Admin Fee Study Data Analysis
To assist NAHRO members and other stakeholders to better understand the potential impacts of the proposed HCV Admin Fee formula, NAHRO has conducted a state-by-state analysis of the data. NAHRO's analysis illustrates the true impact of the proposed formula by modeling both its impacts on eligibility and on actual funding scenarios. Unlike the analysis that HUD conducted, which compared the funding PHAs actually received in 2014 (under a 79% proration) against their full eligibility (assuming no proration) under the proposed formula, NAHRO's analysis holds all other factors constant, creating a meaningful, apples-to-apples comparison.
For each PHA, NAHRO's analysis includes three comparisons: 1. A prorated comparison, which compares actual 2014 admin fee funding distributed using the existing formula prorated at 79 percent with the hypothetical distribution that would have resulted from the application of the proposed formula; 2. An eligibility comparison, which compares PHAs' eligibility under the existing versus proposed formulas (using a full-funding scenario); and 3. HUD's comparison, which compares the prorated distribution PHAs received in 2014 against 100 percent of eligibility under the proposed formula.
Percent changes highlighted in green are those over 10 percent, changes in red are those less than negative 10 percent, and those in yellow are between negative 9.9 and positive 9.9 percent.
For more information, please see NAHRO's April 8 Direct News coverage of the Admin Fee Study releases. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please contact Tushar Gurjal, NAHRO's Policy Analyst covering Section 8 Programs.
Alabama Alaska (no admin fee data available)
New Hampshire New Jersey
New Mexico New York
North Carolina North Dakota
Rhode Island South Carolina
South Dakota Tennessee
Washington West Virginia