Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusion, <br />More Research <br />— and Data — <br />Is Needed <br />The GSN study significantly advances the <br />understanding of prevalence, practices, <br />and production of inclusionary housing <br />programs in local jurisdictions in the United <br />States. Through an extensive data collection <br />effort and ordinance review, GSN identified <br />a total of 1,019 local IH program in 734 <br />jurisdictions. This included identifying <br />IH programs in New Jersey across all <br />local jurisdictions and documenting <br />more complete information in California <br />and Massachusetts. <br />However, GSN's IH study also shows that a <br />significant gap remains in understanding <br />the administrative practices of these <br />programs. For instance, just over 40% of <br />programs reported that they did not track <br />units or fees. In addition, little is known <br />about the transaction/lease details for <br />units, such as in which neighborhoods <br />the affordable units are located, or the <br />socio -demographic characteristics of <br />participating households. This indicates <br />the need to find better ways to track the <br />units created in connection with more <br />research of IH processes and outcomes. <br />Research in these areas could help make <br />inclusionary housing an even more effective <br />tool in the affordable housing toolbox to <br />not only create more affordable housing, <br />but to create more mixed -income and <br />inclusive communities. <br />© Fannie Mae 2020 <br />