CF - Housing Report - Final - Embargoed 7.11.14

HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
Commissioned by The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region with generous support from The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation.
Prepared by the Urban Institute and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
July 2014
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE until 12:01 a.m. EDT July 15, 2014
AUTHORS
Leah Hendey
Peter A. Tatian
Graham MacDonald
With the assistance of
Kassie Bertumen, Brittany Edens, Rebecca Grace, Brianna Losoya, and
Elizabeth Oo from The Urban Institute; and Hilary Chapman and Sophie
Mintier from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Above and cover photos: Matt Johnson
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region and
The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation for their generous support in funding this study.
The authors would also like to thank and acknowledge the assistance and contributions of the
following in completing this study:
Silvana Straw, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region
Jacqueline Prior, The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation
Karen FitzGerald, The Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation
Alison McWilliams, Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation
Martin Mellett, Jubilee Housing
David Bowers, Enterprise Community Partners
Members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Homeless Services Planning
and Coordinating Committee and Housing Directors Advisory Committee
Public agency staf and key stakeholders from nonprot housing advocates, service providers, and
nonprot developers who consented to be interviewed for this study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................... vi
The Regions Income Distribution .................................................................. vi
The Homeless System ...................................................................................... vii
Afordable Rental Housing ............................................................................... ix
Afordable Homeownership ............................................................................. x
Funding Afordable Housing and Homeless Services ................................ xi
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... xii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 2
The Regions Income Distribution .................................................................. 4
Continuum of Housing ..................................................................................... 8
2. The Homeless System .............................................................................. 9
How Many Homeless People Live in the Region? .................................... 12
What is the size of the homeless population
in each jurisdiction? .............................................................................................. 13
What is the gender and age composition
of the homeless population? ............................................................................ 14
How many homeless adults are employed
and what is the most common source of income? ................................... 14
How Many Beds Are in the Regions Homeless Systems? ........................16
Are There Enough Beds to Meet the Need? ............................................... 18
Immediate need for shelter ............................................................................... 18
Need for permanent housing ........................................................................... 18
Providing permanent supportive housing decreases
homelessness and eases the shortage of shelter beds .............................. 21
What Local Policies and Practices Might Address the Need? ................... 22
3. Afordable Rental Housing .................................................................... 25
How Many Households Need Afordable Rental Housing? .....................25
How Many Afordable Rental Units Exist? .................................................. 29
Programs that increase rental unit afordability ............................................ 30
Are There Enough Rental Units to Meet the Need? ................................. 33
What Local Policy Tools Are Available
to Jurisdictions to Increase Afordability? .................................................. 38
Inclusionary zoning .............................................................................................. 38
Accessory dwelling units .................................................................................... 39
Other regulatory policies ................................................................................... 40
4. Afordable Homeownership ................................................................. 41
How Many Households Need Afordable
Homeowner Housing? ................................................................................... 43
How Many Afordable Homeowner Units Exist? ...................................... 46
Are There Enough Units to Meet the Need? .............................................. 47
Tools and Policies Available to Promote
Afordable Homeownership ......................................................................... 50
Home purchase assistance ................................................................................ 50
Home rehabilitation and repair ......................................................................... 50
Housing education and counseling ................................................................ 51
Inclusionary zoning .............................................................................................. 51
Real property tax relief ......................................................................................... 52
5. Funding for Afordable Housing and Homeless Services ................ 53
Public Funding Sources for Housing Services ........................................... 54
Housing trust funds ............................................................................................. 55
Public Spending on Housing ......................................................................... 57
Philanthropic Spending on Housing ............................................................ 62
How much did funders contribute to housing-related
organizations which provide services
in the Washington region? ................................................................................. 62
What is the distribution of housing-related
funding by jurisdiction and type of service? .................................................. 64
What role did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
play in the region? ................................................................................................ 67
6. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 68
References .................................................................................................... 70
References for Public Funding ...................................................................... 72
Appendix A: Comparative and Summary Proles
for the Washington Region and Its Jurisdictions ...................................73
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ................................................................. 86
Appendix C: The Regions Housing-Related
Nonprot Sector ......................................................................................... 89
Appendix D: Budget Analysis Categories .............................................. 103
HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION vi
1 The following jurisdictions in the Washington region are included in the analysis: District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince Georges counties
in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park in Virginia.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The shortage of afordable housing in
the Washington region is becoming
increasingly clear. Without better
information on the supply and
demand for housing, however, it
is extremely difcult for the public,
private, and philanthropic sectors to
make strategic investments or data-
driven policy decisions to reduce
homelessness and make housing
more afordable. To address this
information gap, The Commu-
nity Foundation for the National
Capital Region, with support
from The Morris and Gwendolyn
Cafritz Foundation, commissioned
this study of housing afordabil-
ity in the Washington region.
1

This study, prepared by the Urban
Institute and the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments,
examines the entire continuum of
housing, from the emergency shelter
system to afordable homeowner-
ship opportunities. It documents
how housing patterns and policies to
address needs across the continuum
vary by local jurisdiction. This is the
rst study in many years to compre-
hensively examine the continuum
of housing needs across the region.
This study also uniquely examines
how housing policies and programs
are funded in the region, including
the support they receive from both
the philanthropic and public sectors.
THE REGIONS INCOME
DISTRIBUTION
Although the Washington region
is home to some of the wealthiest
counties in the country, many house-
holds are still struggling to get by on
minimum- or low-wage jobs. In 2013,
Washington, DC, had the second-
highest costs for a four-person family
among all cities, according to the
Economic Policy Institute (2013).
TABLE ES.1. HUD INCOME LIMITS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR THE WASHINGTON REGION, 2011
Income Category 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person
Extremely low income (at or below 30% of AMI) $22,300 $25,500 $28,700 $31,850
Very low income (at or below 50% of AMI) $37,150 $42,450 $47,750 $53,050
Low income (at or below 80% of AMI) $47,350 $54,100 $60,850 $67,600
Middle income (at or below 120% of AMI) $89,200 $102,000 $114,800 $127,400
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Income Limits.
vii HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
In 2011, the area median income (AMI)
was $106,100 for a family of four. Table
ES.1 shows the income categories
the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) uses in its
subsidy programs to dene afordabil-
ity for diferent types of households.
In the Washington region, about
one-third of households had low,
very low, or extremely low incomes
(table ES.2). Insufcient income is a
signicant barrier for many people in
obtaining and remaining in afordable
housing. The District of Columbia
had the highest share of lower-
income households in the region
at 46 percent, while in Arlington,
Fairfax, and Loudoun, fewer than
25 percent of all households were
lower-income. (The data discussed
throughout this study are available
in summary proles for the region
and by jurisdiction in Appendix A
and online at http://www.urban.
org/publications/413161.html.)
THE HOMELESS SYSTEM
Homelessness is the most extreme
consequence of a lack of afordable
housing and permanent supportive
housing options in the region. People
become homeless for many reasons,
including insufcient income, job
and health insurance loss, rising
rents, physical and mental disabilities,
and domestic violence. This study
covers three categories of homeless:
(1) the sheltered homeless, (2) the
unsheltered homeless, and (3) the
chronically homeless, who may be
sheltered or unsheltered. Although
most are homeless for a few months
or less, a small group, the chroni-
cally homeless, has been homeless
for years. Increasing the supply of
afordable rental units and perma-
nent supportive housing would
reduce homelessness in the region.
Key ndings on the homeless
system include:
In January 2013, 11,245 people
were homeless in the Washington
region, including 5,944 single adults
and 5,301 people in families.
2

The District of Columbia had more
homeless people than the other
seven jurisdictions combined.
Nearly three in four homeless
single adults were male, while
four in ve homeless adults in
families were female (and the
majority were single parents).
Single adult households were
made up almost entirely of persons
age 25 and older (85 percent),
while 72 percent of all persons in
family households were children
or young adults (under age 25).
Thirty-six percent of homeless
adults in families in the region
were employed. In Alexan-
dria, Arlington, and Loudoun
County, more than two-thirds
of homeless adults in families
2 Data from the 2014 Point-in-Time Count of the homeless were not available when the analysis for this study was conducted. Findings based on
2013 data are consistent with conclusions that might be drawn from the 2014 data. The regions homeless population grew by 399 people, or 3.5
percent, between the 2013 and 2014 counts. The regional increase was largely attributable to a 13 percent rise in homelessness in the District of the
Columbia. The 2014 homeless population included a slightly higher share of people in families49 percent compared to 47 percent in 2013.
TABLE ES.2. HOUSEHOLDS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Income Level Total Percent
Extremely low 229,500 13.0
Very low 201,300 11.4
Low 145,200 8.2
Middle 529,600 29.9
High 663,700 37.5
Total Households 1,769,400 100.0
Source: American Community Survey, 200911
HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION viii
3 The 2,219 additional permanent supportive housing beds for single adults and 180 for families are minimum estimates of the need based on
the 2013 data. Additional beds may be needed to accommodate the recent rise in homelessness, particularly in the District of Columbia, future
demand, and the typically low turnover rate for occupants of permanent supportive housing.
were employed. In the District of
Columbia and Prince Georges,
less than one-third of homeless
adults in families were employed.
Most homeless people lived in
emergency shelters or transitional
housing. Approximately 11 percent
(1,259) of the homeless popula-
tion lived on the streetlargely
single adults. With the exception of
Alexandria, no suburban jurisdic-
tion could meet the immediate
shelter needs of this group. Even
if all available shelter beds were
occupied, the region would still fall
short of meeting the shelter needs
of homeless single adults by 467
beds. One in four homeless per-
sons was chronically homeless; an
increase in permanent supportive
housing would reduce homeless-
ness among this population. The
Washington region would need at
least 2,219 additional permanent
supportive housing beds for single
adults and 180 for families to meet
the needs of its chronically home-
less population (table ES.3).
3
Almost
all of the regions chronically home-
TABLE ES.3. BEDS NEEDED TO MEET THE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE CHRONICALLY
HOMELESS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2013
Single Adults Persons in Families
Chronically
homeless
Available
beds
Gap
(surplus)
Chronically
homeless
Available
beds
Gap
(surplus)
District of Columbia 1,764 275 1,489 263 9 254
Montgomery 222 5 217 6 62 (56)
Prince Georges 73 4 69 24 43 (19)
Alexandria 69 2 67 5 0 5
Arlington 156 68 88 0 0 0
Fairfax 243 26 217 10 12 (2)
Loudoun County 28 0 28 0 0 0
Prince William 47 3 44 2 4 (2)
Washington region 2,602 383 2,219 310 130 180
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 2013 Point-in-Time Count of the homeless.
ix HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
less families were in the District of
Columbia and Prince Georges.
Most homeless persons in families
and single adults did not need
permanent supportive hous-
ing, however. Rather, many just
needed afordable rental housing
and, in some cases, additional
supports, such as assistance with
securing child care, health insur-
ance and employment, to help
them hold a lease and maintain
rent payments over time. Increas-
ing the supply of rental housing
afordable for extremely low
income households would reduce
homelessness in the region.
AFFORDABLE RENTAL
HOUSING
Rental housing must address the
needs of a diverse range of house-
holds across all income levels,
including, for example, elderly
people on xed incomes, lower-
income working families, and young
professionals just starting their
careers. The recent housing crisis
forced many households out of
homeownership and brought about
tighter lending standards that made
home mortgages more difcult
to obtain. This further strained an
already overstretched rental sector
in the Washington region. Renters
with extremely low incomes are
particularly challenged in nding
afordable housing in the region, but
afordability problems extend to very
low, low, and even many middle
income households. Lower-income
renters frequently face enormous
competition from higher-income
households for scarce aford-
able units. In all jurisdictions, the
median rental unit is unafordable to
workers with extremely low incomes,
such as those earning minimum
wage and low-wage workers.
Key ndings on rental housing
include:
Although renter households
accounted for only 37 percent of
all households in the Washington
region in 200911, they made
up the majority of lower-income
households, including 58 percent
of very low income households
and 70 percent of extremely
low income households.
Almost half of all renter households
in the region have struggled with
high housing costs, including more
than 150,000 households with
severe housing cost burden (i.e.,
households that pay more than half
their income on rent and utilities).
HOMELESS CATEGORIES
HomelessPeople who are
currently without permanent
housing, including both sheltered
and unsheltered homeless.
Sheltered homelessPeople
residing in shelters, safe havens,
or transitional housing.
Unsheltered homelessPeople
living on the street or in places
not meant for human habitation
such as abandoned buildings,
bridges, parks, and campsites.
Chronically HomelessAn adult with
a disabling condition who has either
been continuously homeless for at
least a year, or has had at least four
episodes of homelessness in the past
three years. The chronically homeless
may be sheltered or unsheltered.
Household Types
Adult-only households
Single, homeless adults.
Family householdsHomeless
families consisting of at least one
adult and one child (under age 18).
HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION x
Eighty-six percent of extremely
low income renter households
were cost-burdened, paying more
than 30 percent of their income
on housing, including 72 percent
who were severely cost-burdened.
The most unafordable rents were
in Arlington, where 91 percent
of extremely low income renters
were cost burdened. Prince William
(90 percent), Fairfax and Prince
Georges (88 percent) followed.
Extremely low income renters
faced enormous competition for
afordable units. Higher-income
households occupied 40 percent
of the units that would have been
afordable to the poorest ten-
ants, producing a regional gap of
more than 94,000 rental units for
extremely low income households.
No jurisdiction had enough aford-
able and available rental units to
meet the demand by extremely
low income households, with
gaps ranging from 3,500 units
in Loudoun to 22,100 units in
the District of Columbia.
Very low and low income house-
holds also faced competition
for afordable units from higher-
income renters. Forty-six percent
of units afordable for very low
income households and 50 percent
of units afordable for low income
households were rented by higher-
income households. Consequently,
77 and 52 percent of very low
and low income households,
respectively, were cost-burdened.
Montgomery and Fairfax had too
few afordable and available units
for very low income households.
The District of Columbia, Prince
Georges, Prince William and Lou-
doun lacked sufcient numbers of
units for low income households.
The Washington region had only
enough public housing units and
vouchers to serve about one
in three extremely low income
households. The District of
Columbia was home to nearly half
of the regions HUD-subsidized
units and more than one-third
of the regions afordable units
that were funded with low
income housing tax credits.
AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP
Homeownership is an important
part of the regional housing market
because it helps support stable
communities and allows house-
holds to build wealth. Despite the
recent housing crisis, homeowner-
ship remains an important means
for low and middle income house-
holds to save by building equity in
their homes and to maintain stable
housing in retirement. In most of the
region, however, average sales prices
are signicantly higher than what
is afordable for many households,
causing homeownership to decline
and presenting a signicant barrier
to many who would benet from
owning their home. At the time of
the study, lower-income households
made up only one-fth of the regions
homeowners. To respond to these
challenges, jurisdictions throughout
the Washington region have put in
place diferent policies and programs
to promote sustainable homeowner-
ship and to reduce the nancial and
other barriers to owning a home for
lower-income buyers. These include
home purchase assistance, home
rehabilitation and repair, housing
education and counseling, inclusion-
ary zoning, and property tax credits.
Key ndings on homeownership
include:
Sixty-three percent of households
in the Washington region were
homeowners in 200911. However,
xi HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
homeownership afordability in the
region declined between 2000 and
2011 as housing prices increased by
32 percent, adjusted for ination.
For low income homebuyers,
the average home sale price was
48 percent higher than what
they could aford. Homeowner-
ship was most afordable for
rst-time homebuyers in Prince
Georges and Prince William and
was least afordable in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Montgomery,
Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax.
Almost one-third (31 percent) of
owner-occupied households in
the region paid more than 30
percent of their monthly income
in housing costs, with cost
burden rates that ranged from
88 percent for extremely low
income households to 10 percent
for high income households.
There were approximately 1.14
million homes (owned or for sale)
in the region, most of which were
afordable only to middle or high
income rst-time buyers. For low
income rst-time homebuy-
ers, 75 percent of these homes
would not be afordable without
assistance. Prince Georges had
the highest share of afordable
units relative to its share of the
regions homeownership stock,
followed by Prince William.
Lower-income households in
the Washington region faced
competition from higher-income
households for afordable homes.
Nearly seven in ten units afordable
to very low income households and
two-thirds afordable to low income
households were occupied by
someone in a higher income cat-
egory. This competition contributed
to a gap of 56,800 afordable units
for very low income owner house-
holds and a gap of 22,600 aford-
able units for low income owners.
FUNDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND
HOMELESS SERVICES
In an increasingly resource-
constrained environment, particularly
at the federal level, it is important to
understand the current sources of
funding and identify where additional
funding could be generated to
address the afordable housing gaps
in the region. While the Washington
region nances many housing-
related programs and services with
funding from many federal programs,
county and city money accounted
for the majority of public funding
for housing-related expenditures
in all jurisdictions except for Prince
Georges, Fairfax, and the District
of Columbia. In addition, the local
philanthropic sector provided impor-
tant support to housing-related
nonprots throughout the region. The
loss of local charitable giving from
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the
Freddie Mac Foundation, however,
further challenges already stretched
budgets and funding streams.
Key ndings on funding for aford-
able housing and homeless services
include:
Federal programs were an
important source of funding for
housing-related activities in the
Washington region. In addition,
most jurisdictions drew signi-
cantly on county and city funds,
particularly Arlington, Alexandria,
and Prince William where more
than half of public funding for
housing was from these sources.
Federal spending on housing, such
as the Community Development
Block Grant and HOME program,
is not likely to increase in the near
term to ll the gaps in afordable
HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION xii
housing in the Washington region.
Local jurisdictions will need to nd
innovative ways to produce more
afordable housing through zoning
ordinances and regulatory policies
or by raising revenue to ll the
gaps, potentially by leveraging local
resources through housing trust
funds or ofering tax-exempt bonds.
Overall, $1.3 billion was budgeted
in FY 2013 for housing-related
expenditures in the Washington
region. The greatest expenditures
were for rental assistance. The
region collectively allocated nearly
$637 million to Section 8, Hous-
ing Choice Vouchers, and other
rental assistance programs in 2013.
The second-largest budgeted
item was housing production
and preservation, followed by
programs related to homelessness,
senior housing, tenant services,
and homebuyer assistance.
The District of Columbia accounted
for approximately 50 percent of all
the housing-related expenditures
in the region, with Montgomery
spending the second-highest
amount, followed by Fairfax.
The private philanthropic sector in
the Washington region awarded
more than $33.4 million in grants
to housing-related organizations,
primarily nonprot organizations, in
2012. Private philanthropic invest-
ment was relatively small compared
with public spending on housing in
FY 2013 ($1.3 billion). Three-quarters
of philanthropic grants were for
less than $50,000, and three in ve
grant dollars were for homeless
prevention, shelter, or services and
transitional or permanent support-
ive housing. Nearly half of the hous-
ing-related private funding went
to organizations whose service
area was the District of Columbia.
Montgomery was next, receiving
about 10 percent of the total.
Of concern, nearly half of private
grant funding, and the majority
of grants larger than $100,000,
were disbursed by Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and the Freddie Mac
Foundation, which largely ceased
charitable giving in 2013. The loss
of their charitable giving leaves a
large gap in funding for nonprot
organizations, particularly for those
providing homeless prevention
services, shelter, transitional and
permanent supportive housing, or
foreclosure prevention services.
CONCLUSION
This study analyzes the supply of
and gaps in afordable housing
across many housing needs and
household types. The continuum of
housing needsfrom basic shelter to
supportive housing, from a subsidized
apartment to an afordable home
for saleencompasses housing for
homeless individuals and families,
Photo: Matt Johnson
xiii HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
for renters, and for homeowners.
To provide for households at difer-
ent points along the continuum,
the federal government, state and
local jurisdictions, private investors,
and philanthropic organizations
have created several public and
private programs and supports to
promote the creation and preser-
vation of afordable housing.
Despite the current eforts and
investments, however, this study
identies many important gaps in the
housing continuum that highlight
the acute need for more afordable
The region has long been among the
most expensive metropolitan areas
nationally, and housing has become
increasingly unafordable for many
households in recent years. Although
the area has generally higher incomes
and wages than most other places in
the country, incomes are not keeping
pace with rising housing costs.
As a result, homelessness remains
a persistent problem; over 11,000
persons have been counted living on
the streets or in homeless shelters,
including many children and persons
in families. The supply of permanent
supportive housing needed to reduce
chronic homelessness is insufcient
to meet the current demand. The lack
of afordable rental apartments across
all income levels, and particularly
for extremely low income house-
holds, contributed to the numbers of
homeless people and also resulted
in over half of the regions renters
paying over 30 percent of their
income on housing costs, which
leaves them less money for food,
medicine, and other essentials.
Finally, homeownership, which is the
path to savings and stability for most
people living in the United States, is
out of reach for many in the region.
In many cases, homeownership is
out of reach not for a lack of steady
income, but because high prices
fueled by excessive demand squeeze
potential buyers out of the market.
Providing shelter and decent,
afordable housing for persons at
all income levels is a goal that a
prosperous area like the Washington
region should be able to achieve.
Furthermore, to remain competi-
tive, the region must address
housing afordability to ensure
that its workforce can continue
to nd housing without having to
commute farther and farther to
work. Without stable housing in a
decent environment, it is difcult
for many to secure a quality educa-
tion, good health, and employment.
Policymakers are paying increasing
attention to afordable housing as a
platform for connecting households
with other supports and services
that can help them achieve better
outcomes. The region may bear
additional costs down the road, such
as higher incidences of social disrup-
tion, crime, and unemployment, if
housing instability is not addressed.
Understanding the importance of
afordable housing and the needs
in this region, foundations commis-
sioned this study to quantify the need
for afordable housing and inform
strategic investments by the philan-
thropic sector all along the housing
continuum. This study contains a
wealth of information that can also
help jurisdictions better identify and
address the nature of the afordable
housing needs in their own commu-
nities and be used for evidence-based
planning. The study documents
the acute need for both permanent
supportive housing for the chronically
homeless and afordable housing
across all income levels, particularly
for extremely low income renters
and low income homebuyers. These
ndings can be used to direct scarce
public and private sector resources to
the populations most in need of relief
from high housing costs and to build
and preserve afordable housing for
these households over the long term.
Detailed data for each
jurisdiction can be found in
the summary and compar-
ative proles in the appen-
dices of this study. These
proles and additional data
are also available online
at http://www.urban.org/
publications/413161.html.
HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION 2
1. INTRODUCTION
The shortage of afordable housing in
the Washington region is becoming
increasingly clear. However, without
better information on the supply and
demand for housing, it is extremely
difcult for the public, private, or
philanthropic sectors to make strate-
gic investments or data-driven policy
decisions to reduce homelessness
or improve housing afordability.
To address this information gap,
the Community Foundation for the
National Capital Region, with support
from The Morris and Gwendolyn
Cafritz Foundation, commis-
sioned the Urban Institute and the
Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments to complete this
comprehensive study of housing
afordability in the Washington region.
While many studies cover individ-
ual housing issues, this is the rst
comprehensive study in many years
to examine the entire continuum of
housing from the emergency shelter
system to afordable homeown-
ership opportunities across the
Washington region, including a review
of housing policies and programs
and sources of funding. It identies,
both at a regional and a jurisdictional
level, the supply of and demand
for emergency shelters, homeless
prevention programs, transitional
housing, permanent supportive
housing, rental housing, and owner
housing (see gure 1.1 for a map of
the jurisdictions and the text box for
more information). The study also
looks at how housing patterns and
policies to address needs across the
continuum vary by local jurisdiction.
This study uniquely examines how
housing policies and programs are
funded in the Washington region,
quantifying the level of support they
receive from both the public and the
philanthropic sectors. The analyses
use several quantitative and quali-
tative data sources including the
American Community Survey, juris-
dictions budgets, an extensive scan
of jurisdictions websites, and inter-
views with public agency staf and
key stakeholders, such as nonprot
housing advocates, service provid-
ers, and nonprot developers.
The study contains six sections. This
rst section describes household
incomes in the region. Sections
24 discuss the homeless system,
afordable rental housing, and
afordable homeownership. These
sections examine the gap or surplus
of housing units and how policies
and programs vary across jurisdic-
tions. Section 5 examines how
housing programs and services are
funded in the region, including both
public and philanthropic spending.
JURISDICTIONS IN THE WASHINGTON, DC, METRO AREA INCLUDED IN STUDY
District of Columbia
Maryland: Montgomery and
Prince Georges counties
Virginia: Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William
counties and the cities of
Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church,
Manassas, and Manassas Park.
Where relevant, information on
the independent housing policies
of the following jurisdictions in
Maryland is included: Gaithersburg,
Rockville, Takoma Park, Bowie,
College Park, and Greenbelt.
Photo: E.L. Malvaney
3 HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
Charles
Fauquier
Frederick
Loudoun
Fairfax
Montgomery
Stafford
Calvert
Spotsylvania
Prince George's
Warren
Clarke
Prince William
Jefferson
Arlington
Alexandria
Manassas
Fredericksburg
Fairfax City
Manassas Park
Falls Church
Jurisdictions in the study
Other jurisdictions in the metro area
FIGURE 1.1. MAP OF THE WASHINGTON, DC, METROPOLITAN AREA AND THE JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED
IN THE STUDY
4 Because many programs that subsidize the cost of housing use the eligibility criteria of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), those criteria from 2011 are used for this study. HUDs income limits are based on the AMI for a family living in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area. The Washington, DC, metropolitan area refers to the statistical area dened by the Ofce of Management and Budget, which
in 2011 included 22 jurisdictions. All other references to the Washington region refer to the designated study jurisdictions as shown in gure 1.1.
5 For more detailed explanation, see http://www.huduser.org/portal/pdrdatas_landing.html.
THE REGIONS INCOME
DISTRIBUTION
Although the Washington region
is home to some of the wealthiest
counties in the country, many house-
holds are still struggling to get by
on minimum or low-wage jobs.
4
In
2011, the area median income (AMI)
was $106,100 for a family of four in
the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area (that is, 50 percent had incomes
less than $106,100 and 50 percent
had incomes that were higher). This
study uses ranges based on AMI used
by the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) (see
table 1.1) to categorize households
and the cost of housing units. Please
note that upper income limit for low
income (at or below 80 percent of
AMI) is lower than one might expect.
HUD caps the ofcial 80 percent of
AMI limit, which may not exceed the
median income for the United States.
5

Therefore, although the AMI in 2011
was $106,100, the 80 percent limit
for a family of four in the Washing-
ton region was $67,600, or about 64
percent of AMI, instead of $84,880,
which would be the full 80 percent.
The study employs the follow-
ing conventions when referring to
income categories: extremely low
income are households whose
annual income falls between 0 and
30 percent of AMI, very low income
are those between 30 and 50 percent
of AMI, low income households are
those between 50 and 80 percent
of AMI; middle income households
have incomes between 80 percent
and 120 percent of AMI, and high
income households are those earning
more than 120 percent of AMI.
TABLE 1.1. HUD INCOME LIMITS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR THE WASHINGTON REGION, 2011
Income limit 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person
Extremely low income (at or below 30% of AMI) $22,300 $25,500 $28,700 $31,850
Very low income (at or below 50% of AMI) $37,150 $42,450 $47,750 $53,050
Low income (at or below 80% of AMI) $47,350 $54,100 $60,850 $67,600
Middle income (at or below 120% of AMI) $89,200 $102,000 $114,800 $127,400
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Income Limits.
TABLE 1.2. INCOME AND WAGES FOR THE WASHINGTON-ARLINGTON-ALEXANDRIA, DC-VA-MD-WV
METROPOLITAN AREA, 2011
2011 Income ($) Max. afordable monthly
2011 Area median income: $106,100 Rent ($)
Homeowner
costs ($) Hourly Annual
Extremely Low Income (at or
below 30% of AMI)
15.31 31,850 800 740
Maryland and Virginia minimum wage 7.25 15,080 380 350
DC minimum wage 8.25 17,160 430 400
Parking lot attendants 10.63 22,100 550 520
Poverty level 10.75 22,350 560 520
Food preparation workers 10.82 22,510 560 530
Proposed DC, MD minimum wage
6
11.50 23,920 600 550
Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants 13.80 28,700 720 670
Receptionists 14.55 30,260 760 710
Very Low Income (at or below 50% of AMI) 25.50 53,050 1,330 1,240
Bookkeepers 20.98 43,640 1,090 1,020
Paramedics or emergency medical technicians 22.31 46,400 1,160 1,080
200% of poverty level 21.49 44,700 1,120 1,040
Postal service mail carriers 25.10 52,210 1,310 1,220
Low Income (at or below 80% of AMI) 32.50 67,600 1,690 1,580
Fireghters 27.16 56,500 1,410 1,320
Kindergarten teachers 27.97 58,170 1,450 1,360
Police and sherif's patrol ofcers 30.65 63,760 1,590 1,490
Middle Income (at or below 120% of AMI) 61.25 127,400 3,190 2,970
Registered nurses 36.30 75,500 1,890 1,760
Fireghting supervisors 40.57 84,380 2,110 1,970
Dental hygienist 43.49 90,460 2,260 2,110
High school administrator 49.93 103,850 2,600 2,420
High Income (above 120% of AMI)
Human resources managers 62.85 130,740 3,270 3,050
Chief executives 74.88 155,750 3,890 3,630
Lawyers 96.64 201,010 5,030 4,690
Note: Data are rounded to the nearest $10. All income limits and poverty levels used are those for a four-person family.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; HUD Income Limits; US Department of Health and Human
Services Poverty Guidelines; and Urban Institute calculations.
INCOME CATEGORIES
The income categories listed
here are used throughout
the study unless otherwise
specied. Income limits vary
based on household size; the
ranges shown below represent
the HUD income limits in 2011
for a household of four people.
Extremely low income:
households whose annual
income falls between 0 and
30 percent of area median
income (AMI) ($0$31,850)
Very low income:
3050 percent of AMI
($31,850$53,050)
Low income: 5080 percent
of AMI ($53,050$67,600)
Middle income:
80120 percent of AMI
($67,600$127,400)
High income: More
than 120 percent of AMI
(Above $127,400)
6 Under a joint proposal from ofcials in the
District of Columbia and Montgomery and
Prince Georges counties, the minimum
wage would increase to $11.50 by 2016 in
these jurisdictions (Davis 2013).
Table 1.2 shows the maximum rent
persons at the top of each income
category could aford if they were
paying 30 percent of their income
in rent each month (30 percent is
considered afordable by experts).
The table also shows the maximum
monthly homeowner costs, calcu-
lated at 28 percent of income
(industry standard underwriting
limit). However, within each income
category, the maximum monthly
payment list in the table is unaford-
able for many families. For example,
the maximum afordable rent for
household at 30 percent of AMI
($31,850) is $800. A household
that is extremely low income but
is at 20 percent of AMI would only
be able to aford rent of $530.
Using information on the wages
of various occupations in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area,
this study estimates the maximum
afordable housing costs for families
with workers employed in various
occupations (see table 1.2).
7
For
example, a family with a single
worker earning minimum wage in
Maryland and Virginia would be able
to aford only about $380 in rent
each month, while a reghter in
these states could aford $1,320 in
homeowner costs each month.
In the Washington region, more
than one in three households were
high income in 2011, earning more
than $127,400 annually (table 1.3).
About one-third of the nearly 1.8
million households in the region
had low, very low, or extremely low
incomes. The District of Columbia
had the highest share of lower-
income households in the region
at 46 percent, while in Arlington,
Fairfax, and Loudoun, fewer than
lower-income.
8
(The data discussed
throughout this study are available
in summary proles for the region
and by jurisdiction in Appendix A
org/publications/413161.html).
Lower-income households difered
in several ways from those of middle
and high income households (table
1.4). For example, across the region,
homeowners. Of those, only one-fth
were lower-income. Between 30
and 49 percent of lower-income
households were homeowners.
Lower-income households were
also more likely to be made up of a
single adult than were higher-income
TABLE 1.3. HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE WASHINGTON REGION BY
INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Income level Total
Per-
cent
Extremely low 229,500 13.0
Very low 201,300 11.4
Low 145,200 8.2
Middle 529,600 29.9
High 663,700 37.5
Total
households
1,769,400 100.0
Source: American Community Survey,
200911.
7 Data on wages and occupations is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics program and reects
wages for all workers in a given occupation. See http://www.bls.gov/oes/.
8 This study uses analysis of 200911 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata from the University of Minnesota Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series. It uses Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA) as the geography of reference. The PUMA that includes Fairfax County also includes
Fairfax and Falls Church cities. The PUMA that includes Prince William County also includes Manassas and Manassas Park cities and the PUMA
that includes Loudoun County also includes Clarke, Fauquier, and Warren counties. All data using the American Community Survey in this study
are based on these PUMA denitions.
9 Moderate or severe disabilities are those that limit mobility or ones ability to care for oneself.
10 These data account only for the elderly in households and do not count elderly people who are living in group quarters, such as nursing homes.
Frail elderly are those with moderate or severe disabilities.
households. Nearly one-half of
extremely low-income households
had only one member compared
with 18 percent of high-income
households. Family households with
children represented about one-third
of all households in the region, a
share that is roughly constant across
income categories. Family house-
holds without children (consisting
of two or more related adults) and
nonfamily households (such as
two unrelated adults) were more
prevalent among higher-income
than lower-income households.
Vulnerable individuals or those
requiring special housing are more
common among lower-income
households. Lower-income house-
holds were more likely than higher-
income households to have an
elderly member or someone with
moderate or severe disability (table
1.4).
9
In the Washington region,
about 20 percent of households
had a member age 65 or older, 4
percent had a frail elderly member,
and 8 percent had a member with
moderate or severe disabilities.
6
For
extremely low income households,
the percentages were approxi-
mately 1.5 to 2.0 times higher.
An important element of housing
afordability in addition to rent levels
or home prices is whether house-
hold members are working and
the wages that they earn. Across all
income groups, 81 percent of house-
holds had at least one member who
was working full time. But again,
extremely low income households
are outliers. In those households, only
TABLE 1.4. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Income Level
Category
Extremely
low
Very
low Low Middle High Total
Homeownership rate 30 42 49 63 83 63
Percentage of household
members:
With elderly member 28 24 21 18 16 20
With member with moderate
or severe disabilities
18 12 9 7 5 8
With frail elderly member 9 6 5 4 2 4
With one or more full-
time workers
37 73 82 87 93 81
With no full-time workers,
one or more part-time worker
19 10 6 4 3 6
No one working
(all adults are over 65)
21 13 9 7 3 8
Pct. no one in household
working (at least one
working-age member)
23 5 3 2 1 5
Source: American Community Survey, 200911.
11 This only includes students living in households; students living in dormitories are counted as part of the group quarters population and are not
reected in this study.
12 CNHED. (2011, September 26). Meet the Continuum of Housing. Retrieved from http://www.cnhed.org/blog/2011/09/
meet-the-continuum-of-housing
37 percent had at least one person
working full time. That rate is consid-
erably lower than even very low
income households (73 percent) and
low income households (82 percent)
(table 1.4). A higher share (21 percent)
of extremely low income households
had adults 65 or older who might be
considered retired than other house-
holds. This also makes them more
vulnerable to afordability issues.
Most concerning, almost one-fourth
of extremely low income house-
holds had no working household
members even when family members
were of working age. Higher disabil-
ity rates for these households may
partially explain this higher rate of
nonworkers or non-full-time workers.
Extremely low income households
may also include individuals attend-
ing school or job training, thus
temporarily forgoing employment.
11

CONTINUUMOF HOUSING
In its 2010 report, An Afordable
Continuum of HousingKey to a
Better City, the Coalition for Nonprot
Housing and Economic Development
(CNHED) describes the broad range
of housing needs for diferent popula-
tions and income groups in the
District of Columbia. Later, CNHED
used this framework to launch the
Housing for All Campaign to promote
a range of housing choices that are
available to people.
12
The concept of
the continuum of housing is relevant
to housing security across the region,
and it is applied here to analyze
the supply and gaps across many
housing needs and household types.
The continuum of housing needs
encompasses the homeless, renters,
and homeowners. At diferent points
along the continuum, households
need diferent types of housing, from
emergency shelter to a market-rate
home. To support households along
the continuum, the federal govern-
ment, state and local jurisdictions,
private investors, and philanthropic
organizations have created many
public and private programs and
supports. At the very lowest income
levels (up to 50 percent of AMI),
individuals and families very likely
need a signicant subsidy and support
to be housed adequately. Housing at
this end of the continuum includes
emergency shelter and permanent
supportive housing for those who
are homeless or at risk of becoming
homeless, and public housing
and Housing Choice Vouchers
for others. The latter substantially
subsidize the costs of housing
Households slightly higher on the
income ladder also benet from
subsidy programs. Indeed, as the
data in this study show, households
with very low or low incomes can
face severe housing cost burdens in
the Washington region. In addition
to public housing and Housing
Choice Vouchers, subsidized options
include privately-owned housing
created though programs such as
Section 8, Section 202 (supportive
housing for the elderly), Section 811
(supportive housing for persons with
disabilities), low income housing
tax credits (LIHTC), and Federal
Housing Administration nancing.
As households move up the
income spectrum, purchasing a
home becomes an increasingly
viable option. Because of the high
housing prices in many parts of the
Washington region, homeownership
is out of reach for many households
without additional nancial and other
supports. As with rental housing,
federal, state, and local governments
have created policies and programs
to encourage homeownership and
lower the barriers to purchasing a
home for those with lower incomes.
These include lower-cost mortgages,
tax credits, homebuyer education
and counseling programs, and home
repair and rehabilitation assistance.
The next section examines the most
vulnerable families on the contin-
uumthose who are homeless or
at risk of becoming homeless.
2. THE HOMELESS SYSTEM
In January 2013, 11,245 people
were homeless in the Washington
region, including 5,944 single adults
and 5,301 people in families.
13
The District of Columbia had more
homeless people than the other
seven jurisdictions combined.
Nearly three in four homeless single
adults were male, while four in ve
homeless adults in families were
female (and the majority were single
parents). Single adult households
were made up almost entirely of
persons age 25 and older (85 per-
cent), while 72 percent of all persons
in family households were children
or young adults (under age 25).
adults in families in the region were
employed. In Alexandria, Arlington,
and Loudoun County, more than
two-thirds of homeless adults in fami-
lies were employed. In the District of
Columbia and Prince Georges, less
than one-third of homeless adults in
families were employed.
Most homeless people lived in
housing. Approximately 11 percent
(1,259) of the homeless population
lived on the streetlargely single
adults. With the exception of Alexan-
dria, no suburban jurisdiction could
meet the immediate shelter needs
of this group. Even if all available
shelter beds were occupied, the
region would still fall short of meet-
ing the shelter needs of homeless
single adults by 467 beds. One in
four homeless persons was chroni-
cally homeless; an increase in per-
manent supportive housing would
reduce homelessness among this
population. The Washington region
would need at least 2,219 additional
permanent supportive housing beds
for single adults and 180 for families
to meet the needs of its chronically
homeless population.
14
Almost all
of the regions chronically home-
less families were in the District of
Columbia and Prince Georges.
Most homeless persons in families
and single adults did not need
permanent supportive housing,
however. Rather, many just needed
afordable rental housing and, in
some cases, additional supports,
such as assistance with securing child
care, health insurance and employ-
ment, to help them hold a lease
and maintain rent payments over
time. Increasing the supply of rental
housing afordable for extremely low
13 Data from the 2014 Point-in-Time Count of the homeless were not available when the analysis for this study was conducted. Findings based on
2013 data are consistent with conclusions that might be drawn from the 2014 data. The regions homeless population grew by 399 people, or 3.5
percent, between the 2013 and 2014 counts. The regional increase was largely attributable to a 13 percent rise in homelessness in the District of
the Columbia. The 2014 homeless population included a slightly higher share of persons in families: 49 percent compared to 47 percent in 2013.
14 The 2,219 additional permanent supportive housing beds for single adults and 180 for families are minimum estimates of the need based on
the 2013 data. Additional beds may be needed to accommodate the recent rise in homelessness, particularly in the District of Columbia, future
demand, and the typically low turnover rate for occupants of permanent supportive housing.
HOMELESS CATEGORIES
HomelessPeople who are
currently without permanent
housing, including both sheltered
and unsheltered homeless.
Sheltered homelessPeople
residing in shelters, safe havens,
or transitional housing.
Unsheltered homelessPeople
living on the street or in places
not meant for human habitation
such as abandoned buildings,
bridges, parks, and campsites.
Chronically HomelessAn adult with
a disabling condition who has either
been continuously homeless for at
least a year, or has had at least four
episodes of homelessness in the past
three years. The chronically homeless
may be sheltered or unsheltered.
Household Types
Adult-only householdsSingle,
homeless adults.
Family householdsHomeless
families consisting of at least one
adult and one child (under age 18).
income households would reduce
homelessness in the region.
Homelessness is the most extreme
outcome caused by a lack of afordable
housing and permanent supportive
housing options in the region. People
become homeless for many reasons,
including insufcient income, job
loss, rising rents, domestic violence,
loss of health insurance, and physical
and mental disabilities. They are also
homeless for diferent lengths of
time. Although most are homeless for
less than six months, a small group,
the chronically homeless, has been
homeless for years (US Department
of Housing and Urban Development
2013). Recent research shows that the
most efective remedies target the root
causes of an individuals homelessness
and the length of time they have been
homeless (Rog et al. 2014).
This chapter reviews shelter needs,
the supply of beds, and the regions
capacity to meet the needs of its
homeless population. The study
covers three categories of homeless
(see the sidebars for denitions
of the terms used in this section):
(1) the sheltered homeless, (2) the
unsheltered homeless, and (3) the
chronically homeless, who may be
SHELTER & HOUSING SYSTEM
Continuum of Care (CoC)A group
of local government agencies and
nonprot service providers that
administer programs to prevent and
end homelessness in a particular
jurisdiction. There are nine CoCs in
the Washington region.
ShelterIncludes on-demand
emergency and winter shelters
for homeless people. Shelters are
intended to be a temporary, short-
term solution before transitioning to
a more permanent housing option.
Safe HavenA 24-hour residence
that serves homeless individuals with
severe mental illness who have been
unable or unwilling to participate in
supportive services. The facilities place
no requirement of receiving social
services or treatment on residents, but
instead introduce services gradually as
the residents are ready.
Transitional HousingShort-to-
medium-term accommodations
(typically fewer than two years) for
homeless individuals.
May also include services to assist
individuals and families with moving
to permanent housing.
Permanent Supportive HousingA
model that provides permanent, fully-
subsidized housing in combination
with supportive servicessuch as
substance abuse treatment, case
management, and job trainingto
chronically homeless individuals and
families with barriers to achieving
independence such as mental illness,
substance abuse, or HIV/AIDS.
Housing FirstAn approach to ending
homelessness, pioneered in 1988,
in which homeless individuals or
families are moved immediately from
a shelter or the streets to their own
apartment. Housing First programs
rst priority is to stabilize people in the
short-term and help them get housed
immediately (Lanzerotti 2004).
Needed social services are provided
after stable housing is in place and,
unlike past approaches to solving
episodes of homelessness, receipt of
services is not required for individuals
or families to remain in housing.
Rapid Re-HousingA set of programs
that grew out of the Housing First
approach to provide housing search
and temporary nancial assistance to
quickly end a period of homelessness
by moving people into permanent
housing. The National Alliance to
End Homelessness (2014) identies
three core components of a Rapid
Re-Housing program: housing
identication; rent and move-in
assistance; and case management
and services. Rapid Re-Housing
can also refer to a specic HUD
grant program, The Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing
Program, which provides nancial
assistance and services to both
prevent individuals and families
from becoming homeless and to
help those who are experiencing
homelessness to be quickly re-housed
and stabilized. Rapid Re-Housing
can be a particularly efective
strategy for persons who become
homeless due to a short-term
economic crisis. See http://portal.
hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
recovery/programs/homelessness.
sheltered or unsheltered.
15
Formerly
homeless are not included in this
study nor are youth living on their
own; the latter because of the dif-
culty in counting homeless youth.
The study also considers two distinct
household types: adult-only house-
holds (referred to as single adults) and
family households. For a discussion on
youth homelessness please see the
Homeless Youth box on page 12.
Addressing homelessness requires
both temporary and permanent
housing solutions. In the short term,
unsheltered homeless individuals, for
example, need immediate housing,
and jurisdictions rely on emergency
shelters or transitional housing that
may include some supportive services
to address their needs. Chronically
homeless individuals, in contrast,
need permanent supportive, subsi-
dized housing with services such as
case management, job training, and
treatment for physical and mental
health conditions. Both unsheltered
and sheltered homeless adults and
families who are not chronically
homeless less often need more inten-
sive services such as those provided
in permanent supportive housing,
but they can benet from short-
term services to help them keep up
with rent payments in the long term
or case management services to
connect them to available benets,
job training, and other supports. More
often they need afordable rental
housing options, including rental
subsidies such as public housing
and Housing Choice Vouchers
(discussed in Section 3 of this study).
Increasingly, jurisdictions are
adopting a Housing First approach
to homelessness, which moves
individuals and families immediately
or as quickly as possible into perma-
nent housing. Once an individual
or household is stably housed, the
service provider ofers supportive
services, although participation is not
required to maintain housing. In the
Washington region, all jurisdictions
take a Housing First approach, but
they are in various stages of transi-
tioning from more traditional models
that focused on providing emergency
shelter and services temporarily.
HOMELESS DATA
Counting the HomelessGiven that the homeless often lack a xed
address, collecting accurate data on this population is challenging. This
study conducted a web scan of area programs and interviews with key
government stakeholders and nonprot service providers, advocates, and
nonprot developers across the region. Researchers also analyzed data
collected by jurisdictions using local Homeless Management Information
Systems (HMIS) as well as street surveys conducted in late January 2013 as
part of a national Point-in-Time (PIT) count of the homeless coordinated by
HUD. In addition to the federally-mandated PIT count every two years, the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments coordinates jurisdictions
in the Washington region to conduct an annual count. Because the PIT
count occurs on a single night, it serves as a snapshot of the homeless
on that night only and therefore does not reect the total number of
people who experience homelessness over the course of the year.
Continuum of CareTo better coordinate funding and services, local
homeless service providers are usually organized into a Continuum of
Care (CoC), which is made up of local government agencies and nonprot
service providers. CoCs are responsible for collecting the data during
the PIT count. In the Washington region, CoCs are organized by county
except in a few cases. The independent cities of Fairfax City and Falls
Church are included in the Fairfax County CoC (and labeled Fairfax in
this study), and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park are included
in the Prince William County CoC (and labeled Prince William).
15 This study classied people as homeless if they met the HUD denition of an individual or family who lacks a xed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (i) Has a primary nighttime
residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (ii) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including
congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or (iii) Is exiting an institution where (s)
he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution. (Retrieved from https://www.
onecpd.info/resources/documents/HomelessDenition_RecordkeepingRequirementsandCriteria.pdf on November 12, 2013.) While HUD does not include adults with children in its denition
of chronic homelessness, it does include either (1) an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, OR (2) an
unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years (HUD 2007). Homeless families were included in this study as
chronically homeless if the adult in the family met the criteria. Research shows that the chronically homeless are best served by permanent supportive housing, which provides services along with
an afordable housing unit (Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley 2002; Larimer et al. 2009; Martinez and Burt 2006).
HOW MANY HOMELESS
PEOPLE LIVE IN THE REGION?
In January 2013, 11,245 persons were
homeless in the Washington region.
Of those, 5,944 were single adults
and 5,301 were in families (table
2.1).
16, 17
At 47 percent, the Washington
region has a larger share of families
among its homeless population than
the national average (37 percent).
18
The majority of homeless were
sheltered on the night of the
Point-in-Time (PIT) Count of the
homeless (see box Homeless Data
for more information). However,
11 percent (1,259 persons) were
living on the street and not in
emergency shelter or transi-
tional housing. Living on the street
without shelter was more common
among single adults than families.
More than 20 percent of homeless
single adults (1,250 persons) were
unsheltered and living on the streets,
compared with less than 1 percent
of persons in families (9 persons).
Approximately one-fourth of the
homelessor 2,912 peoplewere
chronically homeless in 2013. The
incidence of chronic homelessness
is much higher (44 percent) among
single adults. In contrast, just 6 percent
of homeless persons in families
were chronically homeless. As noted
earlier, the chronically homeless
represent the group most in need
of permanent supportive housing.
16 Throughout this study, persons in adult-only households are referred to as single adults. Among the homeless, almost all adult-only households
are single adults.
17 Data from the 2014 Point-in-Time count of the homeless were not available when the analysis for this study was conducted. Findings based on
2013 data are consistent with conclusions that might be drawn from the 2014 data. On January 29, 2014, 11,946 people were homeless in the
Washington region, including 6,057 single adults and 5,880 persons in families.
18 This value includes Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories and is based on HUDs 2013 national Point-in-Time Count, the most recent data
available. Data retrieved from https://www.onecpd.info/reports/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2013.pdf on December 4, 2013.
HOMELESS YOUTH
Despite the importance of providing
services and interventions to
homeless youth living on their own,
homeless youth are not included in
this study because estimates of this
population are so unreliable. National
estimates vary from a low of 22,700
to a high of 1.67 million homeless
children and youth under the age
of 18 in households with no adults.
Homeless single adults and persons in
families are easier to count because
they are more likely to be in shelters
or connected to service programs.
In contrast, child-only households
are a transient population that often
avoids mainstream services because
of a distrust of authority, fear of being
returned to their previous situation, or
a desire to avoid foster care.
The Point-in-Time Count process
currently the most accurate
national method of measuring
homelessnessdoes not provide
much information about the scope
of homelessness among youth and
which youth are most afected.
To address this gap, the Obama
administration has promised to
end homelessness among families,
children, and youth by 2020. Several
federal agencies collaborated
in 201213 to create the Youth
Count! Program, a youth homeless
count in nine sites across the
country. Although a recent report
detailed promising practices and
potential improvements to the
processes and some jurisdictions
continue to conduct youth counts
independently, these eforts remain
uncoordinated and difcult to
compare across jurisdictions.
Source: Pergamit et al. (2013).
Photo: K. Wags
What is the size of the homeless
population in each jurisdiction?
The size of the homeless population
varies widely by jurisdiction in the
Washington region. The District of
Columbia had the largest homeless
population (6,859 persons), more
than the other seven jurisdictions
combined (table 2.2). Most of the
remaining homeless in the region
were in the larger jurisdictions of
Montgomery, Prince Georges
and Fairfax. Loudoun County, by
comparison, had the smallest
number of homeless (166).
The share of unsheltered homeless
single adults varies considerably
by jurisdiction. More than half of
homeless single adults were unshel-
tered in Prince William (60 percent),
Prince Georges (56 percent), and
Arlington (55 percent), while less
than one-fourth were unsheltered in
Montgomery (22 percent), Fairfax (17
percent), Alexandria (16 percent), and
the District of Columbia (14 percent).
Unsheltered homeless families are
much less common. The only jurisdic-
tions with any unsheltered homeless
families were Prince William and
Loudoun County. (For more detailed
data on individual jurisdictions, please
see the proles in the Appendix A
Chronic homelessness also varied
widely. Among homeless single adults,
rates for chronic homelessness ranged
from 24 percent in Prince Georges
to 59 percent in Arlington. Among
families, almost all chronically homeless
were in the District of Columbia
(263) and Prince Georges (24).
TABLE 2.1. SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED HOMELESS SINGLE ADULTS
AND PERSONS IN FAMILIES IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 2013
Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Single adults 4,694 1,250 5,944
Chronically homeless 1,772 830 2,602
Not chronically homeless 2,922 420 3,342
Persons in families 5,292 9 5,301
Chronically homeless 310 0 310
Total homeless persons 9,986 1,259 11,245
Chronically homeless 2,082 830 2,912
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 2013
Point-in-Time Count of the homeless.
TABLE 2.2. HOMELESS SINGLE ADULTS AND PERSONS IN
FAMILIES IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2013
Single adults Persons in families Total
District of Columbia 3,690 3,169 6,859
Montgomery 638 366 1,004
Prince George's 298 370 668
Alexandria 185 90 275
Arlington 266 211 477
Fairfax 603 747 1,350
Loudoun County 81 85 166
Prince William 183 263 446
Washington region 5,944 5,301 11,245
19 In the following sections, data concerning the demographic and economic characteristics of the homeless population are reported without
mentioning nonresponse rates, unless nonresponse is over 80 percent. Statistics that are reported represent the share of people asked the
question. The sentence Males made up 56 percent of the homeless population can be interpreted as 56 percent of homeless people asked
about their gender said they were malethe remaining 44 percent self-identied as female or transgender or gave no response.
20 The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness. (2013). Homelessness in the District of Columbia, the 2013 point-in-time
enumeration. Retrieved from http://miriamskitchen.org/sites/miriams/les/PIT-2013-Brief.pdf.
What is the gender and age
composition of the homeless
population?
19
Homeless single adults tend to be
male. Nearly three in four homeless
single adults were male. Homeless
families are typically a single woman
with one or two young children.
Four in ve homeless adults in
families were female (and the majority
were single parents). This general
pattern holds across all jurisdictions
in the study. Overall, the homeless
population had a higher propor-
tion of children (28 percent) than the
general population (23 percent).
The adults in homeless families
tend to be much younger than
homeless single adults. For example,
in the District of Columbia, the
median age of a homeless single
adult was 51, while the median age
of a homeless adult with children
was 28.
20
In the Washington region,
single adult households were made
up almost entirely of persons 25
years and older (85 percent), while
72 percent of all persons in family
households were children or young
adults (under 25 years old). And
although the Washington regions
homeless population had approxi-
mately the same proportion of
young adults as the population as a
whole (9 percent), there was signi-
cant variation by jurisdiction. In the
District of Columbia, young adults
represented 3 percent of homeless
single adults, while in Prince
Georges, 18 percent of homeless
single adults were ages 18 to 24.
How many homeless adults are
employed and what is the most
common source of income?
The need for support services to
help some households hold and
maintain leases and individuals and
families length of stay in shelter are
both afected by ongoing circum-
stances and reliable sources of
income. Single adults are particu-
larly vulnerable given their lower
rates of employment and higher
rates of no reported income at all.

Washington Region District of Columbia Other Jurisdictions
HOMELESS TRENDS 200413
Note: Family homelessness in the District of Columbia has continued to rise over the past
year. On January 29, 2014 there were 3,795 homeless persons in families in the District of
Columbia, an increase of 20 percent from the 2013 count (3,169).
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Point-in-Time Count of the homeless, 200413.
The number of homeless persons in families increased 20 percent in the
Washington region between 2008 and 2013. As the gure shows, this
increase is driven primarily by a 73 percent increase in the District of
Columbia. Arlington was the only other jurisdiction to see the population
of homeless persons in families increase between 2008 and 2013. As
discussed above, most persons in families who are homeless are not
chronically homeless, but need afordable permanent housing options
and possibly rental subsidies.
Number of Homeless Persons in Families
5,000
6,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
adults in families were employed
(table 2.3). Figures for the Washington
region as a whole mask large dispari-
ties among jurisdictions in employ-
ment levels, particularly for those in
families. In Alexandria, Arlington,
and Loudoun County, more than
two-thirds of homeless adults in
families were employed. In the
District of Columbia and Prince
Georges, less than one-third
of homeless adults in families
were employed. Only 19 percent
of homeless single adults were
employed in the region, ranging from
16 percent in the District of Columbia
to 38 percent in Loudoun County.
Many homeless adults, especially
those in families, reported income
from sources other than a job (gure
2.1). About 43 percent of homeless
adults in families were receiving
income from a source other than
wages, including 34 percent receiv-
ing Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) or other public
assistance. Single adults were less
likely to have income from sources
other than wages (21 percent) but
were more likely than adults in
families to have disability income (13
percent). Still, many homeless in the
region30 percent of single adults
and 18 percent of adults in families
reported having no income at all.
Sources of income for homeless adults
varied across jurisdictions. For example,
almost half of homeless adults in
families in the District of Columbia
received TANF or other public assis-
tance, compared with 23 percent in
TABLE 2.3. PERCENTAGE OF HOMELESS SINGLE ADULTS AND
ADULTS IN FAMILIES EMPLOYED, 2013, BY JURISDICTION
Percent Employed
Single adults Adults in families
District of Columbia 16 24
Montgomery 29 47
Prince George's 21 33
Alexandria 32 68
Arlington 21 73
Fairfax 23 58
Loudoun County 38 69
Prince William 21 58
Washington region 19 36

Single Adults Adults in families
FIGURE 2.1. PERCENTAGE OF HOMELESS SINGLE ADULTS AND
ADULTS IN FAMILIES IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY PRIMARY
SOURCE OF INCOME, 2013
Job
19%
35%
Social
Security
2%
1%
Disability
13%
5%
TANF
2%
34%
Other
3% 3%
No
Reported
Income
30%
18%
No
Response
30%
4%
21 Beds is the standard capacity measure used for shelters, transitional, and permanent supportive housing (rather than housing units or
bedrooms), representing the number of people that can be accommodated.
Montgomery (the second-highest rate)
and only 6 percent in Arlington (the
lowest rate). Rates of receiving disability
payments were low across all jurisdic-
tions for adults in families. Receipt of
disability income among single adults
varied by jurisdiction. Rates ranged
from 6 percent in Loudoun County
to 23 percent in Alexandria and 24
percent in Montgomery. Homeless
single adults were most likely to
have no income in Prince William
(63 percent) and Prince Georges (50
percent) and adults in families were
most likely to have no income in Prince
Georges (41 percent), 20 percentage
points higher than the next highest
jurisdiction, Alexandria (24 percent).
How Many Beds Are in the
Regions Homeless Systems?
In January 2013, the Washington
region had 11,356 emergency
shelter, winter or hypothermia
shelter, transitional housing, or Safe
Haven program beds.
21
Of these,
5,477 were intended for homeless
single adults and 5,879 for homeless
persons in families (table 2.4). The
majority of beds designated for
single adults were in emergency
or winter/hypothermia shelters,
with another one-fourth of beds
in transitional housing. However,
transitional housing beds made
up 56 percent of the beds desig-
nated for persons in families, with
44 percent of beds in emergency
or winter/hypothermia shelters.
As might be expected given the
distribution of the Washington
regions homeless population, the
District of Columbia had the majority
of emergency shelter and transi-
tional housing beds in the region,
with 69 percent of beds for single
adults and 57 percent of those for
persons in families (table 2.5).
TABLE 2.4. SUPPLY OF BEDS TO MEET TEMPORARY HOUSING NEEDS
OF THE HOMELESS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 2013
Total
Pct. of
beds Total
Pct. of
beds
Emergency shelter 2,761 50 2,319 39
Winter/hypothermia shelter 1,306 24 284 5
Transitional housing 1,344 25 3,276 56
Safe Haven 66 1 0 0
Total beds 5,477 100 5,879 100
TABLE 2.5. BEDS IN EMERGENCY SHELTER OR TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2013
Shelter or Transitional Housing Beds for:
Single adults
Persons in
families
District of Columbia 3,778 3,350
Montgomery 608 420
Prince Georges 115 353
Alexandria 187 150
Arlington 139 236
Fairfax 507 840
Loudoun County 41 148
Prince William 102 382
Washingtown region 5,477 5,879
Note: Emergency shelter and transitional housing beds include winter or hypothermia beds and
Safe Haven beds.
22 Data from http://www.weatherunderground.com, accessed 10/10/2013.
23 According to the 2013 PIT count, there were 9,476 formerly homeless people living in permanent supportive housing in the Washington region,
5,021 of whom were people in families. The formerly homeless represent a signicant part of the population currently being served by the
homeless assistance systems in the region.
24 For an example, see http://www.csh.org/toolkit/public-housing-agencies-toolkit/unique-pha-programs-initiatives/moving-on-initiatives/.
Tables 2.4 and 2.5 depict the total
supply of beds as of January 2013,
but not all beds were necessarily
occupied. In the Washington region,
86 percent of shelter and transi-
tional housing beds for adults and
90 percent of beds for persons in
families were occupied. The majority
of jurisdictions in the Washington
region was at or near full capacity for
beds meant for both single adults and
persons in families. Several jurisdic-
tions had occupancy rates for beds
for families under 70 percent, includ-
ing Prince William, Alexandria, and
Loudoun County. Prince William
also had a relatively low occupancy
rate (72 percent) for single adults.
Because this count is based on a
single night, low occupancy rates do
not necessarily mean there are too
many beds. Low occupancy could be
caused by unusually low emergency
shelter occupancy for that night,
for example due to warm weather
or expanded capacity in advance
of extreme weather. Indeed, the
temperature on the night of the 2013
PIT count was a relatively warm 52
degrees in the District of Columbia.
22

As discussed previously, homeless
families and individuals also have
permanent housing needs in addition
to temporary housing needs that
housing may meet. Those who
are not chronically homeless need
afordable housing such as subsi-
dized rental housing (discussed
in the next chapter). Chronically
homeless single adults and persons
in families may be best housed in
permanent supportive housing.
As of January 2013, there were 513
available permanent supportive
housing beds in the Washington
region, 383 of which were desig-
nated for single adults and 130
were designated for persons in
families (table 2.6). Several jurisdic-
tions in the Washington region had
few available permanent support-
ive housing beds for single adults,
including Montgomery, Prince
Georges, Alexandra, Loudoun
County, and Prince William. The
District of Columbia, Alexandria,
Arlington, Loudoun and Prince
William also had little availability to
house persons in families in this way.
The available supply of permanent
supportive housing was determined
by counting only non-occupied
beds. Formerly homeless individuals
and families currently in permanent
supportive housing would not generally
be expected to leave, so those beds
were not considered to be available.
23

Nevertheless, some formerly homeless
may eventually be able to move out of
permanent supportive housing and into
afordable or standard rental housing
once they have stabilized with case
management and supportive services.
Public Housing Authorities are begin-
ning to experiment with moving on
initiatives, which typically involve giving
an individual or family moving out of
permanent supportive housing prefer-
ence for a Housing Choice Voucher.
24
TABLE 2.6. AVAILABLE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING BEDS
IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2013
Single adults
Persons in
families
Montgomery 5 62
Alexandria 2 0
Arlington 68 0
Fairfax 26 12
Loudoun County 0 0
Prince William 3 4
ARE THERE ENOUGH BEDS
TO MEET THE NEED?
Everyone needs stable, permanent
housing, but the type of housing
needed depends on the specic
circumstances of the person or family.
To determine if the Washington
region is meeting the needs of the
homeless population, this section
rst analyzes the immediate need for
shelter for all unsheltered homeless
people currently sleeping outside on
the streets or in places not meant
for human habitation who could
use housing immediately, especially
during hypothermia season. Ideally,
shelter should only be a temporary,
short-term solution before transition-
ing to a permanent housing option.
Second, this section examines chroni-
cally homeless single adults who would
benet from permanent supportive
housing, and those who are not
chronically homeless and may only
need afordable housing subsidies
and some services to nd suitable
housing. This approach highlights
the need for permanent housing for
all homeless residents in the area,
whether they are on the streets, in
shelter, or in transitional housing.
Immediate need for shelter
Although the ideal is to provide
permanent housing solutions to all
of the regions homeless, in reality
shelters and transitional housing
are needed to meet the short-term
needs of the unsheltered popula-
tion and to help some homeless
transition to permanent housing.
In January 2013, 467 homeless single
adults had an immediate need for
shelter that could not be met. For
the 1,250 homeless single adults in
the Washington region, only 783
shelter beds were available, leaving
a gap of 467 shelter beds (table 2.7).
With the exception of Alexandria, the
suburban jurisdictions in this region
fell short in meeting the immedi-
ate shelter needs of their homeless
single adult populations. The need for
additional shelter beds ranged from
30 in Montgomery to 183 in Prince
Georges. (Because only nine persons
in families were unsheltered in the
PIT count on that particular night,
they are not a focus of the study.)
Need for permanent housing
Figure 2.2 summarizes the current gap
in permanent supportive housing and
afordable rental housing subsidies and
services to address the needs of the
regions homeless population of single
adults and persons in families. The
supportive housing gap is calculated
by subtracting any existing, available
(513) from the number of chroni-
cally homeless people (2,912 single
adults and persons in families) It is
assumed that the nonchronically
homeless (8,333 persons) need aford-
able rental housing and, in some
cases, additional supports, such
TABLE 2.7. BEDS NEEDED TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEEDS
OF UNSHELTERED SINGLE ADULTS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY
JURISDICTION, 2013
Unsheltered
single adults Available beds
Gap or
(surplus)
District of Columbia 512 600 (88)
Montgomery 143 113 30
Prince Georges 168 (15) 183
Alexandria 29 31 (2)
Fairfax 104 8 96
Loudoun County 38 (2) 40
Washington region 1,250 783 467
Notes: Available shelter beds include unoccupied emergency shelter, transitional housing, and
winter or hypothermia beds. Occasionally jurisdictions may temporarily expand the number
of beds available to accommodate extra persons seeking shelter. This study assumes that any
temporary increases at the time of the Point-in-Time Count did not change the overall supply of
beds. Consequently, two jurisdictions had fewer available beds than persons in shelter.
Single Adults Persons in families
Note: Data for Alexandria were not available for this analysis.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Annual Homeless Assessment Report, Community-Level
Reports, 2011. Estimates based on a weighted average of component jurisdictions, excluding the
city of Alexandria.
LENGTH OF STAY IN SHELTER
A week
or less
33%
14%
1 week
1 month
19%
15%
13
months
19%
30%
36
months
13%
21%
69
months
6%
9%
912
months
9%
10%
Shelter availability is afected by the length of stay of homeless people in
shelterlonger stays mean fewer beds are available for the homeless entering
the system. Homeless persons in families were more likely to stay longer in
emergency shelters than single adults. Fifteen percent of homeless single
adults in the region were staying in emergency shelters more than six months
(considered a long-term stay), compared with 20 percent of persons in families.
Fifty-three percent of single adults stayed less than one month in a shelter
compared with 29 percent of persons in families. The District of Columbia had
the highest share of people using emergency shelters for long-term stays, both
for single adults (20 percent) and persons in families (44 percent). By prioritizing
transitioning people with long-term shelter stays to stable permanent housing,
homelessness is decreased and additional shelter beds can be freed up for new
individuals and families with emergency needs.

Need permanent supportive housing
Need afordable rental housing
and services
Source: Urban Institute analysis of
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments 2013 Point-in-Time
Count of the homeless.
FIGURE 2.2. HOMELESS SINGLE
ADULTS AND PERSONS IN
FAMILIES IN THE WASHINGTON
REGION BY PERMANENT
HOUSING NEEDS, 2013
Single
adults
2,602
3,342
Persons
in families
310
4,991
as assistance with securing child
care, health insurance and employ-
ment, to help them hold a lease and
maintain rent payments over time.
The overwhelming majority of homeless
persons in families were not chronically
homeless and, therefore, most persons
in homeless families (4,991) required
afordable housing, services, or some
type of subsidy rather than permanent
supportive housing. Furthermore,
3,342 nonchronically homeless
single adults had housing needs that
could largely be met by providing
additional afordable housing units.
The Washington region had a
gap of 2,219 permanent support-
ive housing beds for chronically
homeless individuals and 180 beds
for persons in families. Approximately
2,602 chronically homeless single
adults needed permanent supportive
housing. However, only 383 beds
were available in the entire region
(table 2.8). The gap was apparent
in all jurisdictions in the region,
ranging from a minimum of 28
beds in Loudoun County to 1,489
beds in the District of Columbia.
TABLE 2.8. BEDS NEEDED TO MEET THE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS OF
THE CHRONICALLY HOMELESS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2013
Chronically
homeless
Available
beds
Gap or
(surplus)
Chronically
homeless
Available
beds
Gap or
(surplus)
District of
Columbia
1,764 275 1,489 263 9 254
Montgomery 222 5 217 6 62 (56)
Prince Georges 73 4 69 24 43 (19)
Alexandria 69 2 67 5 0 5
Arlington 156 68 88 0 0 0
Fairfax 243 26 217 10 12 (2)
Loudoun County 28 0 28 0 0 0
Washington
region
2,602 383 2,219 310 130 180
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 2013 Point-in-Time Count of the homeless.
25 In this section, emergency shelter is broadly dened to include winter, hypothermia, or temporary beds, traditional emergency shelters and
transitional housing.
In addition, the region needed 180
for chronically homeless persons in
families. There were only 130 avail-
able permanent supportive housing
beds for the regions 310 chronically
homeless families. However, the
total need masked an oversupply of
beds primarily in Montgomery and
Prince Georges and an undersupply
of beds in the District of Columbia.
Providing permanent
supportive housing decreases
homelessness and eases the
shortage of shelter beds
Increasing capacity in permanent
supportive housing would decrease
homelessness while strengthening
the capacity of emergency shelters to
serve the unsheltered homeless in the
region.
25
The majority of chronically
homeless single adults (68 percent)
in the Washington region stayed in
emergency shelters because of a lack
of permanent supportive housing.
Providing more permanent supportive
housing would free up 1,772 shelter
beds. Table 2.9 includes both available
beds and shelter beds occupied by
the chronically homeless in calcula-
tion of the potential supply of beds.
TABLE 2.9. GAP IN SHELTER BEDS FACTORING BEDS CURRENTLY
OCCUPIED BY SHELTERED CHRONICALLY HOMELESS ADULTS IN
THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2013
Unsheltered gap or (surplus)
for single adults
Potentially
available beds
New gap
or (surplus)
District of Columbia (88) 1,303 (1,391)
Montgomery 30 155 (125)
Prince Georges 183 24 159
Alexandria (2) 48 (50)
Arlington 127 63 64
Fairfax 96 159 (63)
Loudoun County 40 12 28
Washington region 467 1,772 (1,305)
Notes: Available shelter beds include unoccupied emergency shelter, transitional housing,
and winter or hypothermia beds. Potentially available shelter beds are those currently
occupied by chronically homeless persons that would become available if they were transi-
tioned to permanent supportive housing.
These additional beds would more
than ll the regions current gap of
467 shelter beds and leave the region
with a surplus of 1,305 beds. Other
cities, counties, and states have found
that prioritizing supportive housing
for chronically homeless adults with
long-term shelter stays doubled shelter
capacity. Utah, for example, found
that for every chronically homeless
person who was given supportive
housing, the state saved $8,000 in
total costs and served an additional 2.4
temporarily homeless persons through
existing programs (Day et al. 2012).
In some areas, however, the gap would
not disappear by shifting to permanent
housing. For example, Prince Georges
has 24 chronically homeless adults
who could potentially be moved out
of emergency shelter and into perma-
nent supportive housing, freeing up
those 24 beds to unsheltered homeless
adults. The current gap of 183 beds for
unsheltered single adults would then
be reduced by 24, leaving a new gap
of 159 beds. Similarly, even if Arlington,
Prince William, and Loudoun County
could house all sheltered chronically
homeless adults in permanent support-
ive housing, the shelter gap would
remain for unsheltered homeless single
adults. These jurisdictions may need to
add additional shelter beds in addition
to moving the chronically homeless
to permanent supportive housing.
Many jurisdictions have
signed on to the 100,000
Homes Campaign, a
nationwide efort to
nd permanent housing
solutions for 100,000
of the countrys most
vulnerable homeless
single adults and families
by July 2014.
26
Thus far,
the District of Columbia,
Montgomery, Arlington,
Fairfax, and Prince William
have all pledged to provide
permanent homes as part
of this movement.
What Local Policies and Practices
Might Address the Need?
As noted earlier, local homeless
service providers are usually
organized into a Continuum of Care
(CoC), which is intended to promote
community-wide strategic planning
and to streamline and coordinate
resources while allowing commu-
nities to tailor programs to local
needs.
27
The administrative boundar-
ies are dened by HUD, but providers
decide how to organize themselves
within each CoC. Although local
homeless service providers receive
funding from several diferent
sources, HUD usually provides the
majority of funding and providers
in the CoC must be designated by
the CoC lead agency to apply for
HUD homeless assistance grants.
Given the recent requirements
issued by HUD under the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid
Transition to Housing (HEARTH)
Act, many jurisdictions across the
Washington region were operating
or are working toward operating a
central or coordinated intake system
across service providers. Rather than
26 Learn more about the 100,000 Homes Campaign at http://100khomes.org/.
27 https://www.onecpd.info/coc/coc-program-eligibility-requirements/
28 Data represents the lead agency of the primary CoC contact listed by HUD, as retrieved from http://www.hudhre.info/index.
cfm?do=viewCocContacts on December 5, 2013.
29 Homeless Management Information Systems are databases required by HUD that store information on homeless people, which could include
basic demographic information, service transactions, outcomes, and other pertinent information. The system is typically maintained by the CoC
lead agency but is used by homeless service agencies throughout the CoC.
allowing providers to work individu-
ally, which could cause duplication
and lead to inefciencies in service
provision, central or coordinated
intake systems ensure that residents
are screened for the appropriate level
of assistance and are referred to the
best possible service provider for
their needs. The District of Columbia
has been operating a central intake
system for families for more than 20
years and is currently in the process
of creating one for single adults.
Montgomery operates a separate
coordinated intake system for both
singles and families, but uses the
same standard assessment tool for
both. Both Arlington and Fairfax have
a central intake system for families
and are working to create a coordi-
nated intake system for single adults,
while Loudoun County is working to
create a general coordinated intake
model. Both Prince Georges and
Prince William currently operate
a coordinated intake system.
Other local policies, such as
data sharing, can help improve
homeless service delivery. Homeless
Management Information Systems
have restricted access and many
organizations, even within the same
jurisdiction, restrict access due to
privacy and condentiality concerns.
29

Although these concerns are certainly
CONTINUUM OF CARE LEAD AGENCIES IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
Continuum of Care Lead agency
28
District of Columbia The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness
Montgomery County Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services
Prince Georges County Prince Georges County Department of Social Services, Community Services Division
Alexandria City of Alexandria Department of Community and Human Services
Arlington County
Arlington County Department of Human Services, Economic
Independence Division, Housing Assistance Bureau
Fairfax County Fairfax County Ofce to Prevent and End Homelessness
Loudoun County Loudoun County Department of Family Services
Prince William County Prince William County Department of Social Services
valid, increased data sharing among
organizations in the same jurisdiction
could help improve service delivery
by helping providers identify open
slots in programs, coordinate more
efectively with other programs in the
area, and learn more about clients
circumstances and past history.
Doing so can contribute to a more
nuanced package of assistance and
service to meet clients needs.
Several jurisdictions in the region have
made changes that have improved
operating efciency or service
delivery. Both Arlington and Fairfax
have developed joint government-
nonprot service delivery models that
call for strong oversight and coordi-
nation at the county or CoC level,
with case management and service
delivery provided by local nonprots.
Both of these counties also created
a housing locator staf position; he
or she works closely with landlords
to help nd suitable and afordable
housing based on each clients needs.
The District of Columbia is in the
process of shifting from a focus
on transitional housing to Rapid
Re-Housing, which it sees as a more
efective tool to stabilize homeless-
ness caused by purely economic
difculties, as opposed to homeless-
ness caused by mental illness or
disability. As discussed earlier, many
jurisdictions also agree with or are
shifting their policies to a Housing First
approachproviding housing to the
homeless before providing necessary
services instead of requiring services
as a prerequisite to subsidized
housing. Research has shown that
Housing First is a much more efective
tool for reducing homelessness than
providing services as a prerequisite
to housing, as it treats homelessness
as the primary barrier to improv-
ing self-sufciency and quality of life
(Rynearson, Barrett, and Clark 2010).
Policies such as data sharing and a
centralized or coordinated intake
system would help ensure that
providers coordinate referrals and
use common intake forms, and
consequently speak a common
language, aiding communication
across programs and agencies.
For nearly all the local stakeholders
interviewed, housing afordability
remains their top issue for homeless
and other lower-income households
alike. The next two sections move
further along the housing continuum
to examine regional renters and
homeowners and the struggles they
face in nding afordable housing.
Photo: Matt Johnson
30 See for example: http://www.census.gov/housing/census/publications/who-can-aford.pdf
3. AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
Although renter households
accounted for only 37 percent of
all households in the Washington
region in 200911, they made
up the majority of lower-income
households, including 58 percent
of very low income households
and 70 percent of extremely
low income households.
Almost half of all renter households
in the region have struggled with
high housing costs, including more
than 150,000 households with
severe housing cost burden (i.e.,
households who pay more than half
their income on rent and utilities).
Eighty-six percent of extremely
low income renter households
were cost-burdened, paying more
on housing, including 72 percent
who were severely cost-burdened.
in Arlington, where 91 percent
of extremely low income renters
were cost burdened. Prince William
(90 percent), Fairfax and Prince
Georges (88 percent) followed.
Extremely low income renters
faced enormous competition for
afordable units. Higher-income
households occupied 40 percent
of the units that would have been
afordable to the poorest ten-
ants, producing a regional gap of
more than 94,000 rental units for
No jurisdiction had enough aford-
able and available rental units to
meet the demand by extremely
low income households, with
gaps ranging from 3,500 units
in Loudoun to 22,100 units in
the District of Columbia.
Very low and low income house-
holds also faced competition
for afordable units from higher-
income renters. Forty-six percent
of units afordable for very low
income households and 50 percent
of units afordable for low income
households were rented by higher-
income households. Consequently,
77 and 52 percent of very low
and low income households,
respectively, were cost burdened.
Montgomery and Fairfax had too
few afordable and available units
for very low income households.
The District of Columbia, Prince
Georges, Prince William and Lou-
doun lacked sufcient numbers of
units for low income households.
The region had only enough public
housing units and vouchers to
serve about one in three extremely
low income households. The
District of Columbia was home to
nearly half of the regions HUD-
subsidized units and more than
one-third of the regions aford-
able units that were funded with
low income housing tax credits.
This section explores the need for
afordable rental housing as well as
the local policy tools that jurisdic-
tions might employ to increase the
production and preservation of the
afordable rental housing stock.
HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS
NEED AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING?
A widely-used afordability standard
recommends a household should
pay no more than 30 percent of its
gross monthly income in housing
costs, including rent or a mortgage,
taxes, fees, and utilities.
30
Households
paying more than 30 percent of
their income in rent are considered
to be cost-burdened and those that
Photo: Dan Reed
pay more than 50 percent of their
income in rent are severely cost-
burdened. This standard is used here
as well. To determine what rent levels
would be afordable, the authors
calculated the maximum amount a
household with could pay in rent and
still spend no more than 30 percent
of their monthly income on rent.
Table 3.1 compares this maximum
afordable rent with the median
gross rent of all occupied rental units
for each jurisdiction as a ratio. (The
median is the point at which half the
units charge rents above and half
below.) The median rent in the region
in 200911 was $1,320, ranging from
$1,106 in the District of Columbia to
$1,570 in Arlington. In the table, ratios
higher than one indicate that rents
were not afordable at the maximum
income for each income level in
that jurisdiction. Jurisdictions that are
unafordable are shaded progressively
darker brown as the level of unaford-
ability rises. Likewise, ratios less than
one indicate that the median gross rent
TABLE 3.1: RATIO BETWEEN MEDIAN GROSS RENT AND THE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENT BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Minimum
annual
income
Minimum
afordable
monthly
rent W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
M
o
n
t
g
o
m
e
r
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

G
e
o
r
g
e
'
s
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
i
a
A
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
F
a
i
r
f
a
x
L
o
u
d
o
u
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Median Gross Rent $1,320 $1,160 $1,423 $1,118 $1,342 $1,570 $1,500 $1,311 $1,311
Middle income $127,400 $3,190 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
Low income $67,600 $1,690 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8
Very low Income $53,050 $1,330 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
200% of poverty level $44,700 $1,120 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2
Extremely low income $31,850 $800 1.7 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.6
Poverty level $22,350 $560 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.3
minimum wage
$17,160 $430 3.1 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.1 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.0
Maryland and Virginia
minimum wage
$15,080 $380 3.5 2.9 3.7 2.9 3.5 4.1 3.9 3.5 3.5
Notes: Table displays the median gross rent for occupied- rental units of all sizes. Maximum annual income was dened by the income level at the top of the range for each category. For example
the highest income level for extremely low income is 30 percent of AMI or $31,850.
Source: American Community Survey, 200911. Calculations by the Urban Institute.
31 Proposals to raise the minimum wage in the District of Columbia, Montgomery, and Prince Georges to $11.50 per hour would mean that
an individual in the District of Columbia or Prince Georges would need to work about 1.8 full-time jobs to aford the median rent in those
jurisdictions, almost one job less than the current minimum wage. At the proposed minimum wage, an individual living in Montgomery would still
need to work almost 2.4 full-time jobs to aford the median rent.
in the jurisdiction was afordable, and
darker blue indicates greater afordabil-
ity (0.3 is more afordable than 0.4, for
example) at the specied income level.
In all jurisdictions, the median rental
unit was unafordable to workers
with extremely low incomes, such
as those earning minimum wage.
For example, a person earning the
minimum wage in Maryland or
Virginia would need to work three
to four full-time jobs to aford the
median rental unit in jurisdictions
in those states. A person earning
the minimum wage in the District
of Columbia would need to work
2.6 full-time jobs at the minimum
wage.
31
Overall Montgomery,
Arlington, and Fairfax were the most
unafordable jurisdictions; in these
locations, no very low or extremely
low income households could
have aforded the median rent.
Digging deeper into the question
of rent afordability, this study
analyzes whether households
in the region were paying more
in rent. Signicantly more aford-
able rental housing is needed in
the region. Nearly half of all renter
households (314,900 households)
were renting at unafordable rates,
with 150,000 of these households
facing severe housing cost burden
(paying more than half of their
income to rent). As table 3.2 shows,
the bulk of the need for additional
TABLE 3.2. RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY SHARE OF INCOME PAID IN RENT EACH MONTH AND COST BURDEN
RATES BY JURISDICTION, 200911
Number of Renter Households
Jurisdiction
Less than
30% of
income
30-50% of
income
50% or more
of income Total
Cost-
burdened (%)
Severely
cost-
burdened (%)
District of Columbia 74,000 33,900 41,700 149,600 51 28
Montgomery 58,600 31,400 27,500 117,600 50 23
Prince George's 56,200 30,100 25,200 111,500 50 23
Alexandria 20,700 9,300 6,300 36,300 43 17
Arlington 29,800 10,500 8,900 49,300 39 18
Fairfax 66,800 29,900 24,500 121,200 45 20
Loudoun 18,400 7,700 6,600 32,700 44 20
Prince William 20,300 12,100 9,200 41,500 51 22
Washington region 344,800 164,900 150,000 659,700 48 23
Note: Data are rounded to the nearest 100. Cost-burdened households are those paying more than 30 percent of gross household income for
gross rent; severely cost-burdened households are cost-burdened households paying more than 50 percent of gross income for gross rent.
afordable rental housing is in the
four largest jurisdictions: the District
of Columbia, Montgomery, Prince
Georges and Fairfax. Each jurisdic-
tion had more than 50,000 house-
holds living in unafordable units.
The District of Columbia and Prince
William had the highest rates of
cost-burdened renters, followed by
Montgomery and Prince Georges.
Severe cost burden rates were also
highest in the District of Columbia
and the Maryland suburbs.
faced extraordinarily high rates
of cost burden (see gure 3.1). Of
extremely low income renters, 86
percent were cost-burdened and
72 percent were severely cost-
burdened. Although burdens ease
slightly with growing income, aford-
ability remains a problem for many
families. Next up the income ladder,
for example, 25 percent of those
with very low incomes were severely
burdened. Nonetheless, three out
of four were still cost-burdened.
Even nearly one-fourth of middle
income renters paid more than
30 percent of their income to rent
(and thus were cost-burdened).
in Arlington, where 91 percent of
extremely low income renters were
cost-burdened. Prince William (90
percent), Fairfax (88 percent), and
Prince Georges (88 percent) follow.
A clear sign of the extent of unaford-
ability in these jurisdictions, 82
percent of extremely low-income
households paid more than half of
their incomes for rent in Arlington.
In Fairfax, the share was 77 percent.
(For more detail by jurisdiction
please see the proles in Appendix
A and online at http://www.urban.
were not the only ones shoulder-
ing high cost burdens in these
areas. Higher-income households
faced afordability issues as well.
As reected in the regional values
in gure 3.1, 91 percent of very low
income renters paid more than 30
percent of their income for rent in
Arlington and in Fairfax, 83 percent
were similarly cost-burdened.
Two new areas made the list as
well: in Montgomery, 85 percent
of very low income renters were
cost-burdened, and in Alexandria,
84 percent were struggling.

Cost-burden
(>30% of income spent on rent)
Severly cost-burdened
Note: Cost-burdened households are those paying more than 30 percent of gross household
income for gross rent; severely cost-burdened households are cost-burdened households paying
more than 50 percent of gross income for gross rent.
FIGURE 3.1. PERCENT OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN THE
WASHINGTON REGION WHO ARE COSTBURDENED, 200911
Extremely
Low
86%
72%
Very
Low
77%
25%
Low
52%
6%
Middle
23%
1%
High
3% 0%
Income Level of Renter Households
HOW MANY AFFORDABLE
RENTAL UNITS EXIST?
The previous section clearly demon-
strated that many renters need
more afordable housing in the
Washington region. One reason for
this high unmet need is a shortage
in the supply of afordable units.
But theres another challenge. As
the analysis below revealed, many
higher-income households were
occupying lower-priced housing.
Table 3.3 shows the number of units
in the region categorized by which
households would be able to aford
the units rents. Of all the units, for
example, extremely low income
families would nd 15 percent of
the rental stock afordable. Among
the rental stock, 107,000 units in the
region were, or could be, rented
for $800 or less per month, which
would be afordable for extremely
low income households. Many more
units (37 percent) were afordable
to very low income households.
Together, more than half of the
Washington regions 714,500 rental
units were potentially afordable to
very low or extremely low income
households. However, a substantial
share of afordable units were not
available to very low or extremely
low income renters because they
were occupied by households with
higher incomes (please see the
discussion on page 47-48). The units
also may have been afordable but
may not be in neighborhoods of
opportunity that were transit acces-
sible, close to jobs, or had amenities
like grocery stores. High income
households face fewer constraints
in the rental market and could aford
to pay quite a bit more$3,190 per
month or moreand still spend 30
percent or less of their monthly
income. However, although high-
income renters made up 17 percent
of renter households, only 2 percent
of the regions rental stock was
priced at this level, meaning that
many higher-income families were
TABLE 3.3. WASHINGTON REGIONS RENTAL SUPPLY BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, 200911
Unit afordability level
Annual
income range
Afordable
rent range
Units
in range
Percentage
of units
Extremely low income $0-31,850 $0-800 107,000 15
Very low income $31,850-53,050 $800-1,330 263,000 37
Low income $53,050-67,600 $1,330-1,690 152,200 21
Middle income $67,600-127,400 $1,690-3,190 180,700 25
High income $127,400+ $3,190+ 11,600 2
Total rental units 714,500 100
Note: Data are rounded to the nearest 100.
32 Both types of subsidies are part of what is known as the Section 8 program.
33 Other programs operate by providing subsidies to reduce the interest rate that a building owner pays on a mortgage (Section 236) or loans for
construction or rehabilitation of housing for special needs populations (Section 202/811).
living in units with considerably lower
rents than they could aford to pay.
Programs that increase rental
unit afordability
One component of the aford-
able rental supply is units that are
market-rate afordable. This means
that rents for those units are set
based on the surrounding market
conditions but are still low enough
that low-income households can
aford to live there. However, often
the market alone does not provide
enough afordable units, particularly
for lower-income renters, and the
private and public sectors must inter-
vene to create more afordable units
or preserve afordability in existing
units as neighborhoods develop
and housing and land prices rise.
These afordable rental interventions
come in three main forms: rental
subsidies that cover some or all of the
rent for families; development subsi-
dies or incentives for developers and
building owners to build or preserve
housing to be rented at afordable
rates; and direct provision of housing
by the government. An example of a
rental subsidy is the Housing Choice
Voucher program, which allows quali-
fying families to pay only 30 percent
of their income for rent and covers
the diference for landlords between
a familys ability to pay and the market
rate for rent. There are similar subsi-
dies provided to the building owner
rather than the family.
32
An example
of a development subsidy or incentive
to build afordable housing is the low
income housing tax credit (LIHTC),
a tax credit for private develop-
ers that ofsets the costs of setting
aside a certain number of units to
rent at lower rates in a market-rate
property. An example of the third
form of afordable housing is public
housing, which is administered by
local housing authorities that receive
operating subsidies from HUD.
33
In
recent years, public policy has shifted
to providing more afordable housing
through rental and development
subsidies rather than ofering govern-
ment-operated, public housing. (See
box and Appendix B for more detail
on these and other programs.)
The supply of afordable rental units
is not xed. Market-rate afordable
units, for example, could become
less afordable as neighborhoods
gentrify. Even public-sector housing
subsidies are afected by federal
and local budget constraints.
FOUR PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
The Housing Choice Voucher
Program serves 2 million
households (and more than 2.5
million children). It ofers tenants
subsidies in market-rate housing.
The family is responsible for
nding the unit and must pay 30
percent of monthly gross income
for rent and utilities. If the unit
rent is greater than the payment
standard, the family is required
to pay the additional amount.
The low income housing tax
credit serves approximately 2.5
million households. The credit is
a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction
to investors who develop
afordable rental housing.
Project-based Section 8 units
serve 1.2 million households
in privately owned housing
that the federal government
subsidizes. The subsidy stays
with the building; when the
family moves out, they lose
the rental assistance.
Public housing serves
approximately 1.2 million
households. The housing is
owned and operated by local
government authorities.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
34 For jurisdictions whose PUMAs boundaries are not the same as their county or city boundaries, like Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William (see
footnote 8), that PUMA is referred to by the shorter name just listed. When the study explicitly refers to the individual jurisdictions in the PUMA,
the correct jurisdiction title, such as Fairfax County or Fairfax City, is used.
35 Most of the HUD-subsidized units are rental; a few jurisdictions have very small Homeownership Housing Choice voucher programs.
36 Section 8 new construction or substantial rehabilitation includes Section 202 and 811 nancing. All other multifamily assisted projects include
Federal Housing Administration programs including: Section 8 Loan Management, Rental Assistance Program (RAP), Rent Supplement, and
Property Disposition.
The region as a whole had about
73,600 HUD-subsidized rental units
in 2012. An additional 48,200 units
used LIHTCs (see table 3.4).
34
The
HUD-subsidized units included 12,400
public housing units and 36,100
Section 8 certicates and vouchers.
Section 8 certicates represented
nearly half of all HUD-subsidized units
regionally.
35
Rental units that received
subsidies from local governments and
did not receive any federal subsidies
were not included in the analysis in
this subsection of the study. However,
often local and federal subsidies are
combined to make the development
of an afordable property possible.
The District of Columbia was
home to nearly half of the regions
HUD-subsidized units and more
than one-third of the regions units
that were funded with LIHTCs.
It also had two-thirds of all public
housing units in the region and
61 percent of other multifamily
projects, which are administered by
TABLE 3.4. FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED UNITS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 2012
36
Percent of Region's Units
Units in the
Washington
region D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
M
o
n
t
g
o
m
e
r
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

G
e
o
r
g
e
'
s
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
i
a
A
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
F
a
i
r
f
a
x
L
o
u
d
o
u
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Low income
housing tax credit
48,200 34 12 16 3 6 13 6 11
All HUD programs 73,600 46 16 13 5 4 11 1 4
Public housing 12,400 67 13 4 6 - 9 - -
Housing Choice
Vouchers
36,100 39 18 15 5 4 10 2 6
Section 8 moderate
rehabilitation
600 38 6 35 18 3 - - -
Section 8 new
construction
or substantial
rehabilitation
13,700 37 16 13 7 7 16 1 3
Section 236 1,500 37 22 16 - 3 22 - -
All other multifamily
assisted projects
9,300 61 12 16 1 1 7 - 1
Notes: Housing Choice Vouchers may include project-based vouchers. Data do not include units funded outside of these HUD programs, includ-
ing those funded with Community Development Block Grant or HOME Investment Partnership funds. Data are rounded to the nearest 100.
Source: Picture of Subsidized Housing 2012, US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA). Several jurisdictionsArlington,
Loudoun County, Prince William,
Manassas and Manassas Park
have no public housing units.
Despite their importance, the aford-
able stock of rental housing was
not dominated by these federally-
subsidized units. In fact, most
afordable rental housing in the
region was market-rate or unsub-
sidized. It is estimated that at most
23 percent of the regions 522,200
rental units that were afordably
priced for lower-income house-
holds had federal subsidies to
help reduce rents such as public
housing or Section 8 subsidies (see
table 3.4). This estimate assumes
there is no overlap between these
subsidy programs (for example,
a building could have project-
based Section 8 assistance and
have tenants with Housing Choice
Vouchers) and therefore may
overestimate the share of units that
subsidized rental units made up.
Although some areas had more
assisted housing than others, few
neighborhoods in the region
had large concentrations of
HUD-subsidized rental housing.
The top map in gure 3.2 shows the
number of HUD-subsidized units
in each census tract in the region
(LIHTC units are excluded in the
maps). On average, a census tract
in the Washington region contained
1,650 housing units. Nearly half of
the census tracts had fewer than 15
HUD-subsidized units, and about
one-fourth had more than 65 units.
The bottom map shows the number
of HUD-subsidized units per 100
housing units in the area. The
majority (approximately 80 percent)
of all census tracts contained fewer
than ve subsidized units per 100.
About 1 in 10 had no subsidized
units. Less than 5 percent of tracts
in the region had 20 or more subsi-
dized rental housing units per 100,
a level that could be considered a
large concentration. These tracts
were located primarily in the District
of Columbia where 25 percent
of tracts had large concentra-
tions of subsidized rental housing,
compared with only 1 percent of
tracts in Maryland and Virginia.
Photo: Matt Johnson
Loudoun
Fairfax
Montgomery
Prince George's
Prince William
Arlington
Alexandria
Manassas
Fairfax City
Falls Church
Manassas Park
Legend
Number of HUD-subsidized units
No subsidized units
0 to 5
5 to 15
15 to 65
More than 65
County boundaries
Major highways
FIGURE 3.2. NUMBER OF HUDSUBSIDIZED UNITS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY CENSUS TRACT, 2012
Note: Data do not include units funded outside of these HUD programs including those funded with Community Development Block Grant or HOME
Investment Partnership funds, or only locally funded subsidies.
Source: Picture of Subsidized Housing 2012, US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2010 Census for housing unit counts, US Census Bureau.
Fairfax
Loudoun
Montgomery
Prince George's
Prince William
Arlington
Alexandria
Manassas
Fairfax City
Falls Church
Manassas Park
HUD-subsidized units per 100 housing units
No subsidized units
0 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 100
County boundaries
Major highways
Legend
FIGURE 3.3. HUDSUBSIDIZED UNITS PER 100 HOUSING UNITS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
BY CENSUS TRACT, 2012
Note: Data do not include units funded outside of these HUD programs including those funded with Community Development Block Grant or HOME
Investment Partnership funds, or only locally funded subsidies.
Source: Picture of Subsidized Housing 2012, US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2010 Census for housing unit counts, US Census Bureau.
ARE THERE ENOUGH RENTAL
UNITS TO MEET THE NEED?
As the previous two sections illus-
trate, there are many potentially
afordable housing units, yet demand
remains very high, as evidenced
by the signicant cost burden on
the majority of area households.
Yet the question arises: how can
there be both a fairly large supply
and a large number of house-
holds paying burdensome rents?
The high level of cost burden despite
a fairly large supply of potentially
afordable units can be explained in
part by the fact that lower-income
renters face competition from
higher-income renters. A large
percentage of afordable units are
therefore not available to those in
need because they are occupied by
higher-income renters. Landlords are
likely to give preference to higher-
income households over those with
lower incomes, given the formers
greater nancial stability. When
higher-income households rent
lower-cost units, they inadvertently
crowd out lower-income renters.
37 Higher-income renters would not occupy units made afordable via subsidies but would be able to occupy market-rate afordable units.
38 When rental units are afordable to lower-income households but are occupied by higher-income households, unit to someone who could
aford to pay a little more if a more afordable unit were available. See HUDs Worst Case Housing Needs Report for similar methodology and
statistics (Stefen 2013). those units are categorized as not available to meet the needs of lower-income households. It is assumed they are
unavailable because there is no nancial incentive for higher-income families to leave a lower-cost unit. Units are considered available if they
were vacant or occupied by renters paying rents afordable in their income range, or by those paying too much. Renters who were paying too
much for a unit would, in theory, give up their unafordable
Table 3.5 shows the number of housing
units in the region, by afordability level,
that were occupied by higher-income
renters and so were not available for
lower-income renters. Almost 40
percent of units with rents aford-
able to extremely low income renters
were occupied by higher-income
households (41,400 out of 107,000
units). Of units afordable to very
low income renters, 119,900 (46
percent) were occupied by higher-
income households, and 78,100
(51 percent) of the units afordable
to those in the next rung up, low
income families, were occupied by
middle or high income households.
37

Table 3.6 compares available units
and need.
38
In this case avail-
able means either vacant or not
already occupied by someone
who could aford higher rents.
The shortage is particularly acute for
the extremely low income house-
holds. The Washington region needs
94,200 units to afordably house
all extremely low income house-
holds in the Washington region.
Given that there were more than
114,000 extremely low income renter
households who were severely cost-
burdened, an afordability gap of
this size is particularly concerning.
TABLE 3.5. AVAILABLE AND NOT AVAILABLE RENTAL HOUSING UNITS BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL AND
INCOME OF CURRENT OCCUPANTS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 200911
Income level units rent is afordable to
Household living in the unit
Extremely
low Very low Low Middle High Total
Higher-income renters (not available) 41,400 119,900 78,100 63,400 0 302,700
Same or lower-income renters (available) 58,100 117,200 63,800 107,000 10,900 357,000
No one (vacant/available) 7,500 25,900 10,300 10,400 700 54,800
Total 107,000 263,000 152,200 180,700 11,600 714,500
TABLE 3.6. UNITS NEEDED TO MEET NEEDS OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY
INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely Low Very Low Low Middle High
Afordable and available
rental units (supply)
65,600 143,100 74,100 117,400 11,600
Renter households (demand) 159,800 116,700 74,000 195,600 113,600
Gap or (surplus) 94,200 (26,400) (100) 78,300 102,000
Although the supply and availability
were more balanced for very low and
low income renter households overall,
many households in these groups
were still cost-burdened, suggesting a
continued need for subsidies targeted
to households up to 80 percent AMI.
Furthermore, there was also a gap for
middle income and high income units.
An inadequate supply of afordable
units for more afuent renters may be
producing increased competition for
lower cost units, which may be squeez-
ing out lower-income households.
Later in this section, local public policy
tools that may help address the gap
for lower-income units are explored.
While policy options to address gaps
for higher-income households are
not discussed, increased produc-
tion of housing units at all cost
levels will help alleviate the excess
demand that is driving up rents and
crowding out lower-income renters.
The problem of availability persists
in all jurisdictions. No jurisdic-
tion had enough afordable and
available rental units to meet the
demand by extremely low income
households, ranging from a gap of
3,500 units in Loudoun to 22,100
units in the District of Columbia
(see table 3.7). A few jurisdictions
also had too few units at the very
low income level (Montgomery and
Fairfax) and low income level (District
of Columbia, Prince Georges,
Prince William, and Loudoun).
Faced with high housing costs, many
families turn to available subsidies.
Housing Choice Vouchers and public
housing in particular are designed
to target the extremely low income
and some very low income house-
holds. Jurisdictions may give prefer-
ence for vouchers or public housing
units to certain groups of people
including the elderly, the disabled,
or currently homeless people. Two
jurisdictions stood out because they
also ofered locally funded voucher
programs: the Local Rent Supplement
Program in the District of Columbia
and the Housing Grants Rental
Assistance Program in Arlington.
In the Washington region, there
were about 36,100 federally and
locally funded vouchers (table 3.8).
TABLE 3.7. UNITS NEEDED TO MEET NEEDS OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY
JURISDICTION AND INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Jurisdiction
Extremely low Very low Low
District of Columbia 22,100 (8,400) 2,500
Montgomery 18,200 1,100 (4,500)
Prince George's 18,400 (12,200) 5,800
Alexandria 4,800 (2,400) (1,700)
Arlington 5,100 (1,500) (1,500)
Fairfax 15,500 700 (2,200)
Loudoun 3,500 (800) 400
Prince William 6,600 (2,900) 1,000
Total Washington region gap
(or surplus)
94,200 (26,400) (100)
Table 3.8 shows the estimated relative
size of jurisdictions voucher and
public housing programs and the
proportion of extremely low income
households the programs could
potentially serve. In the region as a
whole, there were enough subsi-
dies to serve only about one in three
The District of Columbia had the
highest number of vouchers or public
housing units per 100 extremely low
income households at 43 followed
by Alexandria and Arlington at 39
and 36, respectively. Fairfax had the
lowest rate with only 21 vouchers
or public housing units per 100
Faced with high housing costs, many
families turn to available subsidies.
Housing Choice Vouchers and public
housing in particular are designed to
target the extremely low income and
some very low income households.
Jurisdictions may give preference for
vouchers or public housing units to
certain groups of people including
the elderly, the disabled, or currently
homeless people. Two jurisdictions
stood out because they also ofered
locally funded voucher programs: the
Local Rent Supplement Program in the
District of Columbia and the Housing
Grants Rental Assistance Program in
Arlington. In the Washington region,
there were about 36,100 federally and
locally funded vouchers (table 3.8).
Table 3.8 shows the estimated relative
size of jurisdictions voucher and
public housing programs and the
proportion of extremely low income
households the programs could
potentially serve. In the region as a
whole, there were enough subsi-
dies to serve only about one in three
The District of Columbia had the
highest number of vouchers or public
housing units per 100 extremely low
income households at 43 followed
by Alexandria and Arlington at 39
and 36, respectively. Fairfax had the
lowest rate with only 21 vouchers
or public housing units per 100
TABLE 3.8. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VOUCHERS AND PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS RELATIVE TO EXTREMELY
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY JURISDICTION, 200911
Jurisdiction
Housing
Choice
Vouchers
Local
vouchers
Public
housing
units
Extremely
low income
households
Vouchers or
units per 100
households
District of Columbia 12,000 2,000 8,000 52,300 43
Montgomery 6,300 - 1,700 26,000 31
Prince George's 5,500 - 500 27,800 22
Alexandria 1,600 - 1,100 6,900 39
Arlington 1,500 1,200 - 7,500 36
Fairfax 3,600 - 1,100 22,900 21
Prince William 2,100 - - 9,200 23
Washington region* 32,600 3,200 12,400 152,600 32
Notes: Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing numbers are estimates and rounded to the nearest 100. Housing Choice Voucher numbers
may include project-based vouchers. Montgomery includes 400 vouchers and 105 public housing units administered by the City of Rockville.
Fairfax includes 100 vouchers for Falls Church residents and an unknown quantity for Fairfax city residents.
*Loudoun County is excluded; the county has about 600 Housing Choice Vouchers and no public housing but was not included here because the
number of extremely low income households was only available for the Loudoun PUMA.
Source: Scans of local agency websites and interviews with agency staf by Urban Institute and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
staf. American Community Survey, 200911.
39 The most recent version of the Montgomerys mandatory program requires that 12.5 percent of units in new buildings with 20 units or more be in
the MPDU program. If developers exceed the minimum requirement and allocate 15 percent of the total units as MPDU, they can receive up to a
22 percent density bonus. Rental units built after the most recent amendment in 2005 must remain afordable for 99 years, efectively making the
units created permanently afordable. This also reects a signicant increase to the original term limits, which was ve years.
40 The local municipal governments with authority over their own zoning decisions (cities of Falls Church and Fairfax and the towns of Clifton,
Herndon, and Vienna) are not afected.
WHAT LOCAL POLICY
TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE
TO JURISDICTIONS
TO INCREASE
AFFORDABILITY?
The shortfall in housing assistance (e.g.,
tenant subsidies and subsidized units)
leaves already precarious households in
the difcult position of devoting up to
half their income to rent every month,
leaving little to pay for other household
essentials, including food, clothing,
health care, transportation costs, or child
care, and possibly forcing households to
double up or living in physically inade-
quate units (Lee et al. 2003; Meyers et
al. 1995). In response to this need, local
jurisdictions have created their own
programs to provide additional aford-
able housing. In this section selected
local policies that have been, or could
be, implemented in jurisdictions in the
Washington region to preserve or create
afordable rental housing units are
discussed. How jurisdictions implement
and fund these programs (when funding
is needed) varies substantially, which can
afect program quality and efectiveness.
While this study does not attempt to
compare the efectiveness of programs,
current and potential local funding
mechanisms will be reviewed in more
depth in Section 5. Several types of
state and local policies provide support
directly to low income renters, includ-
ing emergency assistance programs,
housing search services, and landlord-
tenant resources and mediation services.
Maryland, for example, operates a
rental allowance program that can be
used for up to 12 months to prevent
homelessness, as can Montgomerys
rental assistance program. Some
jurisdictions provide targeted assis-
tance to vulnerable populations such
as seniors, people with disabilities, or
persons living with HIV/AIDS, such as
Alexandrias Rent Relief Program. Many
jurisdictionsincluding Alexandria,
Arlington, City of Rockville, the District of
Columbia, Fairfax County, Falls Church,
Manassas, and Montgomeryprovide
assistance to renters through media-
tion for landlord-tenant disputes.
Other locales help cover the costs
of rehabilitating buildings, which
can also help preserve the aford-
able housing stock. Two examples of
local rehabilitation programs include
Alexandrias Rental Accessibility
Modication Program, which gives
grants to landlords to make properties
accessible for a low income disabled
resident or Arlingtons or Fairfax Citys
partial tax exemption for substantial
rehabilitation on multifamily buildings.
Inclusionary zoning
Montgomerys Inclusionary Zoning
(IZ) policy, the Moderately Priced
Dwelling Unit Program (MPDU), is the
oldest in the country and has been
in operation since 1974, albeit with
several revisions.
39
(For more detail on
IZ programs, see box.) Montgomerys
IZ program has produced more units
than any other IZ program in the
United States. Between its incep-
tion and 2011, the program created
3,956 afordable housing units; nearly
1,000 of its rental units were devel-
oped since 2000 (Levy et al. 2012).
Fairfax Countys IZ policy, the
Afordable Dwelling Unit ordinance,
has been in place since 1990.
40
The
most recent version of program
mandates that developers devote
NEW PROGRAM COULD HELP
ADDRESS THE SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS
Several stakeholders interviewed
suggested that a new program
from HUD, the Rental Assistance
Demonstration, may also help
housing authorities raise capital
funds to rehabilitate and preserve
afordable units. This program
allows housing authorities to
convert distressed public housing
units into privately subsidized
units in the Section 8 program,
which will allow access to
private capital markets (including
LIHTCs) for nancing. A second
part of the Rental Assistance
Demonstration would allow
private landlords participating in
the moderate rehabilitation, rent
supplement, or rental assistance
payment programs to preserve
their distressed properties.
41 High-rise buildings that are more than four stories and include elevators are exempt from the Afordable Dwelling Unit requirement. In order
to increase afordable housing in these units, Fairfax County passed a voluntary Workforce Dwelling Units (WDUs) program in 2007. Under this
program, 12 percent of new housing units and 20 percent of new housing units in Tysons Corner are to be set aside for afordable dwelling units
and WDUs, respectively.
between 6.25 percent and 12.5
percent of the development to aford-
able units, depending on unit type
and size.
41
Developers may opt out
of the requirement if they can show
that building such units would cause
economic hardship. They must,
however, contribute land or funds to
the Fairfax County Redevelopment
and Housing Authority. Two-thirds
of the afordable dwelling rental
units in a building must be rented
to income households and the
remaining one-third must house
very low income households.
Rental units remain afordable for
30 years. However, if a new tenant
moves in before the term expires,
the price-control period does not
restart. Developers can receive up to
a 20 percent density bonus if they
provide more than the minimum
number of afordable dwelling units.
Since this ordinance took efect,
developers created 1,112 rental
units as of 2011 (Levy et al. 2012).
The District of Columbias IZ program
uses zoning relief and tax incentives
to spur development. It also provides
public nancing and the right to
purchase or lease District-owned
land as further incentives. Since the
programs implementation in 2009,
211 rental units have been completed
or are under construction. Alexandria
also ofers a density bonus that has
produced 73 rental set-asides, with
six more units under construction
and an additional 136 units pledged.
Arlingtons IZ program requires that
buildings with certain densities make
a portion of the new total units aford-
able. Arlington also ofers density
bonuses for afordable housing
units to low- and moderate-income
households. The City of Gaithersburg
has a mandatory MPDU program:
any new residential developments
with 20 or more units must lease 15
percent of the units to the program.
Rockville also requires that develop-
ers building 50 units or more rent
at least 12.5 percent of the units to
households at or below 60 percent
of AMI. Falls Church and Loudoun
also have mandatory IZ programs.
Takoma Park, Prince Georges, Prince
William, Manassas Park, and the City
of Manassas do not have IZ policies.
Accessory dwelling units
Another way to boost the supply of
afordable housing at little cost to
the government is to allow acces-
sory dwelling units (ADUs), but
they are not without controversy.
ADUs are separate units from the
main dwelling unit, either existing
as a separate building such as a
living unit above a detached garage
or as a separate unit in the same
building as the main dwelling unit,
like an English basement. Though
public subsidy is not needed, the
presence of an ADU on a property
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Inclusionary zoning (IZ), also referred to as afordable dwelling unit set-
aside programs, does not require direct public subsidies. An inclusionary
zoning policy typically asks that developers of new developments set
aside a specic proportion of the new units to be either rented or sold
at moderately afordable prices, usually around 50 to 80 percent of
area median income, meant for low income households and not very
low or extremely low income households. The afordability period for
units varies by jurisdiction and is often set diferently for for-sale units
and rental units. These policies can be voluntary or mandatory, but
mandatory policies typically lead to the production of more units. In
some jurisdictions, developers may also receive density bonuses if they
produce more than the minimum number of afordable units required,
or may be allowed to make a monetary contribution to the jurisdiction in
lieu of building units. Some policies specify whether the afordable units
need to be built on-site or could be built elsewhere in the jurisdiction.
42 Owners in the District of Columbia, Montgomery, Prince Georges, Fairfax County, Falls Church City, and Loudoun County who wish to add an
ADU must obtain a special permit. Montgomery, Falls Church City, and Loudoun County require additional parking for ADUs. Some jurisdictions,
such as Falls Church City or Loudoun County, only allow ADUs in certain zoning districts, such as low-density or medium-density residential.
Prince William and Prince Georges counties only permit ADUs for farm employees in Agricultural-Rural districts on lots greater than 10 acres.
Many of these jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Alexandria, Falls Church City, Loudoun County, and Manassas City also permit
certain types of home-based businesses in ADUs.
may increase the overall sales price
and make homeownership less
afordable. Many zoning require-
ments bar ADUs, and residents
fear they may create congestion
or too much density. Jurisdictions
that allow ADUs frequently impose
additional stipulations, such as lot
size minimums, to mitigate impact.
All the study areas except Prince
Georges, Manassas, Manassas Park
City, and Alexandria allow ADUs as
separate living units.
42
Jurisdictions
that permit ADUs recognize that
these units can help meet the
afordable housing needs or special
needs housing of their jurisdiction.
In September 2013, for example,
Montgomery simplied the permitting
process for ADU as a way to increase
its afordable housing stock. Fairfax
County and City both required that
ADUs have at least one elderly or
disabled occupant in either the ADU
or primary dwelling unit with an ADU.
While Alexandria does not currently
allow ADUs, its housing master plan
recommends a two-phase imple-
mentation strategy beginning with
allowing ADUs in new construction
and conducting extensive community
outreach and analysis to learn how
ADUs will afect parking, congestion,
and other aspects of the commu-
nity. Alexandrias Strategic Plan on
Aging also recommends ADUs as a
cost-efective and logical approach
to allowing senior citizens to age
in place in their community.
Other regulatory policies
Although not widely used in the
region, rent stabilization or rent
control policies are another tactic
to make housing more afordable.
These policies cap the amount rent
increases each year in specic types
of buildings. The District of Columbia
has had a rent control policy since
1985, with exemptions for landlords
who own fewer than ve units and
subsidized properties, though other
exemptions may be issued. Estimates
put the number of potentially rent-
controlled properties at 4,818, with
79,145 multifamily rental units,
representing about two-thirds of all
multifamily rental units potentially
subject to rent control in the District
of Columbia (Tatian and Williams
2011). However, if a tenant moves
out, the rent for that unit is allowed to
oat up to the current market rate, at
which point it is subject to regulated
increases. This means that rent
controlled properties likely have a mix
of units that are afordable to lower-
income households and units that
are not afordable. Two communities
in Maryland also have rent control
policies, Takoma Park in Montgomery
and College Park in Prince Georges
(for 14 unit properties).
A few other policies in the region
stand out as unique in nding ways
to preserve afordable housing.
One of the most important tools in
Montgomery is a policy that gives the
Housing Opportunities Commission
a right-of-rst-refusal to purchase any
multifamily rental building of more
than 10 units that is for sale or under-
going condominium conversion. If
funding is available to purchase, this
policy can help preserve market-
rate afordable units, particularly
in high-demand areas. Although it
has not been used, the District of
Columbia has a similar program
on its books called the District
Opportunity to Purchase (DOPA)
program. It allows the District to
purchase buildings with ve or more
rental units if at least one-fourth are
being rented at afordable levels
(dened by the District). Through
the District of Columbias First Right
Purchase Program under the Tenant
Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA),
the District ofers tenants of any
property the right-of-rst-refusal
on a sale of the property. In multi-
family buildings, tenants may work
with a developer to redevelop the
property and turn it in to a coopera-
tive or condominium building.
From 2002 to 2013, about 1,400
units were preserved as afordable
housing through this program and
funding from the Housing Production
Trust Fund (Reed 2013) (see section
5 of this study for more on the
Housing Production Trust Fund).
This policy is particularly important
to preserving afordable housing
for lower-income families in areas
that are undergoing gentrication.
43 National statistics from the US Census Bureaus Housing Vacancy Survey available at: http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/les/annual12/
ann12t_14.xls.
4. AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
Sixty-three percent of households
in the Washington region were
homeowners in 200911. However,
homeownership afordability in the
region declined between 2000 and
2011, as housing prices increased
by 32 percent, adjusted for ination.
For low income homebuyers,
the average price was 48 percent
higher than what they could aford.
Homeownership was most aford-
able for rst-time homebuyers in
Prince Georges and Prince William
and was least afordable in the
District of Columbia, Montgomery,
Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax.
owner-occupied households in
the region paid more than 30
percent of their monthly income
in housing costs, with cost
burden rates that ranged from
88 percent for extremely low
income households to 10 percent
for high income households.
There were approximately 1.14
million homes (owned or for sale)
in the region, most of which were
afordable only to middle or high
income rst-time buyers. For low
income rst-time homebuy-
ers, 75 percent of these homes
would not be afordable without
assistance. Prince Georges had
the highest share of afordable
units relative to its share of the
regions homeownership stock,
followed by Prince William.
Lower-income households in the
Washington region faced competi-
tion from higher-income house-
holds for afordable homes. Nearly
7 in 10 units afordable to very low
income households and two-thirds
afordable to low income house-
holds were occupied by someone
in a higher-income category. This
competition contributed to a
56,800 gap between the supply
of and demand for afordable
units for very low income owner
households and a gap of 22,600
units for low income owners.
The biggest gaps overall in the
region were for middle and high
income homeowners, 83,100 and
155,100 units, respectively. How-
ever, this is in part because these
groups were a much larger share
of owner households (80 percent
of homeowners in the region) than
the lower-income groups, and
many of these households were
occupying more afordable units.
Homeownership is an important
part of the regional housing market
because it helps support stable
communities and allows households
to build wealth (DC Fiscal Policy
Institute and DC Appleseed 2008).
For-sale housing development
also produces positive economic
impacts and helps drive commu-
nity revitalization (Higgins 2001).
Despite the recent foreclosure
crisis, homeownership remains an
important means for households
to save by building equity in their
homes (Lerman, Steuerle, and Zhang
2012), while also providing stable
housing for people in retirement.
The regions overall homeowner-
ship rate was 63 percent in 200911,
slightly lower than the national
rate of 66 percent (table 4.1).
43

Fairfax (280,100) and Montgomery
Photo: Brett VA
(240,300) had the highest number
of homeowners. The highest
homeownership rate in the region
was in Loudoun, where almost 8 in 10
housing units were owner-occupied.
Montgomery and Fairfax also had
homeownership rates above the
regional and national averages. The
homeownership rates were lowest
in more urbanized areas such as the
District of Columbia, Alexandria, and
Arlingtonall below 50 percent.
The vast majority of owner-occupied
housing units in the region, 88
percent, were single-family homes
(table 4.2). In Prince Georges, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William, the
share was 90 percent or more.
Alexandria, the District of Columbia,
and Arlington had the highest
shares of homeowner housing
in multifamily properties, mostly
properties with 10 units or more.
Throughout the region, a major
challenge to afordable homeown-
ership is the high level of demand
for homes in certain places, which
sometimes drives prices up to
extreme levels. Areas that have
good amenities (such as high-quality
TABLE 4.1. OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AND HOME-
OWNERSHIP RATES IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 200911
Jurisdiction
Owner-occupied
housing units Homeownership rate (%)
District of Columbia 109,900 42
Montgomery 240,300 67
Prince George's 189,900 63
Alexandria 28,300 44
Arlington 42,900 47
Fairfax 280,100 70
Loudoun 114,400 78
Prince William 104,000 72
Washington region 1,109,700 63
Note: Unit counts are rounded to the nearest 100.
TABLE 4.2. WASHINGTON REGIONS HOMEOWNER HOUSING SUPPLY
BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE, 200911
Jurisdiction
Owner-occupied
housing units
Single-
family (%) Multifamily (%)
District of Columbia 109,900 71 29
Montgomery 240,300 88 12
Prince George's 189,900 94 6
Alexandria 28,300 67 33
Arlington 42,900 72 28
Fairfax 280,100 90 10
Loudoun 114,400 95 5
Prince William 104,000 96 4
Washington region 1,109,700 88 12
schools), convenient access to trans-
portation, a safe environment, and
attractive housing are typically among
the highest-priced in the region. Even
following the recent collapse of the
housing market nationally, housing
in much of the Washington region
has retained most of its value and
demand for homes here has begun
to pick up again. Consequently,
lower-income households are, in
many cases, not able to support the
costs of purchasing and maintain-
ing a home without some form of
subsidy or nancial assistance.
The remainder of this chapter
examines data on the demand,
supply, and gaps in afordable
homeownership housing in the
region in more detail and then
discusses some of the policies and
programs that local jurisdictions have
adopted to help support homeown-
ership. The analysis in the follow-
ing sections looks at the number
of households that need afordable
homeowner housing (the demand),
the number of existing homeowner
housing units that are afordable at
diferent income levels (the supply),
and the diference between the
demand and the supply (the gap).
HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS
NEED AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNER HOUSING?
As mentioned previously, it is recom-
mended that a household pay no
more than 30 percent of its monthly
income in housing costs, including
rent or a mortgage, taxes, fees, and
utilities. Households paying more than
30 percent of their income in rent are
considered to be cost-burdened and
those that pay more than 50 percent
of their income in rent are severely
cost-burdened. Applying these
standards to current homeowner
households provides an estimate
of the need for more afordable
homeownership units in the region.
homeowner households in the region
were cost-burdened, meaning that
the owners paid more than 30 percent
of monthly household income
on their housing costs. About 12
percent were severely cost-burdened,
paying more than 50 percent of
their income. Not surprisingly, the
cost burden grows with declin-
ing income. Among extremely low
income homeowners, 88 percent were
cost-burdened and 74 percent were
severely cost-burdened (gure 4.1).

Cost-burden
Severely cost-burdened
Note: Cost-burdened households are those paying more than 30 percent of gross household
income in housing costs; severely cost-burdened households are cost-burdened households
paying more than 50 percent of gross income in housing costs.
FIGURE 4.1. PERCENT OF OWNER HOUSEHOLDS IN THE
WASHINGTON REGION WHO ARE COSTBURDENED, 200911
Income Level of Owner Households
Extremely
low
88%
74%
Very
low
69%
42%
Low
61%
23%
Middle
40%
8%
High
10%
1%
44 Afordability is based on a xed-rate home purchase mortgage at current interest rates and standard estimates for insurance, taxes, and other
housing costs. Average sale price is used here because the median price could not be calculated for the region or PUMAs like the one composed
of Fairfax County, Fairfax City, and Falls Church City.
In most parts of the region, average
sales prices were signicantly higher
than what was afordable for many
income groups. While the above
analysis showed high cost burdens
for many current homeowners;
renters, new families, or households
moving to this region face aford-
ability challenges when looking to
purchase a home. As was done with
rental housing, the average sales price
of homes can be compared with the
maximum afordable payment for
rst-time homebuyers in diferent
jurisdictions.
44
Table 4.3 shows the
ratios of the average sales price to
the afordable house price at various
income levels in each jurisdiction.
Ratios greater than one indicate
that prices are unafordable at the
income level. Darker brown signals
increasing unafordability. Ratios less
than one are shaded in blue and
indicate that the average home price
in that jurisdiction is afordable to
homebuyers at that income level.
For low income homebuyers in the
Washington region, the average home
price was 48 percent higher than
what they could aford. Low income
homebuyers include registered nurses
or high school administrators in the
region. As incomes drop, afordabil-
ity becomes even more elusive. For
very low income homebuyers, the
TABLE 4.3. RATIO BETWEEN AVERAGE SALES PRICE AND THE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE PRICE FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS BY INCOME LEVEL, 2011
Maximum
annual
income
Maximum
afordable
sales price W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
M
o
n
t
g
o
m
e
r
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

G
e
o
r
g
e
'
s
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
i
a
A
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
F
a
i
r
f
a
x
L
o
u
d
o
u
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Average sales price $376,516 $522,924 $453,532 $179,229 $470,510 $458,974 $473,159 $413,356 $272,349
Middle income $127,400 $478,680 0.79 1.09 0.95 0.37 0.98 1.15 0.99 0.86 0.57
Low income $67,600 $253,990 1.48 2.06 1.79 0.71 1.85 2.16 1.86 1.63 1.07
Very low Income $53,050 $199,320 1.89 2.62 2.28 0.90 2.36 2.75 2.37 2.07 1.37
200% of poverty level $44,700 $167,950 2.24 3.11 2.70 1.07 2.80 3.27 2.82 2.46 1.62
Extremely low income $31,850 $119,670 3.15 4.37 3.79 1.50 3.93 4.59 3.95 3.45 2.28
Poverty level $22,350 $83,970 4.48 6.23 5.40 2.13 5.60 6.54 5.63 4.92 3.24
minimum wage
$17,160 $64,470 5.84 8.11 7.03 2.78 7.30 8.52 7.34 6.41 4.22
Maryland and Virginia
minimum wage
$15,080 $56,660 6.65 9.23 8.00 3.16 8.30 9.69 8.35 7.30 4.81
Note: PUMA denitions are used here for Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William. Maximum annual income was dened by the income level at the top of the range for each category. For example the
highest income level for extremely low income is 30 percent of AMI, or $31,850 for a family of four.
Source: RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC; calculations by the Urban Institute.
average price was 89 percent above
what they can aford. For extremely
low income households in the region,
the average price was more than
three times what they could aford.
Persons earning the minimum wage
in the District of Columbia ($17,160
per year) would have needed to
work nearly six full-time jobs to aford
the average house in the region,
while those earning the Maryland or
Virginia minimum wages would have
needed to work nearly seven jobs.
First-time homeownership was
least afordable for a lower-income
worker in the District of Columbia,
Montgomery, Arlington, Alexan-
dria, and Fairfax. In those jurisdic-
tions, persons would have needed
to work eight to nine minimum
wage jobs to aford an average-
priced home. In the District of
Columbia and Arlington, even
middle income families struggled to
aford the average-priced home.
First-time homeownership was most
afordable in Prince Georges and
Prince William, areas hard-hit by the
foreclosure crisis. A middle income
homebuyer in Prince Georges could
have bought a home that was more
than twice the average sales price in
2011. In Prince William, such a buyer
could have paid 1.75 times more than
the average sales price. However,
even for someone with income twice
the federal poverty level ($44,700 per
year) the average price of a home in
Prince Georges was still seven percent
above what they could have aforded.
Most of the increase in housing costs
occurred between 2000 and 2006,
the years of the housing boom, which
caused prices to rise throughout the
region. Housing prices more than
doubled in Prince William and Prince
Georges during that span. Since the
bubble burst, housing prices have
declined in all jurisdictions, but some
more than others. For example,
housing prices were cut in half in
Prince Georges. Prince William and
Loudoun also sufered sharp declines
of 43 percent and 32 percent, respec-
tively. Many homeowners in Prince
Georges and Prince William are still
sufering from high unemployment
rates and foreclosures that resulted
from predatory lending that took place
in the early to mid-2000s and the
economic crisis that soon followed.
In addition to variations in homebuyer
afordability across jurisdictions,
afordability varies within jurisdic-
tions. Twenty-eight percent of the
census tracts in Montgomery and 20
percent of the tracts in the District of
Columbia had no homes sold in 2011
that were afordable to low income,
rst-time homebuyers (table 4.4). In a
choice of where to live, low income,
rst-time homebuyers in Prince
Georges could have chosen from 99
percent of the tracts in that jurisdic-
tion; only 1 percent of tracts had no
homes sold in 2011 that were not
afordable to low income buyers. At
least some of the homes purchased
in 80 percent of the tracts in District
of Columbia and 72 percent of tracts
in Montgomery were afordable to a
low income rst-time homebuyer.
TABLE 4.4. CENSUS TRACTS BY SHARE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES SOLD IN 2011 AT PRICES AFFORDABLE
TO LOW INCOME FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS
Home sales in a tract that were afordable
to low income rst-time homebuyers
Percentage of Census Tracts
District of Columbia Montgomery Prince George's
None 20 28 1
Less than 25 percent 40 44 4
25 to 50 percent 13 21 16
50 to 75 percent 6 10 18
More than 75 percent 20 9 61
Total 100 100 100
Note: Census tracts with fewer than ve market sales in 2011 were excluded.
Source: DC Ofce of Tax and Revenue and Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. Data tabulated by Urban Institute.
HOW MANY AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNER UNITS EXIST?
The previous section documents
the demand for more afordable
homeowner housing in the region.
This section quanties the current
supply of homeownership units
for households at diferent income
levels. A household with extremely
low income (at 30 percent of AMI)
can aford monthly housing costs of
$740. Only 43,500 of the homeown-
ership units (four percent) in the
Washington region were aford-
able to households at or below this
income level (table 4.5). Even moving
up the income scale does not drasti-
cally increase the number of aford-
able units. Twenty-ve percent
of units (284,300 homes) were
afordable for low income families,
meaning 75 percent of homes in
the region were only afordable to
middle or high income households.
Prince Georges had the highest
share of afordable units relative
to the overall homeownership
stock (table 4.6). Fairfax (25 percent),
Montgomery (21 percent), and
Prince Georges (17 percent) had the
highest share of homeowner unit
across the regions. Prince Georges,
however, had almost twice the share
of units, 32 percent, afordable to
Percent of Sales That Are Afordable
No affordable sales
Less than 25 percent
25 to 50 percent
50 to 75 percent
75 to 100 percent
Less than 5 market sales
County boundaries
Major highways
Legend
FIGURE 4.2. PERCENT OF SINGLEFAMILY HOMES AND CONDOMINIUMS AFFORDABLE TO LOWINCOME,
FIRSTTIME HOMEBUYERS IN PRINCE GEORGE'S, MONTGOMERY, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2011.
Note: Data do not include units funded outside of these HUD programs including those funded with Community Development Block
Grant or HOME Investment Partnership funds, or only locally funded subsidies.
Source: Picture of Subsidized Housing 2012, US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2010 Census for housing unit counts,
US Census Bureau.
low income rst-time homebuy-
ers. The only other jurisdiction
with a larger share of afordable
homeowner housing compared to
its share of homeowner housing
overall was Prince William, which
had 9 percent of all homeowner
housing but 15 percent of the
regions afordable units.
ARE THERE ENOUGH UNITS
TO MEET THE NEED?
As was the case with renter house-
holds, many low-, very low-, and
extremely low income homeowners
in the region bore signicant cost
burdens and potential homebuy-
ers faced steep prices. Unlike
renters, however, homeowners
across all income levels faced
afordability gaps. The afordabil-
ity gap for homeowners is calcu-
lated by looking only at units that
were afordable and available (i.e.,
either vacant or not occupied by
a higher-income homeowner).
45

As with rentals, higher-income
owners were crowding out
lower-income households. Of the
43,500 units in the region aford-
able to an extremely low income,
rst-time homebuyer, 32,100, or
74 percent, were occupied by an
owner with a higher household
TABLE 4.5. WASHINGTON REGIONS HOMEOWNER HOUSING SUPPLY BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, 200911
Afordability level
Annual
income range
Monthly
payment range Units in range % of units
Extremely low income $0-31,850 $0-740 43,500 4
Very low income $31,850-53,050 $740-1,240 90,800 8
Low income $53,050-67,600 $1,240-1,580 150,000 13
Middle income $67,600-127,400 $1,580-2,970 458,900 40
High income $127,400+ $2,970+ 395,000 35
Total homeownership units 1,138,300 100
TABLE 4.6. WASHINGTON REGIONS HOMEOWNER HOUSING SUPPLY
AND AFFORDABLE SUPPLY BY JURISDICTION, 200911
Jurisdiction
% of all homeowner
units
% afordable to low income
rst-time homebuyers
Montgomery 21 16
Alexandria 3 2
Arlington 4 1
Fairfax 25 15
Loudoun 10 10
Prince William 9 15
Note: Afordable to low income rst-time homebuyers includes units afordable at lower income levels.
Source: American Community Survey, 200911
45 As with renters, afordable and available units are those that were vacant or occupied by homeowners at the same or lower income level as the
units afordability level. Units occupied by higher-income households are considered not available. Please see footnote 38 for details. See also
HUDs Worst Case Housing Needs Report (Stefen 2013).
income than was needed to aford
the unit (table 4.7). Higher-income
households occupied approxi-
mately 69 percent of units aford-
able to the very low income and
66 percent of those afordable to
the low income. Crowding out by
higher-income owners reduced the
supply of afordable and available
units for all lower-income groups.
Table 4.8 reports the afordability
gap, that is, the supply of aford-
able and available units compared
to the total demand (the number
of owner households). The results
show that lower-income households
are hard-pressed to nd an aford-
able home. As with rental properties,
there was a sizable gap of 58,400
units between supply and demand
for owner-occupied housing for
extremely low income families in the
Washington region. Homeownership
is generally not considered to be
a realistic option for buyers in this
income category, however, given
the need for a steady source of
income to be able aford monthly
mortgage payments and other
housing costs, even with a subsidized
loan or down payment assistance.
TABLE 4.7. AVAILABLE AND NOT AVAILABLE OWNER HOUSING UNITS BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL AND
INCOME OF CURRENT OWNERS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 200911
Income level units rent is afordable to
Household living in the unit
Extremely
Higher-income owners (not available) 32,100 63,000 101,300 208,100 - 404,600
Same or lower-income
owners (available)
9,500 22,900 43,600 240,800 388,300 705,100
No one (vacant/available) 1,900 4,900 5,100 10,000 6,700 28,600
Total 43,500 90,800 150,000 458,900 395,000 1,138,300
TABLE 4.8. UNITS NEEDED TO MEET NEEDS OF OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely low
Very
low Low Middle High
owner units (supply)
11,400 27,800 48,700 250,800 395,000
Owner households
(demand)
69,800 84,600 71,300 333,900 550,100
Gap 58,400 56,800 22,600 83,100 155,100
At higher income levels, homeown-
ership becomes more viable. Even
for higher-income groups, however,
large gaps remained in the numbers
of afordable and available homes in
the region. As noted above, nearly
7 in 10 units afordable to very low
income households and two-thirds
afordable to low income house-
holds were occupied by someone
in a higher income category. This
competition contributed to a gap
of 56,800 units between the supply
of and demand for afordable units
for very low income owner house-
holds and a gap of 22,600 units for
low income owners. Middle and high
income homeowners had the largest
gaps, at 83,100 and 155,100 units,
respectively, but this is in part because
they were a much larger share of
owner households (80 percent)
than the lower-income groups.
By jurisdiction, the largest gaps were
in Montgomery, Fairfax, and Prince
Georges (table 4.9). Given that
Prince Georges had much lower
house prices than most jurisdictions
in the region, its signicant housing
afordability gap is likely explained
by the relatively lower incomes of
homeowners there. In Montgomery,
there were 13,200 too few afordable
homes for extremely low income
homeowners. The situation was even
worse for very low income house-
holds, with a gap of 14,100 units.
Housing is clearly unafordable for
far too many in the region when
one-third of owners pay more
than 30 percent of their incomes
on housing. But if higher-income
owners are feeling the pinch, it is
hard to imagine that lower-income
families can manage the costs of
homeownership without supports
like down payment assistance and
homebuyer counseling. The next
section examines policies and
programs that states and local juris-
dictions in the Washington region
have put in place to help ease these
cost burdens for homeowners.
TABLE 4.9. AFFORDABILITY GAPS IN HOMEOWNER UNITS FOR JURISDIC-
TIONS IN THE WASHINGTON REGION BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Jurisdiction
Extremely
low Very low Low
District of Columbia 9,500 7,600 600
Montgomery 13,200 14,100 6,500
Prince George's 12,200 11,200 1,000
Alexandria 1,000 1,100 1,000
Arlington 1,400 1,300 900
Fairfax 12,400 12,800 8,600
Loudoun 4,500 4,500 2,900
Prince William 4,200 4,300 1,000
Total Washington region gap 58,400 56,800 22,600
TOOLS AND POLICIES
AVAILABLE TO
PROMOTE AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP
Jurisdictions throughout the
Washington region have put in place
diferent policies and programs to
promote sustainable homeowner-
ship and to reduce the nancial and
other barriers to owning a home for
lower-income buyers. These include
home purchase assistance, home
rehabilitation and repair, housing
education and counseling, inclusion-
ary zoning, and property tax credits.
Home purchase assistance
Home purchase assistance programs
are available from the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.
Many jurisdictions also have their
own programs. These programs
often provide lower-cost mortgage
loans and down payment and
closing cost assistance to help
eligible buyers purchase a home.
Some programs may ofer, or even
require, pre-purchase nancial
counseling or homebuyer educa-
tion. Home purchase assistance
programs are generally available to
buyers below designated income
levels, which can be as high as 120
percent of AMI. Certain programs
may only serve rst-time homebuy-
ers or other specic populations. For
example, the District of Columbias
Employee Homeownership Incentive
Program provides home purchase
assistance to eligible DC govern-
ment employees, and Marylands
Veterans and Military Family
Mortgage Program helps current
and former military homebuyers.
Because many view promot-
ing homeownership as a positive
social goal, homebuyer programs
often enjoy strong political and
popular support. Most homebuyer
programs have good results in
terms of promoting sustainable
homeownership, particularly if they
are accompanied by high-quality
homebuyer education and post-
sale follow-up to help new owners
cope with any unexpected issues.
Home rehabilitation and repair
programs provide nancial assis-
tanceeither as loans or grantsto
eligible homeowners to help them
to improve or upgrade their existing
homes. Typical repairs supported by
these programs include weatheriza-
tion, roof and window replacement,
plumbing and electrical upgrades,
furnace replacement, and kitchen
and bathroom remodeling. Some
programs are intended to help
homeowners address health and
safety issues, such as abating lead-
based paint and other hazards.
Typically, home rehabilitation and
repair programs are available to
a broad range of homeowners,
but certain initiatives, such as the
Loudoun County Home Repair for
the Elderly and Disabled program
and the Maryland Accessible Homes
for Seniors program, are focused
on assisting senior or disabled
homeowners who may be on limited
incomes and lack resources for
home repairs. Such programs can
also help make needed accessibility
modications. More recently, juris-
dictions have used Neighborhood
Stabilization Program resources
to rehabilitate homes that have
been through foreclosure.
programs generally ofer modest
assistance, but such initiatives can
help keep the housing stock in
good condition and avert longer-
term problems caused by properties
falling into more serious disrepair.
By funding accessibility modica-
tions, these programs can improve
housing access for the disabled
and allow seniors to age in place.
Housing education
and counseling
Some local jurisdictions, including
the District of Columbia, Alexandria,
Arlington, Montgomery, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William, support
housing education and counsel-
ing programs. Some of these eforts
assist rst-time home buyers. The
objective is to help new homeown-
ers prepare for and better understand
the process involved in purchas-
ing and owning a home, including
nding a suitable house, obtain-
ing mortgage nancing, saving for
a down payment, and planning
for future costs and expenses.
Other housing counseling programs
help current homeowners deal with
any problems or challenges they
may be having that could cause
them to lose their home. This type
of counseling grew substantially in
the past several years in the wake of
the housing market crisis. Housing
counselors help homeowners assess
their current nancial situation and
make informed decisions about the
options for either remaining in or
leaving their homes. Counselors
also advise and assist homeown-
ers in discussing options with their
mortgage lenders, including loan
modications and short sales. In
2010, the Capital Area Foreclosure
Network was created to help support
the eforts of foreclosure preven-
tion counselors in the region.
Housing counseling programs
provide an important element of
educational assistance to both future
and current homeowners that can
help promote more stable homeown-
ership. Research has demonstrated
that counseling is efective in
helping new homebuyers be better
prepared to become homeowners
and in helping troubled homeown-
ers avoid foreclosure (Turnham
and Jeferson 2012; Jeferson
et al. 2012; Mayer et al. 2012).
Inclusionary zoning
Inclusionary zoning programs often
include requirements or incen-
tives for afordable owner-occupied
units in addition to renter units (for
more on IZ programs, see page 43).
These units typically do not serve
households at the lowest end of the
income scale. MPDU, Montgomerys
IZ program, includes homes of all
types (detached, semidetached,
townhouses, garden and high-rise
condominiums, and apartments).
In addition to the 12.5 to 15 percent
of total units that must be allocated
to the MPDU in new subdivisions
with 20 or more units, the Housing
Opportunities Commission or other
nonprot housing agencies may
purchase up to 40 percent of the
total MPDUs being ofered. Currently,
a three-bedroom townhouse in the
MPDU program sells for $165,000.
Except for single-person house-
holds, qualied homebuyers must
make between 58 percent and 70
percent of the areas median income
($106,100 in 2011 for a family of
four), adjusted for household size,
and a minimum income of $35,000.
Since 1976, the program has created
9,290 afordable for-sale units (Levy
et al., 2012). Fairfax Countys IZ
program also includes a for-sale
component for any new develop-
ments including 50 or more units,
and as of 2011 had produced
1,336 units (Levy et al., 2012).
Other IZ programs in the area also
contain afordable homeowner-
ship components, including those in
the District of Columbia, Alexandria,
Arlington, Gaithersburg, Rockville, Falls
Church, and Loudoun County. Under
the City of Gaithersburgs MPDU
program, for example, new residential
developments with 20 or more units
must allocate 7.5 percent of units
to be sold as workforce housing,
dened as households making 80
to 120 percent of AMI. Rockvilles
program requires that developments
with 50 or more units sell 12.5 percent
of units to households earning 60
percent or less of AMI. College Park
and Greenbelt also have an aford-
able housing set-aside. In addition,
Greenbelt ofers additional density in
exchange for afordable housing units.
Compared with other aford-
able homeownership programs, IZ
programs are new and somewhat
controversial. Key stakeholders
interviewed by the research team
agreed generally that IZ programs are
a valuable policy for creating aford-
able homeownership, particularly in
higher-cost areas where it may be
difcult to produce lower-cost units
directly. There remains some disagree-
ment, however, over the specic
design of these programs in some
places. Some stakeholders want to
see more robust programs that would
produce more units. Others question
the limits placed on the amount of
equity that IZ homebuyers could
accrue when they resell their homes.
While discussion of these specic
issues is outside of the scope of this
study, IZ programs seem to have
strong support in principle and appear
to be a valuable afordable housing
policy tool, both in this region and in
many other areas around the country.
Real property tax relief
Most homeowners must pay real
property taxes to local jurisdictions,
which are based on the current value
of the property. Many jurisdictions in
the region, including the District of
Columbia, Arlington, Montgomery,
Prince Georges, Greenbelt, Fairfax
County, Loudoun County, and Prince
William County, have some form
of tax relief to assist homeowners
who may have difculty paying the
full amount of their property taxes.
The District of Columbia, through
its homestead deduction, provides
tax relief to all people who own their
principal residence in the city by
lowering the efective assessed value
on which the property tax is calcu-
lated and by limiting the amount an
owners tax bill can increase from
year to year. The amount of this relief
is increased for senior citizen and
disabled homeowners. The District of
Columbia also provides a refundable
property tax credit for lower-income
homeowners and renters that can be
claimed when ling income taxes.
Other jurisdictions, including Green-
belt, Fairfax and Prince William
counties, limit their local property tax
relief to seniors and the disabled. In
2010, Virginia passed a law exempt-
ing certain disabled veterans and
their surviving spouses from paying
local real estate taxes on their
principal residence. Maryland also
provides additional relief to lower-
income homeowners through its
Homeowners Property Tax Credit.
For most homeowners, property
taxes are a small share of overall
housing costs. Nevertheless, lower-
income homeowners can certainly
benet from property tax relief.
The District of Columbia is notable
for its policy of providing a refund-
able property tax credit for both
lower-income homeowners and
renters (an implicit property tax
passed on through rents is calcu-
lated by a formula). Neverthe-
less, the impact of this credit is
somewhat muted by the annual
income eligibility threshold for the
program, which was set at $20,000
per household for many years but
was increased to $50,000 in 2013.
5. FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND HOMELESS SERVICES
Federal programs were an
important source of funding for
housing-related activities in the
Washington region. In addition,
most jurisdictions drew signi-
cantly on county and city funds,
particularly Arlington, Alexandria,
and Prince William where more
than half of public funding for
housing was from these sources.
Federal spending on housing, such
as the Community Development
Block Grant and HOME program,
is not likely to increase in the near
term to ll the gaps in afordable
Local jurisdictions will need to nd
innovative ways to produce more
afordable housing through zoning
ordinances and regulatory policies
or by raising revenue to ll the
gaps, potentially by leveraging local
resources through housing trust
funds or ofering tax-exempt bonds.
Overall, $1.3 billion was budgeted
in FY 2013 for housing-related
expenditures in the Washington
region. The greatest expendi-
tures were for rental assistance.
The region collectively allocated
nearly $637 million to Section 8,
Housing Choice Vouchers, and
other rental assistance programs in
2013. The second largest budgeted
item was housing production
and preservation, followed by
programs related to homelessness,
senior housing, tenant services,
and homebuyer assistance.
for approximately 50 percent of all
the housing-related expenditures
in the region, with Montgom-
ery spending the second highest
amount, followed by Fairfax.
The private philanthropic sector in
the Washington region awarded
more than $33.4 million in grants
to housing-related organizations,
primarily nonprot organizations, in
2012. Private philanthropic invest-
ment was relatively small compared
with public spending on housing in
FY 2013 ($1.3 billion). Three-quarters
of philanthropic grants were for
less than $50,000, and three in ve
grant dollars were for homeless
prevention, shelter, or services and
transitional or permanent support-
ive housing. Nearly half of the hous-
ing-related private funding went
to organizations whose service
area was the District of Columbia.
Montgomery was next, receiving
about 10 percent of the total.
Of concern, nearly half of private
grant funding, and the majority
of grants larger than $100,000,
were disbursed by Fannie Mae,
Foundation, which largely ceased
charitable giving in 2013. The loss
of their charitable giving leaves a
large gap in funding for nonprot
organizations, particularly for those
providing homeless prevention
services, shelter, transitional and
permanent supportive housing, or
foreclosure prevention services.
This section examines the public
and philanthropic funding avail-
able in the region to support local
and federal programs in providing
emergency shelter, afordable rental
housing, and afordable homeown-
ership opportunities and looks at
Photo: Dan Reed
how those funds are being used
across jurisdictions. In an increasingly
resource-constrained environment,
particularly at the federal level, it is
important to understand the source
of funding, and where additional
funding could be generated to
address the afordable housing gaps
in the region. (For an analysis of the
nonprot sector that carries out
many of the housing-related services
that public and private funding
support, please see Appendix C.)
PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES
FOR HOUSING SERVICES
While federal and state sources
made up the majority of housing-
related public funding in the region,
at least one-third of public funding
came from local sources. All juris-
dictions, with the exception of
Prince Georges, made sizable local
investments in housing. Based on
public funding that was attributable
to federal, state, and local sources,
over half (at least 57 percent) of
public housing-related funding in the
region for scal year (FY) 2013 was
from federal or state sources (table
5.1), while a third (at least 33 percent)
was from local funding. (Another
10 percent could not be attributed
to a specic source.) Local funding
was the majority of public resources
in Arlington, Alexandria, and Prince
William. The lowest share of local
funding was in Prince Georges,
however, where only three percent
of housing-related public funding
was from local revenue sources.
As noted, jurisdictions nance
many housing-related programs
and services with funding from
federal programs. In FY 2013, four
federal programs provided the
Washington region with $57 million
in funds. These programs were the
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment
Partnerships Program, Emergency
Shelter Grants (ESG), and the Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) program. The largest source
of funding came from the CDBG
program, which provided more than
$33 million and supports a wide array
of housing and community develop-
ment activities, including afordable
housing creation and rehabilita-
tion. The District of Columbia alone
received $14 million in CDBG funding
in 2013. The second largest source of
money ($12 million) was the HOPWA
program, which ofers housing assis-
tance and related supportive services
to people living with HIV/AIDS.
All four federal programs saw
reduced funding levels for the
region between FYs 2011 and 2013.
Overall, regional funding for these
TABLE 5.1. PERCENT OF HOUSING-RELATED PUBLIC FUNDING BY SOURCE AND JURISDICTION IN FY2013
Source W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

r
e
g
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
M
o
n
t
g
o
m
e
r
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

G
e
o
r
g
e
s
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
i
a
A
r
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
F
a
i
r
f
a
x

C
o
u
n
t
y
L
o
u
d
o
u
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
P
r
i
n
c
e

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

Federal and state 57 63 43 91 43 31 55 35 45
Local 33 24 44 3 57 69 45 45 55
Unknown 10 14 13 5 0 0 0 21 0
Notes: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. In some cases, the source of funding could not be determined from published budget
documentation. The District of Columbia only has federal and local funding sources.
Sources: See the References section on budgets for a list of jurisdictional budgets used and Appendix D for a description of budget analysis categories.
46 A portion of the decrease in CDBG and HOME funding can be explained by changing demographics as well as a revision to the grant
calculations. The CDBG and HOME programs use formulas based on population, number of people in poverty, overcrowded housing units, and
a population growth lag, among other variables, to calculate grant amounts. Prior to FY 2012, the programs relied on the decennial census data.
Beginning that year, the programs began using data from the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). A HUD study examining
the impact of ACS data on funding calculations nds signicant changes that can be attributed to diferences in data, particularly for shares
of poverty. For example, HUD calculates that using ACS data would have reduced the FY 2011 CDBG grant for the District of Columbia by 4.4
percent from its actual grant amount that year because the new formula found a smaller number of people in poverty. The new formula also
calculates 15 percent fewer persons in poverty than the older formula in Prince Georges, which would have decreased funding by 12 percent.
Because ACS data is updated every year, it captures changes in socioeconomic trends and population more frequently than a decennial census.
The decrease in funding, therefore, is also partially explained by the movement of people, particularly lower-income households.
four programs declined 20 percent,
with a 46 percent decrease in HOME
funds, 19 percent reduction in ESG
funding, 12 percent decrease in
CBDG, and 10 percent reduction
in HOPWA funds. Alexandria and
Arlington had the largest decreases
in CBDG funding, 37 and 29 percent,
respectively. Alexandria, Arlington,
and the District of Columbia all saw
50 percent or more reductions in
HOME funding between 2011 and
2013.
46
Not all jurisdictions experi-
enced funding declines, however.
Prince William had a ve percent
increase in ESG funding and Prince
William, Loudoun County, and Bowie
also saw increases in CDBG funding.
Housing trust funds
Funds for afordable housing that
come from a jurisdictions general
fund are also subject to the pressures
of the budget overall. To circum-
vent the risk of both federal and
local funding cuts, several juris-
dictions have set up dedicated
revenue streams and created local
housing trust funds to produce and
preserve afordable housing (table
5.2). Housing trust funds channel
local revenue sources (such as a
portion of the deed and recordation
tax that is paid to the local govern-
ment when real estate is sold) into
a dedicated fund that can be used
to pay for creating and preserv-
ing afordable housing. Trust fund
dollars are most often leveraged with
additional forms of nancing, such
as tax credits and private mortgages,
to ll in revenue gaps and make
afordable developments feasible.
Trust funds have proven to be a
TABLE 5.2. LOCAL HOUSING FUNDS BY JURISDICTION IN FY 2013
Jurisdiction Name of fund FY 2013 Budget (millions) Revenue stream
District of Columbia Housing Production Trust Fund $84.4 Dedicated -Deed and recordation tax
Montgomery Housing Initiative Fund $20.0 Dedicated-Property tax
Fairfax County Penny for Afordable Housing Fund $16.5 Dedicated-Property tax
Arlington Afordable Housing Investment Fund $9.5
Nondedicated - Local resources (i.e.,
voluntary developer contributions)
Alexandria Housing Trust Fund $1.5
Nondedicated - Local resources (i.e.,
voluntary developer contributions)
Sources: See the References section on budgets for a list of jurisdictional budgets used and Appendix D for description of budget analysis categories.
47 See http://housingtrustfundproject.org/housing-trust-funds/ for more information on trust funds.
48 Please see http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/cphd/housing/development/cphdhousingdevahif.aspx and http://www.arlingtonva.us/
departments/ManagementAndFinance/budget/le84869.pdf.
49 The $1.5 million value includes carryover revenue from FY 2012.
key tool in local afordable housing
policy and have been implemented
in 471 cities, 51 counties, 47 states,
and the District of Columbia.
47
The District of Columbia,
Montgomery, and Fairfax County
all had housing trust funds with
dedicated local revenue streams.
The District of Columbias Housing
Production Trust Fund (HPTF),
with an $84.4 million budget in FY
2013s revised budget, was funded
with 15 percent of the Deed and
Recordation Tax. Montgomerys
Housing Initiative Fund, with almost
$20 million in funds, was funded
using 2.5 percent of property tax
revenue. Fairfax Countys Penny for
Afordable Housing Fund, which
before 2010 was funded with one
cent of the real estate tax rate
and in FY 2013 was funded at half
that level, had $16.5 million in FY
2013.Arlington and Alexandria also
had local housing funds, but the
revenues to support them came
from voluntary developer contribu-
tions rather than dedicated funding.
According to the Coalition for
Nonprot Housing and Economic
Developments (CNHED) 2012 report,
A Decade of Progress: Investing in
Lives and Neighborhoods through
the Housing Production Trust Fund,
since 2002 more than 7,500 units
have been produced or preserved
through funding from the District
of Columbias HPTF. These units
currently house about 15,000 people
in the District of Columbia. Local
trust funds are often used to leverage
other available state and federal
resources. CNHED estimated that
$2.50 was leveraged for every $1.00
invested in the HPTF. Nevertheless,
having a dedicated revenue stream
does not always guarantee the
funding needed for afordable
housing. During the height of the
foreclosure crisis, the revenue stream
for the HPTF declined substantially
as the volume of property sales
fell and HPTF money was trans-
ferred by the District of Columbia
City Council to the DC Housing
Authority to fund the Local Rent
Supplement Program. Ongoing
advocacy and support for aford-
able housing through tools such as
trust funds is necessary, particularly
when local budgets are constrained.
One program funded through a city
or states general fund or volun-
tary developer contributions is Falls
Churchs Afordable Housing Fund.
Local resources (loan repayments
and developer contributions) fund
Arlingtons Afordable Housing
Investment Fund, which is a revolv-
ing loan fund. The fund, whichhad
approximately $9.5 million in its FY
2013 budget, has helped to create
more than 6,500 afordable rental
units. To create additional funds
for afordable housing, the County
Manager proposed a half-cent
increase in the real property tax rate
in the 2013 budget.
48
Alexandria,
Gaithersburg, and Rockville also
have housing funds for afordable
housing funded through developer
contributions in lieu of producing
afordable units in their IZ programs.
Developer contributions accounted
for 57 percent of Alexandrias
$1.5 million housing trust fund
in FY 2013.
49
Alexandria has also
dedicated 0.6 cents of real estate
tax revenue to afordable housing.
50 The one exception is Loudoun County. However, it is assumed that this exception is due to the inability to discern specic uses of funds, as
reected in the high amount of nonspecied housing related expenditures.
PUBLIC SPENDING
ON HOUSING
The previous section discussed the
public sources of funding for housing
programs. This section analyzes how
local jurisdictions allocated these
funds across diferent housing-related
activities. Jurisdictions in the region
allocated a total of $1.3 billion in their
FY 2013 budgets from federal, state,
and local sources of revenue to a
wide array of housing programs.
Rental assistance subsidies and
public housing accounted for the
biggest expenditure among all
housing-related uses. Across the
board, jurisdictions allocated most
of their housing-related expenditures
to providing payments to tenants
and landlords in the form of Housing
Choice Vouchers, local tenant
voucher programs, rent supplements,
emergency rental assistance, grants
for rental assistance programs, or
operating public housing.
50
In Prince
Georges, for example, rental assis-
tance accounted for 85 percent of
all housing-related spending. The
share of housing spending devoted
to rental assistance was also more
than 50 percent in Fairfax County,
Alexandria, Arlington, and Montgomery.
METHODS OF DOCUMENTING HOUSING-RELATED SERVICES
AND SPENDING
To compile data on local spending for , public budget documents were
reviewed for individual jurisdictions and agencies and attempts were made to
assign all housing-related spending into seven categories: rental assistance;
planning and development; homeless prevention and assistance; tenant and
owner services; elderly and special housing needs; homebuyer assistance;
and regulatory and legal. (See Appendix D for more information about each
category.) Tax expenditures and funding from housing nance agencies are
excluded from the table.
Nonspecied housing-related expenditures include spending that could not be
placed in any of the other categories because the use of funds was too general
(such as administrative costs) or there was insufcient information to determine
the proper category. For example, Fairfax Countys Housing and Community
Development program ofers relocation and monitoring services and home-
ownership education, which fall under tenant and owner services, but it is not
known how much of the jurisdictions budget was devoted to these specic
activities. Therefore, even though the County does ofer these services, they are
included among the nonspecied expenditures in and the tenant and owner
services category is marked as unknown/unclear.
Additional challenges include identifying all of the local agencies that provide
housing services. For example, in the District of Columbia, while the major-
ity of housing-related programs and services were under the Department
of Housing and Community Development and the DC Housing Authority,
there were six other city agencies that allocated a portion of their budget to
housing-related activities.
In other cases, the amount the jurisdiction devoted to known programs was not
identiable because it was not listed in the budget and the information could not
be obtained from other sources. Alexandrias Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report does not include nancial activities of the Alexandria Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (ARHA), which performs a large amount of the jurisdictions
housing-related services, nor the Sheltered Homes of Alexandria. ARHAs budget
information was obtained directly from the authority, but other departments did
not have or were unable to share such information.
TABLE 5.3. HOUSING-RELATED BUDGET EXPENDITURES BY JURISDICTION, FY 2013 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Use type
Washington
region
District of
Columbia Montgomery
Prince
Georges Alexandria Arlington Fairfax
Loudoun
County
Prince
William
Rental assistance $636,658 $252,021 $132,488 $81,836 $36,693 $26,540 $68,780 $10,065 $28,235
Planning and
development
$245,461 $185,816 $19,890 $5,324 $6,129 $11,430 $22,778 $525 $2,569
Homeless
prevention and
assistance
$99,415 $63,120 $6,637 $5,108 $2,439 $4,807 $11,818 $1,571 $3,915
Tenant and
owner services
$71,520 $53,456 $1,315 U $886 $1,200 U $34 $14,629
Elderly and Special
Needs Housing
$55,470 $23,413 $10,194 $571 $11,204 $4,084 $4,219 U $1,965
Homebuyer
assistance
$26,673 $14,269 $2,411 $1,499 $310 $309 $6,294 $669 $912
Regulatory
and legal
$25,766 $6,704 $1,985 U $61 $347 U $6,986 $9,683
Nonspecied
housing related
expenditures
$155,072 $59,337 $59,968 $2,055 $954 $12 $10,596 $19,298 $2,852
Total housing
related funding
$1,325,035 $658,136 $234,888 $96,393 $58,496 $48,729 $124,485 $39,148 $64,760
Note: Prince William includes budget information for Manassas and Manassas Park. Fields marked U represent unknown or unclear.
Sources: See the References section on budgets for a list of jurisdictional budgets used and Appendix D for description of budget analysis categories.
51 Estimates on vouchers at risk are from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as presented by Doug Rice at the Afordable Housing
Conference of Montgomery Countys annual housing conference on May 10, 2013, attended by Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments staf.
Sequestration of federal budgets in FY
2013 and reductions in HUD funding
strained housing voucher programs
for local housing authorities and
agencies. According to the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, an
estimated 2,000 vouchers in the region
were at risk due to budget constraints.
51

Based on interviews with Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments
Housing Directors Advisory Committee
and Homeless Services Committee
members in mid-2013, jurisdic-
tions were cutting costs by reducing
payment standards or instituting staf
furloughs rather than terminating
current voucher holders contracts.
Vouchers are likely to be lost through
attrition rather than being reissued to
a new household, which means that
currently unassisted households, even
those on a waiting list, may face even
longer waits for assistance. Housing
authorities and agencies were unsure
whether they would be able to avoid
cuts to vouchers in 2014 and beyond
if the budget cuts were not restored.
The second-largest housing-related
expenditure was for developing
new afordable housing or preserv-
ing existing afordable housing. This
planning and development category
includes property acquisition and
disposition and housing rehabilitation.
As with most categories, the District
of Columbias budget for housing-
related programs and activities was far
higher than that of other jurisdictions.
In FY 2013, the District of Columbia
allocated almost $186 million for the
planning and development of aford-
able housing. Fairfax County had the
second-highest budget, allocating
more than $22 million to construct-
ing and preserving afordable homes,
approximately 18 percent of its
entire housing-related spending.
for almost half of all the housing-
related expenditure in the region.
Montgomerys budget had the second-
highest amount of housing-related
spending, allocating almost $235
million in FY 2013, and Fairfax County
budgeted almost $125 million, the third-
highest amount. Alexandria and Prince
Williams allocations toward housing
were similar at $58$65 million. This
is notable because Prince William
had over twice the number of house-
holds as Alexandria. Loudoun County
allocated the least amount on housing,
even though Alexandria and Arlington
had relatively fewer households.
Incomplete information may account
for the small spending amount.

The region averaged $749 per
household on housing-related
expenditures, though the rate varied
widely by jurisdiction. The District of
Columbia allocated much more of
its budget to housing-related expen-
ditures than any other jurisdiction
nearly $2,536 per household. This rate
was more than nine times the rate
of Loudoun County and about eight
times the rate of Fairfax County and
Prince Georges. Although Alexandria
had one of the smallest total housing
budgets in the region, its per-house-
hold budget for FY 2013 was $905, the
second-highest per household budget
for housing-related expenditures.
Montgomery had the third-highest per
household budget at $656. Arlington
had the fourth-highest rate of housing-
related budget per household, at $529.
The remaining jurisdictions allocated
between $266 and $445 per house-
hold on housing-related programs.
The region as a whole allocated
about eight percent ($99 million)
of its combined housing budget of
$1.3 billion to programs intended to
prevent homelessness or support
homeless individuals and families.
These programs included shelters,
homeless prevention programs,
Rapid Re-Housing, and transitional
housing grants. The region allocated
nearly an additional $59 million to
elderly and special needs programs
and services, including the HOPWA
program and assisted living residences.
Table 5.4 provides a snapshot of the
areas homeless system: funding,
people served, and planned capacity or
additional new expenditures by juris-
diction. Although many organizations
received the majority of their funding
from the federal government, state
governments, local governments, and
philanthropies also provided money
to fund local homeless initiatives.
Federal programs include Emergency
Solution Grant, CoC grants, Supportive
Services for Veteran Families program,
and HUD-Veterans Afairs Supportive
Housing vouchers. One state program
included here is the Virginia Homeless
Prevention Program. Local programs
include the District of Columbias Rapid
Re-housing program and Emergency
Rental Assistance Program and
Arlingtons Homelessness Prevention
and Rapid Rehousing Program 2.0.
Capacity and funding for homeless
services within each of the major
program areas difer dramatically
among jurisdictions. The District
of Columbia and Montgomery
served the vast majority of formerly
homeless persons in perma-
nent supportive housing in the
Washington region. Loudoun County
housed approximately three people
annually, although if examining per
bed expenditures, Loudoun County
and Arlington spent considerably
more than the District of Columbia or
Montgomery (see table 5.4). Arlington
and Alexandria both had large funding
streams and served a disproportion-
ate number of people relative to their
homeless populations. Montgomery
spent nearly as much on homeless
prevention as the District of
Columbia (more than $6 million
annually) despite having less than
one-sixth the number of homeless
people in the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia, Montgomery,
and Fairfax had strong, committed
funding for homeless prevention
programs, but other smaller jurisdic-
tions also had signicant commitments
to homelessness prevention, includ-
ing Arlington and Alexandria, which
both spent at least $700,000 per year
on such initiatives. In fact, no jurisdic-
tion committed less than $280,000
annually. Funding for Rapid Re-Housing
programs was lower, with the excep-
tion of the District of Columbia, which
spent about $6.13 million. No jurisdic-
tion other than Fairfax (at $622,220)
dedicated more than $160,000 to
Rapid Re-Housing programs in 2013.
METHODS OF IDENTIFYING FUNDING FOR HOMELESS SERVICES
Funding for homeless services can be difcult to track. In some cases,
several programs funded one large service provider, who in turn ofered
more than one type of servicehomelessness prevention and Rapid
Re-Housing, for example. At other times, a single program funded many
smaller service providers, who may have also received other funding from
private donations for additional staf and services.
In compiling the spending amounts in table 5.4, the research team relied
on publicly available sources and experts in each jurisdiction, but invariably
some data were missing or consolidated across categories. Assigning
spending to proper categories required requesting additional information
from agency staf, which was not always provided.
Although the size of many programs can be estimated from the total
number of beds reported by each jurisdiction, no such reporting exists
for prevention and Rapid Re-Housing programs, which are relatively
new. Further complicating the count, prevention and Rapid Re-Housing
programs may be operated as part of existing programs, such as shelter
services in certain jurisdictions. In those cases, it may not be possible to
separate funding for prevention and Rapid Re-Housing and, therefore,
funding gures shown in table 5.4 may underrepresent the amount spent
on these initiatives.
Finally, no ofcial gures exist for the services jurisdictions plan to provide
in the future for projects funded by the state, local governments, or private
funders, which can be important information for private investors and
philanthropic organizations to consider when deciding where to direct
future investments.
TABLE 5.4. HOMELESS SYSTEM FUNDING, PEOPLE SERVED, AND PLANNED CAPACITY/EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM TYPE AND CONTINUUM
OF CARE, 2013

Washington
region
District of
Columbia Montgomery
Prince
George's Alexandria Arlington Fairfax
Loudoun
County
Prince
William
Emergency/
winter
shelter
Local budget $32,832,807 $15,492,000 $3,337,000 $145,000 $893,000 $1,916,000 $6,537,807 $840,000 $3,672,000
Beds 6,418 4,352 635 236 229 192 507 45 222
Cost per bed $5,100 $3,600 $5,300 $600 $3,900 $10,000 $12,900 $18,700 $16,500
Planned beds U U U U U 130 U U U
Transitional
housing
Local budget $34,630,675 $25,307,000 $3,300,000 $1,770,000 $63,000 $338,000 $2,371,675 $960,000 $521,000
Beds 4,199 2,782 353 232 96 179 328 90 139
Cost per bed $8,200 $9,100 $9,300 $7,600 $700 $1,900 $7,200 $10,700 $3,700
Planned beds U U U U U 85 U U 3
Permanent
supportive
housing
Local budget $38,188,487 $28,376,650 $2,070,000 $732,700 $377,327 $1,676,000 $4,776,810 $45,000 $134,000
Beds 9,838 7,272 1,762 284 35 72 341 3 69
Cost per bed $3,900 $3,900 $1,200 $2,600 $10,800 $23,300 $14,000 $15,000 $1,900
Planned beds U U U U 2 U U In Progress 5
Prevention
Local budget $17,332,294 $7,400,000 $6,286,000 $587,000 $716,000 $900,000 $753,294 $198,000 $492,000
People served 8,210 4,150 980 292 580 1,350 703 55 100
Cost per person $2,100 $1,800 $6,400 $2,000 $1,200 $700 $1,100 $3,600 $4,900
Planned expenditures U $500,000 U U U U U U U
Rapid
rehousing
Local budget $7,286,220 $6,130,000 $111,000 $160,000 U $100,000 $622,220 $75,000 $88,000
People served 1,938 785 15 25 U 59 1,029 20 5
Cost per person $3,800 $7,800 $7,400 $6,400 U $1,700 $600 $3,800 $17,600
Planned expenditures U $400,000 U U $35,000 U U U U
Notes: Number of beds represents a single point in time and may vary signicantly throughout the year. Fields marked U represent unknown or unclear. U does not necessarily mean that contin-
uums of care do not allocate any resources to these activities.
Source: Urban Institute analysis of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 2013 Point-in-Time Count of the homeless, a web scan of agency and nonprot web sites, and interviews with
homeless service providers.
PHILANTHROPIC
SPENDING ON HOUSING
This section examines philanthropic
contributions to Washington region
organizations that provide housing-
related services and ends with a
focus on how the Federal Housing
Finance Agencys directive to Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac to eliminate
their charitable giving programs will
impact housing nonprots in the area.
How much did funders contrib-
ute to housing-related organiza-
tions which provide services in
the Washington region?
In 2012, 29 private funders awarded
more than $33.4 million dollars via
683 grants to housing organizations
serving the Washington region.
Grants were categorized by purpose:
Advocacy/public policy analysis
Afordable housing pro-
duction/preservation
Foreclosure prevention
Homeless prevention , shelter
or services, and transitional or
permanent supportive housing
Other or unspecifed
Nearly 60 percent of private funding
($19.8 million) was for grants for
homeless prevention, shelter, or
services, and transitional or perma-
nent supportive housing (table 5.5).
Afordable housing production and
preservation accounted for another
20 percent of private funding ($6.7
million). There was little variation
in the median grant amount by
category, ranging from $17,500 for
other/unspecied to $25,000 for
foreclosure prevention. Table 5.5 also
shows that total funding by category
was roughly proportionate to the
share of grants in the category.
Three-quarters of all housing-
related grants were for less than
$50,000 (table 5.6 shows that 29
percent of grants were for less than
$10,000 and 47 percent of grants
were for $10,000$49,999). Grants
for advocacy/public policy analysis
(81 percent) or other purpose (83
percent) were slightly more likely to
be less than $50,000 than grants for
other purposes. Nearly one-quarter
of grants for foreclosure preven-
tion were more than $100,000,
though it is likely that at least
some of these grants were subse-
quently divided into subgrants for
housing counseling organizations.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
For the analysis of private charitable
giving related to housing, data
was received from 29 of the 38
funders from whom information
was requested. The data pertained
to their 2012 grantmaking
activities in the Washington region.
Foundations grant cycles varied;
some used the calendar year, while
others scal year began in April.
One foundation had not made
housing-related grants in the year
requested. It is assumed that each
record shared represented one
grant for an individual organization.
Foundation refers to the private
funder awarding the grant
Organization refers to the housing
nonprot receiving the grant
Service area refers to the
jurisdiction(s) served by the grants
The project team, which
includes funders of this study,
constructed the list of funders that
were most likely to have made
housingrelated grants. The list
included large foundations and
large corporations (such as Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac), banks, and
smaller family foundations. All but
two funders who responded
TABLE 5.5. HOUSING-RELATED GRANTS BY PURPOSE IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 2012
Grant purpose Number Percent Dollars ($)
Percent of
total funding
Homeless prevention, shelter or services and
transitional or permanent supportive housing
402 58.6 19,831,000 59.3
Afordable housing production/preservation 147 21.5 6,696,000 20.0
Advocacy/public policy analysis 64 9.4 1,943,000 5.8
Foreclosure prevention 46 6.7 2,372,000 7.1
Other/Unspecied 24 3.5 2,604,000 7.8
Total 683 100.0 33,446,000 100.0
Notes: Grant amounts have been rounded to the nearest one hundred dollars. If the primary purpose of the grant was for general support or
unspecied the primary purpose of the organization was used where possible.
Source: Private foundation grant award data collected by Urban Institute.
TABLE 5.6. PERCENT OF GRANTS BY PURPOSE AND SIZE, 2012
Grant purpose
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$99,999 $100,000+ Total
Homeless prevention, shelter and services and
transitional or permanent supportive housing
29 47 10 14 100
Afordable housing production/preservation 32 43 10 15 100
Advocacy/public policy analysis 23 58 13 6 100
Foreclosure prevention 28 37 11 24 100
Other/Unspecied 33 50 8 8 100
Total 29 47 10 14 100
Note: If the primary purpose of the grant was for general support or unspecied the primary purpose of the organization was used where possible.
What is the distribution of
housing-related funding by
jurisdiction and type of service?
Nearly half of the housing-related
private funding ($16.3 million)
in the Washington region went
to 112 organizations whose
service area was the District of
Columbia (table 5.7 and gure 5.1).
(Figure 5.1 excludes organizations
located in the District of Columbia
whose service area was the entire
Washington region.) Montgomery
was next, receiving about 10
percent of the regions housing-
related private funding. A separate
analysis conducted using data from
the National Center on Charitable
Statistics conrmed that the District
of Columbia and Montgomery
were home to signicantly greater
numbers of housing-related nonprof-
its than other jurisdictions in the
area. For organizations whose
service area was Northern Virginia
or the entire Washington region,
the aggregate total of funding
for the larger service areas was
reported and was not parceled out
into the individual jurisdictions.
TABLE 5.7. GRANT FUNDING FOR HOUSING-RELATED ORGANIZATIONS BY SERVICE AREA IN THE
WASHINGTON REGION, 2012
Service area
Number of
organizations
Percent of
organizations
Total
grant dollars
Percent of
grant dollars
Entire Washington
region
28 11.0 $2,563,000 7.7
Northern Virginia 23 9.0 $2,344,000 7.0
District of Columbia 112 43.9 $16,335,000 48.8
Montgomery 32 12.5 $3,303,000 9.9
Prince George's 30 11.8 $1,730,000 5.2
Alexandria 9 3.5 $992,000 2.9
Arlington 12 4.7 $1,209,000 3.0
Fairfax 11 4.3 $1,247,000 3.7
Loudoun County 7 2.7 $498,000 1.5
Prince William 9 3.5 $360,000 1.1
Washington region,
unspecied*
14 5.5 $2,866,000 8.6
Notes: There were 255 organizations identied in the data. The service areas of the entire Washington region and Northern Virginia are mutually
exclusive. If a grant served multiple jurisdictions, outside of the entire Washington region or Northern Virginia the grant amount was divided by
the number of jurisdictions served and applied equally to each. The total number of organizations in this table sums to 287 because 19 organiza-
tions served multiple jurisdictions. Data rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
* The funder did not specify location of grant recipient organization other than in the Washington region.
Fairfax
Loudoun
Montgomery
Prince George's
Prince William
Arlington
Alexandria
Aggregate grant funding by service area
$0 to$500,000
$500,000to$2 million
$2 million to$5 million
More than $5 million
Legend
FIGURE 5.1. GRANT FUNDING FOR HOUSINGRELATED ORGANIZATIONS BY SERVICE AREA IN THE
Notes: For detailed values, see table 5.7. Service area refers to the jurisdiction(s) that were served by the grants. Grants with a service area
of the entire Washington region, Northern Virginia, and Washington region, unspecied area were excluded from the map.
52 Please see http://www.freddiemacfoundation.org/aboutus/letter_to_the_community.html.
Table 5.8 shows the percent of private
funding a service area captured in the
Washington region by grant purpose
in 2012. In nearly every housing
category, philanthropic giving was
concentrated in organizations
serving the District of Columbia,
often reecting greater need. For
giving related to homeless services,
more than half of regional grant-
making went to serve the District of
Columbia, which had more than half
of the regions homeless population.
However, nearly three-quarters of
the regions private giving related to
afordable housing production and
preservation was intended to serve
the District of Columbia. While the
District of Columbia did have aford-
able rental and homeowner gaps (see
tables 3.7 and 4.9) other jurisdictions
in region also had signicant gaps
and the need for nonprots focused
on afordable housing production
and preservation. Foreclosure preven-
tion funding was more likely to go to
organizations that served the entire
region (41 percent) and to Maryland,
with 36 percent of funding targeted
to Prince Georges, the jurisdiction
hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.
Advocacy and public policy analysis
funding was also more likely to be
TABLE 5.8. PERCENT OF HOUSING-RELATED GRANT FUNDING BY SERVICE AREA BY PURPOSE IN THE
Service area
Total grant
dollars
Homeless
prevention,
etc.
Afordable
housing
production,
etc.
Advocacy/
public policy
Foreclosure
prevention
Other/
unspecied
Entire Washington
region
$2,563,000 3.6 5.5 23.5 41.1 1.5
Northern Virginia 2,344,000 10.0 2.5 9.3 0.2 0.4
District of Columbia 16,33,500 50.9 73.7 41.6 9.9 10.1
Montgomery 3,303,000 11.5 9.4 4.2 12.5 0.3
Prince George's 1,730,000 3.4 2.0 1.8 35.5 1.4
Alexandria 992,000 4.0 2.9 - 0.2 -
Arlington 1,209,000 5.8 0.4 1.9 0.2 -
Fairfax 1,247,000 6.2 - - 0.2 0.4
Loudoun County 498,000 2.4 0.2 - - -
Prince William 360,000 1.7 0.2 - 0.2 0.4
Washington region,
unspecied*
2,866,000 0.4 3.1 17.7 - 85.4
$33,446,000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
Notes: Data rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
* The funder did not specify location of recipient organization other than in the Washington region.
52 As with other foundations, grants to organizations with a national scope and purpose were not included for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the
Freddie Mac Foundation in this analysis.
spread over organizations serving the
entire region (24 percent) or Northern
Virginia (9 percent), aside from a
signicant amount intended to serve
the District of Columbia (42 percent).
What role did Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac play in the region?
Over the past decade, Fannie Mae
(and previously the Fannie Mae
Foundation), Freddie Mac, and
the Freddie Mac Foundation were
some of the largest funders in the
Washington region. Estimates from
2007 put their total giving (includ-
ing non-housing related services) to
Washington area nonprots at $47
million (Rucker 2008). However, after
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corpora-
tions entered conservatorship under
the Federal Housing Finance Agency
in September 2008, their charitable
giving began to decline. Both Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac concluded
grantmaking in 2013. The Freddie Mac
Foundation will only continue to fund
grants at reduced levels to designated
previous grantees via The Community
Foundation for the National Capital
Region through 2016.
52
The eventual
loss of these funding sources is
expected to have serious implications
for housing nonprots in the region.
Together in 2012, Fannie Mae,
Foundation represented nearly
half of the charitable giving funds
for housing, totaling more than
$15.9 million.
53
Grants from these
three funders were larger than
grants from other private funders.
The median grant was $100,000
for these three funders compared
with $15,000 for all other funders
of housing-related grants.
Several types of housing services in
the region will be particularly hard hit
when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
cease giving. Together Fannie Mae,
Foundation provided 66 percent of
the foreclosure prevention grant
funds and 60 percent of the funding
for homeless prevention, shelter and
services, and transitional or perma-
nent supportive housing (table 5.9).
In comparison, these funders only
provided about 32 percent of the
grant dollars for afordable housing
production and preservation.
TABLE 5.9. FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC AND FREDDIE MAC FOUNDATION HOUSING-RELATED GIVING
BY GRANT PURPOSE IN THE WASHINGTON REGION, 2012
Funder Fannie Mae Freddie Mac
Freddie Mac
Foundation Total
Pct. of
regional
giving
Homeless prevention,
shelter and services and
transitional or permanent
supportive housing
1,275,000 - 10,562,600 11,837,600 60
Afordable housing
production/preservation
1,600,000 345,000 175,000 2,120,000 32
Advocacy/public
policy analysis
225,000 - 60,000 285,000 15
Foreclosure prevention 1,325,000 250,000 - 1,575,000 66
Other/unspecied - - 65,000 65,000 2
Total 4,425,000 595,000 10,862,600 15,882,600 47
Number of grants 33* 5 67 105
* Fannie Mae made a grant of $1.1 million to The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region for the 2012 Help the Homeless Program.
In previous tables, the assumption was that this funding was accounted for in the grants reported by The Community Foundation, but in this table
Fannie Mae is credited with the contribution.
6. CONCLUSION
Housing has become increasingly
unafordable for many people in
the Washington region. This study
analyzes the supply and gaps of
afordable housing across a broad
range of housing needs and house-
hold types. The continuum of
housing needsfrom basic shelter to
supportive housing, from a subsidized
apartment to an afordable home
for saleencompasses housing for
homeless individuals and families,
for renters, and for homeowners.
To provide for households at difer-
ent points along the continuum,
the federal government, state and
local jurisdictions, private investors,
and philanthropic organizations
have created a range of public and
private programs and supports to
promote the creation and preser-
vation of afordable housing.
Despite the current eforts and
investments, however, the analysis
presented in this study identies
many critical gaps in the housing
continuum that highlight the acute
need for more afordable housing
in the Washington region. The
Washington region has long been
among the most expensive metro-
politan areas nationally. Although the
area has generally higher incomes
and wages than most other places
in the country, incomes are not
keeping pace with rising housing
costs. The George Mason University
Center for Regional Analysis nds
that the Washington metropolitan
area had the largest increase in
rental costs among the 15 largest
metropolitan areas and the third
largest among all metropolitan areas
between 2008 and 2012. Largely
because of the increase in housing
costs, real per capita incomes in the
Washington metropolitan area fell
by 4.1 percent during this period,
the third-largest decline among the
15 biggest metropolitan areas.
As a result, homelessness remains a
persistent problem, with over 11,000
persons being counted living on
the streets or in homeless shelters,
including many children and persons
in families. The supply of permanent
supportive housing, needed to reduce
chronic homelessness, is insufcient
to meet the current demand. The lack
of afordable rental apartments across
all income levels, and particularly
for extremely low income house-
holds, contributed to the number of
homeless people and also resulted
in over half of the regions renters
paying over 30 percent of their
income on housing costs, which
leaves them less money for food,
medicine, and other essentials.
Finally, homeownership, which is the
path to savings and stability for most
people living in the United States, is
out of reach for many in the region.
In many cases, homeownership is out
of reach not due to a lack of steady
income, but because high prices
fueled by excessive demand squeeze
potential buyers out of the market.
Providing shelter and decent, aford-
able housing for persons at all
income levels is a goal that a prosper-
ous area like the Washington region
should be able to achieve. During
the recent harsh winter of 201314,
many people were shocked by the
conditions facing homeless families
as local providers struggled to keep
up with increasing demand for
shelter, especially in the District of
Columbia. Creating more permanent
supportive housing for chronically
homeless persons and families
coupled with intensive supports such
as case-management to help them
live independently, be good tenants,
and manage their health conditions
is critical to solving this problem.
Many other homeless persons or
those at risk of becoming homeless,
such as lower-income workers who
nd rising rents difcult to bear,
need access to afordable units and,
in some cases, additional supports,
such as assistance securing child
care, health insurance, and employ-
ment, to help them hold a lease and
maintain rent payments over time.
Furthermore, to remain competi-
tive, the region must address
housing afordability to ensure that
its workforce can continue to nd
housing without having to commute
farther and farther to work. If the
only afordable housing is in areas
that lack amenities, such as acces-
sible transportation, quality schools,
and retail options, that also detracts
from the regions attractiveness.
Without stable housing in a decent
environment, it is difcult for many
to secure a quality education, good
health, and employment. Policymak-
ers are paying increasing attention
to afordable housing as a platform
for connecting households with
other supports and services, such as
educational supports or job training,
which can help them achieve better
outcomes. The region may bear
additional costs down the road, such
as higher incidences of social disrup-
tion, crime, and unemployment, if
housing instability is not addressed.
Understanding the importance of
afordable housing and the needs
in this region, foundations commis-
sioned this study to quantify the
need for afordable housing and
to inform strategic investments
by the philanthropic sector all
along the housing continuum. The
Community Foundation for the
National Capital Region also recog-
nized that the ndings were essential
for others working on these issues:
government agencies, the general
public, nonprot service provid-
ers, and advocates for homeless
and afordable housing issues.
This study contains a wealth of
information that can help jurisdic-
tions better identify the nature of
the afordable housing needs in
their own communities. The study
documents the acute need for both
permanent supportive housing for
the chronically homeless and aford-
able housing across all income levels,
particularly for extremely low income
renters and low income homebuy-
ers. These ndings can be used
to target scarce public and private
sector resources to the popula-
tions most in need of relief from
high housing costs and to build and
preserve afordable housing for these
households over the long term. The
cross-jurisdictional information allows
local communities to understand the
regional context and to learn from
the policies and funding approaches
others are using to address aford-
able housing and homelessness. The
authors and the project team are
optimistic that housing, planning,
and homeless services agencies can
use this information to reect on
their current strategies and improve
their program plans and actions.
Better public policy and local
programs can evolve when not just
government agencies have access
to this type data but also when a
broader array of individuals, service
providers, foundations, and the
business community have access
to data as well. Many of the topics
discussed in this study are complex,
but the hope is that the information
herein will help those new to or less
familiar with housing issues under-
stand the housing continuum, how
the diferent systems interact, and
where the gaps in the region are.
Detailed data for each
jurisdiction can be found
in the summary and
comparative proles in
the appendices of this
study. These proles
and additional data are
also available online at
http://www.urban.org/
publications/413161.html.
REFERENCES
Aratani, Lori. 2012. DC, Montgomery County
Look to Ease Rules on Adding Accessory
Rental Units to Homes. Washington Post,
June 6, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.
com/realestate/dc-montgomery-county-
look-to-ease-rules-on-adding-accessory-
rental-units-to-homes/2012/06/07/
gJQAtJnxNV_story.html.
Blum, Agnes. 2013. Accessory Apartments
Law Jumps through Last Hurdle. Gazette.
net, September 10, 2013, http://www.
gazette.net/article/20130910/NEWS/
130919910/1122/%E2%80%98Access
ory-apartments%E2%80%99-law-jumps-
through-last-hurdle&template=gazette.
Brunick, Nicholas J. 2004. The Inclusionary
Housing Debate: The Efectiveness of
Mandatory Programs over Voluntary
Programs. Zoning Practice, 9 (1), 17. http://
www.urbanreinventors.net/3/apa.pdf.
Cadick, Emily. 2013. Issue Background:
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Washington,
DC: Enterprise Community Partners. .
City of Alexandria. 2011. The Alexandria of Our
Future: A Livable Community for All Ages:
Strategic Plan on Aging, 2012-2016. http://
alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/dchs/
AgingFullPlan%2010_12_2011.pdf.
City of Alexandria Ofce of Housing. 2013. Draft
Housing Master Plan. http://alexandriava.
gov/uploadedFiles/housing/info/
DraftHousingMasterPlanNovember2012.pdf.
Coalition for Nonprot Housing and
Economic Development. 2012. A
Decade of Progress: Investing in Lives
and Neighborhoods through the Housing
Production Trust Fund.
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and
Trevor Hadley. 2002. Public Service
Reductions Associated with Placement
of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental
Illness in Supportive Housing. Housing
Policy Debate 13 (1): 10763.
Davis, Aaron C. 2013. Plan Would Raise
Minimum Wage for Half of DC Region
to $11.50 by 2016. Washington
Post, 9 October 2013, http://www.
washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/
plan-would-give-dc-and-maryland-
suburbs-the-nations-highest-minimum-
wage-by-2016/2013/10/09/58ee4d6c-
30f3-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_story.html.
Day, Jayme, Rachelle Brown, Patrick Frost,
Christopher Gomez, Ashley Barker Tolman,
and Nicholas Barker. 2012. Comprehensive
Report on Homelessness: State of Utah
2012. Salt Lake City: Utah Housing and
Community Development Division; State
Community Services Ofce. http://jobs.utah.
gov/housing/documents/2012Comprehensi
veReportonHomelessness.pdf
DC Appleseed and DC Fiscal Policy Institute.
2008. Hometown Prosperity: Increasing
Opportunity for DCs Low-Income
Working Families. http://www.dcfpi.org/
DC_Appleseed_sm.pdf.
George Mason University Center for Regional
Analysis. 2014. Real Per Capita Personal
Income in the Washington Metro Area
and 15 Largest Employment Metros,
2008-2012. http://cra.gmu.edu/pdfs/
studies_reports_presentations/Real_Per_
Capita_Income_May2014.pdf.
Harkness, Joseph, and Sandra J. Newman.
2005. Housing Afordability and Childrens
Well-Being: Evidence from the National
Survey of Americas Families. Housing
Policy Debate 16 (2).
Higgins, Lindley R. 2001. Measuring the
Economic Impact of Community-
Based Home Ownership Programs
on Neighborhood Revitalization.
Homeownership Issues Working Paper 1.
New York: LISC.
Hoekman, Scott and John Grifth. 2013.
HUDs Rental Assistance Demonstration: A
Bold Plan for Preserving Afordability in an
Era of Austerity. Policy Focus. Washington,
DC: Enterprise Community Partners.
Jeferson, Anna, Jonathan Spader, Jennifer
Turnham, and Shawn Moulton. 2012.
Foreclosure Counseling Outcome
Study: Final Report Housing Counseling
Outcome Evaluation. Washington,
DC: US Department of Housing
and Urban Development. http://
www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/
foreclosure_counseling_v2.pdf.
Joice, Paul, Ben J. Winter, Heidi Johnson, and
Abubakari Zuberi. 2011. Redistribution
Efect of Introducing 2010 Census and
2005-2009 ACS Data into the CDBG
Formula. Washington, DC: US Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/
cdbg_redis_ef_v2.pdf.
Kautz, Barbara E. 2001. In Defense of
Inclusionary Zoning: Successfully Creating
Afordable Housing. University of San
Francisco Law Review 36, 971.
Lanzerotti, Laura. 2004. Housing First
For Families: Research to Support
the Development of a Housing First
for Families Training Curriculum.
Washington, DC: National Alliance to End
Homelessness.
Larimer, Mary E., Daniel K. Malone, Michelle D.
Garner, David C. Atkins, Bonnie Burlingham,
Heather S. Lonczak, Kenneth Tanzer, Joshua
Ginzler, Seema L. Clifase, William G.
Hobson, and G. Alan Marlatt. 2009. Health
Care and Public Service Use and Costs
Before and After Provision of Housing for
Chronically Homeless Persons with Severe
Alcohol Problems. Journal of American
Medical Association 301 (13): 134957.
Lee, Wang, Eric Beecroft, Jill Khadduri, and
Rhiannon Patterson. 2003. Impacts
of Welfare Reform on Housing
Assistance Recipients: Evidence from
Indiana and Delaware. Washington,
DC: US Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Ofce of Policy
Development and Research.
Lerman, Robert I.,C. Eugene Steuerle, andSisi
Zhang. 2012. Homeownership Policy
at a Critical Juncture: Are Policymakers
Overreacting to the Great Recession?
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Opportunity and Ownership Project No. 13.
Levy, Diane K. , Kaitlin Franks, Kassie Bertumen,
Martin Abravanel, Gerrit J. Knaap, Jason K.
Satori, and Mariela Garcie-Colberg. 2012.
Expanding Housing Opportunities through
Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons From Two
Counties. Washington, DC: US Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Martinez, Tia E. and Martha R. Burt. 2006. Impact
of Permanent Supportive Housing on the Use
of Acute Care Health Services by Homeless
Adults. Psychiatric Services 57 (7): 18.
Maryland Department of Housing and
Community Development. 2013. Fall
2013 Competitive Funding Round
Update, Section 811 Rental Assistance
Demonstration (PRA Demo)Update.
Multifamily Housing Notice 13-11. http://
www.dhcd.maryland.gov/Website/
programs/rhf/notices/notice_13_11.pdf
Community Development. 2005.
Summary of Rental Housing Fund and Tax
Credit Activity, 19952005. http://www.
dhcd.maryland.gov/Website/Programs/
lihtc/Documents/summary95-2005.pdf
Community Development. 2013. Maryland
Qualied Allocation Plan for the Allocation of
Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
http://www.dhcd.maryland.gov/Website/
programs/rhf/Documents/QAP.pdf.
Community Development. 2013. Multifamily
Rental Financing Program Guide. http://
www.dhcd.maryland.gov/Website/
Programs/rhf/Documents/Guide.pdf.
Mayer, Neil, Peter A. Tatian, Kenneth Temkin,
and Charles A. Calhoun. 2012 Has
Foreclosure Counseling Helped Troubled
Homeowners? Evidence from the
Evaluation of the National Foreclosure
Mitigation Counseling Program.
Meyers, Allan, Deborah Frank, Nicole Roos,
Karen Peterson, Virginia Casey, Adrienne
Cupples, and Suzette Levenson. 1995.
Housing Subsidies and Pediatric
Undernutrition. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine 149: 107984.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2014.
Rapid Re-Housing: A History and Core
Components. .
National Council of State Housing Agencies.
2013. 2011 State HFA Factbook.
Washington, DC: National Council of State
Housing Agencies.
Housing Agencies.
Housing Agencies.
Novogradac. 2013. 2013 Low Income
Housing Tax Credit Program, Reservation
Applications. Low Income Housing Tax
Credit: QAPs and Applications. 2013
Applications for Virginia. http://www.
novoco.com/low_income_housing/
resource_les/qap/2013/virginia/
virginia_2013_applications_041813.pdf
Pergamit, Michael, Mary Cunningham, Martha
Burt, Pamela Lee, Brent Howell, and Kassie
Bertumen. 2013. Youth Count! Process
Study. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Reed, Jenny. 2013. DCs First Right Purchase
Program Helps to Preserve Afordable
Housing and Is One of DCs Key
Anti-Displacement Tools. Washington, DC:
DC Fiscal Policy Institute. http://www.dcfpi.
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/9-24-13-
First_Right_Purchase_Paper-Final.pdf.
Rog, Debra J., Tina Marshall, Richard H.
Dougherty, Preethy George, Allen S. Daniels,
Sushmita Shoma Ghose, and Miriam
E. Delphin-Rittmon. 2014. Permanent
Supportive Housing: Assessing the Evidence.
Psychiatric Services 65 (3): 287.
Rucker, Philip. 2008. Mortgage Giants Fall May
Hurt Nonprots. Washington Post, September
14, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/
AR2008091302204.html.
Rynearson, S., B. Barrett, and C. Clark.
2010.Housing First: A Review of The
Literature.Tampa, Florida: Louis de la Parte
Florida Mental Health Institute.
Spellman, Brooke, Jill Khadduri, Brian Sokol,
and Josh Leopold. 2010. Costs Associated
with First-Time Homelessness for Families
and Individuals. Washington, DC: US
Department of Housing and Urban
Development. http://www.huduser.org/
publications/pdf/Costs_Homeless.pdf.
Stefen, Barry, L. 2013. Worst Case Housing
Needs 2011: Report to Congress.
Washington, DC: US Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Tatian, Peter A. and Ashley Williams. 2011. A Rent
Control Report for the District of Columbia.
The Harrison Institute for Public Law. 2006. An
Analysis of the Strengths and Deciencies
of Washington, DCs Tenant Opportunity
to Purchase Act. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Law Center. .
Turnham, Jennifer and Anna Jeferson. 2012.
Pre-Purchase Counseling Outcome
Study: Research Brief Housing Counseling
Outcome Evaluation Washington, DC:
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development. http://www.huduser.
org/publications/pdf/pre_purchase_
counseling.pdf.
Development. 2007. Dening Chronic
Homelessness: A Technical Guide
for HUD Programs. https://www.
onecpd.info/resources/documents/
DeningChronicHomeless.pdf.
Development and HUD User. 2012.
Likely Trends in the Distribution of CDBG
Funds. The Edge. http://www.huduser.
org/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_
article_011312.html.
Development. 2013. The 2012 Annual
Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)
to Congress. Washington, DC: US
Department of Housing and Urban
Development. https://www.onecpd.
info/resources/documents/2012-AHAR-
Volume-2.pdf.
Development. Undated. Changes to
CDBG and HOME Formula: The Decennial
Census, American Community Survey
and FY 2012 Budget. Washington, DC:
Development. http://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/HUD?src=/program_ofces/
comm_planning/about/budget/
CDBGHOMEFormula.
Virginia Housing Development Authority. 2013.
2013 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Program: Final Rankings. Low Income
Housing Tax Credit Program. Richmond, VA:
Virginia Housing Development Authority.
http://www.vhda.com/BusinessPartners/
MFDevelopers/LIHTCProgram/
LowIncome%20Housing%20Tax%20
Credit%20Program/2013%20Final%20
Rankings-Web.pdf.
REFERENCES FOR
PUBLIC FUNDING
Budget Division. 2012. Adopted Fiscal Year
2013 Annual Operating Budget. City of
Manassas. Accessed October 1, 2013,
http://www.manassascity.org/index.
aspx?NID=249.
DC Fiscal Policy Institute. 2014. Chstf Chart
with Sources. Accessed June 23, 2014.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/
ccc?key=0AvNDw_kwUYfTdG9JUTBsV2
hWb0J0MWtzT2RHZ3dHMEE&usp=shar
ing#gid=0.
DC Fiscal Policy Institute. 2013. Whats
in the FY2014 Budget for Afordable
Housing? Accessed June 17, Retrieved
from http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/03/7-18-13-FY-2014-Budget-
Toolkit_Housing-Final-2nd-vote.pdf.
DC Fiscal Policy Institute. 2012. Whats in the
FY2013 Budget for Afordable Housing?
Accessed December 3, 2013, http://www.
dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/
FY-2013-Budget-Toolkit_Housing-FINAL-
VOTE-Updated-11-20.pdf.
Fairfax County Department of Management
and Budget. FY 2013 Adopted Budget Plan.
Accessed on October 1, 2013 from http://
www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/fy2013/
adopted/budget_narratives.htm.
Arlington County Department of Management
and Finance. 2013. Housing Summary.
FY2013 Budget. Accessed October 1,
2013 from http://www.arlingtonva.us/
departments/ManagementAndFinance/
budget/le84869.pdf.
Loudoun County Department of Management
and Financial Services. 2012. FY 2013
Adopted Fiscal Plan. Loudoun County
Government. Accessed on October
1, 2013 from http://www.loudoun.
gov/documents/13/10300/10302/
FY%202013%20Adopted%20Fiscal%20
Plan_201206290846556123.pdf.
City of Manassas Park Finance Department.
2012. Manassas Park Fiscal Year: FY13
Adopted Budget. City of Manassas Park.
Accessed October 1, 2013 from http://
www.cityofmanassaspark.us/index.php/
about-manassas-park/city-departments/
nance-department/manassas-park-scal.
Housing Opportunities Commission of
Montgomery County, MD. 2012. Adopted
Budget Fiscal Year 2013. Accessed October
1, 2013fromhttp://www.hocmc.org/data/
les/ResourceDocs/HOC%20FY13%20
Adopted%20Budget%20-%20Linked.pdf.
Loudoun County. 2013. Housing Funds.
Accessed from: http://www.loudoun.gov/
index.aspx?NID=1792
District of Columbia Ofce of the Chief Financial
Ofcer. 2013. 2014 UZ0 Housing Production
Trust Fund. Fiscal Year 2014 Operating
Budget. http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/les/
dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/
uz_hptf_chapter_2014j_0.pdf.
Prince Georges County Ofce of Management
and Budget. 2012. Approved Operating
Budget FY 2013.Accessed October 1, 2013,
http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/
sites/OMB/Resources/ApprovedBudget/
Pages/default.aspx.
City of Alexandria Ofce of Management
and Budget. (2012). FY 2013 approved
operating budget and capital improvement
program. Accessed October 1, 2013 from
http://alexandriava.gov/budget/info/
default.aspx?id=60300.
Prince William County Ofce of Management
and Budget. 2012. FY 2013 Budget.
Accessed October 1, 2013 from http://
www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/
budget/Pages/FY-2013-Budget.aspx.
Montgomery County Ofce of Management
and Budget. 2012. Volume 1: Operating
Budget. Approved FY13 Operating and
Capital Budget. Accessed October 1, 2013
from http://www.montgomerycountymd.
gov/OMB/FY13/appr/psp_toc.html.
District of Columbia Ofce of the Chief
Financial Ofcer. 2012. Fiscal Year 2013
Operating Budget Chapters and Operating
Appendix Tables and Capital Budgets by
Agency. Annual Operating Budget and
Capital Plan. Accessed October 1, 2013,
http://cfo.dc.gov/page/annual-operating-
budget-and-capital-plan-2013pdfs
APPENDIX A
COMPARATIVE PROFILE OF JURISDICTIONS
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
N
Extremely
low Very low Low Middle High
District of
Columbia
259,500 25 13 8 25 29
Montgomery 357,800 11 12 8 29 40
Prince Georges 301,400 14 15 11 35 24
Alexandria 64,600 12 11 9 30 38
Arlington 92,100 10 8 5 30 47
Fairfax 401,300 9 8 7 28 47
Loudoun 147,000 9 9 7 32 43
Prince William 145,500 10 12 9 33 35
Washington
region
1,769,400 13 11 8 30 38
BEDS NEEDED TO MEET THE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
NEEDS OF THE CHRONICALLY HOMELESS, 2013
Single adults Persons in families
Available
beds
Chronically
homeless
Gap or
(surplus)
Available
beds
Chroni-
cally
homeless
Gap or
(surplus)
District of
Columbia
275 1,764 1,489 9 263 254
Montgomery 5 222 217 62 6 (56)
Prince Georges 4 73 69 43 24 (19)
Alexandria 2 69 67 - 5 5
Arlington 68 156 88 - - -
Fairfax 26 243 217 12 10 (2)
Loudoun
County
- 28 28 - - -
Washington
region
383 2,602 2,219 130 310 180
BEDS NEEDED TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEEDS
OF UNSHELTERED SINGLE ADULTS, 2013
Available
beds
Unshel-
tered
homeless
Gap or
(surplus)
District of
Columbia
600 512 (88)
Montgomery 113 143 30
Prince Georges (15) 168 183
Alexandria 31 29 (2)
Fairfax 8 104 96
Loudoun
County
(2) 38 40
Washington
region
783 1,250 467
Sources: Urban Institute analysis of 200911 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata
from the University of Minnesota Integrated Public Use Microdata Series and of Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments 2013 Point-in-Time Enumeration of the homeless.
Notes: Extremely low income = 030% of HUD area median income (AMI); very low income
= 3050% of AMI; low income = 5080% of AMI; middle income = 80120% of AMI; and
high income = 120% of AMI or higher. Jurisdictions in the table are dened by their Public Use
Microdata Areas (PUMA), except where noted.
PERCENT OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30 PERCENT
OF MONTHY INCOME IN RENT BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
84 63 44 26 4 51
Montgomery 86 85 62 26 3 50
Prince Georges 88 77 36 14 - 50
Alexandria 82 84 56 24 1 43
Arlington 91 91 63 29 3 39
Fairfax 88 83 63 26 1 45
Loudoun 81 74 51 20 4 44
Prince William 90 77 58 17 4 51
Washington
region
86 77 52 23 3 48
AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE RENTAL HOUSING UNITS
(SUPPLY) BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
30,200 32,400 11,300 20,900 3,400
Montgomery 7,900 20,900 16,600 24,200 2,900
Prince Georges 9,400 39,200 10,800 13,100 500
Alexandria 2,100 8,100 5,600 5,000 300
Arlington 2,400 7,100 5,100 11,000 1,200
Fairfax 7,500 16,700 15,800 29,300 2,500
Loudoun 3,600 6,800 3,300 5,800 300
Prince William 2,600 11,900 5,600 8,000 500
Washington
region
65,600 143,100 74,100 117,400 11,600
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (DEMAND), 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
52,300 24,000 13,800 36,000 23,500
Montgomery 26,000 21,900 12,000 37,200 20,300
Prince Georges 27,800 27,000 16,600 31,200 8,800
Alexandria 6,900 5,700 3,900 12,200 7,700
Arlington 7,500 5,600 3,600 15,900 16,700
Fairfax 22,900 17,500 13,700 41,100 26,100
Loudoun 7,100 6,000 3,700 9,900 5,900
Prince William 9,200 9,000 6,600 12,100 4,600
Washington
region
159,800 116,700 74,000 195,600 113,600
Source: Urban Institute analysis of 200911 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata
from the University of Minnesota Integrated Public Use Microdata Series.
GAP OR (SURPLUS) IN UNITS NEEDED OF AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOUSING BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
22,100 (8,400) 2,500 15,100 20,100
Montgomery 18,200 1,100 (4,500) 13,000 17,400
Prince Georges 18,400 (12,200) 5,800 18,100 8,300
Alexandria 4,800 (2,400) (1,700) 7,200 7,300
Arlington 5,100 (1,500) (1,500) 4,900 15,500
Fairfax 15,500 700 (2,200) 11,800 23,600
Loudoun 3,500 (800) 400 4,100 5,600
Prince William 6,600 (2,900) 1,000 4,100 4,100
Washington
region
94,200 (26,400) (100) 78,300 102,000
PERCENT OF OWNER HOUSEHOLDS PAYING MORE THAN 30 PERCENT OF
MONTHY INCOME IN HOUSING COSTS BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
82 61 53 36 10 32
Montgomery 92 70 60 41 9 31
Prince Georges 93 77 69 43 11 42
Alexandria 90 64 42 36 12 25
Arlington 90 70 60 39 11 26
Fairfax 88 68 58 38 9 26
Loudoun 74 60 57 45 10 30
Prince William 87 68 61 35 8 30
Washington
region
88 69 61 40 10 31
AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE OWNER HOUSING UNITS
(SUPPLY) BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
1,800 2,900 6,300 27,300 47,600
Montgomery 1,700 5,200 8,900 54,400 104,900
Prince Georges 2,500 8,400 16,700 51,300 16,900
Alexandria 100 300 600 4,500 14,100
Arlington 200 300 600 6,100 27,200
Fairfax 1,800 3,600 6,300 57,600 130,600
Loudoun 1,400 2,900 3,600 26,100 39,000
Prince William 1,800 4,100 5,600 23,400 14,800
Washington
region
11,400 27,800 48,700 250,800 395,000
OWNER HOUSEHOLDS (DEMAND), 200911
Extremely
District of
Columbia
11,400 10,500 6,900 28,100 53,000
Montgomery 15,000 19,300 15,400 67,800 122,700
Prince Georges 14,700 19,600 17,800 73,800 64,100
Alexandria 1,100 1,400 1,600 7,400 16,700
Arlington 1,600 1,600 1,500 11,600 26,500
Fairfax 14,200 16,400 15,000 72,300 162,100
Loudoun 5,800 7,400 6,500 36,900 57,800
Prince William 5,900 8,400 6,600 36,100 47,000
Washington
region
69,800 84,600 71,300 333,900 550,100
GAP OR (SURPLUS) IN UNITS NEEDED OF AFFORDABLE OWNER HOUSING
BY INCOME LEVEL, 200911
Extremely
low
Very low Low Middle High
District of
Columbia
9,500 7,600 600 800 5,400
Montgomery 13,200 14,100 6,500 13,400 17,900
Prince Georges 12,200 11,200 1,000 22,400 47,200
Alexandria 1,000 1,100 1,000 2,800 2,600
Arlington 1,400 1,300 900 5,500 (600)
Fairfax 12,400 12,800 8,600 14,800 31,600
Loudoun 4,500 4,500 2,900 10,700 18,800
Prince William 4,200 4,300 1,000 12,600 32,200
Washington
region
58,400 56,800 22,600 83,100 155,100
SUMMARY PROFILE
WASHINGTON REGION
Households by HUD Area Median Income Level, 200911
N %
Extremely low (030% AMI) 229,500 13.0
Very low (3150% AMI) 201,300 11.4
Low (5180%) 145,200 8.2
Middle (81120%) 529,600 29.9
High (over 120%) 663,700 37.5
Total households 1,769,400 100.0
Beds Needed to Meet the Permanent Supportive
Housing Needs of the Chronically Homeless, 2013
Single adults
Available beds (supply) 383
Chronically homeless
(demand)
2,602
Gap or (surplus) 2,219
Persons in families
Chronically homeless
(demand)
310
Gap or (surplus) 180
Beds Needed to Meet the Immediate Housing
Needs of Unsheltered Single Adults, 2013
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
1,250
Units Needed of Afordable Rental Housing by HUD Area Median Income Level, 200911
Extremely
low
65,600 143,100 74,100 117,400 11,600
Gap or (surplus) 94,200 (26,400) (100) 78,200 102,000
Units Needed of Afordable Owner Housing by HUD Area Median Income Level, 200911
Extremely
low
11,400 27,800 48,700 250,800 395,000
Owner households (demand) 69,800 84,600 71,300 333,900 550,100
Gap or (surplus) 58,400 56,800 22,600 83,100 155,100
SUMMARY PROFILE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 34,500 13.3
Low (5180%) 20,700 8.0
Middle (81120%) 64,100 24.7
High (over 120%) 76,500 29.5
Total households 259,500 100.0
Single adults
Chronically homeless (demand) 1,764
Gap or (surplus) 1,489
Persons in families
Chronically homeless (demand) 263
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
512
Gap or (surplus) (88)
Extremely
low
30,200 32,300 11,300 20,900 3,400
Gap or (surplus) 22,100 (8,300) 2,500 15,100 20,100
Extremely
low
1,800 2,900 6,400 27,300 47,600
Gap or (surplus) 9,600 7,600 500 800 5,400
SUMMARY PROFILE
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 41,200 11.5
Low (5180%) 27,500 7.7
Middle (81120%) 105,100 29.4
High (over 120%) 143,100 40.0
Single adults
Gap or (surplus 217
Persons in families
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
143
Gap or (surplus) 30
Extremely
low
7,800 20,900 16,600 24,200 2,900
Gap or (surplus) 18,200 1,000 (4,600) 13,000 17,400
Extremely
low
1,800 5,300 8,900 54,400 104,900
Gap or (surplus) 13,200 14,000 6,500 13,400 17,800
SUMMARY PROFILE
PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 46,600 15.4
Low (5180%) 34,400 11.4
Middle (81120%) 105,000 34.8
High (over 120%) 72,900 24.2
Single adults
Gap or (surplus) 69
Persons in families
Available beds (supply) (15)
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
168
Extremely
low
9,400 39,200 10,800 13,100 500
Gap or (surplus) 18,400 (12,200) 5,800 18,100 8,300
Extremely
low
2,500 8,300 16,700 51,300 16,900
Gap or (surplus) 12,200 11,300 1,100 22,500 47,200
SUMMARY PROFILE
ARLINGTON COUNTY
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 7,300 7.9
Low (5180%) 5,100 5.5
Middle (81120%) 27,500 29.9
High (over 120%) 43,200 46.9
Single adults
Gap or (surplus) 88
Persons in families
Available beds (supply) -
Chronically homeless (demand) -
Gap or (surplus) -
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
146
Extremely
low
2,400 7,200 5,100 11,000 1,200
Gap or (surplus) 5,100 (1,600) (1,500) 4,900 15,500
Extremely
low
200 300 600 6,100 27,200
Gap or (surplus) 1,400 1,300 900 5,500 (700)
SUMMARY PROFILE
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 7,100 11.0
Low (5180%) 5,600 8.6
Middle (81120%) 19,600 30.3
High (over 120%) 24,400 37.7
Single adults
Gap or (surplus) 67
Persons in families
Gap or (surplus) 5
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
29
Extremely
low
2,100 8,100 5,600 5,100 300
Gap or (surplus) 4,800 (2,400) (1,700) 7,100 7,400
Extremely
low
100 300 600 4,600 14,100
Gap or (surplus) 1,000 1,100 1,000 2,800 2,600
SUMMARY PROFILE
FAIRFAX COUNTY, FAIRFAX CITY AND FALLS CHURCH CITIES
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 33,900 8.4
Low (5180%) 28,600 7.1
Middle (81120%) 113,400 28.3
High (over 120%) 188,200 46.9
Single adults
Persons in families
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
104
Gap or (surplus) 96
Extremely
low
7,500 16,800 15,800 29,300 2,500
Gap or (surplus) 15,400 700 (2,100) 11,800 23,600
Extremely
low
1,800 3,600 6,300 57,600 130,600
Gap or (surplus) 12,400 12,800 8,700 14,700 31,500
SUMMARY PROFILE
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, MANASSAS AND MANASSAS PARK CITIES
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 17,400 11.9
Low (5180%) 13,200 9.1
Middle (81120%) 48,200 33.1
High (over 120%) 51,600 35.5
Single adults
Gap or (surplus) 44
Persons in families
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
110
Gap or (surplus) 81
Extremely
low
2,600 11,900 5,600 8,000 500
Gap or (surplus) 6,600 (2,900) 1,000 4,100 4,100
Extremely
low
1,700 4,100 5,600 23,400 14,700
Gap or (surplus) 4,200 4,300 1,000 12,700 32,300
SUMMARY PROFILE
LOUDOUN, FAUQUIER, CLARKE, & WARREN COUNTIES
N %
Very low (3150% AMI) 13,400 9.1
Low (5180%) 10,200 6.9
Middle (81120%) 46,700 31.8
High (over 120%) 63,700 43.3
Single adults (Loudoun
County only)
Gap or (surplus) 28
Persons in families
(Loudoun County only)
Chronically homeless (demand) -
Gap or (surplus) -
Beds Needed to Meet the Immediate Housing Needs of
Unsheltered Single Adults (Loudoun County only), 2013
Available beds (supply) (2)
Unsheltered single
adults (demand)
38
Gap or (surplus) 40
Extremely
low
3,600 6,800 3,300 5,800 300
Gap or (surplus) 3,500 (800) 400 4,100 5,600
Extremely
low
1,300 2,900 3,600 26,100 39,000
Gap or (surplus) 4,500 4,500 2,900 10,800 18,800
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Adult-Only HouseholdThis term is used in
the chapter on the homeless system; it refers
to single homeless adults.
Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)
to CongressReleased by the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development on an
annual basis, the AHAR provides an in-depth
look at the characteristics of the homeless
population in the US. Data collected for the
AHAR comes from Homeless Management
Information Systems data at the Continuum
of Care (CoC) level and therefore character-
izes the homeless population over a 12-month
window and includes sheltered homeless
people in emergency shelters and transi-
tional housing. http://www.hudhdx.info/
PublicReports.aspx
Area Median Income (AMI)The median income
for families in metropolitan and nonmetropoli-
tan areas. Federal, state, and local policies and
programs use income limits to determine eligibil-
ity for a number of housing assistance programs.
Households with an AMI between 120 and 80
percent are considered moderate income;
between 80 and 50 percent AMI are low income;
between 50 and 30 percent AMI are very low
income; and under 30 percent AMI are extremely
low income. http://www.huduser.org/portal/
datasets/il.html
Central Intake SystemOne system and/or
place where people are screened and assessed
for appropriate services and from which they
are referred to the appropriate service provid-
ers. https://www.onecpd.info/resources/
documents/HPRP_CentralizedIntake.pdf
Child-Only HouseholdThis term is used in
the chapter on the homeless system. A house-
hold composed of one or more persons under
the age of 18 with no adults present. http://
www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/
qF5cX1w20130508134424.pdf
Chronically HomelessPeople who are
physically or mentally disabled and have
been homeless for a long period of time.
A long period of time is dened by the
Development as a continuous year or longer
or as four separate incidents of homeless-
ness over the last three years. https://
www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/
DeningChronicHomeless.pdf. Our study
includes adults with families who meet these
criteria as well as unaccompanied adults.
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)A federal program administered by
the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The CDBG program provides
grants to states and local governments to
address community development needs
including afordable housing, community
revitalization, and economic develop-
ment. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/program_ofces/comm_planning/
communitydevelopment/programs
Continuum of Care (CoC)A group of local
government agencies and nonprot service
providers that administer programs to prevent
and end homelessness in a particular jurisdic-
tion. There are nine CoCs in the Washington
region.https://www.onecpd.info/coc/
coc-program-eligibility-requirements/
Coordinated Intake SystemA cooperative
system among multiple service providers in a
geographic area that uses the same intake and
assessment procedures at every organization.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-31/
html/2012-17546.htm
Emergency Shelter/Winter ShelterAny
facility providing on-demand beds to homeless
people, with the hope that these are short-
term stays. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
CFR-2006-title24-vol3/pdf/CFR-2006-title24-
vol3-part576.pdf
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)A
Development program that provides funds to
operate or rehabilitate emergency shelters and
provide homeless prevention services. http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-title24-
vol3/pdf/CFR-2006-title24-vol3-part576.pdf
Family HouseholdThis term is used in the
chapter on the homeless system. A household
with at least one adult and one child. https://
www.onecpd.info/reports/CoC_PopSub_
NatlTerrDC_2013.pdf.pdf
Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
The FHA is a department within the
Development that insures mortgages on loans
made by pre-approved lenders in the United
States and its territories. http://portal.hud.
gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_ofces/
housing/fhahistory
Formerly HomelessPeople who were
homeless but are currently living in perma-
nent supportive housing. http://www.
mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/
qF5cX1w20130508134424.pdf
HOME programA federal program under
Development that provides approximately $2
billion in grants annually to states and local
governments to create afordable housing for
low-income households. http://portal.hud.
comm_planning/afordablehousing/
programs/home/
Homeless PersonThose currently without
permanent housing, including both sheltered
and unsheltered homeless. See http://www.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/11302 for
full denition.
Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS)A database or other information
system required by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development that is
typically maintained by the lead agency in the
Continuum of Care (see above) but used by
homeless service agencies throughout the
CoC. The database stores information on
homeless people, which could include basic
demographic information, service transac-
tions, outcomes, and other pertinent informa-
tion. https://www.onecpd.info/resources/
documents/CoCProgramInterimRule.pdf
Homeless PreventionShort-term nancial
assistance and services provided to housed
families or individuals that would other-
wise have become homeless without that
assistance. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
CFR-2006-title24-vol3/pdf/CFR-2006-title24-
vol3-part576.pdf
Housing FirstAn approach in which homeless
individuals or families are moved immediately
from a shelter or the streets to their own
apartment. Needed wraparound social services
would be provided after stable housing is in
place and receipt of services is not required
for individuals or families to remain in housing.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/
hsgrst.pdf
Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS (HOPWA)A federal program under
Development that provides funds to states,
localities, and nonprot organizations for
housing assistance and supportive services
for low income people with HIV/AIDS and
their families. Housing assistance includes
rental assistance, homeless prevention, and
new construction as well as acquisition/
rehabilitation. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/program_ofces/comm_planning/
aidshousing/programs
Literally HomelessHomeless and not
currently living in permanent supportive
housing. In this study, the term homeless
refers to those who are literally homeless.
https://www.onecpd.info/resources/
documents/HomelessDenition_Recordkeep-
ingRequirementsandCriteria.pdf
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)The
low income housing tax credit program is a
federal program based on Section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code. Administered by the
state tax credit allocating agencies, developers
receive federal housing tax credits to reduce the
cost of new construction or acquisition/rehabili-
tation. In exchange for tax credits, developers
must allocate a portion of the units on their
property for low income households. http://
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_
ofces/comm_planning/afordablehousing/
training/web/lihtc/basics/work
Permanent Supportive HousingA model that
provides permanent, fully-subsidized housing
in combination with supportive services,
such as substance abuse treatment, case
management, and job training to chronically
homeless individuals and families with barriers
to achieving independence such as mental
illness, substance abuse, or HIV/AIDS. https://
CoCProgramInterimRule.pdf
Point-in-Time (PIT) CountA count of
homeless people in a CoC conducted on
a single night every year or every other
year, at a minimum. In addition to the raw
count, the process gathers a number of
other pieces of information, such as basic
demographic information, mental and physical
health status, and veteran status, to name a
few. https://www.onecpd.info/resources/
documents/2011PITYouthGuidance.pdf
Property DispositionFederal program
under US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that provides Section
8 assistance to multifamily rental housing
projects owned or held by HUD that are being
sold or foreclosed upon. The program assists
with minimizing displacement and maintaining
the stock of afordable housing for low-income
households. http://www.hud.gov/sec2b.cfm
Public HousingA federal program administered
by the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development through which local housing
authorities manage rent-restricted afordable
housing for low-income households. Income
limits vary by area and family size. Approximately
1.2 million households live in public housing units.
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
topics/rental_assistance/phprog
Rapid Re-housingA program that adheres
to the Housing First approach by provid-
ing housing search and temporary nancial
assistance to quickly move the homeless into
permanent housing options, such as scattered
site apartments. http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/
adc8b82e3d49a50252_7dm6bk8te.pdf
Rent SupplementFederal program under
Development (HUD) that provides rental assis-
tance to households living in certain federally-
nanced properties. Qualied households
pay 30 percent of their adjusted income or
30 percent of rent, whichever is greater. HUD
pays the diference between that amount and
the HUD-approved rent. http://portal.hud.
housing/mfh/hsgrent
Safe HavenA 24-hour residence that serves
homeless individuals with severe mental
illness who have been unable or unwilling to
participate in supportive services. The facili-
ties place no requirement of receiving social
services or treatment on residents, but instead
introduce services gradually, as the residents
are ready. https://www.onecpd.info/resources/
documents/safehavens.pdf
Section 8 ProgramThe US Department of
Housing and Urban Development created the
Section 8 program to provide rental assistance
to families. http://www.hud.gov/sec2b.cfm
Certicate Program and Voucher Program
Very low income households apply for certi-
cates to public housing authorities (PHAs) and
pay 30 percent of their adjusted income. The
program allows households to utilize certi-
cates outside the PHAs jurisdictions in qualied
housing. PHAs determine local preferences
(e.g., homeless persons or households meeting
income thresholds). Participating landlords cap
rent at fair market rates. Public housing authori-
ties pay the landlord the diference between
the rent and 30 percent of a households
adjusted income. Certicates and vouchers
may also be used for relocation assistance
for public housing residents so that obsolete
public housing may be demolished or rehabili-
tated. There are minor diferences between
the certicate and the voucher program. For
example, a minimum of 75 percent of families
in the voucher program must be extremely low
income. Under the voucher program, tenants
can select a unit of their choice, whereas under
the project-based voucher program, a PHA
refers families to property that has contracted
with the PHA.
programdescription/cert8
topics/housing_choice_voucher_
program_section_8
programdescription/phrr
Section 8 Loan Management Set Aside
(LMSA)Federal program that helps
HUD-insured or HUD-held projects facing
nancial difculties by providing Section 8
assistance. http://www.hud.gov/sec2b.cfm
http://www.hud.gov/ofces/adm/hudclips/
handbooks/hsgh/4350.2/43502c1HSGH.pdf
Moderate RehabilitationAdministered by PHAs
until it was repealed in 1991, the program helped
to upgrade afordable housing stock and provide
rental assistance to very low income and low
income families who paid 30 percent of adjusted
income towards rent. PHAs paid the diference
between that amount and rent.
program_ofces/public_indian_housing/
programs/ph/modrehab
New Construction or Substantial
Rehabilitationincludes Section 202 and 811
nancing
Section 202This program provides nonprot
organizations with interest-free capital
advances to develop or rehabilitate afordable
housing for very low-income elderly residents.
program_ofces/housing/mfh/mnfo/
sec202ptl
Section 811This program provides nonprot
organizations with interest-free capital
advances to develop or rehabilitate afordable
housing with supportive services for very low
income and extremely low income adults with
disabilities. The program also provides funds to
state housing agencies that partner with state
health and human service agencies. These
funds are used to provide rental assistance to
projects with tax credits, HOME funds, or other
funding sources. http://portal.hud.gov/hudpor-
tal/HUD?src=/program_ofces/housing/mfh/
grants/section811ptl
Project-Based Rental AssistanceSection 8
assistance that is limited to specic housing,
such as housing provided by owners receiving
a subsidy from HUD. Qualied households pay
the owner 30 percent of their adjusted income
or 10 percent of their gross annual income,
and HUD pays the diference between that
amount and the HUD-approved rent. Public
housing authorities may use up to 20 percent
of Housing Choice Vouchers for project-based
vouchers. Under the voucher program, tenants
can select a unit of their choice, whereas under
the project-based voucher program, a PHA
refers families to property that has contracted
with the PHA. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/program_ofces/housing/mfh/rfp/
s8bkinfo and http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/hudprograms/rs8pbra
Section 236A federal program under HUD,
the program provides interest subsidies to
decrease a projects mortgage interest rate to
1 percent. HUD is not making new commit-
ments under this program. Households in the
program pay rent that is 30 percent of their
adjusted income or the rent amount HUD has
set for a participating property.
http://www.gao.gov/products/PAD-78-13
http://www.vhda.com/BUSINESSPARTNERS/
PROPERTYOWNERSMANAGERS/SECTION8-
SECTION236RAP/Pages/Section8-Section236.
aspx#.UpTIh7Eo5ZQ
Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance
ProgramAdministered by the US Department
of Agriculture, the program assists very low
and low income households, elderly persons,
and persons with disabilities. Households in
the program pay rent that is 30 percent of
their adjusted income. Rental assistance can
be applied towards housing in Rural Rental
Housing or Farm Labor Housing. http://
www.ct.gov/agingservices/lib/agingservices/
manual/housing/ruralrentalassistancenal.pdf
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/mfh/brief_
mfh_rra.htm
Shelter Utilization RateThe share of all
shelter beds that are occupied at the time of
the PIT count.
Sheltered HomelessThose homeless residing
in shelters, safe havens, or transitional housing.
Single AdultA household with no children
present. This term is used in the homeless
chapter of this report. https://www.onecpd.
info/reports/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2013.
pdf.pdf
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF)Time-limited assistance provided by
the federal government to poor families, with
the goal that they eventually become self-
sufcient. Formerly known as welfare. http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf
Transitional HousingShort- to medium-
term housing for homeless people, usually
lasting less than two years, which provides
services in order to graduate households to
a more permanent housing situation. https://
CoCProgramInterimRule.pdf
Unsheltered HomelessLiving in a place not
meant for human habitation, such as abandoned
buildings, bridges, parks, and campsites. https://
counting_unsheltered.pdf
1 Please note, following the convention used in the main text of the report, this appendix uses PUMA geographies, except where explicitly stated,
as in Loudoun County. Prince William refers to Prince William County, Manassas City and Manassas Park City. Location in this analysis is dened
by the mailing address for the organization listed on IRS Form 990. In some cases this may represent the address of a third party such as an
accountant or attorney.
2 The detailed NTEE denitions that guided the reclassication can be found at: http://nccsweb.urban.org/PubApps/nteeSearch.php?gQry=allMaj
or&codeType=NTEE.
3 These 354 organizations were registered with the IRS with a tax status of 501(c)3 and had reported revenue, expenses, and assets. Nonprots
that are not required to register with the IRS include organizations with less than $5,000 in annual revenue or religious congregations; however,
many of these organizations still choose to register. We counted organizations based on individual Employer Identication Numbers (EINs).
Observations with the same organization name, but with diferent EINs were counted as separate housing nonprots and may fall under diferent
housing categories. Organizations that provide services in the Washington region but also provide signicant services elsewhere were excluded
from this analysis if separate EINs did not exist for the Washington-based branches (e.g. Enterprise Community Partners and Local Support
Initiatives Corporation).
APPENDIX C:
THE REGIONS HOUSING-RELATED NONPROFIT SECTOR
This study discussed many housing policies
and programs that, even if funded with
public dollars, are administered and carried
out by nonprot organizations dedicated to
meeting the needs of lower-income house-
holds in the region. This appendix looks at
the Washington regions nonprot sector
that advocates for better housing policies,
builds afordable housing, and provides
emergency shelter or other housing-related
services. Although the units produced or
the homeless people that each organiza-
tion serves could not be measured from
the available data, this analysis does look
at nonprot capacity in housing using four
metrics: the number of nonprots and their
annual revenues, expenses, and assets. The
majority of housing nonprots in the region
had revenues under $1 million, were located
in the District of Columbia or Montgomery,
and varied in size by jurisdiction.
1
The majority
of housing-related nonprots in the region
provide housing development, construction,
and management services, with at least three
such organizations in every jurisdiction.
This analysis used data from the National
Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), which
collects information from the Form 990 that
nonprot organizations le with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). To determine which
organizations provided housing-related
services, the denitions used by the IRS and
NCCS to classify to nonprots, the National
Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE), were
used.
2
The NTEE subcategories of Housing &
Shelter, Community Improvement & Capacity
Building, Human Services, and Religion-
Related were combined to create classica-
tions of nonprots by the type of services
they provided. Table C.5 shows how the NTEE
codes were combined to create the catego-
ries used in this analysis. Using IRS Form
990 data from 2010 to 2012, 354 nonprots
with a focus on housing issues that primar-
ily serve the Washington region were found.
3
NTEE subcategories were collapsed into eight
categories for use in the analysis that follows:
Advocacy, legal services, and profes-
sional associations: Includes nonprots
who seek to inuence public policy and
educate the public on issues related to
housing; those that provide legal aid
(typically pro bono); and professional
associations with an interest in housing.
Funding and other support for housing
and shelter: Includes nonprots that raise or
distribute funds to housing organizations or
provide technical assistance to nonprots.
Housing development, construction,
and management: Includes nonprots
involved in many activities related to
afordable housing including development,
rehabilitation, or the management of rental
housing. This category would include
subsidized developments that operate as
nonprots for low income, independent, or
senior housing, as well as group homes.
Temporary housing and homeless
shelters: Includes nonprots providing
temporary housing, shelter, or services
to homeless individuals and families.
Homeowners and tenants associations:
Includes nonprot organizations formed
to serve community needs and interests in
a particular housing development, condo-
minium, apartment complex, or community.
Housing support: Includes nonprof-
its that provide housing counseling,
assistance with home repairs, or assis-
tance with rent or mortgage costs.
Human services with a focus on
housing needs: Include nonprots
operating crisis intervention programs,
children and youth services, family ser-
vices, and residential care programs.
Urban, community, and neighbor-
hood development: Includes nonprots
involved in community and neighborhood
development or economic development.
4 Our analysis here is limited to the data available in the NCCS. For example, the size of an organization and true capacity for a nonprot to ofer
and deliver services is not tabulated. It is important to note that some nonprots may be more efcient, have fewer administrative costs, or reach
more households.
5 Becausethe nances for the local Enterprise Community Partners and the DC ofce of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) could not
be separated out from the tax lings for their national ofces, they were not included in this analysis.
6 For this portion of the analysis one organization that had negative revenues, expenses, or assets was excluded.
Nearly two-thirds of housing nonprots
in the Washington region were located
in either the District of Columbia or
Montgomery. Thirty-nine percent of these
nonprots (141) were located in the District
of Columbia and 23 percent (83) were in
Montgomery (see table C.1). In contrast,
Alexandria, Loudoun County, and Prince
William had 10 or fewer housing nonprots.
Housing nonprots in the Washington region
had combined revenue of $694 million, aggre-
gate expenses of $633 million, and assets that
totaled about $2.1 billion (in 2012 dollars).
4
In
addition to these local nonprots, two national
nonprotsEnterprise Community Partners and
the DC ofce of the Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (LISC)both invested signicantly
in afordable housing and community develop-
ment in the Washington region. In 2012, LISC
invested about $13.2 million in equity, loans,
grants, and recoverable grants in the District
of Columbia. Enterprise Community Partners
invested approximately $88 million in debt
and equity in the District of Columbia and
$6 million in Montgomery County in 2012,
and distributed about $350,000 in grants in
the Washington region in 2012 and 2013.
5

As table C.1 shows, there were substantial
diferences in the size of housing-sector
nonprots across jurisdictions in the region
6

Nonprots in Prince William, Alexandria, and
Prince Georges were smaller than others
in the region, with average revenues and
expenses under $1 million. Fairfax had the
largest nonprots in terms of average revenue
and expenses (about $3 million) but nonprots
in Arlington and Montgomery had the highest
average assets at more than $6.7 million.
Table C.2 shows nonprots by the main type of
housing services they provided. The majority
of the housing nonprots in the Washington
region focused on housing development,
construction, and management. This category
included organizations that build afordable
housing and those that operate afordable
housing developments. Temporary housing and
homeless shelters and housing support nonprof-
its made up another 11 percent of housing
nonprots in the region. Housing development,
construction, and management nonprots
had lower average revenue and expenses
than temporary housing shelters but higher
average assets. Human services organizations
that ofer housing-related services had much
higher average revenue and expenses than
other housing-related nonprots, likely reect-
ing the cost of providing supportive services.
TABLE C.1. NUMBER OF HOUSING-SECTOR NONPROFITS AND THEIR AVERAGE REVENUE, EXPENSES, AND ASSETS (2012 DOLLARS)
BY JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction Number of nonprots
Average revenue
($ thousands)
Average expenses
($ thousands)
Average assets
($ thousands)
District of Columbia 141 2,377 2,038 6,130
Montgomery 83 1,702 1,677 7,342
Prince Georges 40 865 829 1,513
Alexandria 10 639 679 4,415
Arlington 25 1,765 1,445 8,303
Fairfax 40 3,002 3,008 6,777
Loudoun County 5 1,448 1,095 2,992
Prince William 10 497 486 1,120
Washington region 354 1,959 1,789 5,885
Source: The Urban Institute, NCCS Core File (Public Charities, 2011).
The distribution of housing nonprots
across jurisdictions varied by the type of
service they provided (see table C.3). Housing
development, construction, and manage-
ment nonprots were more widely spread
throughout the region than other housing-
related nonprots, which tended to be in the
District of Columbia or a handful in suburban
jurisdictions. Of the 190 housing development,
construction, and management nonprof-
its, 55 were located in Montgomery, 54 in
the District of Columbia, and 27 in Fairfax.
The 40 temporary housing and homeless
shelter nonprots were not distributed
evenly throughout the Washington region.
Sixty percent were located in the District of
Columbia while only one each was in Prince
Georges, Alexandria, and Prince William and
none were located in Loudoun County.
The majority of housing nonprots in
the region were fairly small, with annual
revenues below $1 million (see table C.4).
In fact, 20 percent (72) of these nonprof-
its were very small, with revenues less than
$100,000. By service category, 82 percent of
homeowners and tenants associations, 79
percent of community and neighborhood
development nonprots, and 76 percent
of housing nonprots ofering funding
and other support had revenues under $1
million. Only a few housing nonprots were
very large, with revenues of $10 million or
greater. The majority of these very large
nonprots provided housing development,
construction, and management services.
TABLE C.2. NUMBER OF HOUSING-SECTOR NONPROFITS, AVERAGE REVENUE, EXPENSES, AND ASSETS (2012 DOLLARS) BY TYPE
OF SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE WASHINGTON REGION
Types of services provided
Number of
nonprots
Average revenue
($ thousands)
Average expenses
($ thousands)
Average assets
($ thousands)
Advocacy, legal services, and professional associations 11 1,362 1,346 2,349
Funding and other support 17 730 802 3,128
Housing development, construction, and management 190 1,939 1,764 7,079
Temporary housing and homeless shelters 40 2,698 2,517 3,138
Homeowners and tenants associations 17 783 582 4,399
Housing support 43 2,160 1,878 7,150
Human services 17 3,204 3,046 4,814
Urban, community, and neighborhood development 19 1,543 1,395 3,633
TABLE C.3. NUMBER OF HOUSING-SECTOR NONPROFITS BY JURISDICTION BY TYPE OF HOUSING SERVICES PROVIDED
District of
Columbia Montgomery
Prince
Georges Alexandria Arlington Fairfax
Loudoun
County
Prince
William
Advocacy, legal services, and
profestional associations
6 1 1 1 1 1 - -
Funding and other support 9 4 1 - 1 2 - -
Housing development,
construction, and management
54 55 26 4 16 27 3 5
Temporary housing and
homeless shelters
24 8 1 1 2 3 - 1
Homeowners and
tenants associations
19 8 4 2 2 4 2 2
Housing support 11 3 2 - - 1 - -
Human services 11 1 3 1 2 - - 1
Urban, community and
neighborhood development
141 83 40 10 25 40 5 10
TABLE C.4. NUMBER OF HOUSING-SECTOR NONPROFITS BY TYPE BY REVENUE CATEGORY FOR THE WASHINGTON REGION
Annual revenue (in 2012 dollars)
Types of services provided $0 to $99,999
$100,000 to
$499,999
$500,000 to
$999,999
$1,000,000 to
$9,999,999
$10,000,000
or greater
professional associations
3 2 2 4 0
Funding and other support 3 6 4 4 0
Housing development,
construction, and management
39 40 28 73 9
Temporary housing and
homeless shelters
6 10 5 16 3
Homeowners and
tenants associations
5 6 3 3 0
Housing support 8 7 8 17 3
Human services 3 3 2 8 1
Urban, community and
5 8 2 2 2
Washington region 72 82 54 127 18
Notes: Annual revenue was obtained from the most recent IRS Form 990 ling between 2010 and 2012. Only nonprots with non-negative
revenues were included in this portion of the analysis; one had negative revenue.
TABLE C.5. NTEE CODES USED FOR THE NONPROFIT ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
Analysis Categories Original NTEE code description Original NTEE code
Legal Services I80
Alliances & Advocacy L01
Professional Societies & Associations L03
Homeowners & tenants associations
Homeowners & Tenants Associations L50
and management
Nursing Facilities E91
Housing Development, Construction & Management L20
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing L21
Senior Citizens Housing & Retirement Communities L22
Independent Housing for People with Disabilities L24
Housing Rehabilitation L25
Group Homesw P73
Housing and shelter: Funding and other support Single Organization Support L11
Fund Raising & Fund Distribution L12
Support N.E.C. L19
Human Services: Support N.E.C. P19
Nonprot Management S50
Community Improvement & Capacity Building N.E.C. S99
Private Grantmaking Foundations T20
Public Foundations T30
Housing support Housing Support L80
Home Improvement & Repairs L81
Housing Expense Reduction Support L82
Housing & Shelter N.E.C. L99
The next two tables provide additional
background on nonprots that were included
in this analysis. Table C.5 displays the catego-
ries used in this analysis and how they
correspond to the original NTEE codes used
by the IRS to classify nonprots (please see
page 1 of this appendix for more details). Table
C.6 lists the nonprots included in the analysis
and tables presented by the jurisdiction they
are located in and the analysis category.
Human services Student Services B80
Hot Lines & Crisis Intervention F40
Vocational Rehabilitation J30
Youth Development: Fund Raising & Fund Distribution O12
Youth Development Programs O50
Human Service Organizations P20
Children & Youth Services P30
Family Services P40
Residential Care & Adult Day Programs P70
Centers to Support the Independence of Specic Populations P80
Developmentally Disabled Centers P82
Womens Centers P83
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Food Programs K30
Congregate Meals K34
Religion-Related: Professional Societies & Associations X03
Temporary Housing L40
Homeless Shelters L41
Emergency Assistance P60
Homeless Centers P85
Urban, community, and
Community & Neighborhood Development S20
Urban & Community Economic Development S31
Source: National Center for Charitable Statistics and Urban Institute.
TABLE C.6. WASHINGTON REGION NONPROFITS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSING-RELATED NONPROFIT SECTOR BY LOCATION
Access Housing Inc. DC
Coalition for Nonprot Housing
and Economic Development
District Alliance for Safe Housing Inc.
NNA Fund
Transpire Inc.
University Legal Services Inc.
Homeowners and tenants associations Bu-Gata
Colony House Non-Prot Housing Corp
Neighborhood Associates Corporation
Organizing Neighborhood Equity
Oromo Community Organization
Park Southern Neighborhood Corporation
Sibley Plaza Resident Association Inc.
Housing and shelter: Funding and other support Buildable Hours
Community Council for the
Homeless at Friendship Place
Cornerstone Inc.
Georgetown Ministry Center
Jubilee Support Alliance
L Arche Homes for Life Inc.
N Street Village Inc.
Washington Area Community
Investment Fund Inc.
Winenterprise Fort Dupont
Nehemiah Homes Inc.
and management
Afordable Housing Opportunities Inc.
Asbury Dwellings Inc.
Asmara Afordable Housing Inc.
Benjamin Banneker Development
Corporation
Benning Park Neighborhood Corporation
Bnai Brith Housing Inc.
Carolina Afordable Housing Inc.
CCS Housing Inc.
Community Preservation and
Development Corporation
Continental Societies Inc.
Cornerstone Bayview Inc.
Cover 2 Foundation
Deaf-Reach Housing Inc.
Delta Housing Corporation of
the District of Columbia
Development Corporation of
Columbia Heights Inc.
Edgewood Seniors Preservation Corporation
Edgewood Terrace Preservation Corporation
Elizabeth Ministry
Family Matters Empowerment Center Inc.
First Rising Mt Zion Baptist Church
Housing Corporation Inc.
Four Walls Development Inc.
Foxwood Afordable Housing Inc.
Golden Rule Apartments Inc.
Golden Rule Plaza Inc.
Green Door Housing
Habitat for Humanity International Inc.
Hollybush Afordable Housing Inc.
Homes for Hope Inc.
Josephs House Inc. Financial Ofce
Kenilworth Parkside Resident
Management Corporation
National Hispanic Council on Aging
Housing of District of Columbia Inc.
NCBA Housing Development Corporation
of the District of Columbia
New Bethel Baptist Church Housing Corporation
NHP Foundation
Orange Afordable Housing Inc.
Sinai Assisted Housing Foundation Inc.
Springvale Terrace Inc.
St Marys Court Housing
Stewards of Afordable Housing for the Future
Stoddard Baptist Global Care
Stoddard Baptist Home Foundation Inc.
Tekakwitha Housing Corp
Terric Inc.
THC Afordable Housing Inc.
The Robert L Walls Senior Citizens Center
of the New Macedonia Baptist
The Washington Center for Internships
and Academic Seminars
Transitional Housing Corporation
Trinity Landholding Corporation
Upper Room Housing Corporation
Walnut Afordable Housing Inc.
Table C.6 lists the nonprots included in the
analysis presented by the jurisdiction of their
mailing address and the analysis category.
Please note that the categories below are
based on the NTEE codes assigned by
the IRS, with some renements made by
NCCS. The nonprot organizations listed
below may serve multiple purposes and in
some cases the codes may not accurately
describe the nonprots activities.
Housing support Bethany Inc.
Bridging Resources in Communities Inc.
Carrie Simon House Inc.
Greenspace NCR Inc.
Home for the Hatchet Inc.
Hope and A Home-Inc.
Housing Assistance Council
Housing Counseling Services Inc.
Jubilee Housing Inc.
Manna Inc.
Manna Mortgage Corp
Meadowwood I Preservation Corporation
Meadowwood II Preservation Corporation
Micah House Inc.
Rainy Day Foundation Inc.
Rebuilding Together Inc.
Rebuilding Together of Washington DC Inc.
Robert L Walker House Corporation
Suburbia Fairfax Preservation Corporation
Human services Community Family Life Services Inc.
Covenant House Washington DC
District of Columbia Law Students
in Court Program Inc.
Lydias House in Southeast
Open Arms Housing Inc.
Project Create
Rachaels Womens Center
Ready Willing & Working Inc.
Sasha Bruce Youthwork Inc.
St Johns Community Services
Yachad Inc.
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Calvary Womens Services Inc.
Capital Interfaith Hospitality
Central Union Mission
Christ House
Community for Creative Non-Violence
Cornerstone Community DC Inc.
DC Central Kitchen Inc.
Downtown Cluster of Congregations Inc.
Homeless Childrens Playtime Project Inc.
Hope House
House of Help City of Hope
House of Ruth
Life Building Mission
MI Casa My House Inc.
Miriams Kitchen
New Endeavors By Women
Pathways To Housing DC
Riley-Checks House Inc.
Samaritan Ministry of Greater Washington
Some Inc.
Street Sense Inc.
Thrive DC
Urban Familys House of Hope Inc.
Young Womans Christian Home
Be the Change Development Corporation
Community of Hope Inc.
District of Columbia Grassroots
Empowerment Project Incorporated
Far South West-Southeast Community
Greater Shaw Community
H Street Main Street Inc.
Latino Economic Development
Corporation of Washington DC
Mission First Housing Development Corporation
Mount Lebanon Community
Shaw Coalition Redevelopment Corporation
The Non-Prot Community Development
Corporation of Washington, DC
Montgomery County, MD
Silver Spring Interfaith Housing Coalition Inc.
Homeowners and tenants associations Korean Community Senior Housing
Corporation of Maryland II
Neighborhood Capital Corporation
SG Housing Corporation
Housing and shelter: Funding and other support Home Builders Care Foundation Inc.
Housing Opportunities
Community Partners Inc.
Impact Silver Spring
Opendoor Housing Fund
and management
Afordable Housing Conference
of Montgomery County
American Homes Creation Services Inc.
Andrew Kim House Inc.
Ashmore Homes Inc.
Aurora Homes Inc.
Avondale Park Apartments Inc.
Banor Housing Inc.
Byron House Inc.
Cambridge Apts Inc.
Camp Hill Square Development Corporation
Chemung View Housing Inc.
Cheval Court Inc.
Christian Church Facilities for the Aging Inc.
Coalition Homes Incorporated
Crossway Community Inc.
Foresight Afordable Housing Inc.
Foresight Afordable Housing
of Maryland Inc.
Friends House
Friends Non-Prot Housing Inc.
Glenarden Housing of Maryland Inc.
MHP DRHC Inc.
MHP Landings Edge Inc.
MHP Scattered Site Inc.
MHP Scattered Site Inc. (second EIN)
MHP Town Center Inc.
Montgomery Housing Partnership Inc.
Mount Carmel Housing Inc.
New Hampshire Housing
Next Step Housing Inc.
Palmer Park Seniors Housing Inc.
Revitz House Corporation
Ring House Corporation
Rosaria Communities Inc.
Saint Albans Housing Corporation
Thomas Housing Development Corporation
Town Center Apartments Inc.
Trinity Terrace Inc.
University Housing Corporation
Victory Heights Inc.
Victory Housing Inc.
Washington McLaughlin Apartments
for Senior Citizens Inc.
Waterside Homes Inc.
Willow Creek Housing Inc.
Housing support Asian-American Homeownership
Counseling Inc.
Claiborne Housing Inc.
Grace House Inc.
Hebron Associates for Community
Hughes Neighborhood Housing Inc.
Londonderry Housing Inc.
Oxford House Inc.
Rebuilding Together
Montgomery County Inc.
Habitat for Humanity of Montgomery
Housing Unlimited Inc.
Immanuel Senior Living Homes Inc.
Joy House Inc.
King Farm Presbyterian Retirement
Kish Housing Inc.
Korean Community Senior
Housing Corp of Maryland
Landow House Inc.
Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church
Home for the Elderly Inc.
Manor Apartments Inc.
Masonic and Eastern Star Home of
the District of Columbia Charities
Montgomery Housing Inc.
Human services Hearts & Homes for Youth Foundation Inc.
Interfaith Works Inc.
Jewish Foundation for Group Homes
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Dwelling Place Inc.
House of Hope Maryland Incorporated
Housing & Community Initiatives Inc.
Montgomery County Coalition
for the Homeless Inc.
Neighbors Consejo
Operation Fly Inc.
Stepping Stones Shelter Inc.
The Shepherds Table Inc.
Scotland Community Development Inc.
Prince Georges County, MD
Community Legal Services of
Prince Georges County Inc.
Homeowners and tenants associations Coalition for Home Ownership
Preservation in Prince Georges County
Vesta Forest Inc.
Housing and shelter: Funding and other support Laurel Advocacy and Referral Services Inc.
and management
Associated Community Services Inc.
Bucksville Inc.
Camile First Solutions
Castleton Homes Inc.
Chillum Oaks Adventist Apts Inc.
Ft Washington Adventist Apartments Inc.
Fuller Center for Housing Inc.
Guide Marywood House Inc.
Guide Nashville Homes Inc.
Guide Trexler House Inc.
Housing Initiative Partnership Inc.
Karios Development Corporation Inc.
KCE Inc.
Melwood-Werner Housing Inc.
Melwood-Dolly Housing Inc.
Mrs. Phillipines Home for Senior Citizens Inc.
Regeneration Development Group Inc.
Sager Homes Inc.
Vesta Charles Inc.
Vesta Enteka
Vesta Four Inc.
Vesta Housing Inc.
Vesta Pelden Inc.
Vesta Riverdale Inc.
Vesta Three Inc.
Vesta Twelve Inc.
Housing support Alec Education and Housing Inc.
Christmas in April-Prince
Georges County Inc.
Laurel Quality of Life Inc.
Lincoln-Westmoreland Housing Inc.
Human services Community Crisis Service Inc.
St Anns Center for Children
Youth and Families
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Choices Transitional Housing for Men
Avonridge Community
Prince Georges County Economic
Reid Community Development Corporation
Alexandria City, VA
Northern Virginia Afordable Housing Alliance
Homeowners and tenants associations Tenants and Workers United
Inquilinos Y Trabajadores Unidos
and management
Arlington VOA Living Centers Inc.
Beth El House Inc.
Community Lodgings Inc.
Senior House VOA Elderly Housing
Housing support Assisting Children in Need Inc.
Rebuilding Together Alexandria
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Carpenters Shelter Inc.
Alexandria Housing Development
Corporation
Arlington County, VA
Alliance for Housing Solutions
Homeowners and tenants associations Buyers and Renters Arlington Voice
Housing and shelter: Funding and other support Alliance for Arlington Senior Programs Corp
and management
Arlington Home Ownership Made Easier Inc.
Arlington Partnership for
Afordable Housing Inc.
Arlington Retirement Housing
Corporation Inc.
Borromeo Housing Inc.
Cameron Commons
Carlyn Springs-Foxcroft Terrace
Culpepper Garden I Incorporated
Culpepper Garden II Inc.
Fisher House III & Iv Development Corporation
George Mason Univ. Habitat for Humanity
Key Boulevard Housing
Lee Gardens Housing Corporation
Robert Pierre Johnson Housing
Development Corp Natl. Capital Area
Views at Clarendon
Village To Village Network LLC
Westover Housing Association Inc.
Housing support AHC Inc.
Queens Court Development Corporation
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Arlington Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless Inc.
Doorways for Women & Families Inc.
Bonder & Amanda Johnson Community
Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization Inc.
Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, VA
Legal Services of Northern Virginia Inc.
Homeowners and tenants associations City of Fairfax Renaissance
Housing Corporation
Wesley Rydell Housing Corporation
Housing and shelter: Funding and other support Friends of Falls Church Homeless Shelter Inc.
Housing Trust Fund of Northern Virginia Inc.
and management
Act V Inc.
Afordable Housing Corporation
American Village Communities Inc.
Arlington Assembly of God Housing Corp
Beacon Light Civic League
Inc. Bell Diamond Apts
Christian Relief Services Charities Inc.
CLA Homes II Corp
Community Havens Inc.
Emerson House Apartments
Falls Church Housing Corporation
Fellowship Square Foundation Incorporated
Gabriel Homes Incorporated
Gateway Communities Inc.
Good Shepherd Housing and
Family Services Inc.
Greater New Hope Baptist Church Towers Inc.
Hartwood Group Homes Incorporated
Hunters Woods Elderly Developments Inc.
Largo Landing Elderly Developments
Lewinsville Retirement Residence
Marian Homes
Perry S Hall Inc.
Shepherds Center of Oakton-Vienna
Suitland Housing Corporation A
Community Housing Development Org
The Temple Foundation Inc.
Wesley ASI of Northern Virginia
Wesley Housing Development
Corporation of Northern Virginia
William Watters Inc.
Housing support Housing and Community Services
of Northern Virginia Inc.
Reston Interfaith Housing Corporation
Shelter House Inc.
The Community Housing Trust
Human services United Community Ministries Inc.
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Keys for the Homeless Foundation Inc.
New Hope Housing Inc.
Virginia Coalition for the Homeless Inc.
Loudoun County, VA
and management
Green Meadow Homes Inc.
Loudoun Habitat for Humanity
Windy Hill Foundation Inc.
Housing support Good Shepherd Alliance Inc.
Operation Homefront Inc.
Prince William County, Manassas City, Manassas Park City, VA
Homeowners and tenants associations First Home Alliance Inc.
and management
Brethren Housing Corporation
Catholics for Housing Inc.
Good Shepherd Housing Foundation
Final Salute Inc.
Prince William County-Man and
Man Habitat for Humanity
Housing support Community Apartments
Borrower Corporation
House Inc.
Temporary housing and homeless shelters Transitional Housing Barn Inc.
Project Mend-A-House Incorporated
1 Expenditures by municipal planning agencies were not included, such as comprehensive plans and land use plans, unless activities or programs
explicitly dealt with housing-centric or housing-focused activities.
APPENDIX D: BUDGET ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
This appendix details the types of program
expenditures included under each category
in the analysis of local jurisdictions
housing budgets. Tax expenditures are not
included as part of this analysis, nor are
expenditures by housing nance agencies.
Rental AssistancePayments to tenants and
landlords for afordable rental housing.
Emergency rental assistance
Housing Choice Voucher rental
assistance (Section 8 program)
Locally funded rental assistance or
housing voucher programs
Public housing (operating only)
Homebuyer AssistanceGrants,
loans, and other services for persons
becoming homeowners.
Down payment assistance
First-time homebuyer programs
Tenant purchase programs
Homelessness Prevention & Assistance
Programs intended to prevent
homelessness and support previously
homeless individuals and families or
those at risk of becoming homeless.
Homeless shelter programs
Homeless prevention
Homeless services
Supportive housing for homeless
Rapid Re-Housing
Transitional housing
Elderly and Special Needs Housing
Housing investments and supportive
services for the elderly, people with
disabilities, and other special populations.
Assisted-living residences
Housing Opportunities for
Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
Permanent supportive housing (if
not primarily for homeless)
Regulatory and LegalPrograms
intended to provide regulatory or
enforcement oversight of housing.
Code enforcement
Fair housing
Lead abatement
Planning and DevelopmentEforts
to plan for or develop new and
rehabilitated housing.Includes only
pricing that is clearly for housing.
1
Energy retrots
Housing commissions and task forces
Housing development
Housing planning
Neighborhood revitalization
Property acquisition and disposition
Single family rehabilitation
Tax credits (Low Income
Housing Tax Credits)
Tenant and Owner ServicesInformation,
education, and services provided to
existing homeowners and tenants.
Energy retrots (including weatherization)
Homeownership services
Housing counseling
Housing services, e.g., housing
information centers, housing search
services, or tenant-landlord services
Lead safety programs
Neighborhood and community
improvement programs
Residential and community services
Home repair programs
Nonspecied Housing-Related Expenditures
Other expenditures that cannot be placed in
any of the above categories either because
they are too general or there is insufcient
information to determine the proper category.
Financial operations
Management
Other nonspecic expenditures

CF - Housing Report - Final - Embargoed 7.11.14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CF - Housing Report - Final - Embargoed 7.11.14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOUSING SECURITY IN THE WASHINGTON REGION

You might also like