rental assistance programs (83.9%, n = 93) require applicants to
submit documentation related to income, including 93.3% of project-based programs (n = 15), 81.9% of tenant-
based programs (n = 72), and 83.3% of programs with both types of rental assistance (n = 6). Proof of identity
– such as photo IDs, birth certicates, and Social Security cards or numbers – is required by 34.4% of all rental
assistance programs (n = 93), though this is slightly less common for project-based rental assistance (26.7%, n
= 15) than other types. Requiring proof of identity can be particularly burdensome for persons experiencing
homelessness, who may struggle to retain identity documents and face both physical and nancial barriers to
replacing these documents if lost or damaged (Burt et al., 2010). At least 11 of the 93 programs require proof of
U.S. citizenship or immigration status, eight of which provide tenant-based rental assistance. Nine programs, all of
which provide tenant-based rental assistance only, do not require tenants to submit documentation.
Documentation requirements like these can serve as barriers to tenants and landlords trying to access rental
assistance programs, particularly for tenants with limited English prociency, limited internet access, or disabilities
*Note: Information on eligibility criteria (other than income) was not available for 13 of 133 total programs; information on
priority areas was not available for 42 of 133 total programs.
Persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness
Persons with mental illness
Persons with disabilities
Elderly
Households with rental arrears or eviction notices
Youth
60.8%
23.3%
18.3%
11.7%
10.8%
10.8%
CHARACTERISTICS PERCENT OF PROGRAMS (n=120)
Priority Areas
Eligibility Criteria
Persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness
Persons with disabilities
Persons with mental illness
Extremely low-income households (income less than 30% AMI)
Youth
Victims of domestic violence
40.7%
17.6%
16.5%
16.5%
15.4%
14.3%
CHARACTERISTICS PERCENT OF PROGRAMS (n=79)
Most Rental Assistance Programs Target Persons Experiencing or at Risk of Homelessness
Table 2: Top Six Tenant Characteristics Considered by Rental Assistance Programs by Use
– 5 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
(Gallagher et al., 2023). For this reason, NLIHC advocates for exible application processes for rental assistance
programs, including the use of self-attestation when possible. Self-attestation allows applicants themselves to
conrm they meet eligibility criteria, usually by signing a form, rather than requiring that they submit ofcial
documents or seek third-party verication to conrm their eligibility. Fifty-four percent of programs (n = 67) allow
applicants to self-attest to their income, 20.9% allow self-attestation of housing instability, and 16.4% allow self-
attestation of nancial hardship. Roughly 5% of programs accept self-attestation for one or more requirements
only as a last resort, while 23.9% of programs do not permit self-attestation at all.
Project-based rental assistance programs tend to provide assistance for a longer period of time than tenant-
based programs. Over 80% (n = 18) of project-based programs provide assistance for more than two years or
do not have a predetermined time limit, and over half (57.1%, n = 7) of programs offering both tenant-based
and project-based rental assistance do not have a predetermined time limit (Figure 2). In contrast, less than half
(46.4%, n = 82) of tenant-based rental assistance programs provide aid for more than two years or do not have
a predetermined time limit. Although a few months to a year of rental assistance can work well to keep renters
housed while experiencing an unexpected nancial crisis, such as the loss of a job or costly medical needs, it may
not be sufcient to protect renters who are elderly or have disabilities and rely on a xed income that cannot keep
pace with rising rents.
By denition, all project-based rental assistance programs make payments directly to a housing provider. This is
also the case for most tenant-based programs, 90.1% (n = 71) of which pay rental assistance only to a landlord,
housing agency, or other approved vendor (e.g., a utility provider). Two tenant-based programs allow tenants
to receive rental assistance payments if their housing provider is unwilling to participate in the program, and
ve programs pay rental assistance directly to tenants only. Nonprot or for-prot organizations are involved in
distributing payments for most programs (59.5%, n = 116), a trend that holds true regardless of the type of rental
assistance provided.
Rental assistance payments can be applied to a variety of urgent housing needs to improve housing stability.
Figure 3 shows the proportion of rental assistance programs that allow tenants to use funds for current and/or
future rent, rental arrears, security deposits and relocation fees, and utility payments, respectively. All but four
programs (n = 115) allow rental assistance for current and future rent payments. Funds from 57.4% of programs
can be used to pay rent arrears, though this is less common among project-based rental assistance only programs
(35.3%, n = 17) than in programs that offer only tenant-based rental assistance and in those that offer both
types. Nearly three-fourths of programs allow rental assistance for security deposits and relocation fees; this is
also slightly less common among programs offering only project-based rental assistance (47.1%, n = 17). Utilities
(37.4%) are less common as permitted expenditures among all rental assistance program types.
Programs with Project-Based Rental Assistance Tend to Provide Assistance for a
Longer Period Than Only Tenant-Based Programs
Figure 2: Duration of Rental Assistance Provided by Program Type
No predetermined
time limit
Long-term
(more than 2 years)
Transitional
(7 months - 2 years)
Short-term
(up to 7 months)
29.3%
14.3%
11.1%
9.8%
28.6%
36.6%
55.6%
57.1%
27.8%
24.4%
5.6%
Both Types of Rental Assistance (n = 7)Project-Based (n = 18)Tenant-Based (n = 82)
*Note: Excludes 4 programs where rental assistance type is unknown and 22 programs where duration is unknown.
– 6 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
Characteristics of Capital Resources Programs
Capital resources programs provide funding to developers or other entities for the construction, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and/or preservation of affordable rental housing properties.
We identied a total of 195 active capital resources programs in 49 states and 29 cities. In this section, we
also consider the capital resources component of the 21 combination programs included in the RHPD. Unless
otherwise specied, percentages presented in this section are out of 216 total programs.
Many capital resources programs are operated by state or local entities focused on housing nance or community
development. Development loans, including forgivable loans, are the most common form of capital funding and
are currently provided by 71.6% (n = 204) of programs (Figure 4).
Tenant income eligibility criteria for capital resources programs are often more complex than those for rental
assistance programs and may vary from one development project to the next. A third of programs (33.0%, n =
191) apply multiple tiers to their income eligibility criteria to accommodate a broader range of future tenants or
to adjust requirements based on geographic location. Examples of tiered or conditional tenant income eligibility
criteria include:
• Multi-Year Affordability through Upfront Investment Program (Chicago, IL) – Tenants’ household
income should be at or below 30% of AMI, though half of all units in the property should be affordable to
households with incomes at or below 15% of AMI.
• Housing Stabilization Fund (MA) – Tenants’ household income should be at or below 80% of AMI within
the rst 40 years of the development loan. The income eligibility threshold rises to 100% of AMI or less for
years 41-50 of the loan.
• New York Low Income Housing Trust Fund (NY) – Tenants’ household income should be at or below
80% of AMI for properties within New York City. For properties outside of New York City, the income
eligibility threshold is 90% of AMI or less.
73.0% of programs allow payments
to be used for security deposits and relocation fees
Security deposits and
relocation fees
37.4% of programs allow payments
to be used for utilities
Utilities
57.4% of programs allow payments
to be used for rent arrears
Rent arrears
57.4%
96.5% of programs allow payments
to be used for current and/or future rent
Current and/or
future rent
96.5% 73.0% 37.4%
Rental Assistance Funds Can Be Used to Cover a Diverse Range of Housing Needs
Figure 3: Percent of Rental Assistance Programs Allowing Funds to Be Used for Each Named Purpose (n = 115)
Development Loans Are the Most Common Form of Funding Provided by Capital Resources Programs
Figure 4: Percentage of Programs Offering Each Captical Type (n=204)
71.6%
Development loans Development grants
37.7%
Development bonds
9.3%
Development tax credits
6.9%
*Note: No data for 18 of 133 programs
*Note: Information on the type of capital provided was not available for 12 of 216 total programs. Percentages do not add to 100% because programs may offer
multiple types of capital.
– 7 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
The most common straightforward eligibility thresholds used by capital-related programs are household incomes
at or below 80% of AMI (21.5%, n = 191) and at or below 60% of AMI (16.2%). Only 3.7% (n = 191) of programs
with straightforward thresholds cap income eligibility at 30% of AMI or less, targeting extremely low-income
households. Many capital resources programs (57.9%, n = 133) do not consider criteria other than income when
determining eligibility or tenant prioritization, instead deferring those decisions to funding recipients. However,
specialized programs may mandate certain criteria to ensure one or more target populations are reached, such as
those programs intended for persons with disabilities (12.8%), persons with mental illness (12.0%), and persons
who are experiencing or have experienced homelessness (23.3%). Three programs, including the Oregon Housing
and Community Services’ Oregon Rural Rehabilitation Program, specically target agricultural worker households.
The majority of capital resources programs (87.4%, n = 119) do not coordinate with other entities to refer tenants
to properties they have funded, and instead allow funding recipients to determine whether and with which
agencies they will collaborate.
The affordability period, which is the amount of time funded properties must adhere to tenant income- and
rent-restrictions, is an important consideration for capital resources programs. If an affordability period is too
short, low-income renters can be rapidly priced out of the units the capital resources program sought to create
or preserve. If an affordability period is too long, properties may accumulate unmet recapitalization needs before
current restrictions expire, leading to property deterioration without additional investment. Most capital resources
programs (60.3%, n = 156) require funded properties to observe an affordability period longer than 20 years
(Figure 5). Thirteen percent of programs require affordability periods of 10 years or less, with some as brief as 3-5
years, which can negatively impact the stock of affordable rental housing within a community over time.
Characteristics of Tenant Tax Relief Programs
Tenant tax relief programs offer a state or local tax credit that can be claimed directly by an eligible renter, or
by the owner of a rental unit in exchange for reducing the tenant’s rent. These credits are often claimed on the
applicant’s state tax return each year, though some programs have a separate application process.
We identied a total of 25 active tenant tax relief programs across 23 states, typically administered by state
departments of revenue or taxation. We found no tenant tax relief programs provided by the largest cities. While
most states with a tax relief program for renters administer only one such program, Massachusetts and New Jersey
each have two programs, with a separate program specically for elderly renters.
An examination of applicant eligibility guidelines reveals that many tenant tax relief programs target lower-income
renter households. As shown in Figure 6, 40.0% of tax relief programs require applicants to have an income at or
below $35,000. The majority of programs prioritize elderly renters (69.6%, n = 23), and nearly half (47.8%) target
renters with disabilities.
Most Capital Resources Require Properties to Remain Affordable for More Than 20 Years
Figure 5: Minimum Affordability Period by Number of Programs (n=156)
Other
In perpetuity
51 years or more
41 - 50 years
31 - 40 years
21 - 30 years
11 - 20 years
10 years or less
3.2%
3.2%
13.5%
5.1%
6.4%
32.1%
23.1%
13.5%
*Note: Information on affordability periods was not available for 60 of 216 total programs. Where a range was provided for an affordability period (e.g., “15 - 30
years”), the minimum value was used in preparing the figure above.
– 8 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
Twenty-four percent of renters’ tax relief programs offer all eligible applicants a xed refund amount. The majority
of programs (76.0%) account for a tenant’s annual income, the amount of rent they pay, and the amount of
property taxes paid on the rental unit when calculating the maximum refund applicants will receive. Half of these
(52.6%, or 40.0% of all tenant tax relief programs) have a set limit on the total amount applicants can receive. The
maximum allowable refund varies widely between programs, ranging from as little as $75 to as much as $3,000
per year, and the average refund amount generally falls between $400 and $700 per year, though this information
was available for less than half of programs (n = 11). Although annual refunds provided through tenant tax relief
programs can be a helpful source of additional income for low-income renters, the relatively small dollar value and
retrospective nature of these payments limits their utility as tools for reducing housing instability.
Funding for Rental Housing Programs
State and local rental housing programs are sustained by a broad range of funding sources, which we categorize as:
• General Revenue: Funding allocated by state or local governments on a recurring basis through
appropriations, annual (or biennial) budgets, etc.
• Dedicated Funding Streams: A sustainable funding stream that contributes funds to the program on
a continuous basis. These streams can include revenue from interest on government accounts, real estate
transfer tax, sales tax, revenue from state- or city-owned property, and other sources. The amount of funds
the program receives may vary over time depending on the total revenue the government collects from the
source.
• Special One-Time Federal Funding: A one-time allocation of funds from the federal government to
a state or local government. For most if not all programs in the RHPD, such funds are received through
Treasury’s SLFRF program.
• Special One-Time Non-Federal Funding: A one-time allocation of funds from a state or local
government. Such an allocation differs from general revenue in that there is no clear indication that the
funding source will be renewed in the future. This funding can include state or local funds related to
COVID-19 response and recovery efforts.
• Tax Expenditures: Government revenue losses resulting from tax exemptions and credits. This mostly
applies to programs in which tax credits or tax relief are provided to tenants, landlords, properties, or
housing developers.
More programs included in the RHPD rely on general revenue than on any other type of funding (39.4%) (Table
3). This is particularly true of tenant-based rental assistance and combination programs, where the majority of
programs (62.1% and 52.4%, respectively) rely on general revenue as a funding source. Fewer than one-third of
capital resources programs receive funding from general revenue. As might be expected, most tenant tax relief
programs (80.0%) are funded through tax expenditures.
At least a fourth (23.5%) of all programs are supported by dedicated revenue streams, perhaps the most reliable
among the ve funding categories. Dedicated revenue streams are less susceptible to political pressures and
No income eligibility limit
Based on percent of AMI
Maximum eligible income over $80,000
$20,000 or less
20.0%
$35,000 or less
20.0%
$50,000 or less
16.0%
$65,000 or less
16.0%
$80,000 or less
8.0%
4.0%
8.0%
8.0%
Many Tenant Tax Relief Programs Target Lower-Income Households
Figure 6: Distribution of Tenant Tax Relief Programs by Maximum Eligible Income (n=25)
*Note: When the program reported different maximum eligible income values based on other eligibility criteria (e.g., applicant age, or whether applicants filed
taxes singly or jointly), the lowest of the reported maximum values is included here.
– 9 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
competing needs than funds from general revenue, though they can still be affected by shifts in market forces
(for example, a rise or fall in government revenue collected from sales taxes). Interestingly, only 10.5% of tenant-
based rental assistance programs receive funds from dedicated funding streams, in contrast to roughly a third
each of project-based rental assistance programs, capital resources programs, and combination programs.
Nearly one in ve programs utilize special one-time funding, including federal and non-federal sources. While
these sources can play a vital role in establishing new programs or expanding existing ones, the uncertain nature
of continued funding can impact the long-term sustainability of these programs.
Accurately estimating the average amount of money state and local governments invest in rental housing
programs is challenging due to a lack of public information on funding for many programs and differences in
when and how programs receive funds. Some programs receive funding annually, biennially, or on an irregular
basis. It is not uncommon, for example, for capital resource programs to receive funds only when the program
is rst launched, which are then replenished over time as developers pay back the principal and interest on their
loans. Programs funded with bonds may or may not be subject to a maximum spending amount, typically called
a volume cap. This cap may apply only to the rental housing program, or to multiple programs utilizing the same
pool of bonds that must compete for funds up to the volume cap.
Rental assistance program funding (including tenant-based and project-based assistance) ranged from
$167,000 to $285,000,000, with a median of $11,364,836 and an average of $34,697,909. Capital resources
program funding ranged from $400,000 to $1,993,518,705, with a median of $26,100,000 and an average of
$115,478,494. These estimates include only those programs that reported a single year of funding between
2019-2024 (54 rental assistance programs and 112 capital resources programs); biennially funded programs and
those that reported a funding amount without a year were excluded.
ONWARD: LOOKING FORWARD
Rental housing has become increasingly unaffordable for low-income renters in the U.S. The supply of low-
cost rental homes has steadily declined over the past decade, while federal housing assistance is too limited
to help most renters in need (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic revealed
the severe inadequacies in the housing safety net for low-income renters in crisis. However, the pandemic
also demonstrated that state and local governments are eager to invest in programs to support these renters
when more federal funding is made available to them. For example, as of March 2023, 861 state and local
governments had invested $17 billion in SLFRF funds in projects related to affordable housing and homelessness
– more than any other area of investment except for enhancements to water, sewer, and internet infrastructure
(U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 2023a).
NLIHC’s Rental Housing Programs Database reects the collective efforts of state and local governments across
the country to bridge the gap between the needs of renters and the inadequate supply of affordable, available,
and accessible rental housing. The database also hints at hundreds of success stories from the advocates,
organizers, tenants, social services providers, and policymakers without whom the creation and growth of
Program Type
Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance
Project-Based
Rental Assistance
Capital Resources Combination Tenant Tax Relief Total
Rental Housing Programs Rely on Diverse Funding Sources
Table 3: Number and Percent of Programs Receiving Funds by Source and Program Type
General Revenue
Dedicated Funding
Stream
Special One-Time
Federal Funding
Special One-Time
Non-Federal Funding
Tax Expenditures
Unknown
Total
59
10
9
3
5
20
95
62.1%
10.5%
9.5%
3.2%
5.3%
21.1%
6
6
1
0
0
4
17
35.3%
35.3%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
23.5%
59
60
31
18
16
41
195
30.3%
30.8%
15.9%
9.2%
8.2%
21.0%
11
7
1
0
1
4
21
52.4%
33.3%
4.8%
0.0%
4.8%
19.0%
4
0
0
0
20
1
25
16.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80.0%
4.0%
139
83
42
21
42
70
353
39.4%
23.5%
11.9%
5.9%
11.9%
19.8%
*Note: Percentages do not add to 100% because programs may have more than one source of funding.
– 10 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
these programs would not be possible. The 2023 update to the RHPD captures interesting changes in the
landscape of rental housing programs, such as the growth of eviction diversion/prevention programs and the
increasing reliance of state and local governments on their own housing trust fund programs as exible and
relatively stable sources of funding.
Unfortunately, repeated attempts by some members of Congress to enact severe funding cuts to federal
housing programs, the expiration of unspent Treasury SLFRF funds within the next three years, and rising
rents that continue to outpace wage growth highlight the importance of state and local resources for
affordable rental housing. This report and accompanying database are meant to provide information
about existing programs to help housing advocates, state and local agencies, policymakers, and other
interested parties learn from what is being done in other communities and push for increased funding for
these programs. At the same time, states and localities on their own will be unable to completely address
the affordable housing shortage for the lowest-income renters. Alongside such local efforts, Congress must
appropriate additional funds for programs like the national Housing Trust Fund, which provides millions
of dollars to states for the purpose of creating, preserving, rehabilitating, and operating affordable rental
housing, and provide adequate rental assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher program and other
means to guarantee that all eligible families are served. Only through a combined effort involving every level
of government will the housing needs of all renters be met.
– 11 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
REFERENCES
Alvarez, T.A. & Steffen, B.L. (2023). Worst case housing needs: 2023 Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Ofce of Policy Development and Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal//portal/sites/
default/les/pdf/Worst-Case-Housing-Needs-2023.pdf
Aurand, A., Emmanuel, D., Foley, E., Clarke, M., Ra, I., & Yentel, D. (2023). The gap: A shortage of affordable homes.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. https://nlihc.org/gap
Bailey, P. (2022). Addressing the affordable housing crisis requires expanding rental assistance and adding housing
units. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/addressing-the-affordable-
housing-crisis-requires-expanding-rental-assistance-and
Burt, M.R., Carpenter, J., Hall, S.G., Henderson, K.A., Rog, D.J., Hornik, J.A., Denton, A.V., & Moran, G.E. (2010). Strategies
for improving homeless people’s access to mainstream benets and services. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/strategiesaccessbenetsservices.pdf
Gallagher, S., Siebach-Glover, S., Aurand, A., Bourret, V., Marrs, C., Yae, R., Aiken, C., Duan, A., Charnov, A., Zhang, Y.,
Dowdall, E., Weidig, C., & Monaco-Vavrik, M. (2023). Beyond housing stability: Understanding tenant and landlord
experiences and the impact of emergency rental assistance. National Low Income Housing Coalition, Housing
Initiative at Penn, and Reinvestment Fund. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/les/beyond-housing-stability.pdf
Gartland, E. (2022). Chart book: Funding limitations create widespread unmet need for rental assistance. Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/funding-limitations-create-widespread-
unmet-need-for-rental-assistance
Housing Trust Fund Project. (2023). What are housing trust funds? Community Change. https://housingtrustfundproject.
org/
Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2023). The state of the nation’s housing 2023. Harvard University. https://www.jchs.
harvard.edu/sites/default/les/reports/les/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2023.pdf
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. (2022). Residential property tax relief programs. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://
www.lincolninst.edu/research-data/data-toolkits/signicant-features-property-tax/access-property-tax-database/
residential-property-tax-relief-programs
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2014). State and city funded rental housing programs. National Low Income
Housing Coalition. https://nlihc.org/state-and-city-funded-rental-housing-programs
Pelletiere, D., Canizio, M., Hargrave, M., & Crowley, S. (2008). Housing assistance for low income households: States
do not ll the gap. National Low Income Housing Coalition. https://nlihc.org/resource/housing-assistance-low-
income-households
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
https://www.R-project.org/
United States Department of the Treasury. (2023a). State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: A catalyst for innovation, equity,
and resilience in communities. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/system/les/136/April-
2023-Reporting-Blog-Post.pdf
United States Department of the Treasury. (2023b). Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. U.S. Department
of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-
governments/state-and-local-scal-recovery-funds
Wu, C., Nelson, A., Kuehnhoff, A., Sharpe, S., Cabañez, N., & Cohn, C. (2023). Digital denials: How abuse, bias, and lack of
transparency in tenant screening harm renters. National Consumer Law Center. https://www.nclc.org/resources/
digital-denials-how-abuse-bias-and-lack-of-transparency-in-tenant-screening-harm-renters/
– 12 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
The following is a detailed overview of the history of NLIHC’s Rental Housing Programs Database (RHPD) and the
methodology used to collect, clean, and analyze data on rental housing programs for the 2023 update and this
report.
About the Rental Housing Programs Database (RHPD)
The 2023 update to the RHPD represents the latest in a series of investigations by NLIHC into state and locally
funded rental housing programs. The rst iteration of this study, A Patchwork of Small Measures: A 2001 Report
on State Funded Rental Assistance, identied 101 active state-funded rental assistance programs in 40 states and
the District of Columbia. The 2008 follow-up report, Housing Assistance for Low-Income Households: States Do
Not Fill the Gap, found that the number of programs had risen to 112 in 42 states and the District of Columbia
(Pelletiere et al.). In 2014, NLIHC expanded the scope of this research to create a comprehensive database
capturing rental assistance and capital and production programs across all states, the District of Columbia, and
70 cities (NLIHC, 2014). A total of 313 active programs were identied, including 242 state-funded programs and
71 locally funded programs.
In 2023, we further expanded the scope of the RHPD to reect programs that provide tax relief to renters
separately from rental assistance programs. We also included programs funded in whole or in part by Treasury’s
SLFRF program. Although SLFRF is a federal funding source, state and local governments were given
considerable exibility to use this funding for a wide range of initiatives, and many have chosen to invest in new
or existing rental housing programs.
Important Note
Though we made signicant efforts to include as many rental housing programs meeting our criteria as possible
in the RHPD, it is likely that some were overlooked. Our process for identifying programs relied heavily on
internet searches; thus, programs with a limited web presence may not have been detected. Because we
focused on programs, certain types of one-time investments into rental housing by state or local entities were
not included in the RHPD (for example, one-time grants or loans to renovate specic public housing properties
outside of a standing capital resources program).
We recommend using caution when making comparisons across states or cities – the needs of renters, the
social and political conditions in the areas where they reside, and the appropriate solutions for addressing those
needs can vary greatly across geographies. For example, some jurisdictions fund several small programs that
serve specic populations, while others fund fewer, but larger, programs. Likewise, funding levels are difcult to
compare across jurisdictions that may have signicantly different rental costs.
Methodology
Step 1: Program Identication
The 2023 RHPD update aimed to collect information on active rental housing programs funded by governments
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as local governments in 70 U.S. cities. The cities selected
were the 50 most populous U.S. cities and the most populous cities in the 20 states without a “top 50” city,
as per the 2021 American Community Survey. We focused on identifying rental housing programs offering the
following:
• Tenant-based rental assistance: A rent subsidy to help cover the difference between total operating
costs for a unit and what tenants can afford to pay. The assistance moves with the tenant.
• Project-based rental assistance: A rent subsidy payment to help cover the difference between
properties’ operating costs and what tenants can afford to pay. The assistance is tied to the property and
does not move with the tenant.
• Tenant tax relief: A credit claimed directly by an eligible tenant on their state or local tax return or by
the owner of a rental unit in exchange for reducing the tenant’s rent. This does not include tax credits that
provide capital for physical development or rehabilitation.
• Capital resources: Funds provided for the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, or preservation of
affordable rental housing. This may include loans, grants, bonds, or developer tax credits.
• Both rental assistance and capital resources: A combination of tenant- or project-based rental
assistance and capital resources, as dened above.
– 13 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
An initial list of programs of interest was created in January-March 2023 using the following sources:
• Data from the most recent RHPD update in 2014 (NLIHC, 2014);
• A list of programs funded by the SLFRF program, as per the U.S. Department of the Treasury (2023b);
• A list of state housing trust funds from Community Change’s Housing Trust Fund project (2023);
• A list of residential property tax relief programs from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2022); and
• An internet search of agencies focused on housing, economic development, health and human services,
and mental health across all target states and cities.
Step 2: Survey Development and Dissemination
A web-based survey targeting program administrators was developed using the SurveyMonkey platform. The
survey solicited information from one program at a time. It included 12 general questions about program
objectives, contact information, and funding, and an additional 6-20 questions on program requirements and
logistics, depending on the type of program being captured.
A snowball sampling approach to data collection was employed. Program administrators identied in Step 1
were contacted via email and asked to complete the web-based survey for each of the programs on our list
with which they were associated, as well as any other relevant programs managed by their agency that were not
included in our list. Administrators were also asked whether they knew of any state or local initiatives to establish
or revive rental housing programs and, if so, to provide a point of contact for these initiatives. Any programs
identied by survey respondents that met our criteria were added to our list, and the administrators of those
programs were invited to complete our survey.
Program administrators were contacted every few weeks from April to July 2023 until responses were received.
When an administrator for a program could not be reached after multiple attempts, efforts were made to identify
and reach out to a different contact for the program or agency. Administrators responsible for multiple programs
were offered the opportunity to complete the survey verbally to streamline the process. In these situations,
a member of our team would contact the administrator via phone or video call, verbally provide the survey
questions, and complete the web-based survey with the administrator’s responses.
Complete responses were received for 211 programs through our administrator survey.
Step 3: Internet Research
For each of the remaining programs for which a complete administrator survey response was not received,
our team conducted an extensive internet search for information to answer our survey questions. Commonly
used sources included program webpages, applications for assistance, requests for proposals, and guidance
documents; agency budget documents, annual reports, press releases, and blog posts; state or local
statutes, executive orders, ordinances, and other directives governing a program; press releases from partner
organizations; and news articles. In some instances, a program administrator submitted a complete survey
response after our team had already collected information on the program via internet search. In these situations,
the administrator response was used instead of the internet search.
Our internet searches often uncovered additional programs not captured on our initial list. When this occurred,
these programs were added to the list, and information was gathered for them via internet search.
Our team collected information for 308 programs through internet searches. We were unable to nd or conrm
the current operating status of 56 programs.
Step 4: Data Cleaning and Analysis
A total of 575 programs were identied, including 432 state programs and 143 local programs. Programs with
the following characteristics were excluded from the nal analysis and database:
• Inactive programs, including:
▲ Programs authorized by recent legislation, ordinance, executive order, etc. that have not yet
been implemented, and
– 14 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
▲ Programs that have exhausted all available funding without securing additional funds. For
example, a rental assistance program that has expended all federal emergency rental assistance
(ERA) funds without securing additional state, local, SLFRF, or other funding would be considered
inactive. A capital resources program that has expended its allotted funds for the scal year and
will receive a new allocation in the next scal year would be considered active.
• Programs focusing on the creation or preservation of shelters, inpatient care facilities, or other temporary
living situations, without additional resources for creating, preserving, and/or increasing access to rental
housing (including permanent supportive housing).
• Broad community development initiatives without specic components focused on creating, preserving,
or increasing access to rental housing.
• Programs exclusively funded through federal sources, including the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program, HOME Investment Partnerships program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
program, National Housing Trust Fund, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, Choice
Neighborhoods program, U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program,
Medicaid programs, and U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.
▲ Exceptions were made for state and locally led initiatives receiving partial funding from these
programs. For example, rental assistance programs using a mix of Treasury ERA funds and state,
local, or SLFRF funds were included.
• Land trusts, land banks, or similar organizations.
• Nonprots operating independently of state or local governments.
Data cleaning and analysis were conducted using R (R Core Team, 2023). Ultimately, we collected information for
a total of 353 active programs, including 281 state programs and 72 local programs.
– 15 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
APPENDIX B: RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMS BY
STATE, CITY, AND PROGRAM TYPE
The table below summarizes the number of programs found within each state and city by program type.
State City
Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance
Project-Based
Rental Assistance
Capital
Resources
Combination
Tenant Tax
Relief
Total
ALABAMA
ALASKA
Anchorage
Tucson
1 1 0 20 0
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
San Diego
1 0 0 10 0
1 0 1 20 0
Los Angeles
San Jose
0 0 2 20 0
0 0 1 10 0
San Francisco
Sacramento
0 1 0 10 0
0 0 1 10 0
Denver
Jacksonville
COLORADO
1 0 1 1 0
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
0 0 1 10 0
CONNECTICUT
Statewide 3 0 5 90 1
1 0 2 30 0
Statewide
2 0 1 62 1
6 0 13 211 1
FLORIDA
Miami
1 0 0 10 0
1 0 0 10 0
Statewide 0 0 5 50 0
Boise City
IDAHO
Meridian
0 0 1 10 0
1 0 0 10 0
Statewide 0 0 1 10 0
Charlotte
NORTH
CAROLINA
Raleigh
0 0 1 10 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 1 1 4 60 0
Memphis
TENNESSEE
Nashville
0 0 3 30 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 3 0 2 72 0
Kansas City
MISSOURI
St. Louis
0 0 0 11 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 1 0 0 31 1
Statewide 2 0 3 0 1 6
3
HAWAII
Statewide 2 1 3 70 1
LOWA
Statewide 2 0 1 51 1
MARYLAND
Statewide 1 0 5 81 1
MASSACHUSETTS
Statewide 5 3 6 182 2
MISSISSIPPI
Statewide 0 0 1 10 0
MONTANA
Statewide 0 0 1 20 1
NEVADA
Statewide 1 0 1 20 0
NORTH DAKOTA
Statewide 1 0 1 30 1
OHIO
Statewide 2 0 3 50 0
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City 0 0 1 10 0
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Statewide 0 0 4
4
0 0
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
District-wide 5 0 4 0 1
10
Atlanta
GEORGIA
0 0 5 0 0
Statewide 1 1 1 0 0 3
5
Chicago
ILLINOIS
1 2 3 0 0
Statewide 4 2 5 0 0 11
6
Wichita
KANSAS
1 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 0
Louisville
KENTUCKY
2 0 2 0 0
Statewide 0 0 4 0 0
1
2
4
4
New Orleans
LOUISIANA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 0
1
1
Portland
MAINE
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
Detroit
MICHIGAN
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
St. Paul
MINNESOTA
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 9 0 7 1 1
18
1
Trenton
NEW JERSEY
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 2 0 4 0 2
8
1
Albuquerque
NEW MEXICO
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
New York City
NEW YORK
3 0 2 0 0
Statewide 1 1 9 0 1
12
5
Portland
OREGON
0 0 4 0 0
Statewide 1 0 6 1 0
8
4
Philadelphia
PENNSYLVANIA
1 1 0 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 2 1
8
2
Salt lake City
UTAH
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 1
2
1
Burlington
VERMONT
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 1 4 0 1
7
1
Virginia Beach
VIRGINIA
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 1 0 5 0 0
6
1
Seattle
WASHINGTON
0 1 3 0 0
Statewide 5 0 1 1 0
7
4
Milwaukee
WISCONSIN
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 3 0 0 0 1
4
1
Statewide
WEST VIRGINIA
0 0 1 0 0
1
TOTAL
95 17 195 21 25
353
RHODE ISLAND
Statewide 2 1 6 0 1
10
Austin
TEXAS
San Antonio
0 0 0 11 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 0 0 0 22 0
SOUTH DAKOTA
Statewide 0 0 2 1 0
3
SOUTH
CAROLINA
Statewide 0 0 2 0 0
2
Omaha
NEBRASKA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 2 0 0
3
1
Indianapolis
INDIANA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 1 0 0 2
1
DELAWARE
Statewide 3 0 4 70 0
– 16 –
State and Local Investments in Rental Housing
State City
Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance
Project-Based
Rental Assistance
Capital
Resources
Combination
Tenant Tax
Relief
Total
ALABAMA
ALASKA
Anchorage
Tucson
1 1 0 20 0
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
San Diego
1 0 0 10 0
1 0 1 20 0
Los Angeles
San Jose
0 0 2 20 0
0 0 1 10 0
San Francisco
Sacramento
0 1 0 10 0
0 0 1 10 0
Denver
Jacksonville
COLORADO
1 0 1 1 0
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
0 0 1 10 0
CONNECTICUT
Statewide 3 0 5 90 1
1 0 2 30 0
Statewide
2 0 1 62 1
6 0 13 211 1
FLORIDA
Miami
1 0 0 10 0
1 0 0 10 0
Statewide 0 0 5 50 0
Boise City
IDAHO
Meridian
0 0 1 10 0
1 0 0 10 0
Statewide 0 0 1 10 0
Charlotte
NORTH
CAROLINA
Raleigh
0 0 1 10 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 1 1 4 60 0
Memphis
TENNESSEE
Nashville
0 0 3 30 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 3 0 2 72 0
Kansas City
MISSOURI
St. Louis
0 0 0 11 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 1 0 0 31 1
Statewide 2 0 3 0 1 6
3
HAWAII
Statewide 2 1 3 70 1
LOWA
Statewide 2 0 1 51 1
MARYLAND
Statewide 1 0 5 81 1
MASSACHUSETTS
Statewide 5 3 6 182 2
MISSISSIPPI
Statewide 0 0 1 10 0
MONTANA
Statewide 0 0 1 20 1
NEVADA
Statewide 1 0 1 20 0
NORTH DAKOTA
Statewide 1 0 1 30 1
OHIO
Statewide 2 0 3 50 0
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City 0 0 1 10 0
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Statewide 0 0 4
4
0 0
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
District-wide 5 0 4 0 1
10
Atlanta
GEORGIA
0 0 5 0 0
Statewide 1 1 1 0 0 3
5
Chicago
ILLINOIS
1 2 3 0 0
Statewide 4 2 5 0 0 11
6
Wichita
KANSAS
1 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 0
Louisville
KENTUCKY
2 0 2 0 0
Statewide 0 0 4 0 0
1
2
4
4
New Orleans
LOUISIANA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 0
1
1
Portland
MAINE
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
Detroit
MICHIGAN
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
St. Paul
MINNESOTA
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 9 0 7 1 1
18
1
Trenton
NEW JERSEY
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 2 0 4 0 2
8
1
Albuquerque
NEW MEXICO
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
New York City
NEW YORK
3 0 2 0 0
Statewide 1 1 9 0 1
12
5
Portland
OREGON
0 0 4 0 0
Statewide 1 0 6 1 0
8
4
Philadelphia
PENNSYLVANIA
1 1 0 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 2 1
8
2
Salt lake City
UTAH
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 1
2
1
Burlington
VERMONT
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 1 4 0 1
7
1
Virginia Beach
VIRGINIA
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 1 0 5 0 0
6
1
Seattle
WASHINGTON
0 1 3 0 0
Statewide 5 0 1 1 0
7
4
Milwaukee
WISCONSIN
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 3 0 0 0 1
4
1
Statewide
WEST VIRGINIA
0 0 1 0 0
1
TOTAL
95 17 195 21 25
353
RHODE ISLAND
Statewide 2 1 6 0 1
10
Austin
TEXAS
San Antonio
0 0 0 11 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 0 0 0 22 0
SOUTH DAKOTA
Statewide 0 0 2 1 0
3
SOUTH
CAROLINA
Statewide 0 0 2 0 0
2
Omaha
NEBRASKA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 2 0 0
3
1
Indianapolis
INDIANA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 1 0 0 2
1
DELAWARE
Statewide 3 0 4 70 0
10/18/2023
National Low Income Housing Coalition
1000 Vermont Avenue, NW | Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20005 | 202-662-1530 | www.nlihc.org
– 17 –
State City
Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance
Project-Based
Rental Assistance
Capital
Resources
Combination
Tenant Tax
Relief
Total
ALABAMA
ALASKA
Anchorage
Tucson
1 1 0 20 0
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
San Diego
1 0 0 10 0
1 0 1 20 0
Los Angeles
San Jose
0 0 2 20 0
0 0 1 10 0
San Francisco
Sacramento
0 1 0 10 0
0 0 1 10 0
Denver
Jacksonville
COLORADO
1 0 1 1 0
Statewide
Statewide
Statewide
0 0 1 10 0
CONNECTICUT
Statewide 3 0 5 90 1
1 0 2 30 0
Statewide
2 0 1 62 1
6 0 13 211 1
FLORIDA
Miami
1 0 0 10 0
1 0 0 10 0
Statewide 0 0 5 50 0
Boise City
IDAHO
Meridian
0 0 1 10 0
1 0 0 10 0
Statewide 0 0 1 10 0
Charlotte
NORTH
CAROLINA
Raleigh
0 0 1 10 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 1 1 4 60 0
Memphis
TENNESSEE
Nashville
0 0 3 30 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 3 0 2 72 0
Kansas City
MISSOURI
St. Louis
0 0 0 11 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 1 0 0 31 1
Statewide 2 0 3 0 1 6
3
HAWAII
Statewide 2 1 3 70 1
LOWA
Statewide 2 0 1 51 1
MARYLAND
Statewide 1 0 5 81 1
MASSACHUSETTS
Statewide 5 3 6 182 2
MISSISSIPPI
Statewide 0 0 1 10 0
MONTANA
Statewide 0 0 1 20 1
NEVADA
Statewide 1 0 1 20 0
NORTH DAKOTA
Statewide 1 0 1 30 1
OHIO
Statewide 2 0 3 50 0
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City 0 0 1 10 0
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Statewide 0 0 4
4
0 0
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
District-wide 5 0 4 0 1
10
Atlanta
GEORGIA
0 0 5 0 0
Statewide 1 1 1 0 0 3
5
Chicago
ILLINOIS
1 2 3 0 0
Statewide 4 2 5 0 0 11
6
Wichita
KANSAS
1 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 0
Louisville
KENTUCKY
2 0 2 0 0
Statewide 0 0 4 0 0
1
2
4
4
New Orleans
LOUISIANA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 0
1
1
Portland
MAINE
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
Detroit
MICHIGAN
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
St. Paul
MINNESOTA
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 9 0 7 1 1
18
1
Trenton
NEW JERSEY
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 2 0 4 0 2
8
1
Albuquerque
NEW MEXICO
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 0 1
6
1
New York City
NEW YORK
3 0 2 0 0
Statewide 1 1 9 0 1
12
5
Portland
OREGON
0 0 4 0 0
Statewide 1 0 6 1 0
8
4
Philadelphia
PENNSYLVANIA
1 1 0 0 0
Statewide 1 0 4 2 1
8
2
Salt lake City
UTAH
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 0 0 1 0 1
2
1
Burlington
VERMONT
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 1 4 0 1
7
1
Virginia Beach
VIRGINIA
1 0 0 0 0
Statewide 1 0 5 0 0
6
1
Seattle
WASHINGTON
0 1 3 0 0
Statewide 5 0 1 1 0
7
4
Milwaukee
WISCONSIN
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 3 0 0 0 1
4
1
Statewide
WEST VIRGINIA
0 0 1 0 0
1
TOTAL
95 17 195 21 25
353
RHODE ISLAND
Statewide 2 1 6 0 1
10
Austin
TEXAS
San Antonio
0 0 0 11 0
0 0 1 10 0
Statewide 0 0 0 22 0
SOUTH DAKOTA
Statewide 0 0 2 1 0
3
SOUTH
CAROLINA
Statewide 0 0 2 0 0
2
Omaha
NEBRASKA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 2 0 0
3
1
Indianapolis
INDIANA
0 0 1 0 0
Statewide 1 0 1 0 0 2
1
DELAWARE
Statewide 3 0 4 70 0
