{ "id": "R42542", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R42542", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 612518, "date": "2019-12-26", "retrieved": "2020-01-07T23:15:13.794314", "title": "Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Funding Trends Since FY2002", "summary": "The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers a number of programs and activities that are primarily designed to address housing problems faced by households with very low incomes or other special housing needs. Most of the funding for HUD\u2019s programs and activities comes from discretionary appropriations provided each year in the Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies annual appropriations acts. \nHUD\u2019s annual budget, as considered by congressional appropriators, is generally comprised of several components, including regular annual appropriations, which fund HUD\u2019s regular programs and activities; and rescissions of unspent prior-year funding and offsetting collections and receipts, which together serve to offset the \u201ccost\u201d of that spending. Combined, these components make up HUD\u2019s net budget authority, which is the amount that counts for the purposes of federal budget enforcement, including discretionary spending limitations. HUD also often receives emergency appropriations, which are sometimes provided in response to national emergencies such as disasters and generally do not count for budget enforcement purposes.\nThis report reviews trends in HUD funding from FY2002 through the most recent completed fiscal year, FY2019. Since FY2002, in terms of nominal dollars, HUD\u2019s regular (non-emergency) annual net budget authority has increased by 50%. However, when adjusting for inflation, HUD\u2019s regular annual net budget authority in FY2019 was about 8% more than it was in FY2002. (See Figure 1.) These figures, though, only tell part of the story of what has happened with HUD funding. \nGross new appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities have increased since FY2002 by 57% in nominal dollars, 13% in inflation-adjusted dollars. The difference between the increase in appropriations versus net budget authority is due to an increase in the budget savings available from offsetting receipts, primarily attributable to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program. (See Figure 2.) FHA receipts are used to offset the cost (in terms of budget enforcement) of providing appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities. The offsetting receipts available from FHA increased from a low of about $140 million in FY2010 to a peak of almost $12 billion in FY2014 and have continued to fluctuate in reaction to housing market conditions and administrative policymaking. \nThe increase in appropriations for HUD has not been linear. After a period of steady increase, regular appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities peaked in FY2010 and then declined such that in FY2013 they were 15% below the FY2010 level. Over that same period, HUD\u2019s regular annual net budget authority was reduced much more dramatically, by 36%, the difference being attributable to growth in savings from FHA offsetting receipts. FY2013, the year of a discretionary spending sequestration, provided HUD\u2019s lowest level of appropriations since FY2009, and the lowest level of net budget authority since FY2003. Since FY2013, funding for HUD has increased steadily in real and nominal dollars in terms of both net budget authority and regular appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities.\nGrowth in appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities has largely been driven by increases in appropriations for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the Section 8 project-based rental assistance program. Combined, the funding for these two rental assistance programs has increased by 120% from FY2002 to FY2019. Conversely, funding for all other HUD programs combined has increased by 4%. The formula grants under HUD\u2019s two largest block grant programs\u2014the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program\u2014have experienced some of the largest reductions in funding during this time (declines of 28% and 22%, respectively). \nLooking toward the future, if policymakers maintain interest in limiting overall discretionary spending, there may be implications for HUD\u2019s budget, particularly in light of specific cost-drivers in HUD\u2019s budget. Cost growth in the two Section 8 programs is likely to continue, as more households are being subsidized through those programs and the cost of the individual subsidies continues to increase. Assuming policymakers continue to prioritize maintaining current service levels in the two Section 8 programs, if discretionary spending limits continue, pressure to reduce funding for other HUD programs and activities, including block grant programs, may also continue. Similarly, if receipts from FHA decline\u2014because of market changes and/or policy changes\u2014pressure to further reduce appropriations for HUD programs may increase.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42542", "sha1": "f25ece484eab8204388f2df4dc6de9da6e385aaf", "filename": "files/20191226_R42542_f25ece484eab8204388f2df4dc6de9da6e385aaf.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42542_files&id=/3.png": "files/20191226_R42542_images_8b4eaab693e08332e9229f097e747295f8c70373.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42542_files&id=/0.png": "files/20191226_R42542_images_0d1f06ccfd1c67d108aa85670d166395081b93b3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42542_files&id=/4.png": "files/20191226_R42542_images_617c25ca3988cab1d3e12cf9fb7c9fd8c60c937e.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42542_files&id=/2.png": "files/20191226_R42542_images_961c5adc4893fad12d716f250a089fa2f2320f97.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42542_files&id=/1.png": "files/20191226_R42542_images_8dee3001a0594187e635feb04c917f69fe9cac2c.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R42542_files&id=/5.png": "files/20191226_R42542_images_ed6842e8d60c2720963ace2a9077cf9f787e9037.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42542", "sha1": "b6058d090b4953af6b9ee0d446e6c5ea7f3c5334", "filename": "files/20191226_R42542_b6058d090b4953af6b9ee0d446e6c5ea7f3c5334.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450853, "date": "2016-03-17", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T16:52:02.499492", "title": "Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Funding Trends Since FY2002", "summary": "The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers a number of programs and activities that are primarily designed to address housing problems faced by households with very low incomes or other special housing needs. Most of the funding for HUD\u2019s programs and activities comes from discretionary appropriations provided each year in the annual appropriations acts enacted by Congress. \nHUD\u2019s appropriations are generally made up of several components, including regular annual appropriations, which fund HUD\u2019s regular programs and activities; emergency appropriations, which are sometimes provided in response to national emergencies such as disasters; rescissions of unspent prior-year funding; and offsetting collections and receipts. Combined, these components make up HUD\u2019s net budget authority, which is the amount that counts for the purposes of federal budget enforcement, including discretionary spending limits. \nSince FY2002, in terms of nominal dollars, HUD\u2019s regular (non-emergency) annual net budget authority has increased by 21%. When adjusting for inflation, HUD\u2019s regular annual net budget authority in FY2015 is 6% less than it was in FY2002. However, these figures mask several important recent trends. \nNew appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities have increased since FY2002 by 32% in nominal dollars, 2% in inflation-adjusted dollars. The difference between the increase in appropriations versus net budget authority is due to an increase in the savings available from offsetting receipts attributable to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program. FHA receipts are used to offset the cost (in terms of budget enforcement) of providing appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities. The offsetting receipts available from FHA increased from a low of about $140 million in FY2010 to a peak of almost $12 billion in FY2014. \nThe increase in funding for HUD has not been linear. After a period of steady increase, regular appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities peaked in FY2010 and then declined so that in FY2015 they were 3% below the FY2010 level. Over that same period HUD\u2019s regular annual net budget authority was reduced much more dramatically, by 23%, attributable to growth in savings from FHA offsetting receipts. FY2013, the year of the discretionary spending sequestration, provided HUD\u2019s lowest level of appropriations since 2009, and the lowest level of net budget authority since FY2003.\nGrowth in appropriations for HUD\u2019s programs and activities has largely been driven by increases in appropriations for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the Section 8 project-based rental assistance program. Combined, their funding has increased by 86% from FY2002 to FY2015. Conversely, funding for all other HUD programs combined has declined by about 13%. The formula grants under HUD\u2019s two largest block grant programs\u2014the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program\u2014have experienced some of the largest reductions in funding during this time (48% and 31%, respectively). \nLooking toward the future, it can be assumed that if policymakers maintain interest in cutting the deficit, there will continue to be efforts to reduce overall discretionary spending, including HUD\u2019s budget. Deficit reduction measures led to the FY2013 sequestration, which resulted in a roughly 5% cut for most domestic discretionary spending from the FY2012 level. These overall budgeting considerations will likely interact with the specific cost-drivers in HUD\u2019s budget. Cost growth in the Section 8 project-based program is unlikely to continue at the same rate, given that most long-term contracts are now on an annual funding cycle. Future cost growth in the Section 8 voucher program is less certain, as it is driven by market factors, although if major reforms are enacted, that could change. Assuming policymakers continue to prioritize maintaining current service levels in the Section 8 voucher program, pressure to reduce funding for other HUD programs and activities, including block grant programs, may continue. Thus far, it appears that increases in offsetting receipts available from FHA have minimized the effect of efforts to limit discretionary spending on the amount of appropriations available for HUD programs and activities. As receipts from FHA eventually decline\u2014anticipated because of market changes and policy changes\u2014pressure to further reduce appropriations for HUD programs may increase.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42542", "sha1": "057427f09a571810af904dd3a5e8c6ba4662a58a", "filename": "files/20160317_R42542_057427f09a571810af904dd3a5e8c6ba4662a58a.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42542", "sha1": "8b2af3073e9290098a877fdfafd63126b3586cc2", "filename": "files/20160317_R42542_8b2af3073e9290098a877fdfafd63126b3586cc2.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Domestic Social Policy" ] }