The Center's work on 'Budget' Issues


Two Programs Could Boost Opportunity for Families With Project-Based Rental Assistance

October 23, 2014 at 2:36 pm

More than 700,000 low-income families with children can afford decent housing by living in public housing or privately owned properties that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidizes.  As we explain in our recent paper, for about 200,000 of these families, having an affordable place to live entails living in an extremely poor neighborhood — where at least 40 percent of the residents have incomes below the poverty line, and crime rates tend to be higher and schools lower performing.  Almost all of these families are racial or ethnic minorities (see chart).

HUD has begun two programs that could help more of these familieslive in higher-opportunity neighborhoods — if Congress provides sufficient funds and HUD and local partners implement the programs effectively:  the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) and the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD).  Both programs aim to preserve and if necessary rebuild distressed rental units.  CNI also has a broader goal to revitalize the neighborhoods of the assisted properties.

In the near term, two policy changes to these programs would increase the number of families that could live in safer neighborhoods with better schools.  HUD should:

  1. Require housing authorities and other CNI grantees to offer relocating families effective mobility services. Many families forced to move during CNI-funded redevelopment likely will continue to live in private-market housing using the tenant-based vouchers provided to them as part of the relocation process rather than return to the redeveloped properties.  Effective mobility services, including recruitment of landlords in low-poverty, high-opportunity communities; effective search assistance; and policies that allow vouchers to provide sufficient subsidies to make renting in higher-cost neighborhoods feasible for families, would better set up these families for success.
  2. Encourage local housing agencies to help residents of RAD properties access housing in high-opportunity areas.  RAD requires housing agencies to allow most families in RAD developments to move with the first tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher that becomes available at their local housing agency after they have lived in the converted development for one to two years.  With RAD residents in stable housing before they’re eligible to move with a voucher, they could benefit from counseling about neighborhood options and search techniques, which will help them make the best choice for their families when a voucher becomes available.  HUD should provide guidance to agencies on best practices.

We’ll be back later today with a look at two other changes to RAD that could help low-income children over the longer term.

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.

One Way to Help Poor Kids Do Better in School: Help Their Families Move to Better Neighborhoods

October 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm

Housing location makes a difference in low-income children’s short- and long-term success, as we detail in our new paper.  There’s growing evidence that violent, stressful, high-poverty neighborhoods can compromise children’s cognitive development, school performance, and health — and that low-poverty neighborhoods with high-quality schools improve low-income children’s school performance.

Many studies show strong links between neighborhood (and school) poverty and poor student academic performance.  A study led by Harvard University’s Robert Sampson showed, for example, that the verbal skills of children growing up in severely disadvantaged neighborhoods were lower — by an amount equivalent to one to two years of schooling —than those of children in better neighborhoods.  And separate studies (here, here, and here) led by New York University researcher Patrick Sharkey concluded that exposure to neighborhood violence can affect kids’ intellectual development.

These studies line up with the burgeoning research about the harmful effects on children of toxic stress, which affects young children’s brain development of in ways that undermine their cognitive skills, and can contribute to long-term health problems such as heart disease.  While much of the toxic stress research has focused on the effects of child abuse and family dysfunction, severely disadvantaged neighborhoods — particularly those where violent crime is common — can also contribute.

This leads to the question: if high-poverty neighborhoods hurt kids’ school performance, do low-poverty neighborhoods help?  The evidence here is surprisingly complex, as researchers have found it difficult to disentangle neighborhood effects from individual, family, and other influences.  But recent research provides strong evidence that low-poverty neighborhoods with high-quality schools can boost children’s achievement.

A rigorous study by RAND researcher Heather Schwartz of low-income children living in public housing in Montgomery County, Maryland, found that:

  1. Low-income students who lived in low-poverty neighborhoods and attended low-poverty schools made large gains in reading and math scores over a period of seven years, compared with other students living in public housing and attending moderate- or moderately high-poverty schools (see chart).
  2. These educational gains accrued over time, with the majority of the gains accruing in years five to seven.  Residential stability in low-poverty neighborhoods and schools thus appeared to be a crucial condition of the children’s success.
  3. Students benefited academically from living in low-poverty neighborhoods, but most (two-thirds) of the gains came from attending a low-poverty school.


The research shows that children can benefit from living in neighborhoods that provide better opportunities, but federal rental assistance programs fall short in helping families make such moves.  We’ll take a closer look at this challenge — and what federal, state, and local agencies can do to meet it — in follow-up posts.

Rental Assistance Can Do More to Help Kids Live in Better Neighborhoods

October 15, 2014 at 12:13 pm

Where children grow up can influence their lifelong health and success, and improvements to federal rental assistance programs could substantially better their life outcomes, our new report explains.

Nearly 4 million children live in families that receive federal rental assistance.  But just 15 percent of the kids whose families receive rent subsidies through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) three major rental assistance programs — the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, public housing, and Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance — live in high-opportunity neighborhoods with access to good schools, safe streets, and high rates of employment.  A larger share (18 percent) of children in assisted families live in neighborhoods of extreme poverty, where at least 40 percent of the residents are poor.

Children exposed to neighborhood violence and extreme poverty often suffer cognitive, health, and academic deficiencies, research shows, while low-income children who can move to safer neighborhoods with better schools have experienced significant improvements in their lives, including gains in academic performance.

Over several decades, policymakers have tried to reduce the extent to which low-income families receiving federal rental assistance are concentrated in distressed neighborhoods and, instead, to improve these families’ access to higher-opportunity neighborhoods.  To do so, they’ve relied increasingly on housing vouchers (rather than housing projects) so that families may choose where to live.

The HCV program has performed much better than HUD’s project-based rental assistance programs in enabling more low-income families with children to live in lower-poverty neighborhoods (see chart).  Having a housing voucher also substantially reduces the likelihood of living in an extreme-poverty neighborhood.

Nevertheless, a quarter of a million children in the HCV program live in these troubled neighborhoods.  As now administered, the HCV program doesn’t adequately deliver on its potential to expand children’s access to good schools in safe neighborhoods.

Based on the evidence on how housing location affects low-income families, particularly children, and federal rental assistance programs’ performance on location-related measures, we recommend two near-term goals:  1) federal rental assistance programs should provide greater opportunities for families to choose affordable housing outside of extreme-poverty neighborhoods; and 2) the programs should provide better access for families to low-poverty, safe communities with better-performing schools.

We can make substantial progress toward these goals in the next few years, even in the current fiscally constrained environment and without congressional action or more funding.

Federal, state, and local agencies can take four key actions to help more families in the HCV program to live in better locations:

  • Create stronger incentives for local and state housing agencies to help families move to better neighborhoods.
  • Modify policies that discourage families from living in higher-opportunity communities.
  • Minimize jurisdictional barriers to families’ ability to choose to live in high-opportunity communities through the HCV program.
  • Better assist families in using vouchers to live in high-opportunity areas.

Click here to read the full report.

Sequestration’s Effects Linger for Housing Agencies

September 16, 2014 at 7:47 am

The 2013 sequestration budget cuts caused severe shortfalls at state and local housing agencies that administer federal rental assistance programs, and the cuts are continuing to affect low-income families, as the New York Times reports.  Most agencies sharply reduced the number of families they assisted by not reissuing housing vouchers when the families using them left the program.  These cuts have continued into 2014, despite the fact that Congress partly reversed sequestration this year.  As of March, housing agencies were assisting some 90,000 fewer low-income families due to sequestration.

The agencies are passing the budget strain on to low-income families in other ways, too.  In New York, the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development is raising the rent for nearly one-third of the 32,000 low-income families using its housing vouchers.  This forces families to make tough choices: either absorb rent increases of as much as several hundred dollars per month or move to a smaller, lower-priced unit, if they can find one in New York’s tight rental market.

Such choices are particularly difficult for seniors, who are disproportionately affected by the rent increases in New York.  Many have lived in their current apartment for many years, and they may have difficulty navigating the process of finding, moving, and adapting to a new apartment and neighborhood.

Housing authorities across the nation — from Napa, California, to Alexandria, Virginia — have continued to make similar changes in response to sequestration.  While Congress partly reversed the sequestration cuts in 2014, many housing agencies have been reluctant to reverse rent increases or cuts in the number of families they’re assisting, due in large part to the uncertain budget outlook for 2015.

Congress has yet to complete the fiscal year 2015 budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers the housing voucher program and most other federal rental assistance programs, and it likely won’t until after the November elections.  Moreover, the HUD funding bills approved by the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee would increase housing voucher funding modestly, but not enough to cover the increase in program costs due to rising rent and utility costs.  As a result, they would risk locking in most of the sequestration voucher cuts.

As Congress completes the 2015 budget this fall, it should make a priority of fully restoring the vouchers lost to sequestration, or current voucher holders will face higher rents, while families on waitlists continue to pay unaffordable rents, risking homelessness if they fail to make ends meet.