Data reported by PHA staff to TAC on voucher issue and lease numbers, supplemented by data obtained during Mathematica discussions with PHAs during summer 2012, provided a snapshot at each of four points in time (June 2011, September 2011, December 2011, and summer 2012) of each PHA's progress in issuing and leasing the NED2 vouchers. These data points, presented in the aggregate in Figure II.1, demonstrate that it took PHAs longer to lease the vouchers than initially expected. In June 2011, five months after the initial award, only 5 percent of the 731 vouchers awarded to the 13 PHAs in this analysis were leased, with 23 percent either issued or leased. By December 2011, a month before HUD expected all vouchers to be fully leased, only 36 percent were leased, with 61 percent either issued or leased. By summer 2012, 79 percent of the vouchers were leased, and 93 percent were either issued or leased.
|FIGURE II.1. Percentage of Vouchers Leased, and Issued or Leased, Among 13 PHAs|
|SOURCE: Data points for June, September, and December 2011 were collected by TAC; those for summer 2012 were collected by Mathematica staff.|
Aggregating these data masks significant variance among the 13 PHAs, however. (See Figures A.1 through A.13 in Appendix A, which show issue and lease rates over time for each individual PHA.) In June 2011, five months after the award, the majority of PHAs had issued or leased very few vouchers:
Six PHAs reported having at least 20 percent of their vouchers in issued or leased status: those in Pasadena, California; Baltimore County and Baltimore City, Maryland; New Jersey; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Snohomish County, Washington. Of these, Baltimore City had the most impressive start, with 65 percent of its vouchers issued or leased and more than a third of them in leased status.14
The remaining seven PHAs--in Decatur, Georgia; Orange County, California; Lynn, Massachusetts; Lucas County, Ohio; Austin, Texas; and Longview and Tacoma, Washington--all reported fewer than 20 percent of their vouchers in issued or leased status, with six reporting no vouchers leased at all. Two of these PHAs--Decatur and Lynn--reported no vouchers leased or issued.
In December 2011, nearly a year after the award, the majority of PHAs continued to show relatively low lease rates. About one month before HUD had expected all vouchers to be leased, only three PHAs--Baltimore City, New Jersey, and Snohomish County--reported having at least 85 percent of theirs issued or leased, and, of these, only Snohomish County and Baltimore City had at least 50 percent leased. The remaining ten PHAs reported fewer than two-thirds of their vouchers in issued or leased status, and all ten reported fewer than 50 percent of their vouchers as leased. Three PHAs--Orange County, Lynn, and Lucas County--reported fewer than 10 percent of their vouchers leased in December.
By summer 2012, however, the majority of the 13 PHAs reported higher leasing rates; only 21 percent of all NED2 vouchers were still not leased. Nine PHAs reported 100 percent of vouchers in either issued or leased status: Lynn, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, New Jersey, Cincinnati, Lucas County, Snohomish County, Longview, and Tacoma. All nine reported high lease rates; the lowest was 74 percent, in Baltimore County. Cincinnati was the only PHA to report 100 percent of its vouchers as leased. Four PHAs, however--Orange County, Pasadena, Decatur, and Austin--reported fewer than 85 percent of vouchers as being issued or leased, and fewer than 70 percent as leased. Orange County reported the lowest leasing rate, at 36 percent.
As these numbers suggest, some sites, particularly Baltimore City, New Jersey, and Snohomish County, had greater success than others in leasing a large proportion of their awarded vouchers early. Progress for Lynn, Baltimore County, Cincinnati, Lucas County, Longview, and Tacoma was slower, but each was able to issue or lease all of its allotted vouchers by summer 2012. A year and a half after the award, however, the remaining PHAs in Orange County, Pasadena, Decatur, and Austin, while citing some progress in 2012, continued to report many of their vouchers unused. We examined the implementation process in each of the 13 sites to determine if noticeable differences in approach, experiences, and barriers might explain the variation in progress.
|TABLE II.2. Implementation Protocol by Site|
| Involvement of HHS/
MFP in Application
| Efforts to Train
& Educate Staff
| Centralized Coordination
of Referral Process
| Central Database/
|Most Vouchers Issued and Leased Within the First Year of NED2 Program (>85%)|
|New Jersey||New Jersey||No||High||Immediate||Yes||Yes||High||Yes|
|All Vouchers Issued and Leased by Summer 2012 (100%) but Not Within the First Year of NED2 Program|
|Massachusetts||City of Lynn||No||High||Immediate||Yes||Noa||High||Yes|
|Ohio||City of Cincinnati||No||High||Immediate||Yes||Yes||High||Yes|
|Washington||City of Tacoma||No||High||Immediate||Yes||Yes||High||Yes|
|City of Longview||No||High||Immediate||Yes||Yes||High||Yes|
|Fewest Vouchers Issued and Leased Within the First Year of NED2 Program (<60%) and by Summer 2012 (<85%)|
|City of Pasadena||No||None||Delayed||No||No||Low||No|
|Georgia||City of Decatur||No||Low||Delayed||No||No||Low||No|
|Texas||City of Austin||Yes||High||Immediate||No||No||High||No|
|SOURCE: Mathematica analysis of information obtained from PHA and HHS/MFP staff.