RESEARCH General Home & Garden

HOUSING THE ELDERLY
Successful housing program for seniors badly underfunded, survey says

Melissa Mitchell, Arts Editor
(217) 333-5491; melissa@uiuc.edu

6/1/2001

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — It's no secret that the U.S. population is rapidly aging. Not so well known, however, according to University of Illinois professor Leonard Heumann, is that the nation's most successful housing program for the elderly is grossly underfunded, and consequently, failing to meet current and future demand.

That's one of the major findings reported and published recently in "The 1999 National Survey of Section 202 Elderly Housing."
Heumann, a professor of urban and regional planning, conducted the study with James R. Anderson, professor of architecture and chair of the UI Building Research Council, and BRC staff member Karen Winter-Nelson. The survey, the third since 1983 to review the status of Section 202 housing, was sponsored by AARP, the largest representative organization of Americans age 50 and above. Results were published by AARP’s Public Policy Institute.

Originally known as the National Housing Act of 1959, the federally funded Elderly Housing Program is more commonly known by its section number – 202, Heumann said. More than 3,500 Section 202 facilities housed more than 300,000 elderly persons in 1999, making Section 202 the federal government's primary program for constructing subsidized rental housing for older adults.

"Section 202 housing is one of the great success stories of American subsidized housing because the non-profit sponsor/managers are mostly local religious-based organizations, and they give the most caring and dignified management to their residents on average," Heumann said.

"The other two subsidized housing programs are Section 8, managed by for-profit private owner/managers, and public housing. And while there are wonderful examples in both of those programs of progressive and caring management, when looking across thousands of housing developments, Section 202 really provides consistently outstanding housing and support."

Unfortunately, he said, the program just isn't keeping pace with the needs of the nation's seniors.

"The major news is this program is way underfunded," Heumann said. "Less is being built now when the numbers of low-income and frail seniors are growing rapidly in our aging society, and the shock is that the average senior applying to 202 has to wait nine years. That is ridiculous; with applicants in their 70s, it might as well be 50 years."

Among other survey findings:

Legislative and regulatory changes have improved the program; for example, in 1999 more than a third of all Section 202 facilities had service coordinators on staff.

Residents are older and frailer, with the average age increasing from 72 in 1983 to 75 in 1999.

Facilities built during the past decade are, on average, smaller than those built in the past.

Capital reserves for retrofitting older projects, which house the oldest residents, are inadequate.