More About Will Fischer

Will Fischer

Fischer is a Senior Policy Analyst, focusing on federal low-income housing programs, including Section 8 vouchers, public housing, and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

Full bio and recent public appearances | Research archive at CBPP.org


Rental Assistance Kept Over 3 Million People Out of Poverty Last Year, New Census Data Show

October 16, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Rental assistance programs kept millions of people above the poverty line in 2013, according to CBPP’s analysis of new Census data.  The findings highlight the central role that rental assistance plays in helping low-income Americans keep a roof over their heads.

Our analysis using the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which accounts for non-cash benefits and taxes as well as cash income, shows that rental assistance kept 3.1 million people, including 1.0 million children, out of poverty last year (see chart).  (The SPM methodology understates the value of some types of rental subsidies, so the actual impact on poverty likely is somewhat higher than these estimates indicate.)

The SPM data don’t break down what type of rental assistance kept these people out of poverty, but for most, it likely was one of the three primary federal rental assistance programs: Housing Choice Vouchers, Public Housing, and Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance.

Rental assistance could lift many more people out poverty, but due to funding constraints only one in four families eligible for assistance receives it.  Families without rental assistance are far more likely to experience homelessness and housing instability, which have been linked to negative health, education, and developmental outcomes over the long run.

Sequestration cuts to Housing Choice Vouchers in 2013 caused tens of thousands more families to be left without the assistance they need to afford stable homes.  Those cuts were only partly restored in 2014.  When it returns in November, Congress will consider legislation setting 2015 funding levels for many federal programs.  As they weigh their options, policymakers should place a high priority on protecting funding for rental assistance to avoid exposing more of the nation’s most vulnerable people to poverty, homelessness, and hardship.

[Revised] Key Lawmaker’s Bill Would Raise Rents on Poor While Lowering Them for Better-Off Households

September 24, 2014 at 10:54 am

A new bill from Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), chair of the House Financial Services Committee’s Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, would raise rents on some of the nation’s poorest families.  The bill apparently intends the rent increases to balance the possible cost of allowing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to lower rents for families with somewhat higher incomes.  The rent increases could cause hardship — and even homelessness — for vulnerable families.

Today, families that receive rental assistance through Housing Choice Vouchers, public housing, and other HUD programs generally pay rent equal to 30 percent of their income, the maximum share that’s considered affordable.  State and local housing agencies can charge the lowest-income families a “minimum rent” of up to $50 a month.  Agencies also must allow public housing residents to pay a “flat rent” of their unit’s estimated market value, even if it’s less than 30 percent of their income (which is typically only for the highest-income residents).

The Neugebauer bill would raise minimum rents, requiring agencies to charge voucher holders and public housing residents at least $50.  The bill would also eliminate the cap on minimum rents, allowing agencies to raise rents for a large share of assisted families.  Private owners who receive direct HUD subsidies through programs such as Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance would have to collect rents of at least $50 a month — up from $25 — and HUD could raise this minimum without limit.

Housing agencies could choose whether to raise public housing and voucher minimums above $50, but many would likely do so, in part to cope with tight budgets in coming years.  Of the 39 agencies granted discretion through HUD’s “Moving to Work” demonstration to set rents outside the regular rules, more than a dozen have minimums above $50 and several have set them at $200 or higher.

As we’ve explained, many affected families would struggle to pay higher minimum rents.  Technically, housing agencies and owners must exempt families from minimum rents if they would cause the families hardship, but this requirement is poorly designed and places the burden on vulnerable families to apply for exemptions.  A 2010 study found that most agencies exempted less than 1 percent of the families subject to minimum rents.

The bill’s other provision would allow HUD to lower flat rents for some public housing residents.  In January, Congress established new standards intended to prevent housing agencies from setting flat rents below market levels, but some agencies have complained that the standards go too far and require above-market rents.  The Neugebauer bill would give HUD discretion to set flat rent standards, including authority to permit lower rents than the January law requires.  The lower rents may more accurately reflect local market rents.  But since families paying flat rents can opt instead to pay 30 percent of their income, this change isn’t needed to make their homes affordable.

The Neugebauer bill gets its priorities backwards.  The top priority of the nation’s rental assistance programs should be to help the neediest families afford housing.  Some adjustment to flat rents may be warranted but, if so, Congress should enact it without adding to the struggles of the most vulnerable rental assistance recipients.

Ryan Backs Reform to Mortgage Interest Deduction — But Bigger Changes Needed

August 27, 2014 at 1:34 pm

Endorsing House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp’s proposal to limit the mortgage interest deduction recently, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan explained that it “ought to be a middle class tax break, not something for higher-income earners.”  He’s right to criticize the deduction for favoring those at the top but, while Camp’s proposal moves in the right direction, policymakers should go further.

The deduction, which Camp would limit to mortgages up to $500,000 (cutting the current $1 million limit in half), is ripe for reform (see graph).  Some 42 percent of its benefits go to households with incomes above $200,000, the Joint Tax Committee estimates, while only 8 percent go to households with incomes below $75,000.  Close to half of homeowners with mortgages don’t benefit at all because they either don’t owe federal income taxes (though they typically pay substantial payroll taxes and/or state and local taxes) or don’t itemize deductions.

Federal housing spending as a whole is poorly matched to need, and policymakers could do more to rebalance it if they not only capped the deduction for the largest mortgages but also converted the deduction to a credit worth a fixed percentage of a household’s mortgage interest.

Several bipartisan plans — including those from President George W. Bush’s tax reform panel and the chairs of President Obama’s fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson — have backed this approach, which would trim benefits for higher-income households while expanding them for many middle- and lower-income households.

Policymakers should redirect part of the savings from reforming the mortgage interest deduction (after deficit-reduction goals are met) to help low-income renters, for example by creating a renters’ tax credit.  Low-income renters — including elderly people, people with disabilities, and working-poor families with children — are more likely than other groups to struggle to keep a roof over their heads, but federal housing policy provides far more help to homeowners and higher-income households.

Why the Ryan Plan Should Worry Those Concerned About the Affordable Housing Crisis, Part 2

August 5, 2014 at 11:52 am

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposal to consolidate 11 safety net and related programs, including the four largest federal rental assistance programs, into a single block grant to  states risks significant funding cuts to housing assistance that helps 4.7 million low-income families, as we explained last week.  Today, we’ll describe how the combination of those cuts, and the possible elimination under Ryan’s plan of program rules that ensure housing stability and affordable rents, could undercut rental assistance programs’ effectiveness and put substantial numbers of vulnerable families at risk for homelessness.

Federal rental assistance programs are effective.  They sharply reduce housing instability and homelessness and lift 2.8 million people out of poverty (with the bulk of these impacts coming from the programs included in the Ryan plan).  These effects, in turn, are linked to educational, developmental, and health benefits that can improve children’s long-term life chances.

But Chairman Ryan’s proposal, which would give states broad latitude in spending block grant funds, could enable states to jettison federal rules that are essential to the rental assistance programs’ success, or even to eliminate one or more programs.  The drops in funding that likely would occur over time would increase the risks that states would make damaging changes to housing assistance programs.  The following actions are among those states could take:

  • They could cut the number of families receiving rental assistance.  Such cuts would cause the long waiting lists to grow longer and could occur despite Ryan’s promise that his plan would honor existing rental assistance contracts. Most assistance included in the proposed Opportunity Grant is provided through the Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing programs, which are typically funded annually (with assistance provided through annual contracts).  Most contracts with private owners under the other two rental assistance programs that Ryan would fold into the block grant also are short term, so this protection would not last long.  Moreover, if states seek to shift some funds from housing programs to other uses and don’t renew a substantial share of these contracts or maintain public housing properties, cities and towns — which may have little say in state decisions on how to use the Opportunity Grant funds — could see housing developments become unaffordable for many low-income households.  And if there is a perception that a state could fail to renew contracts or maintain rental subsidies, that almost certainly would make it more difficult and costly to attract private investment for affordable housing.
  • They could reduce per-unit subsidy levels, since the rules that set those levels in existing rental assistance programs would no longer apply.  In the Housing Choice Voucher program (which allows most participants to rent modest units of their choice in the private market), such cuts could force families to rent lower-priced units in higher-poverty neighborhoods with high crime rates and poor schools.  The other three programs that Ryan would include in the Opportunity Grant (Public Housing, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and rural rental assistance, which the U.S. Agriculture Department administers) tie subsidies to particular developments; in those programs, subsidy cuts could make it difficult to pay for adequate building maintenance — already a major problem among Public Housing developments — or for owners to make units available to poor families at an affordable rent.
  • They could shift costs to participating families by raising rents.  Rent rules currently require most assisted families to contribute 30 percent of their income for housing, a share consistent with commonly accepted standards of affordability.  Rental assistance fills the gap between this contribution and actual costs, within reasonable limits that the federal and local agencies set.  Some poor families who may not be able to pay higher rents might find they could no longer afford their apartments if their rents rose substantially.

Helping Renters Afford Their Homes

July 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Today’s New York Times “Room for Debate” forum asks “Should Housing Policy Support Renters More?”  It’s an important discussion since, as we explain in this chart book, federal housing policy is imbalanced in two ways.  It favors homeowners over renters, and it targets a disproportionate share of subsidies on higher-income households (see chart).

This is the case even though, as Henry Cisneros, former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, points out, “the primary focus of federal housing policy should be to help those most in need.”  Need among renters is rising.  As MacArthur Foundation president Julia Stasch notes, “increasing rents, stagnant wages and inadequate federal support have made rental housing less affordable for more people.”  Low-income renters — including veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, and working families — are far likelier than homeowners and higher income households to need assistance to keep a roof over their heads and make ends meet.

Three ongoing policy debates offer opportunities to move in this direction:

  • Most immediately, Congress should provide more resources in 2015 funding bills to restore Housing Choice Vouchers and other low-income rental assistance that was cut as a result of sequestration in 2013.  Those cuts prevented thousands of low-income Americans from receiving the assistance they need to escape homelessness and housing instability, both of which have been linked to developmental, health, and education problems in children.
  • If tax reform moves forward, Congress should replace the mortgage interest deduction with a less-expensive, better-targeted credit that would trim subsidies for higher-income families while expanding them for middle- and low-income homeowners.  It should also use some of the savings from this reform to fund a new renters’ tax credit that would address part of the unmet need for housing assistance among the lowest-income renters.
  • If Congress reforms the housing finance system, it should use new financing fees for robust funding — like that provided in the reform bill that the Senate Banking Committee approved in May 2014 — to develop and rehabilitate affordable rental housing through the National Housing Trust Fund.

House Restriction on Housing Vouchers Would Harm Low-Income Residents of Oil and Gas Boomtowns

June 19, 2014 at 8:23 am

The House adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) to limit subsidies in the Housing Choice Voucher program.  The amendment, attached to the House 2015 funding bill for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), would weaken state and local housing agencies’ ability to adapt to rental markets in individual communities.  Some of its worst effects would be felt in places with rapidly growing oil and gas industries, where families, elderly people, and people with disabilities could face displacement or other serious hardship.  The Senate, which is considering its version of the bill this week, should reject any effort to add such a restriction.

In the voucher program, families pay 30 percent of their income toward rent for a modest unit of their choice, and the voucher covers the rest up to a cap called a payment standard.  HUD generally sets the “fair market rent” (FMR) based on market rents for an entire county or metropolitan area, even though these areas may contain many rental submarkets, and it must rely on data that’s often several years old.  As a result, FMRs are typically above or below market rents in parts of the areas they cover and are slow to adjust to rapid shifts in the housing market.

Recognizing this, Congress long allowed agencies to set payment standards from 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.  Agencies can also apply to set area-wide payment standards above 110 percent, but they must submit rigorous data showing that a higher standard is needed to cover local rents and that, without it, families couldn’t use their vouchers or would have to use them in high-poverty areas.  (Research shows that living in high-poverty neighborhoods can adversely affect children’s health, education, and long-term economic prospects.)

The Schock amendment would revoke HUD’s authority to approve state and local agencies’ requests to set area-wide payment standards above 120 percent of the FMR during 2015 and would suspend existing standards above that level.  In recent years, HUD has approved new payment standards under this authority in 13 counties, 12 of which are in parts of North Dakota and Pennsylvania with booming energy industries.

When oil and gas activity surges, workers fill rental units and drive up rents.  In the core of North Dakota’s oil and gas region, rents rose quickly to as much as double their pre-boom level.  If housing agencies in these areas could not adjust payment standards adequately, low-income people with vouchers would struggle to use them.  And households already relying on vouchers could be forced out of their homes when their leases expire.  Seniors and people with disabilities on fixed incomes would be particularly vulnerable.

In proposing his amendment, Rep. Schock expressed concern about high payment standards in Chicago.  But those standards are permitted under HUD’s “Moving to Work” demonstration and would likely be unaffected by Schock’s amendment.  His amendment would, however, do considerable harm in other parts of the country.

The voucher program cannot function effectively without flexibility to set adequate, market-based payment standards.  Congress and HUD have wisely set some limits on this flexibility, requiring strong evidence to support large payment standard increases.  Congress should leave those carefully designed rules in place rather than replacing them with the Schock amendment’s arbitrary cap.

Tax-Credit Bill Would Help Low-Income Families Facing Higher Rents

April 17, 2014 at 2:48 pm

House Ways and Means Committee member Charles Rangel (D-NY) has introduced legislation to establish a new federal tax credit to help low-income renters afford housing.  As we’ve explained, a renters’ credit along these lines would be a valuable tool to address low-income families’ mounting housing needs.

As the graph shows, the typical or median rent has risen much faster than inflation over the last decade, while renters’ median income has fallen in inflation-adjusted terms.

In fact, in 90 cities around the country, a median-income resident would have to pay more than 30 percent of his or her income to afford the median rent, the New York Times reports.  (The federal government and many private-sector landlords and lenders consider housing unaffordable if it exceeds 30 percent of household income.)

As a result, families with incomes well below the median must pay high and growing shares of their income for rent or live in substandard, overcrowded, or unstable housing arrangements.  In 2011, 8.5 million families with incomes under half of the local median received no rental assistance and either paid more than half of their income for housing or lived in severely substandard conditions, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development — an increase of more than 40 percent since 2007.

And Department of Education data show that 1.17 million school-age children were homeless during the 2011-2012 school year.

Despite these needs, the federal government provides much more help to higher-income homeowners, through tax subsidies like the mortgage interest deduction, than to low-income renters.  Due to funding limitations, Housing Choice Vouchers and other low-income rental assistance programs reach fewer than one in four eligible families.

The Rangel proposal would help address that imbalance by giving states about $5.8 billion in annual tax credits to distribute among low-income renters based on federal income eligibility rules and state policy priorities.  We estimated last year that a credit similar to the Rangel proposal (but with added provisions to ensure that most of its benefits go to the neediest families), capped at $5 billion, would help 1.2 million households, reducing their rent by an average of $400 a month.

The renters’ credit would complement the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), which Representative Rangel helped enact in 1986.  LIHTC is an effective subsidy for building and rehabilitating affordable housing but doesn’t typically make housing affordable to the poorest Americans by itself.  A renters’ credit could help these households afford rents in developments subsidized through LIHTC and in other buildings.

If the President and Congress move forward on tax reform, they should use savings from scaling back other tax expenditures to establish a renters’ credit along the lines that Representative Rangel proposes.

Obama Plan to Raise Rents on Rural Poor is the Wrong Way to Save Money

April 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm

About 42,000 extremely poor families — 15 percent of those assisted through the Agriculture Department’s (USDA) rural rental assistance program — could face rent increases of up to $600 a year under a proposal in President Obama’s 2015 budget.

Today, families with rural rental assistance must pay 30 percent of their income for rent and utilities.  The President’s proposal would require property owners to charge families a minimum of $50 a month — even if this exceeds 30 percent of their income.  Many of those who would be affected are especially vulnerable to hardship:  64 percent of households with USDA rental assistance have a head (or the head’s spouse) who is elderly or has a disability, and 135,000 children live in low-income families receiving such assistance.

USDA budget documents say that one goal of the proposal is to “encourage financial responsibility in tenants, increasing their opportunity for success on the path to homeownership.”  But there is no evidence that requiring destitute families to pay $50 a month helps them get back on their feet.  To the contrary, a growing body of research shows that extreme poverty — which the USDA proposal would exacerbate — does long-term damage to children’s neural development and education and employment prospects.

A second goal is to save money.  USDA estimates that the policy will reduce program costs by $5 million in 2015 and $20 million annually in later years.  But policymakers could surely find better ways to save $20 million a year than raising rents on some of the most vulnerable people in rural America.

USDA points out that some households with rental assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must pay $50 minimum rents.  But no major HUD program imposes a program-wide $50 minimum rent like USDA has proposed.  HUD’s supportive housing programs for the elderly and people with disabilities do not charge a minimum, while the Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance program has a $25 minimum rent and state and local agencies administering Housing Choice Vouchers and Public Housing can set the minimum below $50 or have no minimum at all.

USDA has also claimed that a proposed exemption for families who would face hardship from minimum rents — modeled on similar exemptions in HUD programs — would minimize any adverse consequences.  Tony Hernandez, the Administrator of USDA’s Rural Housing Service, told a House Appropriations subcommittee that households with incomes of $2,000 a year “probably would not have to pay because they would be exempted because of the hardship clause.”

But experience in the HUD programs indicates that very few would likely be exempted.  As we’ve noted, the HUD hardship policies have had little impact, partly because they require tenants — many of whom have physical or mental disabilities or very low education levels — to seek out exemptions.  A 2010 HUD study found that 82 percent of state and local housing agencies that chose to impose minimum rents exempted less than 1 percent of affected households.  (Moreover, the minimum rent proposed by USDA would fall almost exclusively on families with incomes close to or below $2,000, so if most of those families were exempted, the policy’s savings would largely disappear.)

Families facing hardship might have an even harder time obtaining exemptions in the USDA rental assistance program, where small rural property owners with limited administrative capacity would be responsible for implementing the hardship policy.  The best way to protect these families would be to reject the President’s proposal.

Ryan Budget Mischaracterizes Housing Vouchers, Then Sets the Stage to Cut Them

April 4, 2014 at 11:02 am

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan used a faulty number to argue that “Section 8” Housing Choice Voucher program costs have risen excessively.  His budget documents also float a proposed expansion of the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration that could lay the groundwork for deep, harmful cuts in the voucher program in years to come.  That program, which helps 2.1 million low-income families rent modest units of their choice in the private market, is just beginning to recover from the loss of 70,000 vouchers due to sequestration budget cuts last year.

Rental vouchers sharply reduce homelessness (see chart) and other hardships, lift more than a million people out of poverty, and help families move to safer, less poor neighborhoods, research shows.  These effects, in turn, are closely linked to educational, developmental, and health benefits that can improve children’s long-term outcomes.

Ryan’s budget claims that voucher spending grew by an “explosive” 80 percent from 2005 to 2013.  That’s simply incorrect.  Voucher expenditures rose by 20 to 30 percent over this period, driven largely by rising market rents and congressional decisions to add vouchers to assist homeless veterans and to replace other rental assistance (such as public housing that was demolished, which was funded through a different budget account).  The average inflation-adjusted cost of a voucher is lower today than it was in 2005.

The Ryan budget calls for changes in housing assistance and says that such changes could include expanding MTW, a deregulation demonstration project that now includes 39 of the nearly 4,000 state and local agencies that administer vouchers or public housing.  MTW allows waivers of most laws and regulations governing the voucher and public housing programs and converts voucher funding — and sometimes public housing operating subsidies — to a block grant.

MTW expansion could weaken protections for vulnerable families and cause fewer needy households to receive assistance.  (These risks would be lower if Congress added new safeguards to MTW, but the Ryan budget documents make no mention of such safeguards.)  The Government Accountability Office and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Inspector General have raised serious doubts about expansion, based on concerns that HUD has not adequately evaluated and monitored the existing demonstration.

Most significantly, a major expansion of MTW block grants would raise the odds of future voucher and public housing funding reductions.  Congress has cut funding deeply over time for housing block grant programs such as HOME, Community Development Block Grants, and the Public Housing Capital Fund, as well as many block grants in other areas.

Two features make block grant programs especially vulnerable to cuts.  First, unlike the current voucher and public housing operating fund formulas, block grants typically don’t account for factors such as the number of families assisted or the cost of assistance.  As a result, it’s more difficult to make a compelling case that policymakers should maintain current nominal funding levels, let alone ensure that funding at least keeps pace with inflation.  Second, because block grants provide broad flexibility in how state or local officials use the funds, federal policymakers can cut funding and claim no harm will ensue, while leaving the tough decisions about how to actually make the cuts to state and local agencies.

The Ryan budget cuts $791 billion over the next ten years from non-defense discretionary programs, the budget category that includes most low-income housing programs.  The budget does not specify which discretionary programs would lose funding, but if policymakers expand MTW to the point that block grants provide the bulk of voucher and public housing funds, it would increase the likelihood of sizable cuts to the voucher and public housing programs — an outcome that would likely lead to more homelessness and housing instability among the most vulnerable Americans.

5 Proven Benefits of Housing Vouchers — and How Vouchers Help Your State

March 11, 2014 at 11:53 am

A key question for next fiscal year is whether policymakers will adequately fund the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which helps more than 2 million low-income families rent modest units of their choice in the private market but has been hit hard by the sequestration budget cuts.  Some 70,000 fewer families have vouchers than a year ago.  To show what’s at stake, we’ve prepared state-by-state fact sheets on the impact of vouchers and the sequestration cuts.

We’ve also issued a report reviewing research findings on vouchers’ impact on poor and vulnerable households.  In brief, studies show that vouchers:

  1. Reduce crowding, housing instability, and homelessness.  Low-income families with children that received vouchers are much less likely than families without vouchers to be homeless or doubled up with friends and family, to live in crowded conditions, or to move frequently.
  2. Reduce poverty.  Vouchers and other rental assistance lifted 2.8 million people — including 1 million children — above the poverty line in 2012 under the federal government’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which counts non-cash benefits.  Vouchers alone likely produced at least half of that effect.
  3. Help low-wage workers make ends meet.  About two-thirds of voucher holders who aren’t elderly or disabled either work or worked recently.  Vouchers are critical to enabling low-income working families to make ends meet.  For a mother of two renting an apartment for $700 and working 30 hours a week at the minimum wage, a voucher is worth about $440 a month.
  4. Give families access to neighborhoods with better opportunities.  By allowing families to rent a unit of their choice in the private market, vouchers enable them to move to safer neighborhoods.  A growing body of evidence indicates that growing up in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty can adversely affect children’s health, education, and long-term economic prospects.
  5. Reduce costs in health care and other public services.  In addition to improving the lives of vulnerable low-income people, vouchers and other rental assistance can produce savings in other program areas that offset part (in some circumstances all) of the cost of the rental assistance.  For example, rental assistance combined with supportive services for homeless people with serious health problems can achieve savings in the health care, corrections, and emergency shelter systems that are close to or above the cost of the rental assistance and services.

Charting a Mismatch in Housing Spending

December 18, 2013 at 11:32 am

Federal housing expenditures are unbalanced in two respects, as our new chartbook shows: they target a disproportionate share of subsidies on higher-income households and they favor homeownership over renting.  Low-income renters are far more likely than homeowners or higher-income renters to pay very high shares of their income for housing and to experience problems such as homelessness, housing instability, and overcrowding.

Federal rental assistance programs help these highly vulnerable families, but they are deeply underfunded and as a result reach fewer than one in four eligible households.  Families with children and non-elderly households without children or a disabled member face particularly severe shortages (see chart).

Moreover, budget cuts due to sequestration have forced reductions in the number of families that rental assistance can serve, and those cuts could grow deeper in the coming years.  Fortunately, the Murray-Ryan budget agreement that the House has passed and the Senate is expected to approve later today would make it possible to discontinue some of the sequester cuts planned in 2014 and 2015.

It’s critical that Congress use those resources to increase funding for housing programs targeted on the neediest families — especially for vouchers, the public housing operating fund, and homelessness assistance.  If policymakers don’t provide additional funding, unmet needs among poor renters will grow substantially and the imbalance in federal housing policy will become even more severe.

Click here for the chartbook.

Homelessness Among Veterans Has Fallen, But Many Still Need Help

November 22, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Homelessness among the nation’s veterans has fallen 23 percent between 2009 and 2013, according to new data released this week (see chart).  Federal rental assistance appears to have played a central role in the improvement, but affordable housing remains out of reach for many veterans, as we explained in a recent paper.  And without an increase in funding for housing vouchers, assistance for as many as 12,000 veterans could be in jeopardy.

The Obama Administration and Congress have increased efforts to aid low-income veterans.  The Administration set a goal in 2009 of ending homelessness among veterans by 2015, and Congress has funded steady increases in the number of vouchers available through a program (HUD-VASH) jointly administered by the departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development.  That program now helps more than 40,000 veterans afford decent, stable homes, and “mainstream” rental assistance programs that are not specifically targeted on veterans help nearly 300,000 more — the great majority of them poor or near poor.

Research suggests that this assistance contributed to the gains reported this week.  Studies have found that rental assistance sharply reduces homelessness, indicating that a significant share of assisted veterans may have been homeless without assistance.

Despite the recent progress, rental assistance reaches only a fraction of veterans in need.  A HUD assessment on one night in January 2013 counted 57,800 homeless veterans, and many others struggle to afford housing.  In 2012, 1.79 million low-income veterans lived in households that paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent and utilities, and 762,000 lived in households that paid more than 50 percent.

Unfortunately, funding for rental assistance programs that can help veterans meet their housing needs is under considerable pressure.  Sequestration cut 2013 voucher funding, so fewer low-income families are receiving assistance.  Cuts in assistance will grow more severe in 2014 unless Congress raises funding above the 2013 level:  rising rents will push up program costs, and many agencies that used reserve funds to avoid harsh cuts in 2013 will exhaust them.  If Congress holds 2014 voucher funding at the 2013 level, 8,000 to 12,000 more low-income veterans will be left unassisted as a result.

As policymakers negotiate the budget for fiscal year 2014, they should reflect on these veterans’ service to the country and the progress that’s been made in helping them afford housing.  They shouldn’t cut the programs that help them keep a roof over their heads.