Office of the New York State Comptroller  
      Home || Press Releases || Audits || Retirement || State Finances || Local Government || Reports || NYC Oversight || Pension Fund

Public Housing at the Crossroads: Bricks, Mortar, and Public Policy
at the New York City Housing Authority


February 11, 1999



Ropeseal

H. Carl McCall

State Comptroller


Office of the State Deputy Comptroller for the City of New York

Report 8-99



Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Background

III. Condition of Major Building Components

IV. Capital Needs and Capital Resources

Appendix A: Methodology

Appendix B: Assessment of Major Building Components

Appendix C: Capital Need in the Federal Housing Projects



I. Executive Summary

New York City, which has long suffered from a lack of affordable housing, has a vast and irreplaceable resource in the public housing projects operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). NYCHA is among the best-managed public housing authorities in the nation and provides housing to 536,000 tenants. Yet public policy choices and reduced funding levels at the national level have left this important asset without a sound long-term financial plan to manage its physical plant.

In general, NYCHA's strategy is to allocate its limited resources to building components in the greatest need for repair. Indeed, our review found that the number of building components needing urgent repair has declined by more than half over the last eighteen months, but during the same period the number of components in fair or poor condition has grown significantly. Thus, despite the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars annually NYCHA has been unable to prevent the deterioration of its housing assets.

NYCHA estimates that it would cost about $5.2 billion to bring the projects in our sample, which comprise about 75 percent of the units contained in the 325 Federally funded projects operated by NYCHA, up to a state of good repair. NYCHA also estimates that it will be able to address only 13 percent of this capital need by the end of 2001, assuming no further reduction in Federal funding (capital funding has been reduced by 21 percent since 1994). Even allowing for overestimation, the capital need is great and cannot be adequately addressed under the current Federal system.

The condition of New York's public housing is not strictly a local issue. A broader policy debate is evolving at the national level regarding the future of public housing. Administration officials and Congress are in general agreement that the current system requires significant retooling. Among the issues being debated are whether public housing should be reserved for the poorest tenants or for a broad mix of income levels; whether new public housing should be created, and if so, should it take the form of high-rises or smaller, more manageable structures; whether public housing should be privatized or sold to its tenants; and, of course, how the new policy choices will be funded.

As the current Federal debate has evolved, the issue of a fiscally sound system to preserve and upgrade public housing has gone largely unaddressed. Currently, the Federal government does not provide a revenue stream that is sufficient for this purpose. Despite the investment of about $1.5 billion in Federal funds over the past five years, NYCHA estimated in May 1997 that it would cost virtually the same amount as it estimated in 1992 to bring all of its Federal projects up to a state of good repair. In other major cities a combination of mismanagement and inadequate funding has led to decreased habitability, increased vacancy rates and, eventually, to demolition. In recognition of this problem, the President has proposed a 20 percent increase in the amount of Federal resources available for capital rehabilitation, but the actual appropriation will be subject to congressional approval.

As the City, State and Federal governments better articulate the changes under consideration in Washington, the issue of providing adequate resources to ensure the long-term viability of existing public housing cannot continue to be overlooked. Doing so will force a series of public policy choices that could place at risk an important portion of New York City's affordable housing stock.

II. Background

For many years, it has been acknowledged that the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is one of the nation's best-managed public housing agencies. This standing was recently confirmed in a review of management quality at all the nation's public housing authorities as conducted by the Federal government's Public Housing Management Assessment Program. Such key indicators as financial management, vacancy rates, uncollected rent, modernization work, inspections, resident services, and security were evaluated. While some other big-City authorities have been taken over by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or are in judicial receivership, NYCHA received a near perfect rating.

NYCHA operates 346 housing projects, consisting of 182,000 apartments, in over 2,800 residential buildings that shelter an estimated population of 536,000 (431,000 legal tenants plus an estimated 105,000 tenants who live "doubled-up" with family or friends).(1) All of NYCHA's 346 housing projects are substantially supported by government subsidies. The vast majority of these, 325 projects with 162,000 apartments, are the responsibility of the Federal government ("the Federal Program"); the remaining 21 projects with 20,000 units are the responsibility of either the City and State jointly ("the State Program") or the City alone. Were the population of the NYCHA projects to constitute a city, it would be the twenty-third largest in the United States, exceeding the populations of Cleveland, Denver, New Orleans or Seattle.

NYCHA was created in 1934 to provide decent and affordable housing for low-income City residents. Over the next thirty years, almost all of the projects were built and occupied. Then the changing realities of housing economics and new public policy priorities brought construction to a virtual halt. Relatively little construction -- some ten thousand units -- has been undertaken by NYCHA since 1968.

During the years when public housing was rapidly expanding, the commitment of the City and the State often rivaled that of the Federal government. Not satisfied with the pace of housing production, both the State and City financed and constructed projects on their own initiative, creating substantial City and State programs. By the late 1960s, however, much of the low - and middle-income housing market, public as well as private, became subject to new dynamics. Operating costs began to rise precipitously, while rents, often controlled or regulated, increased less rapidly. In the private sector, this led to housing abandonment; in public housing, it led to higher government subsidies and the deferral of maintenance. The cost of the higher subsidies were less easily borne by the City and State than by the Federal government, especially after the onset of the City's fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s.

At that time, demographic changes were also taking place in the NYCHA projects. Historically, a substantial majority of project tenants were low-income working families; those on public assistance constituted a distinct minority. However, a combination of Federal policy, which lowered income ceilings for most new tenants; City policy, which gave priority to the homeless; and increased crime and decreased maintenance which negatively impacted the quality of project life, contributed to a sustained reduction in the tenancy of working families. Little more than a decade ago, as many as half of NYCHA's tenants were fully employed; the fraction has now dropped to one-third.

To ease the financial burden on the City and State, the Federal government instituted the Authority Transfer Program and, between 1977 and 1980, assumed responsibility for the mortgage debt and operating subsidies for 53 City and State projects. After a hiatus of almost two decades, an additional five projects were transferred in the past year. As these projects were, by and large, those in the poorest condition, they benefitted substantially from the application of Federal modernization funds.(2) The situation would have been far worse for the remaining City and State projects had the Federal government not authorized NYCHA in 1996 to retain $230 million in unspent Federal funds which it was obliged to return. This afforded NYCHA a one-time opportunity to address some of the modernization needs of those projects.

In 1989 we reported on the physical condition and the modernization needs of the City and State projects. We found that many building systems and components had fallen into serious disrepair due to the lack of adequate operating and capital resources. We plan to report shortly on the current status of these projects.

III. Condition of Major Building Components

NYCHA's technical staff conducts inspections of key building components for each of its projects at least once every two years and compiles the results in detailed project data books. NYCHA ranks its building components on a scale of one through five. A score of one represents excellent condition, while two, three and four represent good, fair, and poor respectively; a score of five suggests that immediate attention is necessary.

Out of the 325 Federal Program projects, we selected a sample consisting of the 104 projects that contained 500 or more housing units, for a total of 120,000 housing units out of the 162,000 units in the Federal Program.

We analyzed NYCHA's assessment of ten major building systems and components: heating, plumbing, bathrooms, kitchens, elevators, brickwork, windows, roofs, garbage disposal, and grounds. The results of our review, which are summarized in Table 1 and shown in detail in Appendix B, indicate that by NYCHA's own estimate:

  • at least one major building component in two-thirds of the projects requires urgent remedial action; eleven projects have three or more.

  • at least one major building component in virtually all of the projects is in poor or worse condition; 30 projects have five or more.

  • the plumbing systems, bathrooms and grounds in half of the projects we reviewed are in poor or worse condition;

  • the heating systems, roofs, elevators, kitchens, and garbage disposals in about one-third of the projects we reviewed are in poor or worse condition;

  • three major components in two-thirds of the project we reviewed were in either poor or worse condition;

Table 1

Condition of Building Components

in NYCHA Federal Projects

(number of projects)

Excellent or Good

Fair

Poor or Needing Immediate Attention

Heating

39 32

33

Plumbing

9 47 48

Bathrooms

17

35

52

Kitchens

24

49

31

Elevators

49

16

37

Brickwork

14

71

18

Windows

45

48

11

Roofs

26

43

35

Garbage Disposal

23

41

40

Grounds

12

41

51

Data Source: New York City Housing Authority.

In general, NYCHA's strategy is to allocate its limited resources first to restore those building components in the most serious state of disrepair. Our review has found that since May 1997, when project data was last submitted to HUD, there has been substantial improvement in building components needing urgent repair. For example, 27 percent of the building components in our sample were in need of immediate attention in 1997, compared with only 11 percent currently. Unfortunately, NYCHA's limited resources do not permit it to arrest the overall deterioration in its buildings. For example, nearly two-thirds of the building components in our sample are in either fair or poor condition, compared with 55 percent in 1997. Thus, while NYCHA is able to address its most urgent needs, it cannot prevent the inexorable deterioration of the housing assets under its control.



The data for the ten selected building components indicate the following:

Graph 1Heating: the heating plants in 38 percent of the projects in our sample were rated excellent or good by NYCHA's inspectors; 31 percent were rated fair; and 31 percent were rated poor or in immediate need of repair (see Graph 1).

The heating plant consists primarily of the boilers, but also includes burners, pumps, valves, compressors, controls, timers, switches, tanks, and water and steam lines. Since the useful life of a boiler is rated at between 25 and 40 years and most have reached or are approaching that age, NYCHA faces the prospect of major replacement costs within the short term. Many of the projects have more than one boiler -- some have as many as five -- that would cost as much as $450,000 each to replace.


Graph 2

Plumbing: the plumbing systems in 9 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; 45 percent were rated fair; and 46 percent were rated poor or in urgent need of attention (see Graph 2). The plumbing systems consist primarily of pumps, tanks, pipes and drains.







Graph 3Bathrooms: the bathrooms in 16 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; 34 percent were rated fair; and 50 percent were rated poor or in immediate need of attention (see Graph 3). Among the bathroom fixtures evaluated were tubs, basins, faucets, shower walls, tanks and bowls, medicine cabinets, and tile floors.






Graph 4Kitchens: the kitchens in 23 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; 47 percent were rated fair; and 30 percent were rated poor or in need of immediate attention (see Graph 4). Among the kitchen fixtures evaluated were sinks, faucets, cabinets, and counter tops.







Graph 5Elevators: the elevators in 48 percent of the projects for which we have data were rated excellent or good; 16 percent were rated fair; and 36 percent were rated poor or in immediate need of attention (see Graph 5). Elevators include cabs, hoist mechanisms, doors and hatches, and controllers, selectors and governors. Elevators, more than any other essential building component, are subject to a tremendous amount of additional wear and tear because of the great number of extra tenants living in "doubled up" circumstances.

Graph 6

Brickwork: the brickwork facing in 13 percent of the projects was rated excellent or good; in 69 percent fair; and in 18 percent poor or in need of immediate attention (see Graph 6). In evaluating brickwork, the inspectors considered waterproofing, pointing, and general state of repair.






Graph 7

Windows: the windows in 43 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; in 46 percent fair; and in 11 percent poor or in immediate need of attention (see Graph 7). Included were both apartment windows and those in basements and other common areas.







Graph 8Roofs: the roofs in 25 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; in 41 percent were rated fair; and in 34 percent were rated poor or in need of immediate attention (see Graph 8). The roof components evaluated included roofing, parapets, roof fans, flashing, canopies and drains.






Graph 9Garbage Disposal: the garbage disposal systems in 22 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; in 39 percent were rated fair; and in 39 percent were rated poor or in need of immediate attention (see Graph 9). The systems include compactors, hoppers, motors and fans, sprinklers and alarms.






Graph 10Grounds: the grounds in 12 percent of the projects were rated excellent or good; in 39 percent were rated fair; and in 49 percent were rated poor or in need of immediate attention (see Graph 10). The components that were evaluated included fencing, playground equipment, benches, and asphalt and concrete surfaces. NYCHA officials informed us that the overhaul of major systems had taken priority over grounds renovations, but that they were now turning their attention toward improving grounds.



IV. Capital Needs and Capital Resources

In its 1997 application for HUD's Comprehensive Grant funding, NYCHA estimated that it would take $7 billion in capital improvements to raise the 325 projects in the Federal Program to a state of "good repair." These are the so-called "hard costs," the costs of bricks and mortar. When such "soft costs" as management, administration and planning are included the estimate increases to $7.4 billion. Despite having received almost $2 billion -- including $1.5 billion for hard costs -- in Comprehensive Grant funding between 1992 and 1997, NYCHA estimates that the Federal Program's capital need is virtually the same as last estimated in 1992.

Using the NYCHA Needs Assessment for 1997 and NYCHA's projection of capital funding and proposed expenditures through 2001, we constructed a data base for the 104 Federal Program projects containing 500 housing units or more, for a total of 120,000 units (see Appendix C).

For each of the projects, we noted the year that its construction was completed and the number of housing units it contains; we then calculated the total hard cost need and the per unit hard cost need in NYCHA's Needs Assessment; planned expenditures for the 1998-through-2001 period; and the percentage of the total need addressed by the projected spending plan.

Our analysis found that NYCHA estimates that it would cost $5.2 billion to bring the units in our sample up to a state of good repair. Disturbingly, NYCHA has resources at its disposal through 2001 to address only 13.4 percent of this need.

The Federal Fiscal Year 1997 budget appropriated approximately $2.1 billion nationally for the Comprehensive Grant,(3) of which NYCHA received $345 million. HUD has requested and expects to receive a similar level of Graph 11funding for FFY 1998 (see Graph 11). HUD officials have informed us that authorities are authorized to supplement these grants by drawing down surplus operating reserves, but NYCHA has found it necessary to use its accumulated operating reserves to fund current operating deficits, in part because HUD's operating subsidies are also declining.

It is not the purpose of this report to call for huge funding increases -- from any level of government -- although ultimately those responsible may decide on a course of action which, in part, includes additional funding. Rather, our object is to highlight the failure of the current system of Federal funding to address the capital needs of these projects, and to warn against the dire consequences of deferred maintenance.

In our view, it is critically important that the system of funding capital investments and operating subsidies be considered by Federal and local policy makers who are now struggling to redefine the purpose and forms of public housing. Should public housing be reserved for the poorest tenants or should there be a broader mix of income levels? What level of government subsidy can be expected in the current political climate? Are these resources sufficient to maintain current assets? Should new public housing be created, and if so, should it take the form of high-rises or smaller, more manageable structures? We strongly believe that the current policy debate provides a context and a useful window of opportunity for airing the plight of public housing in New York City and for devising and adopting a workable long-term plan.

What is essential is that the policy makers provide a reasonable framework for NYCHA, one of the best managed public housing authorities in the nation, to devise and implement a plan that will raise the assets to a state of good repair, and, once that is achieved, to set in place a system of scheduled maintenance that will preserve them.

Appendix A

Methodology

Nine years ago, we reported on the physical condition and the modernization needs of NYCHA's State- and City- subsidized projects. For that report, we analyzed the inspections performed by NYCHA and found that "a large number of electrical, structural, plumbing and heating components are in poor or worse condition; appliances and fixtures need replacement; and fencing, grounds, vehicles, security systems and garbage disposal systems have fallen into disrepair" (see our Report 27-89, Public Housing at Risk: Modernization Needs in New York City Housing Projects, issued April 13, 1989). NYCHA estimated that it would take $200 million to raise its 25 State- and City-subsidized projects, containing twelve percent of the Authority's housing units, to a state of good repair.

We adopted a similar methodology for this report on the physical condition and the modernization needs of NYCHA's 325 Federally subsidized projects, which currently contain 90 percent of the Authority's housing units. We selected, as our sample, the 104 Federal projects that contained 500 housing units or more. The data base we constructed represented 119,694 units out of a total of about 162,000 units in the Federal program (see Appendix C).

For inspection data we used the evaluations of major systems and building components by NYCHA's technical staff contained in the Authority's Project Data Books. We selected for our analysis the ten systems and components that we judged to be most significant and representative: heating plant, plumbing system, kitchens, bathrooms, elevators, brickface, windows, roofs, grounds, and garbage disposal. For this report, we did not review security, appliances, vehicles, doors, electrical systems and some structural components. We then weighed the scores assigned by NYCHA staff to the several assets in each category and arrived at an overall grade for that category (see Appendix B).

The financial data was provided to us by NYCHA. Using these data, we calculated the total hard cost need and the per unit hard cost need for each project, the targeted expenditures through 2001, and the percentage of the total need that is addressed by the projected spending plan.

APPENDIX B

ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR BUILDING COMPONENTS
1=Excellent, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Immediate Attention, NA=Not Applicable

Project

Units

Heating

Plumbing

Bathrooms

Kitchens

Elevators

Brickface

Windows

Roofs

Garbage

Grounds

BRONX
Adams 925 5 4 5 5 1 4 2 3 3 4
Boston-Secor 538 5 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3
Bronx River & Add 1,470 2 3 4 3 5 3 3 4 3 3
Bronxdale 1,497 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
Eastchester Gar. 877 3 4 4 4 2 5 3 3 4 4
Edenwald 2,036 3 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 4
Forest 1,348 1 4 5 3 1 3 2 3 4 5
Gun Hill 733 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3
Highbridge Gar. 699 2 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 4
Jackson 866 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 5 4
McKinley 616 2 2 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5
Melrose 1,019 3 4 4 4 1 3 3 4 5 5
Mill Brook & Ext. 1,378 5 2 2 3 2 3 1 4 4 2
Mitchell 1,731 5 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 4
Monroe 1,102 5 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3
Morris 1,084 2 2 5 2 3 3 2 2 4 4
Morris II 801 3 3 5 2 3 3 2 2 4 3
Morrisania A.R. 843 3 3 3 1 5 3 2 4 5 3
Mott Haven 993 5 4 4 5 4 4 2 2 5 4
Parkside 879 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 3
Patterson 1,788 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 2 1 4
Pelham Parkway 1,266 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3
Sedgewick 784 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3 3
Soundview 1,258 3 5 4 3 4 2 2 5 4 4
Throggs Neck 1,184 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Webster 605 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
BROOKLYN
Albany 1,214 1 4 5 3 4 3 2 3 5 4
Borinquen Plaza 509 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 2 3
Breukelen 1,595 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3
Brevoort 895 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 2
Brownsville 1,319 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 2 5
Carey Gardens 674 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5
Cooper Park 700 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 4
Cypress Hills 1,441 2 4 4 3 5 3 3 4 2 3
Farragut 1,390 2 2 5 3 5 3 2 5 2 4
Glenwood 1,187 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 3
Gowanus 1,133 3 5 5 4 1 3 4 5 3 5
Gravesend 634 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3
Howard 814 2 4 5 3 1 3 2 3 1 4
Hughes 509 4 4 4 4 2 3 1 5 4 1
Ingersoll 1,800 1 4 4 4 4 2 2 5 2 1
Kingsborough 1,158 4 4 2 3 5 2 3 4 3 4
Lafayette 880 5 3 4 4 2 3 1 1 3 3
Low 536 4 3 4 1 2 3 1 5 4 3
Marcy 1,705 2 3 4 3 5 3 2 4 4 4
Nostrand 1,146 3 4 4 5 1 4 3 3 3 3
Pink 1,500 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 2 2
Red Hook l 2,536 1 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 5
Roosevelt l 762 2 4 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2
Sheepshead Bay 1,055 4 4 4 5 1 4 3 3 3 3
Summer 1,098 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 4
Surfside 598 3 3 4 4 2 3 1 3 1 4
Taylor-Wythe 525 1 4 4 5 3 3 1 3 1 3
Tilden 998 1 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 1
Tompkins 1,045 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 5
Van Dyck l 1,603 2 4 2 3 5 1 2 4 5 4
Whitman 1,636 1 5 3 5 4 4 2 3 2 1
Williamsburg 1,662 4 3 2 2 NA 5 2 5 3 3
Wyckoff Gardens 528 5 3 4 5 1 2 2 2 4 4
MANHATTAN
Amsterdam 1,080 3 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 4 4
Baruch 2,194 2 3 3 3 5 4 2 4 2 4
Carver 1,246 2 3 4 3 2 4 2 4 4 4
Clinton 748 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 5
Douglas & Add. 2,190 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 3 2
Dyckman 1,167 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 4
East River 1,158 5 4 2 3 3 3 5 4 4 2
Elliot 607 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 4 4
Fulton 944 5 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 5 4
Grant 1,940 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 5 4
Harlem River I 574 5 3 3 3 NA 3 4 3 4 4
Holmes Towers 537 4 4 3 3 1 2 2 3 4 4
Isaacs 636 4 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 4 4
Jefferson 1,486 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
Johnson 1,307 2 3 2 4 4 3 5 3 5 3
King Towers 1,370 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 2 4 4
LaGuardia 1,092 3 3 5 5 1 4 3 3 5 4
Lehman Village 619 3 3 5 5 2 4 3 4 5 5
Lincoln 1,281 5 5 5 3 2 3 4 3 3 5
Polo Grounds 1,614 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Rangel 984 3 3 5 5 2 3 3 4 5 5
Riis 1,190 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3
Riis City 576 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 3 4 3
Smith 1,930 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 3 4 4
St. Nicholas 1,524 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 2 5 4
Taft 1,463 3 3 4 1 4 3 3 3 3 3
Vladeck 1,530 4 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 3 3
Wagner 2,154 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3
Wald 1,856 5 2 3 3 4 2 3 5 1 3
Washington 1,511 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 4
QUEENS
Astoria 1,101 2 3 3 3 2 3 5 2 2 3
Beach 41 St. 712 3 4 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 3
Edgemere 1,395 5 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 4
Hammel 711 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 2 3 3
Pomonok 2,069 3 3 2 2 5 2 4 3 3 3
Queensbridge N 1,517 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 3
Queensbridge S 1,584 3 3 2 4 2 3 2 1 3 3
Ravenswood 2,165 3 3 3 1 2 NA 4 3 3 5
Redfern 604 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 4 2
South Jamaica II 599 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Woodside 1,357 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
STATEN ISLAND
Berry 506 5 4 1 2 4 3 3 4 3 4
Mariners Harbor 605 4 3 3 3 5 4 2 5 2 3
Todt Hill 502 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 1 3 4
West Brighton 634 4 3 4 5 1 3 2 2 3 4

APPENDIX C

CAPITAL NEED IN THE FEDERAL HOUSING PROJECTS

Project Units Built Unfunded Need Unit Need Planned Expenditures % of Need
BRONX
Adams 925 1964 $ 24,662,883 $26,663 $ 3,415,000 13.85
Boston-Secor 538 1969 23,396,336 43,488 2,196,000 9.39
Bronx River & Add 1,470 1951/66 22,643,132 15,403 3,543,000 15.65
Bronxdale 1,497 1955 71,577,947 47,814 21,619,000 30.20
Eastchester Gar. 877 1950 39,992,790 45,602 4,768,000 11.92
Edenwald 2,036 1953 113,833,123 55,910 13,002,000 11.42
Forest 1,348 1956 44,478,088 32,996 4,622,000 10.39
Gun Hill 733 1950 32,899,890 44,884 6,861,000 20.85
Highbridge Gar. 699 1954 29,775,669 42,598 2,101,000 7.06
Jackson 866 1963 25,301,545 29,217 1,856,000 7.34
McKinley 616 1962 27,795,498 45,123 6,158,000 22.15
Melrose 1,019 1952 27,835,803 27,317 12,347,000 44.36
Mill Brook and Ext. 1,378 1959/62 46,342,835 33,631 1,802,000 3.89
Mitchell 1,731 1966 54,176,034 31,298 15,757,000 29.08
Monroe 1,102 1961 58,960,752 53,503 6,196,000 10.51
Morris I 1,084 1965 97,566,990 90,006 2,387,000 2.45
Morris II 801 1965 70,290,116 87,753 1,161,500 1.65
Morrisania Air Rts 843 1980 38,184,127 45,296 2,772,000 7.26
Mott Haven 993 1965 80,956,684 81,527 6,454,000 7.97
Parkside 879 1951 27,504,066 31,290 2,328,000 8.46
Patterson 1,788 1950 63,361,827 35,437 3,516,000 5.55
Pelham Parkway 1,266 1950 91,632,603 72,380 9,303,000 10.15
Sedgewick 784 1951 31,369,999 40,013 2,624,000 8.36
Soundview 1,258 1954 31,318,590 24,896 6,424,000 20.51
Throggs Neck 1,184 1953 82,774,351 69,911 4,433,000 5.36
Webster 605 1965 32,652,609 53,971 1,446,000 4.43
BROOKLYN
Albany 1,214 1950/57 41,908,683 34,521 8,246,000 19.68
Borinquen Plaza 509 1975 12,766,747 25,082 2,264,000 17.73
Breukelen 1,595 1952 94,436,036 59,208 9,597,000 10.16
Brevoort 895 1955 47,168,775 52,703 1,224,000 2.59
Brownsville 1,319 1948 59,429,463 45,056 1,296,000 2.18
Carey Gardens 674 1970 24,593,609 36,489 770,000 3.13
Cooper Park 700 1953 27,929,695 39,900 1,099,000 3.93
Cypress Hills 1,441 1955 63,938,097 44,371 9,742,000 15.24
Farragut 1,390 1952 44,408,769 31,949 4,164,000 9.38
Glenwood 1,187 1950 54,794,628 46,162 8,322,000 15.19
Gowanus 1,133 1949 30,066,215 26,537 4,047,000 13.46
Gravesend 634 1954 31,765,891 50,104 5,202,000 16.38
Howard 814 1955 51,651,077 63,453 3,633,000 7.03
Hughes 509 1968 33,745,943 66,299 3,892,000 11.53
Ingersoll 1,800 1944 75,265,049 41,814 13,354,000 17.74
Kingsborough 1,158 1941 24,952,044 21,548 10,916,000 43.75
Lafayette 880 1962 47,929,527 54,465 11,481,000 23.95
Low 536 1967 23,704,875 44,226 4,543,000 19.16
Marcy 1,705 1949 32,615,744 19,129 2,289,000 7.02
Nostrand 1,146 1950 62,493,901 54,532 16,082,000 25.73
Pink 1,500 1959 82,584,320 55,056 12,085,000 14.63
Red Hook I 2,536 1939 140,265,510 55,310 6,472,000 4.61
Roosevelt I 762 1964 30,247,443 39,695 1,576,000 5.21
Sheepshead Bay 1,055 1950 63,446,577 60,139 17,501,000 27.58
Sumner 1,098 1958 49,624,128 45,195 6,143,000 12.38
Surfside 598 1969 32,614,790 54,540 3,778,000 11.58
Taylor-Wythe Ave 525 1974 26,773,268 50,997 4,377,000 16.35
Tilden 998 1961 49,150,806 49,249 2,578,000 5.25
Tompkins 1,045 1964 66,925,145 64,043 13,917,000 20.79
Van Dyck 1 1,603 1955 52,526,874 32,768 10,819,000 20.60
Whitman 1,636 1944 69,680,393 42,592 8,188,000 11.75
Williamsburg 1,682 1938 36,719,716 21,831 27,275,000 74.28
Wyckoff Gardens 528 1966 17,014,537 32,225 4,072,000 23.93
MANHATTAN
Amsterdam 1,080 1948 60,593,207 56,105 21,636,000 35.71
Baruch 2,194 1959 126,811,933 57,799 6,047,000 4.77
Carver 1,246 1958 42,872,338 34,408 4,672,000 10.90
Clinton 748 1965 42,073,099 56,247 1,597,000 3.80
Douglass & Add. 2,190 1958/65 85,897,087 39,222 5,091,000 5.93
Dyckman 1,167 1951 66,238,894 56,760 1,582,000 2.39
East River 1,158 1941 59,297,371 51,207 1,858,000 3.13
Elliot 607 1947 19,492,091 32,112 3,462,000 17.76
Fulton 944 1965 35,366,184 37,464 11,056,000 31.26
Grant 1,940 1957 95,630,512 49,294 4,958,000 5.18
Harlem River I 574 1937 30,338,682 52,855 8,820,000 29.07
Holmes Towers 537 1969 17,209,560 32,048 4,180,000 24.29
Isaacs 636 1965 18,804,449 39,567 3,154,000 16.77
Jefferson 1,486 1959 83,531,921 56,213 11,121,000 13.31
Johnson 1,307 1948 69,980,008 53,542 11,190,000 15.99
King Towers 1,370 1954 84,172,322 61,440 2,885,000 3.43
La Guardia 1,092 1957 26,669,919 24,423 7,640,000 28.65
Lehman Village 619 1963 29,443,931 47,567 612,000 2.08
Lincoln 1,281 1948 55,927,693 43,659 6,288,000 11.24
Polo Grounds 1,614 1968 80,041,321 49,592 2,653,000 3.31
Rangel 984 1951 30,484,424 30,980 972,000 3.19
Riis 1,190 1949 32,992,567 27,725 4,550,000 13.79
Riis City 576 1949 26,755,876 46,451 2,862,000 10.70
Smith 1,930 1953 67,571,245 35,011 6,487,000 9.60
St. Nicholas 1,524 1954 72,203,252 47,377 3,593,000 4.98
Taft 1,463 1962 39,020,833 26,672 5,787,000 14.83
Vladeck 1,530 1940 50,982,165 33,322 20,095,000 39.42
Wagner 2,154 1958 116,584,433 54,125 6,285,000 5.39
Wald 1,856 1949 50,084,954 26,985 14,978,000 29.91
Washington 1,511 1957 73,514,076 48,653 12,135,000 16.51
QUEENS
Astoria 1,101 1951 55,423,924 50,340 11,794,000 21.28
Beach 41 St. 712 1973 36,604,743 51,411 8,422,000 23.06
Edgemere 1,395 1961 43,470,645 31,162 7,792,000 17.92
Hammel 711 1955 39,193,699 55,125 11,226,000 28.64
Pomonok 2,069 1952 79,394,451 38,373 20,717,000 26.09
Queensbridge N. 1,517 1940 59,625,899 39,305 4,300,000 7.21
Queensbridge S. 1,584 1940 123,042,470 77,678 5,521,000 4.49
Ravenswood 2,165 1951 26,994,516 12,469 8,323,000 30.83
Redfern 604 1959 27,153,058 44,955 2,302,000 8.48
South Jamaica II 599 1954 27,095,147 45,234 2,078,000 7.67
Woodside 1,357 1949 22,821,620 16,818 9,764,000 42.78
STATEN ISLAND
Berry 506 1950 27,682,602 54,709 4,369,000 15.78
Mariners Harbor 605 1954 21,722,862 35,906 7,338,000 33.78
Todt Hill 502 1950 19,277,911 38,402 1,553,000 8.06
West Brighton 634 1962/65 35,123,500 55,400 4,853,000 13.82
Total 119,694

$5,229,635,956 $43,692(4) $698,653,500 13.36


1. New York City Housing Authority. Return

2. The funds available for capital improvement in the Federal Program are substantially greater and more predictable than in the City and State programs. Return

3. HUD's Comprehensive Grant is subject to annual Congressional appropriation. NYCHA's share of the appropriation grew gradually from $226 million in FFY 1988 to a peak of $435 million in FFY 1994. It has declined in each subsequent year to $345 million in both FFYs 1997 and 1998, a total decrease of 21 percent (see Graph 11). Before FFY 1992, when the grant was called the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program, the allocation was based on a competition among public housing authorities; in the current program it is largely based on the number and type of an authority's housing units. Return

4. Represents total average per unit need. Return