Maggie McCarty
Specialist in Housing Policy
Carmen Brick
Presidential Management Fellow
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is the federal government’s largest needs-based housing assistance program, in terms of both the number of families served and the cost to the federal budget. Under the program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local public housing authorities (PHAs), which, in turn, provide subsidies to low-income households to use to rent private market apartments. Although the basic structure of the program is governed by federal law and regulations, PHAs have discretion to determine many important elements. How PHAs use their discretion has implications for how families experience the program, how local communities perceive the program, and the program’s cost.
Little comprehensive information is available about how PHAs use their discretion under the HCV program. Thus, to gain insight that might be useful to Congress, CRS conducted a study that looked at a representative sample of PHAs. Data for the study were taken from the administrative plans that PHAs are required to produce. To supplement information from the plans, interviews were conducted with a subsample of PHA officials. Where possible, results of the CRS study were compared to a study conducted by HUD in 2000. The findings of this study may be relevant to policymakers as they consider HCV reform proposals.
Major Findings
•
Almost all PHAs (96%) use local preferences
(i.e., specified categories of families) to rank families on waiting lists
for assistance. This is a change from 2000, when only about 59% of PHAs
used local preferences.
•
All PHAs have policies that consider a family’s
prior criminal activity and most consider a family’s prior unmet financial
obligations when evaluating eligibility for assistance. The policies vary
in terms of what PHAs look for (types of crime, evidence) and how far back
they look. Most PHAs have also adopted policies that allow them to
evaluate families on a case-by-case basis. PHAs use similar policies to
terminate assistance for criminal activity.
•
Most PHAs (79%) have adopted a minimum rent
of more than $0 per month, and the majority (70%) have adopted the maximum
allowable minimum rent ($50). Some PHA officials said they saw minimum
rents as promoting fairness; cost savings were not generally mentioned.
•
Most PHAs require families to report all
changes in income between annual recertfications, but most PHAs do not
adjust families’ subsidies at that time unless the income increase is
above a certain threshold. In interviews, some PHA officials said that the
administrative hassle of recalculating subsidies was not worth the
savings, but some noted that a recent verification system required by HUD
had led them to recertify more frequently than they had been previously.
•
It is commonly understood that most PHAs
have long waiting lists and many PHAs have closed their waiting lists to
new applicants. When opening their waiting lists, the majority of PHAs
(77%) determine who is added based on the date and time the application
was submitted. About 18% of PHAs use a random selection method. In
interviews, several PHA officials noted that they found it challenging to
manage the process of opening their waiting lists because of an overwhelming
demand for vouchers.
•
Once a family is selected from the waiting
list, it has a limited time in which to use its voucher. Most PHAs provide
families with the statutory minimum of 60 days of initial search time,
although most also allow families an extension to 120 days without
requiring the families to meet other conditions (such as being elderly or
having a disability).
•
While PHA administrative plans must be made
publicly available, it was difficult for CRS to obtain copies of the plans
in several cases.
•
Most PHA officials who were interviewed saw
their plans as program guidebooks, which is a different purpose than that
envisioned by HUD.
•
It appears that many PHAs have purchased
their administrative plans from private companies. Based on CRS interviews
with PHA officials, it seems that some PHAs perceive their discretionary
authority as being limited to the options provided in the purchased plans,
or they are unaware of the full discretionary authority that they have.
Date of Report: April 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 45
Order Number: R42481
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
