As San Diego’s Section 8 Waiting List Grows, Families Aren’t Getting Vouchers for 7.75 years
As San Diego’s Section 8 Waiting List Grows, Families Aren’t Getting Vouchers | Voice of San Diego
Wait in San Diego is 93 months, Worst Case in State
| State | Metro area | Housing Authority | Households receiving a voucher | Average wait time in months |
| California | San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad | Housing Authority of the County of San Diego | 10,185 | 93 |
| California | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | City of Anaheim Housing Authority | 5,673 | 48 |
| California | San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley | Housing Authority of the City & County of Sf | 12,840 | 47 |
| California | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario | Housing Authority of the County of Riverside | 8,628 | 45 |
| California | Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom | County of Sacramento Housing Authority | 11,204 | 39 |
| California | San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley | Housing Authority of the County of Alameda | 6,050 | 30 |
| California | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | Los Angeles County Development Authority | 23,375 | 27 |
| California | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles | 43,897 | 24 |
| California | San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley | Housing Authority of the County Contra Costa | 7,886 | 23 |
| California | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | Orange County Housing Authority | 10,223 | 18 |
| California | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | City of Long Beach Housing Authority | 6,680 | 18 |
| California | Fresno | Housing Authority City of Fresno | 6,951 | 15 |
Tens of thousands of struggling San Diego families are vying for Section 8 vouchers to help them pay the rent, yet the city’s housing agency hasn’t handed out tenant-based vouchers to families on its waiting list for nearly two years.
Surging San Diego rents and insufficient funding mean this startling reality is unlikely to change anytime soon – barring a major influx of federal dollars.
The San Diego Housing Commission doles out and oversees thousands of Section 8 vouchers in the city. In recent years, its list of families seeking rental subsidies has soared along with housing costs.
As of earlier this year, nearly 58,000 families were seeking Section 8 vouchers to help cover their rent and about 17,000 were already relying on that assistance. Hundreds jump onto the Housing Commission’s waiting list each month. Most of these families are seeking or counting on so-called housing choice vouchers that require them to find a landlord who accepts Section 8 and to pay about 30 percent of their income in monthly rent.
But the Housing Commission hasn’t had the capacity to hand out tenant-based Section 8 vouchers to families on its waiting list since August 2022, said Azucena Valladolid, the agency’s executive vice president of rental assistance and workforce development.
“Federal funding for housing choice voucher rental assistance is insufficient to assist all the households with lower income that need it,” Valladolid wrote in an email.
This is a national problem. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which disperses Section 8 voucher funding, estimated last year that just one in four families eligible for rental assistance across the nation receive it.
The situation is especially dire in high-rent cities like San Diego.
In the past four years, Valladolid said the Housing Commission’s average per-family subsidy for housing assistance has spiked 49 percent – from $876 a month to $1,300.
Federal support coming in to help cover families’ rents isn’t keeping up with those amounts or the need.
The Housing Commission reported spending $226.2 million on housing assistance payments during the current fiscal year but had only received $210.5 million in HUD funding as of mid-April. It’s unclear how much the housing agency will receive in the upcoming year.
The commission says it’s serving more families than it’s receiving money to support.
These mismatches are forcing difficult decisions at the Housing Commission.
For the past seven years, the agency has annually increased the maximum monthly rental assistance for families – known as payment standards – to try to keep up with skyrocketing rents.
There’s a tradeoff here. If the Housing Commission hands families who already have vouchers more money to help pay the rent each month, it’s got less cash to allocate for additional families desperate for the same support.
Jeff Davis, the Housing Commission’s deputy CEO, said the Housing Commission is focused on ensuring families who already have vouchers don’t lose their homes.
“Our priority is to raise payment standards to minimize the rent burden SDHC’s rental assistance participants experience and prevent them from potentially being priced out of their rental homes,” Davis wrote in an email.
The agency’s increasing Section 8 voucher allocations to house homeless San Diegans and commit vouchers to specific housing projects have only increased the pressure on the city’s limited supply of vouchers – and the increasing demand for them.
The Housing Commission has usually had to rely on the same pool of HUD funding to support those efforts. Valladolid said that’s meant the Housing Commission has needed to reduce the number of Section 8 vouchers it’s given families on its waiting list to fulfill those commitments.
The nearly 1,900 vouchers awarded to specific projects over the last five years, namely supportive housing facilities for formerly homeless people, have meant fewer vouchers are available for families on the Housing Commission’s waiting list.
And Valladolid said increasing per-family costs for those who do have vouchers mean the Housing Commission needs to dial back future commitments to housing projects so it can keep supporting families who already have vouchers.
“Without additional federal funding for rental housing vouchers, SDHC will not be able to continue to award or commit project-based housing vouchers for these populations in coming years at the same level we have in the recent past,” Valladolid wrote.
Housing Commission Chair Mitch Mitchell said the agency is considering those tradeoffs as it refines its budget for the upcoming fiscal year and talks with Mayor Todd Gloria’s team about its needs after a dispute over homelessness funding.
“Our agency, the Housing Commission, is looked at as a resource and it is easy to understand why people would become more disappointed as the list and the length of time to get a voucher grows,” Mitchell said. “This is a period where we really have to focus on ruthless prioritization.”
Lisa is a senior investigative reporter who digs into some of San Diego's biggest challenges including homelessness, city real estate debacles, the region's... More by Lisa Halverstadt
Why is San Diego So Bad?
Other areas in Southern California, like Orange County and Long Beach, face similar housing challenges, but the data shows their waiting times and that of the other Housing Authorities in California are significantly shorter than San Diego's. Let's examine this:
1. San Diego County: 93 months (about 7.75 years)
2. City of Anaheim Housing Authority (Orange County): 48 months (4 years)
3. Orange County Housing Authority: 18 months (1.5 years)
4. City of Long Beach Housing Authority: 18 months (1.5 years)
The San Diego wait is almost tripple the average for the whole state is 32 months. Despite sharing many regional challenges, these areas have vastly different wait times. This discrepancy suggests that other factors beyond just high housing costs and population growth are at play in San Diego. Some possible explanations could include:
1. Local policies and priorities: San Diego may have different policies for allocating vouchers or prioritizing certain groups.
2. Funding allocation: There might be differences in how federal or state funding is allocated to these different housing authorities.
3. Administrative efficiency: The San Diego housing authority might face unique administrative challenges or bottlenecks.
4. Local housing market dynamics: While all these areas have high costs, San Diego's specific market conditions might make it particularly challenging to use vouchers effectively.
5. Historical factors: Past decisions or policies in San Diego might have created a larger backlog of need compared to other areas.
6. Demographic differences: The composition of the population in need might vary between these areas, affecting wait times.
7. Availability of other housing programs: The presence or absence of other affordable housing initiatives could impact the demand for vouchers in each area.
To fully understand why San Diego's wait times are so much longer, we'd need more detailed information about the specific policies, practices, and local conditions in each of these housing authorities. The stark difference in wait times suggests that there might be opportunities for San Diego to learn from the practices of nearby areas with shorter wait times.
What Can San Diego County Do?
There are specific policies and actions that the San Diego County government and the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) could consider to help reduce the waitlist for the Section 8 housing program:
- Expanding Affordable Housing Development:
- Incentives for Developers: San Diego could offer more incentives, such as tax credits or density bonuses, to developers who build affordable housing units. Easing zoning restrictions or providing fast-track approval processes for affordable housing projects could also encourage more development.
- Utilization of Public Land: The county could identify underutilized public land for affordable housing development. Public-private partnerships could be leveraged to build more affordable units specifically designated for Section 8 voucher holders.
- Increase in Local Funding:
- Local Housing Bonds or Taxes: San Diego could consider increasing local funding for affordable housing through housing bonds or dedicated taxes. This could help fund the construction of new affordable housing units or provide subsidies to lower rents in existing properties.
- Flexible Voucher Programs: Local governments could create or expand voucher programs that supplement federal Section 8 vouchers, making it easier for residents to secure housing.
- Landlord Incentives:
- Increased Incentives for Landlords: Offering financial incentives or guarantees to landlords who accept Section 8 vouchers could increase participation in the program. These incentives could include higher payment standards, security deposit assistance, or compensation for potential damages.
- Streamlining Inspections and Payments: Reducing the bureaucratic hurdles for landlords, such as faster inspection processes and timely payment, could make the program more attractive.
- Policy and Administrative Changes:
- Waitlist Management: The SDHC could adopt more efficient practices for managing the waitlist, such as purging inactive applicants more regularly or prioritizing those in the most urgent need. Implementing a preference system for vulnerable populations, such as homeless individuals or those with disabilities, might also help address the needs of the most at-risk applicants.
- Project-Based Vouchers: Expanding the use of project-based vouchers, which are tied to specific housing developments, could help ensure that more units are available for low-income residents. These can be more stable for tenants and help developers plan around long-term occupancy.
- Advocacy for Increased Federal Support:
- Lobbying for More Vouchers: San Diego’s local government could advocate more strongly at the federal level for additional Section 8 vouchers or increased funding for the program. Given the long waitlist, additional federal support could significantly impact the availability of assistance.
- Regional Collaboration: Working closely with neighboring counties and cities to address housing affordability as a regional issue could help distribute resources more equitably and reduce pressure on San Diego’s waitlist.
- Innovative Housing Solutions:
- Tiny Homes and Modular Housing: Exploring non-traditional housing options like tiny homes or modular housing could provide quicker and more cost-effective solutions for increasing affordable housing supply.
- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Encouraging homeowners to build and rent out ADUs, with incentives for those who rent to Section 8 voucher holders, could help increase available housing units.
These policy changes and initiatives could help alleviate some of the pressure on the Section 8 waitlist in San Diego, making housing more accessible to those in need.
In California, San Diego is Worst Case to Wait for a Section 8 Voucher
Families Wait Years for Housing Vouchers Due to Inadequate Funding | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Due to limited program funding, families struggling to afford housing that manage to get off the waiting list for a Housing Choice Voucher must typically wait for years before receiving a voucher, CBPP analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data shows. Among the 50 largest housing agencies, only two have average wait times of under a year for families that have made it off of the waiting list; the longest have average wait times of up to eight years. On average nationally, families that received vouchers had spent close to two and a half years on waitlists first, exposing many to homelessness, overcrowding, eviction, and other hardship while they wait. (See the Appendix for data on average wait times by state and among the largest agencies.)
Moreover, these figures understate the unmet need for assistance. Millions of other families eligible for rental assistance never receive it because their names never rise to the top of the waiting list or they live in communities where the housing agency has closed or doesn’t keep a waiting list. Also, because of insufficient funding, local housing agencies often prioritize specific groups for available vouchers such as veterans, working families, or people fleeing domestic violence or experiencing homelessness. Setting priorities in the face of limited funding makes sense, but it means that families that need help paying for housing but fall outside the priority groups may never get assistance. For all of these reasons, an agency’s average wait for people receiving vouchers does not reflect the average wait for someone who puts their names on a waiting list for one.
Significantly expanding the federally funded voucher program, which helps households with low incomes rent a modest unit of their choice in the private market, would help more people access rental assistance when they first need it instead of facing years of hardship. A top priority for policymakers in the upcoming recovery package should be to provide substantial, multi-year funding for new housing vouchers.
The state and local housing agencies that administer the voucher program use virtually all the voucher assistance funds they receive, but a shortage of resources for rental assistance leaves the vast majority of eligible households without aid. In 2019, for example, 2 million households used vouchers to rent housing but more than 16 million unassisted renter households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing or lived in substandard or overcrowded homes. (The federal government considers housing unaffordable if it exceeds 30 percent of income.) Households on agency waiting lists typically continue to experience homelessness, overcrowding, or other housing insecurity for years before receiving a voucher. And many other households needing vouchers either don’t get on a waitlist — 53 percent of agencies had closed their waiting lists to additional applicants, a 2016 survey found — or drop off without ever obtaining assistance, even after waiting years.
Housing vouchers, when available, are highly effective at reducing homelessness, housing instability, and overcrowding and at improving other outcomes for families and children, rigorous research shows. They also give people with low incomes greater choice about where they live, enabling them to move to neighborhoods with lower poverty rates and more resources. Expanding the program could lift millions of people out of poverty. It also would reduce racial inequity: the housing affordability challenges that vouchers address are heavily concentrated among people with the lowest incomes and, due to a long history of racial discrimination that has limited their economic and housing opportunities, among people of color.
The Housing Choice Voucher program, the nation’s largest form of rental assistance, offers a proven, evidence-based tool to address housing hardship. Currently it enables roughly 2.3 million households with low incomes to afford decent, stable housing. The family pays about 30 percent of its income for rent and utilities, a widely used standard for the amount a household can reasonably be expected to pay for housing. The voucher covers the rest, up to a cap based on HUD estimates of typical market rents in the local area.[1]
Despite the demonstrated benefits of rental assistance and effectiveness of vouchers specifically, resources fall far short of need. Only 1 in 4 households eligible for rental assistance receive it due to funding limitations. Because the need is so much greater than the supply of vouchers, housing agencies establish waitlists for households interested in receiving assistance, and for each agency HUD publishes the average time someone who received a voucher had to first wait for assistance. While these data leave out millions of people in need who never get a voucher (see discussion below), they provide a useful indicator of the inadequacy of federal rental assistance funding by showing how long even people who succeed in obtaining a voucher must endure hardship before receiving help.
The Appendix tables show average wait times for people who used a voucher in 2020 by state and housing authority.[2] Wait times among assisted households vary across the country but average close to two and a half years (28 months) nationally. Averages by state range from nine months in Nebraska and West Virginia to five years in Alabama. The average wait time for individual housing agencies is much more variable; many agencies report years-long waits. Of the 50 largest housing agencies, only two — the housing authorities in Dallas, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio, have wait times under one year (specifically, eight months). But in many cases — including in Dallas and Columbus — shorter waiting times do not reflect ready availability of assistance. Families interested in applying for assistance in Dallas must first submit a preliminary application that will then be randomly selected to be placed on the waiting list.[3] People who ultimately get assistance spend a relatively short time on the waiting list, but their overall wait time is much longer since they first had to wait to get on the list. Households in Columbus can apply directly to the waitlist but join a list of more than 25,000 others, indicating that most households seeking assistance today would almost certainly face a wait time much longer than eight months.[4]
The longest wait times among these large agencies are more than seven years in San Diego County, California, where there were 56,737 families on the waitlist at the end of 2020,[5] and eight years in Miami-Dade, Florida, where the housing agency is processing applications it received during its most recent open enrollment period 13 years ago, in 2008.[6]
Importantly, long waiting times are not due to agencies failing to spend their voucher funding. Over the past decade they have spent virtually every dollar that lawmakers have provided for vouchers. In a given year, an agency might sometimes spend modestly less than 100 percent of its voucher funding for the year and sometimes modestly more (by drawing down reserves), but from 2011 to 2020, agencies overall spent 99.9 percent of the funding they received, on average. Even in 2020, when the pandemic disrupted program operations, they spent 99.3 percent.[7]
Households waiting for a voucher continue to lack a decent, stable home, which can cause serious hardship even when the wait is relatively short. Many of these families are paying large shares of their income for housing, which leaves them with less for food, medicine, child care, and other necessities and places them at risk of losing their home if faced with an unexpected expense or income decrease.
Many families and individuals on voucher waiting lists may face eviction and end up doubling or tripling up with other households, moving between friends and relatives’ homes, or experiencing homelessness. This instability causes stress,[8] can interrupt children’s learning (especially if they have to change schools), and can make finding and holding a job far more difficult. Homelessness has lasting impacts; among children it is associated with increased likelihood of cognitive and mental health problems; physical health problems such as asthma, physical assaults, and accidental injuries; and poor school performance.[9] A wait of several years could expose children to hardship through much or all of their early childhood, with potentially far-reaching damage to their development and chances of academic and financial success.
Though the demographics of people on waitlists vary by the housing agency’s location and size, households with extremely low incomes — defined as below the federal poverty line or 30 percent of the area median income, whichever is higher — are consistently the majority (74 percent across all agencies) of those waiting. On average, 60 percent of households on waitlists are families with children, 11 percent are older adults, and 18 percent include at least one person with a disability.[10]
Black, Latino, and Native American people are disproportionately likely to experience housing insecurity[11] and homelessness[12] due to a long history of racist housing policies[13] and racial discrimination that has limited their economic opportunities, and one survey shows that Black households are disproportionately represented on waitlists, on average. In fact, 66 percent of households on waiting lists at large housing agencies (those with 3,000 or more units) are Black.
Data on waitlists do not show the full extent of need or demand. Many housing agencies have closed their voucher waitlist because applications far exceed the number of vouchers they can administer. In fact, one 2016 survey found that 53 percent of voucher waiting lists are closed to new applicants, nearly two-thirds of which had been closed for at least a year.[14] In addition, many low-income households may not put their name on a waitlist even if they are facing some form of housing instability because they know any help would be years away.
Also, data on average wait times only reflect how long people who ultimately received a voucher had to wait for assistance. Given the lengthy waits, some families may drop off the list without ever obtaining assistance, even after waiting years.
Furthermore, more than 60 percent of housing agencies prioritize their vouchers for certain populations, such as veterans, people fleeing domestic violence, working families, older adults, or those experiencing homelessness, to best fit their communities’ needs.[15] Households in these populations may have a shorter wait for vouchers, but the wait for other households served by that agency may far exceed the agency’s average. Indeed, households that don’t fall into a priority category may never come off of the waiting list.
Unfortunately, HUD does not keep systematic data on the number of people on waiting lists, the average wait for people currently on waitlists, or which agencies have closed their lists altogether. Such data would show that many of those still on a waiting list have already waited far longer than the average wait times for people who are selected to receive a voucher.
Expanding Vouchers Would Reduce Wait Times, Housing Insecurity
Some 16 million renter households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing or lived in overcrowded or substandard housing in 2019.[16] Some 5.7 million of them are working households. Because many jobs do not pay enough to enable workers to afford housing and housing costs have outpaced income growth,[17] nearly 1 in 5 working renter households paid over half their income for housing in 2018.[18] In addition, 580,000 people experienced homelessness in January 2020, according to HUD’s annual point-in-time count.[19] These housing problems are linked to cascading harm in other aspects of families’ lives, including adverse effects on children’s health, development, and educational success.
Vouchers offer a proven solution and expanding Housing Choice Vouchers would help more people receive assistance when they first need it. Rigorous research shows that Housing Choice Vouchers sharply reduce homelessness, housing instability, and overcrowding. By lowering rental costs, vouchers also allow low-income people to spend more on other basic needs like food and medicine,[20] as well as on goods and services that foster their children’s healthy development.[21] They also provide people with low incomes greater choice about where they live, allowing them to make decisions based on what works best for them. When families choose to use their voucher to move from a neighborhood with a high poverty rate and lack of investments to a neighborhood with low poverty rates and more resources, research shows the children have substantially higher college attendance rates and adult earnings than peers who grew up in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty. Adults in these families have improved mental health and lower rates of diabetes and extreme obesity.[22]
Providing vouchers to all eligible households would lift 9.3 million people above the poverty line and cut the child poverty rate by a third, a Columbia University study estimated.[23] It also would shrink the gaps in poverty rates between white and Black households (by over a third) and between white and Hispanic households (by nearly half). And it would significantly reduce poverty disparities for people with disabilities. (See Figure 2.)
As Congress crafts an economic recovery package, a top priority should be to expand vouchers to more people in need. The COVID-19 pandemic and recession have caused even greater housing hardship, and while the federal government has provided substantial emergency housing assistance, this is not designed to address the overwhelming need that existed before the pandemic.[24] Ultimately, housing vouchers should be available to everyone who is eligible, as President Biden proposed during the presidential campaign. At a minimum, recovery legislation should make a sizeable down payment toward this goal.
Recovery legislation should invest both in housing vouchers and in the supply of affordable housing, for new construction and renovation. While supply investments can help communities with too few reasonably priced units to expand access to affordable housing, supply investments by themselves don’t create housing that is affordable to the lowest-income households, which need assistance to afford even those lower priced units. Moreover, in many communities, there is an ample supply of reasonably priced housing (that is the price reflects the cost of operating the housing and hasn’t been bid up by a lack of supply), but households with low incomes need help bridging the gap between their income and the cost of rent.
Average number of months households waited to receive their housing voucher
Note: Wait times are for households that eventually received a housing voucher and does not include renters currently waiting for housing assistance.
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development 2020 Picture of Subsidized Households
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | cbpp.org
| Appendix Table 1 | |
|---|---|
| Among Households Using Vouchers, Average Wait Before Receiving Help, by State | |
| Average Months on Waiting List | |
| Alabama | 60 |
| Alaska | 45 |
| Arizona | 26 |
| Arkansas | 15 |
| California | 32 |
| Colorado | 17 |
| Connecticut | 29 |
| Delaware | 31 |
| District of Columbia | 46 |
| Florida | 41 |
| Georgia | 39 |
| Guam | 25 |
| Hawai'i | 20 |
| Idaho | 27 |
| Illinois | 20 |
| Indiana | 25 |
| Iowa | 16 |
| Kansas | 22 |
| Kentucky | 12 |
| Louisiana | 32 |
| Maine | 26 |
| Maryland | 43 |
| Massachusetts | 46 |
| Michigan | 26 |
| Minnesota | 22 |
| Mississippi | 30 |
| Missouri | 31 |
| Montana | 25 |
| Nebraska | 9 |
| Nevada | 38 |
| New Hampshire | 31 |
| New Jersey | 39 |
| New Mexico | 22 |
| New York | 31 |
| North Carolina | 22 |
| North Dakota | 13 |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 24 |
| Ohio | 22 |
| Oklahoma | 23 |
| Oregon | 23 |
| Pennsylvania | 23 |
| Puerto Rico | 22 |
| Rhode Island | 20 |
| South Carolina | 20 |
| South Dakota | 14 |
| Tennessee | 26 |
| Texas | 21 |
| U.S. Virgin Islands | 30 |
| Utah | 30 |
| Vermont | 26 |
| Virginia | 38 |
| Washington | 25 |
| West Virginia | 9 |
| Wisconsin | 30 |
| Wyoming | 22 |
Appendix Table 2 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Metro area |
Housing Authority |
Households receiving a voucher |
Average wait time in months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta | Georgia Residential Finance | 12,851 | 31 |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton | Boston Housing Authority | 14,565 | 22 |
| Chicago-Naperville-Elgin | Housing Authority Cook County | 12,853 | 19 |
| Cincinnati | Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority | 11,228 | 27 |
| Cleveland-Elyria | Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority | 13,933 | 31 |
| Columbus | Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority | 13,024 | 8 |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington | Housing Authority of the City of Dallas Texa | 15,348 | 8 |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver | 6,929 | 19 |
| Denver-Aurora-Lakewood | Colorado Division of Housing | 5,799 | 19 |
| Fresno | Housing Authority City of Fresno | 6,951 | 15 |
| Gulfport-Biloxi | Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. VIII | 7,701 | 21 |
| Hartford-East Hartford-Middletown | Connecticut Department of Housing | 7,797 | 22 |
| Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land | Houston Housing Authority | 17,545 | 39 |
| Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson | Indianapolis Housing Agency | 8,354 | 50 |
| Jacksonville | Jacksonville Housing Authority | 7,581 | 34 |
| Kansas City | Housing Authority of Kansas City Missouri | 7,519 | 59 |
| Lansing-East Lansing | Michigan State Housing Development Authority | 27,260 | 23 |
| Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise | Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority | 11,590 | 39 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles | 43,897 | 24 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | Los Angeles County Development Authority | 23,375 | 27 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | Orange County Housing Authority | 10,223 | 18 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | City of Long Beach Housing Authority | 6,680 | 18 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim | City of Anaheim Housing Authority | 5,673 | 48 |
| Memphis | Memphis Housing Authority | 8,068 | 22 |
| Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach | Miami Dade Public Housing and Community Dev | 15,256 | 98 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington | Metropolitan Council | 6,706 | 18 |
| Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin | Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency | 6,260 | 12 |
| Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin | Tennessee Housing Development Agency | 6,111 | 38 |
| New Orleans-Metairie | Housing Authority of New Orleans | 16,966 | 50 |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City | New York City Housing Authority | 86,751 | 28 |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City | Nys Housing Trust Fund Corporation | 45,004 | 30 |
| New York-Newark-Jersey City | Nyc Dept of Housing Preservation and Dev | 36,049 | 23 |
| Oklahoma City | Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency | 10,449 | 18 |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler | City of Phoenix Housing Department | 6,448 | 17 |
| Pittsburgh | Allegheny County Housing Authority | 5,759 | 38 |
| Richmond | Virginia Housing Development Authority | 8,567 | 46 |
| Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario | Housing Authority of the County of Riverside | 8,628 | 45 |
| Rochester | Rochester Housing Authority | 9,243 | 25 |
| Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom | County of Sacramento Housing Authority | 11,204 | 39 |
| San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad | Housing Authority of the County of San Diego | 10,185 | 93 |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley | Housing Authority of the City & County of Sf | 12,840 | 47 |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley | Housing Authority of the County Contra Costa | 7,886 | 23 |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley | Housing Authority of the County of Alameda | 6,050 | 30 |
| San Juan-Bayamón-Caguas | Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration | 11,585 | 20 |
| St. Louis | St. Louis Housing Authority | 6,733 | 38 |
| St. Louis | Housing Authority of St. Louis County | 6,294 | 46 |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater | Tampa Housing Authority | 9,913 | 64 |
| Trenton-Princeton | State of Nj Dept. of Comm. Affairs | 23,752 | 18 |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | Housing Opprty Com of Montgomery Co | 7,145 | 28 |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandria | Housing Authority of Prince Georges County | 5,684 | 16 |
End Notes
[2] The tables do not include data from agencies participating in the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program. Since participating agencies are subject to different program and reporting rules, much of their data on waiting times is missing from HUD’s database.
[13] Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Government Segregated America, Liveright, 2017.
[14]Aurand et al., op. cit.
[18] Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, “America’s Rental Housing 2020,” Appendix Table W-2, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing-2020. “Working” is defined here as having been employed for at least one week during the prior 12 months.
[19] Henry et al., op. cit.
[22] Fischer, Rice, and Mazzara, op. cit.
Receive the latest news and reports from the Center
Comments
Post a Comment