This study provides a comprehensive national census of Inclusionary Housing (IH) programs in the United States, documenting 1,019 local IH programs across 734 jurisdictions in 31 states and the District of Columbia through data collected between 2018 and 2019. The prevalence of IH programs highlights their role as a common policy tool used by local governments to address affordable housing shortages. The study finds that IH programs span a wide range of housing markets, though they are more common in stronger markets, a tendency influenced by various factors and less significant when analyzed regionally, by county, or using vacancy rates instead of median home prices. Notably, states with pro-inclusionary housing laws like California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts account for over three-quarters of IH programs but less than half of the units produced in known unit count programs. A subset of 258 programs reported approximately 110,000 inclusionary units, and 123 programs collected nearly $1.8 billion in fees for affordable housing development. The study suggests the overall scale of production under IH programs is likely much larger, considering programs with unknown unit counts and state IH initiatives. On average, jurisdictions produce 21 IH units annually, representing 9% of all permitted housing units, which is substantial given the exclusion of units developed through in-lieu fees and exempt residential developments. Moreover, over half of the jurisdictions produce as many or more IH units as those produced through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, especially in smaller cities, indicating IH programs can effectively supplement federal housing policies. IH programs are typically mandatory, apply to both rental and for-sale developments, and require on-site affordable units targeted to households earning 50-120% of AMI, with rental units serving lower-income households and required to remain affordable for at least 30 years. Alternatively, developers can often pay in-lieu fees, which vary widely across programs. This study highlights the significant variations in IH program design and outcomes across states, emphasizing that while state mandates encourage widespread adoption, local needs-based designs enhance program productivity. The comprehensive IH dataset from this study enables further systematic and rigorous research at regional and national levels to explore the relationships between markets, political economies, and IH programs.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02673037.2021.1929863