Of all the 73 PHAs with allocation plans, 64 designated a total of 24,902 housing units—approximately 36 percent of their housing stock for the elderly or persons with disabilities—as elderly-only. 3.) The Chicago Housing Authority accounted for much of this decline, reporting 419 fewer people with disabilities residing in units now designated elderly-only. Designating Housing Has Had Little Impact on Persons With Disabilities for Various Reasons

One reason the provisions in the 1992 act allowing PHAs to designate units for the elderly have had little impact on the availability of public housing for persons with disabilities is that so few PHAs have sought to use the provisions thus far. Of the approximately 3,000 certificates and vouchers that were available to housing authorities as of November 1, 1997, 1,558 had been issued to persons with disabilities who, in turn, had used 1,162 to obtain private rental housing and had turned back 174 unused, according to the authorities. About two-thirds of these PHAs with elderly-only units reported that they received more certificates and vouchers than the number of persons with disabilities residing in their elderly-only units.These PHAs issued 1,236 of these certificates and vouchers to persons with disabilities. Section 8 Assistance Has Had a Minimal Effect on the Overall Occupancy Levels

Our survey found that the number of persons with disabilities living in public housing units managed by those PHAs that have designated housing and received certificates and vouchers actually increased by 198 between the time the PHAs submitted their allocation plans and November 1, 1997.Similarly, occupancy by persons with disabilities increased by 197 households at the PHAs that designated elderly-only units and received certificates and vouchers and that provided complete occupancy data. However, the housing authorities reported in our survey that persons with disabilities required greater assistance to locate private housing. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations asked us to assess (1) the impact of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 on the availability of public housing for persons with disabilities and (2) how incremental Section 8 certificates and vouchers that were made available since the passage of the 1992 act were assisting persons with disabilities seeking affordable rental housing. As requested, we also developed estimates of the number of households that may meet HUD’s definition of persons with disabilities. Occupancy in the buildings designated for the elderly had not changed substantially since the housing authorities submitted their allocation plans, and where certificates and vouchers had been made available, persons with disabilities on waiting lists were able to use them to find housing. The authority developed its allocation plan because concerns arose about mixing elderly residents and younger people with disabilities. The Anaheim Housing Authority administers no public housing and therefore has no allocation plan, but it provides other housing assistance, including Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed: (1) the impact of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 on the availability of public housing for persons with disabilities; (2) how incremental Section 8 certificates and vouchers that were made available since the passage of the 1992 act were assisting persons with disabilities seeking affordable rental housing; and (3) the number of households that may meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) definition for persons with disabilities.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 allowing public housing authorities to designate units as elderly-only have had little impact on the availability of public housing for people with disabilities; (2) 73 of the 3,200 public housing authorities had allocation plans approved by HUD as of November 1, 1997, allowing them to designate 24,902 of their units as elderly-only, approximately 36 percent of their housing stock for the elderly and persons with disabilities; (3) nearly all of these designated units had been available previously to tenants who were elderly or who had disabilities but were younger than 62; (4) the number of elderly residents and residents with disabilities in these and other housing units for which they were eligible had not changed substantially since the housing authorities began submitting allocation plans; (5) the number of younger tenants with disabilities living in housing designated for the elderly had declined by about 1,100 at the 53 housing authorities that provided complete occupancy data; (6) designating public housing units as elderly-only may have more impact in the future, depending on how many more housing authorities opt to do so and on what the housing alternatives are for younger people with disabilities; (7) it is too soon to determine the extent to which the Section 8 rental certificates and vouchers set aside for persons with disabilities have helped meet housing needs; (8) of approximately 3,000 certificates and vouchers that were available to housing authorities November 1, 1997, the authorities reported that they issued about 1,600 to persons with disabilities who used 1,162 to obtain private rental housing; (9) about 18 percent of the users had been living in public housing that had been designated for the elderly--indicating little movement by persons with disabilities residing in housing now designated as elderly-only; (10) how successful rental certificates and vouchers will be in providing housing alternatives for people with disabilities will be influenced by several factors, including statutory restrictions, local housing markets, and willingness of tenants with disabilities to use certificates and vouchers; and (11) according to housing authorities, those persons with disabilities who used certificates and vouchers required greater assistance than other recipients.