Five Ways to Strengthen Housing Assistance Without Expanding the “Moving-to-Work” Demonstration

September 28, 2011 at 1:51 pm

As I wrote yesterday and discuss more in a new analysis, some members of Congress have called for expanding the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Moving-to-Work (MTW) demonstration, which provides state and local agencies sweeping authority to operate outside the laws and regulations that normally govern the public housing and “Section 8” housing voucher programs.

Though frequently well-administered at the local level, MTW is an ineffective way to test policy alternatives or streamline program rules, and has produced substantial harmful effects — including permitting funds to be shifted away from vouchers that help needy families and undercutting federal standards that are key to the effectiveness of housing assistance programs.

Fortunately, Congress and HUD could take other measures that would effectively streamline rules, test innovative policies, and empower high-performing agencies, without undermining important program standards or permitting funding shifts from vouchers that leave vulnerable families on waiting lists for assistance and at risk of homelessness.  Here are five examples:

  1. Enact national reforms included in the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA) and Section 8 Savings Act (SESA) to update and streamline requirements in areas such as housing quality inspections and determining tenants’ rents. These changes would not only make assistance more effective, but also save more than $700 million over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  2. Adopt HUD’s proposal for a rigorous, targeted demonstration testing alternative ways to set rents and encourage work and saving among housing assistance recipients.
  3. Allow agencies to convert some public housing developments to more flexible and reliable Section 8 subsidies.  HUD proposed this under its Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), a version of which the Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved.
  4. Support small agencies that opt to coordinate or consolidate operations, a step that would greatly ease administrative burdens for local agencies and HUD.
  5. Give extra flexibility (such as reduced HUD oversight of financial management) to agencies that score exceptionally well on HUD performance assessments.
Print Friendly

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 | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. DEENA HALLACY #
    1

    Remove the utility allowance from all calculations. Ensure there is a minimum cost that everyone pays. That way everyone has a buy-in on the cost of their housing, even if it is $50.00. Reduce some of the allowable deductions. Everyone should pay at least 30% of their income towards housing without excessive deductions. There are ways to cut back on the costs of this program. But continuing to reduce the administration dollars is unacceptable with all the reduced paperwork requirements that have been put into place. There needs to be some much broader visions for this program.

    • 2

      Thanks for the comment. It’s certainly true that there are promising ways to find some savings in the housing assistance programs. Congress could take a big step in that direction by enacting the core reforms from SESA and SEVRA, and it’s worth exploring other options as long as they don’t undercut the programs’ effectiveness. But we’d caution against changes that increase rents on the lowest-income families, as we discussed in a recent analysis http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3607.

      That piece focuses on a proposal that would raise minimum rents to much higher levels than your suggestion of applying the $50 minimum to all families, but many of the basic arguments against raising rents on families with little or no income apply to both proposals. See more of our reports at http://www.cbpp.org/housing.



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.



 characters available