Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: Issues and Reform Proposals in the 110th Congress

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Issues and Reform Proposals
th
in the 110 Congress
Updated April 11, 2008
Maggie McCarty
Analyst in Housing
Domestic Social Policy Division



Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Issues and Reform Proposals in the 110th Congress
Summary
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program provides monthly rental
assistance to around 2 million low-income households each year. It is administered
at the local level by nearly 2,500 quasi-governmental public housing agencies
(PHAs). While some form of Section 8 rental assistance has been in place since the
mid-1970s, the modern program was shaped largely by the 1998 public housing
reform act (P.L. 105-276). A decade later, the Section 8 voucher program has come
under new scrutiny, with PHA industry leaders, low-income housing advocates, the
Bush Administration, and some Members of Congress calling for reforms. This
report introduces the primary features of the Section 8 voucher program, issues that
have arisen, and reform proposals under consideration in the 110th Congress. It will
be updated to reflect legislative activity.
Many of the key features of the program have been considered for reform,
including its administration; eligible uses of program funds; the method by which
income is determined and rents are calculated; who is eligible and what conditions
are placed on eligibility; and other features of program administration such as
portability and quality inspections. Some reform proposals have focused on changing
aspects of the program seen as administratively cumbersome and prone to errors.
Other proposals have focused on altering the incentives in the program in order to
promote policy goals such as homeownership and family self-sufficiency.
Issues have also arisen regarding how the Section 8 voucher program is funded,
how changes in formula allocations have affected PHAs, and the unobligated
balances PHAs have recently accumulated as a result of those changes. Partly in
response to funding issues, and partly in response to programmatic issues, there have
been calls for deregulation of PHAs through expansion of the Moving to Work
(MTW) Demonstration. Legislation in the 110th Congress would expand
participation in the demonstration, from 32 agencies to 250 agencies (S. 788).
On July 12, 2007, the House approved the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of
2007 (H.R. 1851), which would make modifications to several features of the Section
8 voucher program, including how income is calculated, how inspections are
conducted, and how portability is treated, and it would adopt a new funding formula.
It would also rename, expand, and modify the MTW demonstration; require HUD to
provide additional resources for implementation of Limited English Proficiency
requirements; and permit PHAs to implement alternate rent structures, within limits.
On March 3, 2008, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008 (S. 2684) was
introduced in the Senate. Most of the provisions of the Senate bill are similar to
those in H.R. 1851, although there are some differences. S. 2684 does not include
the MTW-related provisions or alternative rent structure provisions that are included
in the House bill; S. 2684 does include provisions related to promoting coordination
with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and treatment of utility payments that are
not included in the House bill. The Senate bill also includes different deductions
from income than the House bill.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Current Program Features and Issues...................................1
Administration ................................................1
Eligible Uses of Funds..........................................2
Rent Structure................................................4
Calculation of Income..........................................5
Eligibility ....................................................6
Work Requirements and Time Limits..............................7
Inspections ...................................................8
Portability ....................................................9
Mobility ................................................10
Funding Allocation...........................................10
Legislation in the 110th Congress.....................................11
Moving to Work Expansion.....................................11
The Moving to Work Charter Program Act of 2007..............12
The Housing Innovation Program............................12
Voucher Reform Legislation....................................13
H.R. 1851...............................................13
S. 2684.................................................16
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Key Provisions of H.R. 1851 and S. 2684
to Current Law...............................................18



Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program: Issues and Reform Proposals
th
in the 110 Congress
Introduction
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program provides monthly rental
assistance to around 2 million low-income households each year. It is administered
at the local level by quasi-governmental public housing agencies (PHAs). While
some form of Section 8 rental assistance has been in place since the mid-1970s, the
modern program was shaped largely by the 1998 public housing reform act (P.L. 105-
276). A decade later, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program has come
under new scrutiny, with PHA industry leaders, low-income housing advocates, the
Bush Administration, and some Members of Congress calling for reforms. This
report introduces the primary features of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
program, issues that have arisen, and reform proposals under consideration in the

110th Congress.


Current Program Features and Issues
Administration
The current Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and its approximately
2 million vouchers are administered by more than 2,500 local PHAs across the
country. PHAs vary greatly in their size, jurisdiction, and capacity. Some administer
as few as 10 vouchers, while one PHA, the New York City Housing Authority,
administers almost 90,000. Half of all PHAs administer 250 or fewer vouchers.1
Some PHAs have jurisdiction over all rural areas of a state or an entire county or city,
while others have jurisdiction over only part of a city or county. Some PHAs have
a full-time director and a large staff; others have one person serving part-time in
director and staff capacities.
This heterogeneity has been criticized at times by some researchers, housing
advocates, and the Administration. They have argued that housing markets are


1 Written Testimony, Michael Liu, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, hearing before the Housing and
Community Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, May

22, 2003.



regional, and thus housing programs should be administered on a regional level.2
Most other social service programs serving the low-income population — such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child care assistance, and Food Stamps
— are administered at the state level. If the voucher program were administered at
the state level, some say, it might be easier to coordinate it with other services.
The organizations representing PHAs have disagreed, arguing in favor of the
current locally driven and focused system. PHAs have important local connections
with entities ranging from landlords to local zoning boards, connections that states,
they contend, would not have.3 Furthermore, PHAs have the most experience in
administering federal housing assistance for the poor, both through the voucher
program and the federal public housing program.
HUD has taken some steps to promote consolidation of PHAs. Specifically, it
has provided guidance to PHAs on how to voluntarily transfer their voucher
programs to another PHA.4 In the President’s FY2008 budget proposal, HUD
requested additional funding to provide bonus administrative fees to PHAs that
volunteer to consolidate, although the proposal was not adopted by Congress in the
final FY2008 appropriations act.5
Eligible Uses of Funds
Today’s voucher program provides a federally-defined subsidy, called a
voucher, that a family can use to help pay its housing costs in the private market.
That voucher pays roughly the difference between a unit’s rent and the tenant’s
contribution towards the rent.6 In some cases, families can use their vouchers to help
pay the monthly costs of a mortgage,7 but only if their local PHA chooses to run a
homeownership voucher program.8 The bulk of voucher funds provided by HUD to


2 Margery Turner and Bruce Katz, “Who Should Run the Housing Choice Voucher Program:
A Reform Proposal,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 2, 2001. HUD made similar
arguments when advocating for the Housing Assistance for Needy Families Act of 2003,
which would have transferred administration of the voucher program from PHAs to states.
3 National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), NAHRO Direct
News: Section 8, May 29, 2003, attachment C.
4 HUD PIH Notice 2007-6 (HA),Process for Public Housing Agency Voluntary Transfers
of Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Vouchers and Project-Based Certificates,
issued March 7, 2007.
5 HUD FY2008 Congressional Budget Justifications, Part 1, page C-2.
6 The actual calculation of the value of a voucher is more complicated than presented here.
See later discussions under the headings “Tenant Rent” and “Calculation of Income.”
7 Congress also provided authorization for PHAs to use voucher funding for downpayment
assistance in lieu of monthly mortgage contributions; however, HUD has never implemented
the downpayment program because the authorizing statute has been interpreted as requiring
direct appropriations, which Congress has not provided (see 24 CFR 982.643).
8 According to HUD, over 720 PHAs have participated in over 8,200 closings in the voucher
homeownership program [http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/homeownership/

PHAs is used to renew existing, previously funded and authorized vouchers. New
vouchers are called incremental vouchers. No funds had been provided for new
incremental vouchers since 2002;9 however, the FY2008 appropriations act (P.L.
110-161) provided $125 million for incremental vouchers. PHAs earn administrative
fees, which they can use to cover the cost of administering the voucher program, and
for other purposes, such as providing supportive services, downpayment or security
deposit assistance, or housing search assistance.
This system is governed by hundreds of pages of regulations and guidance that
make the program, some argue, overly prescriptive and difficult to administer. Past
reform initiatives have proposed to convert the current program into something more
akin to a block grant, redefining the concept of a voucher by instead providing funds
that PHAs could use for rental assistance, homeownership assistance, and supportive
services, as defined by the grantee.10 A “voucher” would no longer have uniform
meaning, and PHAs could provide more or less generous assistance to families at
their discretion, outside of some, if not all, current federal rules. Such a reform
would be consistent with the 1996 welfare reform law that abolished the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replaced it with the broader-
purpose Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.11
There has also been debate about how much of the voucher program should, and
can realistically, be focused on promoting homeownership. The Bush Administration
has made a priority of increasing the number of first-time homebuyers making
purchases with homeownership vouchers. Successful homeownership can help
lower-income families build assets and wealth, which can help their long-term
financial security. However, the voucher homeownership program has minimum
requirements that many families currently served by the rental voucher program may
be unable to meet (minimum income standards, employment requirements).
Furthermore, some voucher families, particularly those in low-wage and/or volatile
employment markets may not have the financial stability necessary to successfully
maintain homeownership.


8 (...continued)
publiclist_vhosites.xls].
9 Although no new vouchers (often referred to as incremental vouchers) had been funded
since 2002, Congress has funded new tenant protection vouchers every year. Tenant
protection vouchers are provided to families that had been receiving other forms of housing
assistance, but are losing that assistance through no fault of their own (such as when public
housing is demolished or when the long-term contract on a project-based Section 8 property
expires). While the addition of new tenant protection vouchers does increase the number
of families receiving vouchers, it does not necessarily increase the number of families
receiving housing assistance, since the families that receive them had been previously
assisted through another program.
10 In 2003, the Bush Administration introduced such a reform, termed Housing Assistance
for Needy Families (HANF). The legislation was introduced in the House and Senate, butth
no further action was taken in the 108 Congress (H.R. 1841/S. 947).
11 For more reading on the merits and drawbacks of various voucher block grant ideas, see
Housing Policy Debate, vol. 14, issue 3, 2003.

Rent Structure
Under the current rules of the voucher program, families pay an income-based
rent.12 Specifically, families are required to pay 30% of their adjusted incomes
toward rent, although they may choose to pay more.13 It is generally accepted that
housing is affordable for low-income families if it costs no more than 30% of their
adjusted gross income, on the assumption that low-income families need the full
remaining 70% to meet other needs. However, this figure is somewhat arbitrary. For
some families with few costs for work, transportation, medical, child care, or other
needs, 40% or even 50% of income might be a reasonable contribution toward
housing costs. In fact, the current voucher program allows families to choose to pay
up to 40% of their incomes toward housing costs initially, and even greater amounts
upon renewal of a lease. For other families, with high expenses for work,
transportation, medical, child care, or other outside costs, some percentage lower than

30% might be the most reasonable, or “affordable,” contribution.


Critics of the current rent calculation, including the Bush Administration14 and
some PHA groups,15 have argued that PHAs should have the flexibility to modify the
existing income-based rent system or adopt new systems partially or fully decoupled
from income, such as flat or tiered rents. Under flat rents, families would pay a
PHA-determined, fixed, below-market rent, based on unit size, regardless of their
incomes. As income changed, rent would stay the same. Current law permits PHAs
to set voluntary flat rents for public housing. Families are permitted to choose to pay
flat rents, but must be permitted to switch back to income-based rents.
Under tiered rents, PHAs could set different flat rents for broad tiers of income.
Families would pay the rent charged for their income tier, and only fluctuations in
income that move them from one tier to another would change their rent. If PHAs
set rent tiers very low, then fewer tenants would face an increase in rent, but PHAs
could face higher voucher costs. If the tiers were set higher, then more tenants would
face rent increases, but PHAs would see reduced voucher costs.
Shallower subsidies under flat or tiered rents would allow PHAs either to save
money or serve more people with the same amount of money, depending on the
authority provided by HUD and Congress, but might lead to greater cost-burdens for
the lowest-income families.


12 Income-based rents are used in the majority of HUD rental assistance programs, including
public housing, project-based Section 8, Housing for the Elderly, and Housing for the
Disabled.
13 The formula is actually more complicated. Families must pay the higher of 30% of
adjusted income, 10% of gross income, the amount of welfare benefits designated for
housing costs, or PHA minimum rents (which can be no higher than $50 a month).
14 HUD, The Flexible Voucher Program: Why A New Approach to Housing Subsidy Is
Needed: A White Paper, May 18, 2004, available at [http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/
programs /hcv/fvp/wponfvp.pdf].
15 Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), Rent Reform: Fair and
Simple Solutions, 2005, available at [http://www.phada.org/pdf/rentreform.pdf].

Another argument in favor of moving from an income-based rent to a flat rent
concerns administrative ease. The current complicated rent calculation, paired with
the difficulty of verifying the incomes of tenants, has led to high levels of error in the
subsidy calculation. According to a HUD 2001 Quality Control study, 60% of all
rent and subsidy calculations contained some type of error. HUD has estimated an
annual $2 billion in subsidy over- and under-payments in the Section 8 voucher
program. These errors have led the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
designate the Section 8 program a “high risk” program, meaning that it is particularly
susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. Beginning with the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7), HUD was given access to the National Directory
of New Hires, a database that may allow PHAs to better verify income data. There
has been some improvement. A 2003 Quality Control study released in 2004 found
a 37% reduction in erroneous payments from 2001, although 40% of subsidies were
still erroneously calculated. Adopting flat or tiered rents could substantially reduce
— if not eliminate — errors in rent calculations.
A flat rent structure may also help reduce the work disincentives inherent in the
current calculation. Since rent goes up as income goes up, families face an effective
30% tax on any increase in earnings and therefore they may have a disincentive to
increase earnings and/or an incentive to hide income. To help address this problem
in the Public Housing program, Congress has instituted a mandatory income
disregard; however, no such mandatory disregard exists in the voucher program,
except in the case of certain disabled recipients.16 If PHAs choose to disregard
increased earnings, they will not receive funding for the increased costs or face
sanctions from HUD for not accurately calculating subsidies. Under flat or tiered
rents, families can generally increase their earnings without facing changes in their
rents.
Low-income housing advocates generally agree that the current rent-setting
system is overly complicated, but still support income-based rents over flat rents.
Flat rents are not as responsive to changes in family income as income-based rents,
and their adoption could result in some families paying much more toward rent than
is generally considered affordable (30% of income). They argue that changes to the
method of calculating income could do much to simplify the rent-setting process.17
Calculation of Income
Under the current voucher program, rent is based on a family’s annual adjusted
income. The current system for calculating income, as noted earlier in relation to
rents, has been criticized as cumbersome and prone to errors.


16 For more information, see the National Housing Law Project’s Earned Income Disregard
Packet for Public Housing Voucher Program and Other HUD Programs, available at
[http://www.nhlp.org/ html/ pubhsg/ eid_packet.htm] .
17 See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Rent Reform, Memo to Members: Vol 10,
No. 24, June 17, 2005, and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Rent Changes in
Housing Bill Will Help Many Tenants, August 1, 2006.

Annual income, which is used for determining eligibility and as the basis for
determining adjusted income for rent-setting purposes, is defined as all amounts that
are anticipated to be received by all members of a household during the subsequent

12 months, with some exclusions (such as foster care payments).18 Anticipating low-


income families’ future incomes can be very difficult, as their employment is often
variable. The composition of a family may also be variable, with members joining
or leaving the household over the course of a year. Further, PHAs are expected to
verify families’ incomes using third-party sources, which can be a time-consuming
process.19 Once the total amount of income has been determined, adjusted income
is calculated for rent-setting purposes. From total annual income, the family may
qualify to have certain amounts deducted, such as $480 per dependent, $400 for
elderly and disabled households, and reasonable child care expenses, disability
expenses, and certain medical expenses of the elderly or disabled.20
The complexity of the income determination system is a major factor behind the
high rates of error in rent determination. Many of the current requirements are
regulatory, rather than statutory, and PHA groups have called on HUD to simplify the
process. HUD has stated that it is looking at ways to improve the income calculation
process,21 although no major administrative changes have been made.
Eligibility
The current voucher program sets initial eligibility for assistance at the very
low-income level (50% or below of area median income (AMI)),22 with a
requirement that 75% of all vouchers be targeted to extremely low-income families
(30% or below AMI).23 The targeting requirement was enacted as a part of the 1998
public housing reform law and was designed to ensure that the neediest families
received assistance.
Serving lower income families results in higher costs per voucher. In a limited
funding environment, the higher the per voucher cost, the fewer the number of
families that can be served. The difficult tradeoff between serving more families
with less generous subsidies or serving fewer families with more generous subsidies


18 Summarized from 24 CFR 5.609.
19 See 24 CFR 982.516 (a).
20 See 24 CFR 5.611 for a list of deductions.
21 See Government Accountability Office (GAO), Progress and Challenges in Measuring
and Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies, GAO-05-224, Chapter 5.
22 In some cases, families with incomes up to 80% of AMI are eligible for vouchers.
Examples include previously assisted families who are receiving a voucher as a result of
being displaced from other assisted housing, families using their voucher to purchase a
home, or families meeting other criteria established by the PHA.
23 For example, 50% of AMI for a three person family in Missoula, MT was $24,550, and
30% was $14,750 in 2007. Fifty percent of AMI in San Francisco, CA was $50,900, and

30% was $30,550 in 2007.



can be found in most social programs and lies at the center of many of the voucher
reform debates.
The Bush Administration has advocated loosening current targeting standards
in an attempt to either serve more families or reduce the cost of the program.24 Low-
income housing advocates generally support retaining current income eligibility and
targeting requirements, arguing that the lowest-income households face the heaviest
rent burdens and are the most in need of assistance.
Work Requirements and Time Limits
The voucher program does not currently have time limits or work requirements.
Families that receive voucher assistance can retain that assistance until either they
choose to leave the program; they are forced to leave the program (due to non-
compliance with program rules or insufficient funding); or their income rises to the
point that 30% of their income equals their housing costs, at which point their
subsidy is zero. The Public Housing program does have a mandatory eight-hour
work or community service requirement for non-elderly, non-disabled tenants;
however, most public housing residents are exempted, and it is unclear how
thoroughly the provision has been implemented.25
Some have advocated setting time limits for receipt of voucher assistance and
making work a requirement for ongoing eligibility. They argue that under the current
system, families have no incentive to increase their incomes or work efforts and leave
the program.26 Adopting a work requirement in the voucher program may help
encourage non-elderly, non-disabled households that are not currently working to go
to work. Time limits and work requirements have been at least partly credited with
decreasing the size of the welfare rolls.
Another reason to consider time limits relates to the fact that many communities
have long waiting lists for assistance. Since few new vouchers have been funded in
recent years, turnover in the current program is the primary way to serve those
families on the waiting lists.
There is evidence that families with children, those most likely to be affected
by work requirements and time limits, already leave the program relatively quickly.
According to HUD research from 2003, the median length of stay for families with
children is two and a half years.27 Further, while time limits and work requirements


24 HUD, The Flexible Voucher Program: Why A New Approach to Housing Subsidy Is
Needed: A White Paper, May 18, 2004, available at [http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/
programs /hcv/fvp/wponfvp.pdf].
25 For more information on the community service/work requirement in public housing, see
CRS Report RS21591, Community Service Requirement for Residents of Public Housing,
by Maggie McCarty.
26 Howard Husock, “The Housing Reform that Backfired,” The City Journal, Summer 2004.
27 Jeffery Lubell, et al. Work Participation and Length of Stay in HUD-Assisted Housing,
(continued...)

may help move families out of the voucher program, it is unclear whether such
changes would increase families’ incomes or lead to self-sufficiency. Research based
on the 1996 welfare reform changes (P.L. 104-193) indicates that for many poor
families, increases in work do not necessarily translate into greater total income, and
most households need work supports (such as child care and transportation
assistance) in order to make them successful in becoming financially self-sufficient.28
Such supportive services are not currently a part of the voucher program, and would
likely require additional funding. In fact, it is unclear how low-income families that
are leaving the program now are meeting their housing costs. HUD conducted
research looking at families with children who left the voucher program over a five-
year period, and found that less than 1% of them had incomes sufficient to afford an
apartment at the fair market rent in their community.29
Low income housing advocates promote providing incentives for families to
increase their work efforts and their incomes, rather than time limits and work
requirements. For example, non-elderly, non-disabled families could be encouraged
to find and increase work through expansions in the Family Self-Sufficiency program
(FSS), a Section 8 voucher program which provides work supports and deposits
tenant rent increases resulting from work into escrow accounts on their behalf.
However, not every PHA runs an FSS program; according to HUD, roughly 50,000
voucher families are estimated to be participating in FSS at any given time.30 The
full effects of FSS are unclear, as it has not been implemented using an experimental
design. HUD did produce a descriptive retrospective profile of FSS participants,
which found substantially higher income increases experienced by FSS program
participants compared to non-FSS participants.31
Inspections
Before a PHA can approve a unit selected by a tenant, the unit must first be
inspected to ensure that it complies with the HUD-adopted Housing Quality
Standards (HQS).32 If the unit is approved, it must be reinspected at least annually.
If the unit fails inspection, the PHA cannot make payments to the landlord until the
unit is in compliance. These inspections are designed to protect the tenant from
substandard conditions. However, the inspections themselves (or finding inspectors
to conduct them) can add delays to the process, resulting in landlords’ reluctance to


27 (...continued)
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, vol. 6, no. 2, 2003.
28 See CRS Report RL30797, Trends in Welfare, Work and the Economic Well-Being of
Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2005, by Thomas Gabe.
29 Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance and Accountability Report,
FY2004, pp. 2-65.
30 Department of Housing and Urban Development, Evaluation of the Family
Self-Sufficiency Program, April 2004.
31 Ibid.
32 See 24 CFR 982.401 for HQS.

participate in the voucher program and families losing out on units in tight markets.
Further, some HQS failures may be found for violations that a tenant might consider
a “minor” violation (such as missing light-switch plates or a tear in the carpet that
could be considered a tripping hazard), yet PHAs are still required to withhold
payment. This can also contribute to landlords’ reluctance to participate in the
program.
The prevalence of substandard housing varies widely; areas with a relatively
new housing stock (particularly in the southwest) may only need inspections every
couple of years to ensure quality, whereas areas with a relatively old housing stock
(such as the northeast) may require more frequent inspections, perhaps even more
than once a year, in order to ensure quality. Although there have been calls to change
the inspection requirements, it has proven difficult to balance providing flexibility
to PHAs to address the needs of specific communities with ensuring protection for
tenants from substandard conditions.
Portability
Section 8 vouchers are nationally portable, which means that families can take
their vouchers and move from the jurisdiction of one PHA to the jurisdiction of
another PHA. Once a family moves, the two PHAs come to an agreement on how
to administer the voucher. The original PHA can choose to forgo the voucher and
allow the receiving PHA to “absorb” it, meaning that the voucher would be
permanently transferred from the old PHA to the new PHA. If the voucher is
absorbed, when the family leaves the program, the new PHA has the right to reissue
the voucher. Alternatively, the original PHA can also choose to be “billed” for the
voucher, meaning the new PHA will administer the voucher on behalf of the original
PHA, and will seek reimbursement from the original PHA for any costs associated
with the voucher. In a billing situation, the original PHA will retain the voucher as
a part of its stock, and if and when the family leaves the program, the original PHA
can reissue it.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both billing and absorbing.
Originating PHAs that bill must forgo a portion of their administrative fees and the
administration can be complicated. Originating PHAs that allow their portability
vouchers to be absorbed lose vouchers, often in communities where the waiting list
for a voucher is very long. Recognizing these problems, PHAs have the ability to
limit portability. A PHA can require a family to live in its jurisdiction for up to one
year upon initial receipt of a voucher and a PHA can deny a portability move if it will
increase PHAs costs above what can be supported by federal appropriations. In the
past, proposals have been offered to alter portability to make it administratively
easier. They have ranged from limiting portability except between jurisdictions with
preexisting agreements33 to having a national pool of vouchers that could be used to
smooth out the absorption process.34


33 See Section 113 of H.R. 1999, 109th Congress.
34 Statement of Richard Godfrey, Executive Director, Rhode Island Housing, Hearing before
the Committee on House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community
(continued...)

Mobility. Portability offers the possibility for families with vouchers to move
from areas of high concentrations of poverty, poor schools, and little opportunity to
areas with low concentrations of poverty, good schools, and more opportunity.
Researchers and advocates for low-income families have argued that the mobility
potential of portability has not been fully reached. They argue for more funding for
mobility counseling and performance standards that encourage mobility efforts.
Advocates for state or regional administration of the voucher program argue that
moving away from PHA-level administration could help improve program mobility.35
Funding Allocation
The cost of a voucher is equal to roughly the difference between the rent
(capped by a maximum set by the PHA and called the payment standard) and the
tenant’s contribution toward the rent (30% of the tenant’s income). PHAs’ costs
fluctuate as tenants’ incomes and market rents increase or decrease. Prior to FY2003,
HUD reimbursed PHAs for the actual cost of their vouchers, and each year, HUD
would ask Congress for funding sufficient to cover what HUD anticipated it would
take to fund PHAs’ costs.
Due partly to changes in the rental market and partly to changes in the rules of
the voucher program (such as increases in the payment standard), PHAs’ actual costs36
began rising rapidly in 2002 and 2003. This raised concerns for both the
Administration and Congress. Partly in response to these cost increases, the
Administration proposed potentially cost-saving changes in both the way that PHAs
received funds and in the underlying factors that led to the cost growth, including the
amount tenants were asked to contribute toward rent and the maximum payment
standard.
Congress reacted by changing only the way that PHAs receive their funding
without enacting other program reforms. In FY2005, Congress directed HUD to fund
PHAs based on what they received in the previous year. This new funding formula,
which was continued in FY2006, was more predictable for PHAs, similar to formulas
used for other discretionary social programs, and easier for HUD to administer.
However, it also led to funding problems for some PHAs, whose actual costs were
still driven by the difference between rents and incomes in their communities while
their funding was capped. As a result, some PHA groups called for either a change
back to an actual cost funding formula or changes to the structure of the voucher
program that would allow them to better control their costs. In the FY2007 funding
act (P.L. 110-5), Congress reverted back to a funding formula based on actual costs
and utilization. A similar formula was adopted for FY2008. This change was
generally supported by PHA groups and low-income housing advocates, but opposed


34 (...continued)
Opportunity, March 9, 2007.
35 Margery Turner and Bruce Katz, “Who Should Run the Housing Choice Voucher
Program: A Reform Proposal,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 2, 2001.
36 See Government Accountability Office, Policy Decisions and Market Factors Explain
Changes in the Costs of the Section 8 Programs, April 2006.

by the Administration. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33929, Recent
Changes to the Section 8 Voucher Renewal Funding Formula, by Maggie McCarty.)
Legislation in the 110th Congress
Moving to Work Expansion
In recent years there have been calls to expand the Moving to Work
Demonstration. MTW was authorized by Section 204 of the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) in order to design and
test ways to
!Promote self-sufficiency among assisted families;
!Achieve programmatic efficiency and reduce costs; and
!Increase housing choice for low-income households.
Under Moving To Work, HUD can select up to 30 PHAs to participate in the
demonstration and receive waivers of most rules that govern public housing and
Section 8 (those under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (P.L. 75-412, as amended)).37
With HUD approval, MTW agencies can merge their Section 8 voucher, public
housing capital and public housing operating funds, alter eligibility and rent policies,
modify their funding agreements and reporting requirements with HUD, and make
other changes. Rules outside of the U.S. Housing Act cannot be waived under MTW,
such as labor requirements and fair housing rules, nor can rules governing the
demolition and disposition of public housing. Agencies must also agree to serve
substantially the same number of people they were serving before the demonstration
and they must agree to continue to serve low-income families.
Agencies participating in MTW have used the flexibility it provides differently.
Some have made minor changes to their existing Section 8 voucher and public
housing programs, such as limiting reporting requirements; others have implemented
full funding fungibility between their public housing and voucher programs and
significantly altered their eligibility and rent policies.38
Several of the national PHA industry groups support an expansion of MTW.
They argue that the flexibility would permit them to more efficiently and effectively
manage their limited federal funding and make programmatic changes tailored to
their local communities.39 Low income housing advocates, particularly the National


37 In 1998 (P.L. 105-276), Congress directed HUD to approve the applications of two
specific PHAs, in the FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161), Congress required HUD
to approve the applications of three additional specific PHAs.
38 For more information on MTW, see Housing Agency Responses to Federal Deregulation:
An Assessment of HUD’s “Moving to Work” Demonstration, Urban Institute, 2004.
39 Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, “Housing industry groups hold Capitol
Hill briefing on the Moving To Work Charter Act,”Advocate, Vol. 21, No. 14, August 16,
(continued...)

Low Income Housing Coalition, have expressed opposition to an MTW expansion.
The organization sees the expansion as an attempt “to reduce the obligations of PHAs
to serve families with the most serious housing problems.” Specifically, they are
concerned that MTW agencies will choose to serve higher income families than they
are permitted under the rules of the U.S. Housing Act and that the agencies will
disconnect rent-setting policies from income with the result that tenants will pay
increased rents.40 While the initial intent of PHAs may not be to charge higher rent
or serve higher-income families, there is concern that in a restricted funding
environment, such policy changes will have to be made in order to balance budgets.
The existing MTW program, while called a demonstration, was not
implemented in a way that would allow it to be effectively evaluated. Therefore,
there is not sufficient information about different reforms adopted by MTW agencies
to evaluate their effectiveness. There is some information available about how PHAs
have implemented the program (as noted earlier); however, it is unclear whether
PHAs implementing a modified MTW program in an environment where funding is
limited would make the same choices that earlier MTW agencies made.
The Moving to Work Charter Program Act of 2007. The Moving to
Work Charter Program Act of 2007 (S. 788) would expand and modify the MTW
program. It would permit the Secretary of HUD to enter into charter contracts with
up to 250 PHAs. Similar to the current MTW demonstration, the Secretary would
be permitted to waive all of the aspects of the U.S. Housing Act except for labor
standards and demolition and disposition requirements and PHAs would be permitted
to blend their Section 8 and Public Housing funding. Unlike the current MTW
program, the MTW Charter program would require PHAs to ensure that at least 75%
of the families assisted are very low-income families; establish a reasonable rent
policy designed to encourage employment, self-sufficiency, and home ownership by
participating families; and meet other specified additional requirements.
The Housing Innovation Program. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of
2007 (H.R. 1851, discussed below) includes a provision to replace the existing
Moving to Work program with a new Housing Innovation Program (HIP). The HIP
would maintain several aspects of MTW, including the ability to blend public
housing and voucher funding, but would make several major changes.
Under the HIP, the Secretary would be required to designate up to 60 agencies
to participate in the program, with the option of adding another 20 under a modified
version of the program. Existing MTW agencies would continue under their
contracts for the duration of those contracts (unless they chose to transition to the
HIP early) and would automatically be eligible for renewal under the terms of HIP
at the end of their contracts (as long as the Secretary finds that they have been
meeting their goals and objectives under MTW). HUD would be required to develop
a selection process, based on priorities established under the bill, and select a diverse


39 (...continued)

2006.


40 See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Three Public Housing Bills Introduced in
Senate, Memo to Members: Vol 12, No. 10, March 9, 2007.

group of agencies (including only a limited number of lower-performing agencies,
but not troubled agencies).
Like under MTW, HUD could waive most current program rules for HIP
participating agencies. The bill contains a list of allowable activities that appears to
be broader than what is permitted under current law. PHAs would be required to
serve substantially the same number and a comparable mix of low-income families
to what they served prior to participating in the program. Further, targeting
requirements, lease requirements, eviction protection, portability and
demolition/disposition rules would all be maintained. PHAs would be required to
include greater tenant participation in their planning process, especially if they are
making changes that would affect tenants’ contributions towards their rent. The
additional 20 agencies that HUD could select to participate in a modified version of
HIP would not be permitted to make changes to rent policies, set time limits or work
requirements, and would be required to replace any unit of demolished/disposed
public housing on a one-for-one basis.
The bill would require HUD to establish performance standards and evaluate,
or contract for the evaluation of, HIP participating agencies with the goal of
developing successful models that can be adopted by other agencies. HUD would be
required to submit several reports to Congress on the HIP, one after three years, one
after five years, and one after 10 years. The bill would authorize $10 million each
year for FY2008-FY2012 for capacity building and technical assistance and $15
million for the cost of the evaluation.
Voucher Reform Legislation
Every year since 2003, the President has proposed either eliminating the Section
8 voucher program and replacing it with a new initiative or substantially reforming
the program. Bills to enact the President’s reforms have been introduced in
Congress, although no further action has been taken. Legislative proposals in the
107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses that were advocated by the Administration
envisioned fundamentally reworking the voucher program, with initiatives including
transferring administrative responsibilities from PHAs to the states, implementing
time limits and work requirements, and allowing PHAs to experiment with various
rent-setting policies (including fixed rents).
Bipartisan reform bills from the past two years have been narrower in scope
than the Administration’s reform proposals. In 2006, a bipartisan voucher reform
bill, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2006 (SEVRA) (H.R. 5443, 109th
Congress) was approved by the House Financial Services Committee, but no further
action was taken before the close of the 109th Congress. The bill would have
modified the voucher program but largely retained its current structure.
H.R. 1851. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) was
introduced in the House of Representatives with bipartisan cosponsors, including the
chairs and ranking members of the House Financial Services Committee and its
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity on March 29, 2007. Similar
to SEVRA from the 109th Congress, H.R. 1851 would largely maintain the structure
of the Section 8 voucher program, but would make administrative changes to the



income determination process and HQS inspections (some of which also apply to
public housing and project-based Section 8). Table 1 provides a detailed side-by-side
comparison of the provisions in H.R. 1851 with current law and S. 2684 (described
below).
The bill would simplify the income calculation process by streamlining
deductions, permitting families on fixed incomes to self-certify their income for up
to three years, and permitting PHAs to use tenants’ prior-year income to calculate
current year income. H.R. 1851 would impose an asset limit for eligibility and
continued assistance and require PHAs in the voucher program to suspend assistance
for over-income families. It would modify the inspection process to permit PHAs
to inspect units every other year, rather than every year. It would also permit PHAs
to continue to make payments to landlords for up to 30 days following a minor HQS
violation and permit PHAs to use rent payments withheld from the landlord (due to
HQS noncompliance) to make repairs to the unit. The bill would establish a new
renewal funding allocation formula for PHAs, similar to the formula enacted for
FY2007, but including provisions for reallocating unused funds and permitting PHAs
to borrow against future appropriations. It would direct the Secretary to develop a
new administrative fee formula as well as a new performance rating system (both
within guidelines set in the bill). It makes other changes to require PHAs to absorb
portability vouchers, increase rents for project-based vouchers in Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit developments, and make it possible for PHAs to use their
voucher funding to provide downpayment assistance for first time homebuyers
(without requiring direct appropriations).
The Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee held a hearing on
voucher reform legislation on March 9, 2007, before H.R. 1851 was introduced.
Orlando Cabrera, the then-HUD Assistant Secretary with responsibility for the
voucher program, testified that the department was in favor of voucher reform and
would be offering its proposal to Congress (although, to date, it has not been
released). Specifically, the Assistant Secretary testified about the need to
!reduce the administrative complexity and burden, while increasing
local flexibility and decision-making to allow PHAs to be successful
in a budget-based funding system;
!give PHAs the option of choosing among a variety of rent structures
for public housing and voucher families, including flat rents, rents
determined on broad tiers of income, or even retaining the status
quo;
!provide PHAs with much greater flexibility on the frequency of
housing quality standards inspections; and
!establish PHA performance measures for the voucher program that
focus on the most critical elements of the PHA’s administration and
can be assessed using independently verifiable information or data.41


41 Statement of Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public & Indian Housing, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Hearing before the Committee on
Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing & Community Opportunity, United States
(continued...)

Then-Assistant Secretary Cabrera’s testimony also reiterated support for the
funding allocation formula in place in FY2005 and FY2006.42
On June 28, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee ordered an amended
version of H.R. 1851 reported. Key changes added in committee markup included:
!a provision replacing the existing MTW program with a new
Housing Innovation Program, open to between 60 and 80 agencies
and subject to evaluation (included in Table 1 and discussed earlier
in this report);
!a provision authorizing 20,000 new vouchers each year from
FY2008-FY2012;
!a provision permitting PHAs to withhold rent payments for a unit
that has failed quality inspection and then use the withheld payments
to make repairs;
!a provision requiring PHAs to either adjust their payment standards
or explain why they are not adjusting their payment standards when
their average rent burdens are higher than the national average;
!a provision requiring HUD to use smaller market areas when
establishing FMRs;
!several provisions modifying project-based vouchers, including
provisions to expand and improve their use with the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit;
!a provision broadening the use of vouchers for manufactured
housing; and
!a provision establishing a new funding method and evaluation
requirements for the Family Self Sufficiency program.
H.R. 1851 contains a number of the changes advocated by HUD, including
reductions in administrative complexity in the income determination process,
flexibility on housing quality inspections, and new performance standards. However,
the bill does not contain provisions permitting PHAs to experiment broadly with
rent-setting policies, and it would adopt a funding formula that is similar to the one
in place in FY2007. The Statement of Administration Policy released by the Office
of Management and Budget prior to floor debate indicated that the Administration
opposes H.R. 1851 in its current form.43
On July 12, 2007, the full House debated, and ultimately approved, H.R. 1851.
Several amendments were adopted, including a Manager’s amendment, which made
both technical and substantive changes. Major modifications are summarized below:


41 (...continued)
House of Representatives, “The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act,” March 9, 2007.
42 Ibid.
43 Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1851 — Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of
2007, issued July 11, 2007, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget.

!PHAs would be permitted to establish alternate rent structures
(including ceiling rents, tiered rents, flat rents, or other income-
based rents) for non-elderly, non-disabled tenants, as long as tenants
would not be required to pay more towards their housing costs under
the alternate rent structure than under the existing rent structure.
(Manager’s amendment offered by Representative Waters.)
!HUD would be required to establish a task force and a resource
center to aid in the implementation of the Department’s Limited
English Proficiency regulations. (Manager’s amendment offered by
Representative Waters.)
!PHAs participating in HIP would be required to continue to comply
with domestic violence-related requirements established by the
Violence Against Women Act. (Amendment by Representative
Veláz quez . )
!HUD would be required to handle several specific property
dispositions in Ohio and Massachusetts as directed in the bill.
(Amendment by Representative Markey and Representative Pryce.)
!All adult members of a household receiving a Section 8 voucher
would be required to provide certain identification documents.
(Motion to recommit by Representative Capito.)
Several additional amendments were offered but defeated, including an
amendment that would have imposed a time limit on receipt of public housing or
voucher assistance, an amendment that would have made receipt of assistance
dependent on a work requirement, and an amendment that would have struck the
authorization of new incremental vouchers.44
S. 2684. On March 3, 2008, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee
introduced the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008 (S. 2684). The majority of its
provisions are identical or similar to those in H.R. 1851. Table 1 provides a detailed
comparison of the provisions of S. 2684 to those in H.R. 1851 and current law.
Selected differences are summarized below.
!Income Calculation and Deductions. The House bill would create
a new definition of earned income that would provide a deduction of
up to $1,000; the Senate bill would create a new deduction from
earned income of up to $900, adjusted in the future for inflation.
The House bill would eliminate the current deduction for reasonable


44 Subsequently, a free-standing bill containing provisions similar to several that were
considered during floor debate has been introduced in the House by Representative Chabot,
along with 31 Republican co-sponsors. H.R. 5490 — the Section 8 Reform, Responsibility,
and Accountability Act of 2007 — would prohibit PHAs from providing vouchers to
families that include a convicted felon or illegal alien; institute a five-year time limit in the
voucher program; prohibit voucher assistance for families unless all adult members (with
some exemptions) are engaged in work activities for 20 hours per week; require PHAs to
give preference for housing assistance to veterans; express a sense of Congress that MTW
should be significantly expanded; authorize the use of voucher funds for compliance
measures; and require that PHA plans be posted on the internet. H.R. 5490 has been
referred to the House Financial Services Committee.

child care expenses; the Senate bill would maintain a child care
deduction, but limit it to the amount by which child care expenses
exceed 5% of family income. The House bill would permit PHAs
to use prior year income when conducting annual reexaminations of
tenant income; the Senate bill would require PHAs to use prior year
income when conducting annual reexaminations of tenant income.
!Rent Policies. The Senate bill does not contain the provisions in the
House bill (added during floor consideration as a part of the
Manager’s Amendment) to provide PHAs with the option of
developing new rent structures for public housing and the Section 8
voucher program.
!Portability. The Senate bill would phase-in the requirement that
PHAs absorb portability vouchers and would give the Secretary the
option to suspend the absorption requirement when funding is
insufficient to reimburse PHAs for added costs.
!Project-Based vouchers. The Senate bill would create a new form
of project-based voucher, called preservation project-based
vouchers. These vouchers could be provided in lieu of enhanced
vouchers when assistance is ending on a multifamily property.
!Utility Payments. The Senate bill includes a provision that would
permit PHAs to make utility payments directly to utility companies,
using funds that would otherwise be paid to a landlord, if a landlord
fails to make payments for utilities that are supposed to be provided
under the terms of a voucher tenant’s lease. The House bill does not
contain this provision.
!LIHTC Provisions. The Senate bill includes several provisions that
would affect the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program
administered by the IRS. One provision would require the state
housing finance agencies that allocate and monitor LIHTC properties
to collect and report to HUD information about the tenants that live
in tax credit units. The Senate bill also includes a provision
establishing a different rent reasonableness standard for PHAs to
apply to LIHTC units rented by voucher holders. The House bill
does not contain either provision. Both House and Senate bills
include changes to the project-based voucher requirements designed
to make it easier to combine project-based vouchers with LIHTCs.
!Moving to Work. The Senate bill does not include the HIP
program proposed in the House bill and does not contain any
provisions related to MTW.
!Identification Requirements. The Senate bill does not contain the
identification requirements that were added to the House bill during
floor debate.
A hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, titled “Affordable Housing
Opportunities: Reforming the Housing Voucher Program” was scheduled for April

16, 2008.



CRS-18
Table 1. Comparison of Key Provisions of H.R. 1851 and S. 2684 to Current Law
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
on 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
ial EligibilityGenerally, families are initially eligible if theyThe bill would not change initial incomeSame as House bill (H.R. 1851). (Sec. 4(a))
are low-income (80% or below of area medianeligibility, although it would change the
lso applies to Publicincome (AMI)) and, for the voucher program,definition of income, which would affect
using (PH) andare either very low-income (at or below 50%eligibility (see “Definition of Income” below).
oject-based Section 8of AMI), previously received assistance, orIt would also set an asset limit, making families
ntal Assistancemeet other criteria established by the Secretary. whose net family assets exceed $100,000
BRA))(42 USC 1437a(a) and 42 USC 1437f(o)(4))ineligible for assistance. (See “Treatment of
iki/CRS-RL34002Assets” below). (Sec. 4(a))
g/wgoing Eligibility/If family income rises above the low-incomeUpon income re-examination, if family incomeSame as House bill, except clarifies that, at
s.orent of Over-level, the family may continue to receivewere to rise above the low-income level, therecertification, family income should be
leakme Familiesassistance. (42 USC 1437a(a)(1)) family would no longer be eligible forcompared to the highest eligibility threshold
://wikiH and PBRA)assistance (would not apply to families withtenant protection vouchers). In the case of(80% of AMI) for the area since the familybegan receiving assistance. Also clarifies that,
httppublic housing and project-based Section 8, theif families are over-income and their
PHA or property owner could choose to waiveeviction/benefit suspension is delayed for six
this provision upon recertification. PHAs andmonths, but during that period they again
owners could also choose to delay eviction orbecome income-eligible, owners/PHAs can
termination for up to six months. In the case ofcontinue to provide the family with assistance
units with initial income eligibility at 95% ofbeyond six months. (Sec. 4(b))
AMI, families could continue to live in their
units as long as their income stayed below 95%
of AMI. (Sec. 4(b))
ent of AssetsThere is no asset limit for eligibility, ratherThe bill would limit eligibility for householdsSame as House bill.


PHAs and owners must impute income fromwith assets above a certain threshold.
H and PBRA)assets and include that amount in a household’sSpecifically, households would be ineligible for
income calculation for purposes of determiningassistance initially or at recertification if:
eligibility and rent.-family assets are above $100,000;
-family has present ownership interest in and a
legal right to reside in real property (except for
participants in the voucher or public housing

CRS-19
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
homeownership program, victims of domestic
violence, and households making a good faith
effort to sell such property).
The bill would define net family assets to
include the net cash value of all assets after
deducting the reasonable costs of disposing of
the assets. The term does not include:Similar to House bill, except makes several
-Indian trust land;modifications to the list of exclusions from net
-the value of certain educational savingsfamily assets. The bill would also exclude
accounts (Sec. 529 and 530 plans);equity in real property (other than property in
iki/CRS-RL34002-equity accounts in HUD homeownershipprograms;which the family has ownership interest and aright to reside, as determined under the asset
g/w-Family Self Sufficiency accounts;limit). It would not define the term disabled
s.or-the value of personal property (except items of(the House bill uses the SSI definition). It
leaksignificant value, as determined by thewould also adopt a different version of the
://wikiSecretary);-the value of a retirement account;personal property exemption; the Senate billwould exempt necessary items of personal
http-amounts recovered from civil actions orproperty, as determined by the PHA in the
settlements based on claims of malpractice,public housing and Section 8 program, and by
negligence, or other breach of duty that resultedthe Secretary for other programs.
in a member of the family being disabled (as
defined by the Social Security Administration
for determining Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) benefits); and
-the value of trust funds (as long as it is held in
tr ust) .
PHAs and owners could calculate net familySame as House bill.
assets based on information provided by the
family at the time income is reviewed.
PHAs could choose not to enforce the assetSame as House bill.
limits for public housing residents.
A PHA or owner could delay eviction of aSame as House bill, except clarifies that a



CRS-20
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
family or termination of assistance to a familyPHA or owner could continue to provide
based on non-compliance with the asset limitassistance beyond six months if the family
for up to six months.came into compliance during the delay. (Sec.
(Sec. 4(a))4(a))
come ReviewFamily income must be reviewed uponIncome would be reviewed initially andSame as House bill, except would use a $1,000
H and PBRA)selection for assistance and annually thereafter. reexamined annually thereafter, except:change in income as the threshold for interim
(42 USC 1437a(a)(1)) If a family experiences-families could request reexamination earlier ifreexamination, rather than $1,500. Would also
a decrease in income, they may request a mid-their income or deductions changed such thatpermit PHAs to make interim income reviews
year reexamination. If the family experiencestheir income dropped by $1,500 (or a lowerwhen income changes by less than $1,000, but
an increase in income, the PHA or owner canamount set by the PHA or owner);only if the amount for increases is not lower
iki/CRS-RL34002choose whether to conduct a mid-yearreexamination.-income would be required to be reexamined ifincome rose more than $1,500 (increases inthan the amount for decreases. (Sec.3(a)(1)(B))
g/wearned income are not counted for this purpose
s.orunless the familys income had been
leakreexamined because of a drop in income), due
to either changes in income or deductions.
://wiki-following initial review, fixed income families
httpwould be permitted to self-certify their income
each year for up to three years. (Fixed income
families are defined as those receiving 90% or
more of income from Supplemental Security
Income, Social Security, federal, state and local
pensions, other periodic payment from
annuities, insurance policies, retirement funds,
disability or death benefits, and similar).
A PHA could choose not to reexamine income
if the change was within the last three months
of a certification period.
(Sec. 3(a)(1)(F))
finition of IncomeThe term income includes income from allThe bill would strike the definition of incomeSame as House bill, except would also exclude
sources from each member of the household,and replace it with a definition that includesdeferred Veterans Administration disability
H and PBRA)as determined in accordance with criteriaincome from all sources from each member ofbenefits received in a lump sum or in
prescribed by the Secretary, but does notthe household, including recurring gifts andprospective monthly payments. (Sec. 3(b))


include income subject to mandatory federalreceipts, actual income from assets, and profit

CRS-21
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
exclusions. The definition of income adoptedor loss from business. It would exclude
in regulation includes imputed returns on assetsimputed returns on assets, all earned income
and excludes income in excess of $480 for full-from dependent full-time students, grant-in-aid
time students (including head of household andor scholarships used for the cost of attendance
spouse). (42 USC 1437a (b) and 24 CFRor books for full-time students, certain lump-
5.609)sum Social Security payments, mandatory
federal exclusions, and other exclusions set by
the Secretary.
PHAs and owners would not be required to
keep documentation of excluded income. (Sec.
iki/CRS-RL34002 3(b))
g/wfinition of AdjustedAdjusted income, which is used forThe bill would strike the current deductions andThe bill would strike the current deductions
s.oromedetermining rent, is income, minus thereplace them with the following deductions:and replace them with the following
leakfollowing deductions:-$725 for elderly or disabled families;deductions:
H and PBRA)-$400 for elderly or disabled families;-$500 for each minor, full-time student, or-$700 for elderly or disabled families;
://wiki-certain unreimbursed medical expenses aboveperson with disabilities;-$480 for each minor, full-time student, or
http3% of a familys income;-certain unreimbursed medical expenses orperson with disabilities;
-reasonable child care expenses that allow for aattendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses-certain unreimbursed medical expenses or
family member to be employed or further histhat are greater than 10% of income for elderlyattendant care and auxiliary apparatus
or her education;and disabled families; andexpenses that are greater than 10% of income
-$480 for each member of the household who-additional deductions established by the PHA,for elderly and disabled families; and
is under 18, a full-time student, or over 18 andexcept that the Secretary must establish-additional deductions established by the PHA,
disabled;procedures to ensure that such deductions doexcept that the Secretary must establish
-child support, up to $480 per child (subject tonot increase federal expenditures.procedures to ensure that such deductions do
appropriations);not increase federal expenditures
-spousal support (subject to appropriations);The bill would also adopt a definition of earned
-earned income of minors;income that has the effect of including a 10%The bill would add two deductions similar to
-other permissible exclusions as determined bydeduction of earned income (capped at $1,000). current law:
the PHA. (See discussion below under Income-an earned income disregard equal to 10% of
Calculation.)the lesser of $9,000 or earned income (this is
Current law also includes an earned incomesimilar to the definition of earned income
disregard for certain public housing residentsincluded in the House bill; see “Income
and Section 8 voucher holders. Specifically,Calculation below); and
certain residents of public housing that begin-a deduction for unreimbursed child care



CRS-22
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
employment or increase their earnings canexpenses greater than 5% of annual income, if
have 100% of their increased earningssuch expenses are necessary for a member of
disregarded in the first year and 50%the household to work or attend school.
disregarded in the second year. DisabledDeduction amounts would be adjusted annually
Section 8 voucher holders are eligible for theby an inflation factor set by the Secretary andDeduction amounts would be adjusted
same disregard. (42 USC 1437a(b))rounded down to the nearest multiple of $25.annually by an inflation factor set by the
(Sec. 3(b))Secretary and rounded down to the nearest
multiple of $25. The earned income disregard
amount ($9,000) would also be adjusted for
inflation and rounded down to the nearest
multiple of $1,000. (Sec. 3(b))
iki/CRS-RL34002me CalculationNot specified in statute, but in regulation, HUDPHAs and owners would be permitted to usePHAs and owners would be required to use
g/whas established a system for calculating incomeprior year’s unearned income, as determined byprior year’s income when conducting annual
s.orH and PBRA)that attempts to predict income in the comingthe PHA, to determine the next year’s unearnedincome reviews (or three-year reviews in the
leak12 months and requires third-party verificationincome, and could make adjustments ascase of fixed-income families) and would be
(in the voucher program). (24 CFR 5.609 andnecessary to reflect current income. required to use anticipated income when
://wiki982.516) calculating initial income or conducting an
httpinterim reexamination (because of an increase
or decrease in income).
If prior year’s fixed income were used, theThe bill would require PHAs and owners to
PHA or owner would be required to applymake inflationary adjustments for fixed
inflationary adjustments, as determined by theincome families. For families that are not
Secretary. PHAs and owners could make otherconsidered fixed-income families, the bill
adjustments as appropriate to reflect currentcontains no provision requiring or permitting
income. PHAs to make inflation adjustments or other
(Sec. 3(a)(1)(F))adjustments to prior years income when
calculating current year income.(Sec.
3(a)(1)(B))
When determining adjusted income forThe bill does not include a definition of
purposes of calculating rent, earned incomeearned income” as included in the House bill
would be calculated as the previous year’s(although a similar earned income deduction is
earned income, minus an amount equal to 10%included in the deductions, as previously
of the lesser of the prior years income ordiscussed).



CRS-23
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
$10,000.
PHAs could use income calculations used inLike the House bill, PHAs could use income
other programs (such as TANF, Medicaid,calculations from other programs and could
Food Stamps). PHAs and owners could not benot be penalized for making de minimus
penalized solely for making de minimus errorserrors. (Sec. 3(a)(1)(B))
in calculating family incomes. (Sec. 3(a)(1)(F))
ntTenant contributions are statutorily set as thePHAs would be permitted to establishNo provision.
ntributionsgreatest of:alternative rent structures, including ceiling
wards Rent-30% of a familys adjusted gross incomerents, tiered rents, flat rents, or other forms of
-10% of a familys gross incomeincome-based rent for non-elderly, non-
iki/CRS-RL34002H and PBRA)-welfare rent, or disabled households. However, tenants could
g/w-the minimum rent set by the PHA (not to exceednot be required to contribute more towards their
s.or$50, with a hardship exemption). rent than if their contribution had been
leakestablished under the standard formula. (Sec.
Families cannot be required to contribute more3(a)(1)(E))
://wikithan their tenant contributions (most commonly,
http30% of income), although, in the voucher
program, they can choose to contribute up to
40% of their incomes towards rent in the first
year and higher thereafter.
rgetingPHAs must target 75% of all vouchers issuedPHAs would be required to target 75% ofSame as House bill. (Sec. 5)
each year to families at or below 30% of areavouchers to those at or below the higher of
H and PBRA)median income (AMI). (42 USC 1437f(o)(4)30% of AMI or the poverty line (except in
and 1437n(b)) PHAs and owners must targetPuerto Rico or any other territory or possession
40% of all PH and project-based units madeof the U.S.). PHAs and owners would be
available each year to households at or belowrequired to target 40% of all PH and project-
30% of AMI. (42 USC 1437n(a) and (c))based units to households at or below the
higher of 30% of AMI or the poverty line
(except in Puerto Rico or any other territory or
possession of the U.S.). (Sec. 5)
ction of UnitsPHAs must inspect units to ensure that theyThe bill would continue to require inspectionsSame as House bill, except clarifies that initial
meet federal housing quality standards (HQS)prior to occupancy, except in the case of ainspections must be conducted pursuant to



CRS-24
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
prior to occupancy and at least annuallyproperty that has been found to meet qualitysubparagraph c” which requires that PHAs or
thereafter. PHAs cannot make payments forstandards under any federal housing program incontractors conduct inspections within 15 days
units that fail to meet HQS within a periodthe previous 12 months, in which case the PHAof a request for an inspection. Also includes
designated by the PHA. If a defect is lifecould authorize occupancy prior to inspectioninspections under the LIHTC program as an
threatening, the owner must correct the defectand then make retroactive rent payments afterexample of other acceptable program
within no more than 24 hours. For otherthe unit passes inspection. inspections.
defects, the owner must correct the defect
within no more than 30 calendar days (unlessIf a unit were to fail an initial inspection for
extended by PHA). PHAs can choose to usenon-life threatening reasons, the PHA could
local, state, or federal housing qualitymake payments for up to 30 days while the unit
standards (HQS), as long as state or localis repaired.
iki/CRS-RL34002standards are as strict or stricter than federalstandards.Thereafter, units would be required to be
g/winspected at least every two years. An
s.orinspection conducted pursuant to requirements
leakunder a federal, state, or local housing program
://wiki(such as the HOME program) would beconsidered sufficient as long as the PHA
httpcertifies to the Secretary that the standards or
requirements provide the same or greater
protection to occupants as HUD’s HQS.
A unit would be considered in noncompliance
with HQS if the owner is notified of the failure
and it is not corrected within 24 hours in the
case of a life threatening condition, or within
30 days (or other reasonable period established
by the PHA), in the case of non-life threatening
co nd itio ns.
Both statute and regulations require that unitsA PHA would be required to perform anSame as House bill, except does not include
remain in HQS compliance, but neither includeinterim reinspection upon the request of alanguage requiring an interim inspection upon
a requirement that PHAs conduct interimtenant or a government official, which must berequest of “a government official.


reinspections at the request of a tenant. conducted within 24 hours for life threatening
However, HUD’s Housing Choice Voucherconditions or within 15 days in the case of non-
Guidebook does require PHAs to conductlife threatening conditions.

CRS-25
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
inspections when a complaint is issued by a
tenant, owner or member of the public. (42
USC 1437f(o)(8) and 24 CFR 982.401 et.seq.
and Housing Choice Voucher Guidebook,
2001)
A PHA would be required to withhold rentSimilar to House provision. Uses the term
payments for non-compliant units. A PHAabate” rather thanwithhold.” Clarifies that
could choose to use the withheld rent paymentsPHAs can make repairs to address only life-
to make repairs (or contract to have repairsthreatening conditions.
made) at the property to bring it into
iki/CRS-RL34002compliance.
g/wOwners could not evict a family or refuse toSame as House bill, except also includes
s.orrenew a lease because a PHA withheld rent duerequirements for PHAs. PHAs would be
leakto a failed inspection, although a tenant couldrequired to: (1) notify tenants when abatement
choose to terminate the tenancy by notifyingbegins (2) notify tenants that, if after 120 days,
://wikithe owner.the owner is still not in compliance, the tenant
httpwill have to move; (3) issue the necessary
paperwork to the tenant to allow the tenant to
move; and (4) use abated amounts to provide
relocation assistance, including moving
expenses or a security deposit.
If assistance is withheld, and the owner doesSimilar to House bill. Period of 120 days
not make repairs within 60 days (or otherrather than 60 days and no language allowing
reasonable period established by the PHA), thefor “other reasonable period.”
PHA would be required to terminate payments
for the unit.
If the PHA terminates assistance due toSimilar to House bill. If the PHA terminated
noncompliance, the lease would also terminateassistance, the tenants lease term would
and the tenant could remain in the unit only ifterminate simultaneously. The Senate bill
s/he signed a new, unassisted, lease. Upondoes not include the language in the House bill
termination of assistance, the PHA would beclarifying that tenants would be required to
required to give the tenant at least 90 days tosign new, unassisted leases in order to remain



CRS-26
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
find a new unit. If the tenant had not located ain their units once assistance was terminated.
new unit within that period, the PHA would beOnce assistance is terminated, the family
required to extend the search period or providewould have at least 120 days to lease a new
the tenant with a preference of occupancy in aunit with their voucher.
PHA-owned or operated unit. PHAs would be
required to provide each family with reasonableIf the tenant had not located a new unit within
search assistance, including use of two monthsthat period, the PHA would be required to
of any withheld assistance for relocationextend the search period or provide the tenant
expenses. with a preference of occupancy in a PHA-
owned or operated unit, at the choice of the
family. Specifies that search assistance could
iki/CRS-RL34002be provided to each individual or familyresiding in the unit, and specifies that
g/wrelocation expenses include moving expenses
s.orand security deposits. Permits PHAs to
leakrequire families receiving security deposit
://wikiassistance to remit any refunded securitydeposit from the previous landlord to the PHA.
http
PHAs would be permitted to waiveSimilar to House bill, but does not contain
enforcement and tenant relocation provisions iflanguage applying to “other person in tenant’s
the damages were caused by the tenant, acontrol” and does not include liability
member of the tenant’s household, a guest ofstatement. (Sec. 2)
the tenant, or other person in tenant’s control.
States that this provision does not exonerate the
tenant from liability for damage to the unit.
The bill would require the Secretary to issueNo provision.


implementing regulations within 12 months of
enactment to take effect within 90 days of
issuance. The inspection provisions included in
the act would be applicable to contracts entered
into or renewed after the implementing
regulations went into effect. (Sec. 2)

CRS-27
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
rtabilityFamilies receiving voucher assistance, (inReceiving PHAs would be required to absorbReceiving PHAs would be required to absorb
some circumstances, only after one year), canportability vouchers and absorbing agenciesportability vouchers after an initial month. As
move to any jurisdiction in the country where awould have priority to receive reallocatedin the House bill, receiving agencies would be
voucher program is being administered. Thefunds. (Sec. 6(b)) (See alsoFundinggiven priority for reallocated funds. The
receiving PHA has the choice of administeringAllocation).Senate bill also includes language clarifying
the voucher on behalf of the originating PHAthat the absorption requirement would not
and billing the originating PHA for its costs, oroverride other arrangements under which
absorbing the voucher into its program byPHAs are administering vouchers outside of
replacing it with one of the PHAs owntheir jurisdictions.
vouchers. (42 USC 1437f(r))
Under the Senate bill, the absorption
iki/CRS-RL34002requirement would be phased-in. A PHAcould only absorb up to 1/8 of another PHAs
g/wportability vouchers each quarter for calendar
s.oryears 2010 and 2011 (unless otherwise agreed
leakto by the PHAs).
://wikiIf the Secretary did not have sufficient funds
httpto reimburse PHAs for portability costs in a
fiscal year, the Secretary would be required to
suspend the absorption requirements. The
Secretary would be required to give 60-day
notice of an impending suspension, and the
Secretary would be required to provide
funding for absorbed vouchers leased prior to
the suspension taking effect. The
amendments would take effect on January 1,
2010.
The bill would also require the Secretary to
report to Congress on the estimated added
costs of the portability provisions, and savings
from other provisions, by March 1, 2009. (Sec.
6(b))



CRS-28
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
AuthorizationThere is no specified authorization ofThe bill would authorize such sums asSimilar to House provision, except modifies
appropriations to renew existing vouchers,necessary for FY2008-FY2012 to renewthe House bill’s list of units authorized for
although the law does direct the Secretary tovoucher contracts and provide tenant protectiontenant protection vouchers to include state-
renew existing vouchers, subject tovouchers (for all units eligible for suchfunded public housing and other public
appropriations. (42 USC 1437f(dd))vouchers, as listed in the bill, not just occupiedhousing (not funded under Section 9 of the
units, subject to appropriations). (Sec. 6(a)) Housing Act of 1937) and to exclude housing
Sec. 558 of P.L. 105-276 authorized such sumsremoved pursuant to a Section 22 voluntary
as necessary to create 100,000 new incrementalThe bill would also authorize such sums asconversion. The bill does not specifically list
dwelling vouchers for FY2000 and FY2001necessary to fund 20,000 new incrementalhousing removed pursuant to a Section 18
and such sums as necessary for incrementalvouchers each year for FY2008-FY2012. (Sec.demolition or disposition. (Sec. 6(a))
vouchers in FY1999 and FY2002-FY2003. It18)
iki/CRS-RL34002authorized such sums as necessary forFY2000-FY2003 to fund tenant protectionThe Senate bill includes the sameauthorization for incremental vouchers (for
g/wvouchers and it also authorized $50,000,000FY2009-FY2013), except it clarifies that such
s.orfor FY2000, and such sums as may bevouchers are to be distributed competitively,
leaknecessary for each subsequent fiscal year, forwith a preference for efforts to preserve
://wikivouchers for the disabled displaced byconversion of units to elderly-only.affordable housing and PHAs that areadministering their vouchers regionally. (Sec.
http 21)
AllocationUnder current law, subject to appropriationsRenewal funding would be allocated based onSame as House bill, except that overleasing
and beginning in FY1999, the Secretary isleasing and cost data from the previous year,would be limited each year to 103%, not just
directed to renew all expiring voucherplus an annual adjustment factor, withFY2009. (Sec. 6(a)).
contracts by applying an inflation factor to anadjustments for the first-time renewal of tenant-
allocation baseline (established usingprotection vouchers, portability vouchers, andAlso, assistance amounts abated and used to
negotiated rulemaking), adjusted for newother adjustments as necessary (including formake repairs for life-threatening conditions or
authorized vouchers (including tenant-changes in voucher utilization rates and costsused for relocation assistance would be
protection vouchers). (42 USC 1437f(dd))related to disasters). Moving to Work (MTW)considered in determining the allocation of
agencies would be funded pursuant to theirrenewal funding. (Sec. 2(a)(3))


Beginning in FY2003, the annualagreements. The Secretary would be required
appropriations law began to includeto allocate funds under the formula by the later
instructions on how the Secretary was toof February 15 of each year or 45 days
distribute funds, in lieu of the statutoryfollowing enactment of the appropriations act.
formula. In FY2004, PHAs were funded based
on the number of vouchers they had actuallyLeasing and cost data would be calculated
used (based on their end of the year statements,annually by using the average for the preceding

CRS-29
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
with adjustments) and the cost of thosecalendar year, adjusted for vouchers set-aside
vouchers (based on their end of the yearfor project-based use and for any advances that
statement, without adjustments). In FY2005,PHA had taken against future appropriations.
PHAs were funded based on their actual costsCosts paid for by non-voucher funds would not
and number of vouchers in use over a three-be included, unless the funds were used to
month period in FY2004, with somemaintain existing vouchers that would have
adjustments, pro-rated to fit within the amountbeen otherwise lost due to a proration. Leasing
appropriated. In FY2006, PHAs received arates would be calculated to include overleasing
pro-rata share of the amount appropriated,(except that overleasing would be limited to
based on what they had received in FY2005.103% in FY2009). If funding were insufficient
to fully fund all PHA budgets, then the
iki/CRS-RL34002In FY2007, Congress adopted a new fundingformula that funded agencies based on theirSecretary would apply a pro-rata reduction toeach agencys budget (not applicable to
g/wcosts and utilization over the prior 12 months,funding for enhanced vouchers). If Congress
s.orincreased for inflation, and adjusted for theprovided more funding than necessary to fund
leakcost of portability vouchers or the first timeall agencies at their eligibility, HUD would be
://wikirenewal of enhanced vouchers. A similarformula was adopted for FY2008.required to reallocate the excess funds. (Sec.6(a)).
http
MTW agencies have always been funded
according to their agreements, subject to any
proratio n.
Since FY2003, PHAs have been prohibited
from over-leasing (using excess funds to
provide more vouchers than their allocated
b a seline) .
The Secretary would be required to recaptureSimilar to House bill. The bill would require
from PHAs unspent funds in excess of 5% ofthe Secretary to offset agencies future budgets
agency budgets each year through FY2011to account for unspent excess funds, rather
(except at the end of FY2007, at which time allthan recapture those funds. The bill also
but 12.5% of an agencys allocation could becontains different phase-in provisions. PHAs
recaptured). Not later than May 1 of eachunspent funds in excess of 12.5% of the
year, HUD would be required to calculate theFY2008 allocation would be offset in FY2009,
aggregate amount of unused funds, set asideunspent funds in excess of 7.5% of the



CRS-30
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
amounts necessary to reimburse PHAs forFY2009 allocation would be offset in FY2010,
increased costs due to portability and Familyand unspent funds in excess of 5% of
Self Sufficiency (FSS) activities, and reallocateallocations in FY2010-FY2012 would be
the remaining amount to PHAs, with priorityoffset in FY2011-FY2013. PHAs excess
given based on utilization. Reallocated amountstenant-protection funds would not count in the
could be used to increase leasing rates up tocalculation of excess funds.
their authorized level, or higher. (Sec. 6(a)).
Excess funds resulting from the offset would
be reallocated by HUD to PHAs to reimburse
portability or FSS costs, subject to PHA
application for such funds. Priority for any
iki/CRS-RL34002remaining funds would be given based on bothutilization and relative need in a community.
g/w(Sec. 6(a))
s.or
leakThe Secretary would be required to issueSame as House bill. (Sec. 6(c))
guidance to PHAs to ensure that, to the
://wikimaximum extent practicable, vouchers issued
httpto non-elderly disabled families, pursuant to
guidance in appropriations acts, remain
available to such persons. (Sec. 6(c))
erves andPrior to FY2005, agencies were provided a 12-PHAs would be permitted to retain up to 12.5%Same as House bill, except PHAs would be
vancesmonth program reserve. In FY2005,of their FY2007 allocation and up to 5% ofpermitted to retain up to 12.5% of their
appropriations law reduced agency reserves totheir allocations each subsequent year. (SeeFY2008 allocation, up to 7.5% of their
one week, but did not provide HUD with thediscussion of recaptures above).FY2009 allocation and up to 5% of their
authority to recapture subsequent unusedallocations for FY2010-FY2012. (See
funds. In FY2006 and FY2007, agencies werediscussion of recaptures above.)
guaranteed no minimum reserve, but HUD was
not directed to recapture unspent funds.PHAs would be permitted to take an advanceSame advance provisions as House bill. (Sec.
on their subsequent years appropriation during6(a))


the last three months of each calendar year in
order to pay for additional voucher costs,
including the cost of temporary overleasing.
The advance would be reduced by any
unobligated balances available to the PHA.

CRS-31
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
Advances would be repaid through reductions
in the subsequent year’s allocation.(Sec. 6(a)).
inistrative FeesPrior to FY2004, administrative fees were paidThe bill would strike the existing statutory feeSame as House bill, except would allow the
to PHAs on a per unit basis, calculated roughlylanguage and require that fees:Secretary to develop an alternate formula, as
as a percentage of fair market rent (FMR), with-be payable to each PHA for each month a unitlong as it is based on a per-occupied-unit, per-
add-on fees for special expenses. This formulais under contract;month fee and is developed through negotiated
was set by the Secretary, based on guidance in-be based on the FY2003 per unit fee amounts;rulemaking. Also clarifies that fee amounts for
statute. (42 USC 1437f(q) and 42 USC 1437f-include an amount for the cost of issuingthe cost of issuing vouchers to new
Note) Since FY2004, as directed invouchers to new participants; participants be provided both for units leased
appropriations laws, PHAs have received the-be updated each year using an index thatwithin the jurisdiction of the PHA and those
iki/CRS-RL34002same proportion of total administrative fundsthat they received in the previous year. Inreflects the costs of administering the program;andleased outside the jurisdiction of the PHA.(Sec. 7(a))
g/wFY2006, the amount available for-include an amount for the cost of Family Self
s.oradministrative fees was equivalent to just underSufficiency coordinators.
leak9% of the amount provided for vouchers.The Secretary would be required to publish the
fee rate for each geographic area annually in
://wikithe Federal Register. (Sec. 7(a))
http
S Program FeesCurrently, PHAs apply for funding to cover theThe bill would add an administrative fee for theSame as House bill. (Sec. 7(b))
cost of their FSS coordinators by responding tocost of FSS coordinators. It would also require
a Notice of Funding Availability publishedthe Secretary to establish performance
each year by HUD in the Federal Register. standards, collect data, and conduct a formal,
The Notice advertises the availability of FSSscientific evaluation of FSS. The bill would
funding provided each year by Congress in theauthorize $10 million for the evaluation and
appropriations bills (in FY2008, Congress setwould permit the Secretary to set-aside up to
aside $49 million in tenant-based rental10% of FSS funds for innovative or highly
assistance funding for FSS).successful FSS programs. (Sec. 7(b))
wnpayment Current law authorizes PHAs to provide aDownpayment assistance would be authorized,Same as House bill. (Sec. 8)


ance for downpayment grant for an eligible first timenot subject to direct appropriations. The
rst-timehomebuyer in lieu of providing monthly rentalmaximum grant would be $10,000. The bill
mebuyersassistance payments in the voucher program. specifies that providing voucher-funded
The amount is capped at less than or equal todownpayment assistance would not limit a
the sum of the monthly rental assistancePHA from providing downpayment assistance
payments the family would have received for afrom other sources. (Sec. 8 (a))

CRS-32
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
year. The availability of downpayment
assistance is subject to direct appropriations.
Direct appropriations have never been
provided, so downpayment assistance has
never been offered in the voucher program. (42
USC 1437f(y))
anufacturedFamilies can use their vouchers to pay for theThe bill would allow vouchers to be used forSame as House bill. (Sec. 8(b))
singrental of the real property on whichboth the cost of renting land and the cost of
manufactured housing owned by a family (as apurchasing a manufactured home. It would no
principal residence) is sited. PHAs mustlonger require PHAs to establish separate
iki/CRS-RL34002establish separate payment standards formanufactured housing, limited by the paymentpayment standards. (Sec. 8(b))
g/wstandard set by the Secretary. (42 USC
s.or1437f(o)(12))
leak
No provision.The bill would permit PHAs to submit toNo provision.
://wikiconsumer credit reporting agencies information
httpregarding the past rent payment history of a
family in the voucher program, subject to the
written consent of the family. (Sec. 9)
antee PerformancePHAs are evaluated annually through theThe Secretary would be required to establishSimilar to House bill. The Senate bill
Section 8 Management Assessment Protocolnew performance standards and a performancemodifies several criteria in the House bill. It
(SEMAP), which is a set of 14 criteriaassessment system for the voucher program. would add compliance with targeting
established by HUD via regulation, whichHUD would be required to periodically assessrequirements to the list of performance
primarily focus on agency compliance withPHAs on their performance regarding:criteria. It would also require that the measure
program rules and regulations. Its 14-quality of the dwelling units;of utilization be adjusted for under-utilized
indicators include:-utilization of funding and vouchers;vouchers related to project-based
-Proper selection of applicants from the-timeliness and accuracy of agency reporting;commitments or portability absorptions. It
waiting list,-effectiveness in carrying out policies towould also include accuracy of the calculation
-Sound determination of reasonable rent forachieve deconcentration of poverty;of utility allowances when assessing the
each unit leased, -reasonableness of rent burdens;accuracy of rent calculations and subsidy
-Establishment of payment standards within-accuracy of rent calculations and subsidypayments.
the required range of the HUD fair market rent, payments;
-Accurate verification of family income, -effectiveness in carrying out FSS activities;The Senate bill would require biennial (rather



CRS-33
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
-Timely annual reexaminations of family-timeliness of activities related to landlordthan periodic) assessments and require that the
income, participation; andresults be made available to PHAs and the
-Correct calculation of the tenant share of the-other areas the Secretary deems appropriate.public via HUD’s website.
rent and the housing assistance payment,
-Maintenance of a current schedule ofUsing these standards and procedures, theThe Senate bill would also require the
allowances for tenant utility costs,Secretary would be required to conduct anSecretary to establish — via regulation —
-Ensuring that units comply with the housingassessment of the performance of each agencyprocedures and mechanisms to help poorly
quality standards before families enter intoand submit a report to Congress regarding theperforming PHAs improve. (Sec. 9)
leases and PHAs enter into housing assistanceresult of each assessment. (Sec. 10)
contracts,
-Timely annual housing quality inspections,
iki/CRS-RL34002-Performance of quality control inspections toensure housing quality,
g/w-Ensuring that landlords and tenants promptly
s.orcorrect housing quality deficiencies,
leak-Ensuring that all available housing choice
://wikivouchers are used, -Expansion of housing choice outside areas of
httppoverty or minority concentration,
-Enrollment of families in the FSS program as
required and helping FSS families achieve
increases in employment income.
(24 CFR 985)
ent of PHA-Families are permitted to use their vouchers toNo provision.The bill would require the PHA to arrange for
ned unitslease PHA-owned units (that are not publicthird-party inspections and rent
housing units) as long as the local units ofdeterminations, rather than the unit of local
government, or another entity approved by thegovernment or Secretary-approved entity.
Secretary conducts inspections and rent(Sec. 2(b))


determinations. The PHA is responsible for
covering the expenses.

CRS-34
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
edPHAs may attach up to 20% of their voucherThe bill would change the project-basing limitSame, except clarifies that supportive services
uchersfunding to existing housing units, a practiceso that PHAs could use up to 25% of theirprovided to families are to be comprehensive.
referred to as project-basing vouchers. Nofunding for project-based vouchers and an(Sec. 10(1) and (2))
more than 25% of units in a building may haveadditional 5% if used to serve the homeless.
project-based vouchers attached to them (withThe bill would change the concentration
some exceptions). Families living in units withrequirement to no more than the greater of 25
project-based vouchers are permitted to moveunits or 25% of units in a project, with
with a tenant-based voucher after one year. exceptions for single-family properties,
(42 USC 1437f(o)(13))properties serving the elderly, disabled, or
families receiving supportive services. (Sec.
11)
iki/CRS-RL34002In areas:In areas:
g/w-with success rates of less than 75%,-with success rates of less than 75%;
s.or-where the payment standard is at 110% of-where the payment standard is at 110% of
leakFMR, andFMR,
-where families have automatically been given-where the PHA has requested an increased
://wiki90 days to find a unit,payment standard, and
httpthe bill would permit up to 50% of units in a-where families have automatically been given
building to have project-based vouchers. (Sec.90 days to find a unit,
11)the bill would permit up to 40% of units in a
building to have project-based vouchers. (Sec.
10(2))
Current law permits PHAs to enter intoThe bill would allow PHAs to use 15-yearSame as House bill. (Sec. 10)
contracts of up to 10 years (renewable) withcontract periods to facilitate use with the Low-
property owners, subject to the availability ofIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.
appropriations. (42 USC 1437f(o)(13))
The bill would ensure that families residing in aSame as House bill. (Sec. 10)


project upon commencement of a project-based
contract be given absolute preference for a unit
in the building, if the family is otherwise
eligible.

CRS-35
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
It would also permit PHAs and owners toSame as House bill. (Sec. 10)
establish site-based waiting lists to which
families could directly apply. It would permit
project-basing in cooperative and elevator
buildings. It would exempt contracts on
existing structures from subsidy layering
review requirements and environmental review
requirements and would allow lease terms of
less than one year. (Sec. 11)
iki/CRS-RL34002The bill clarifies that PHAs would receiveadministrative fees for project-based vouchersNo provision.
g/win the same manner as for other vouchers. (Sec.
s.or11)
leak
No provision.The bill would permit PHAs to attach project-
://wikibased vouchers to PHA-owned units without
httpundergoing a competitive process. However,
they would have to reflect the project-based
initiative in their PHA plan and the units could
not receive public housing funding. (Sec. 10)
No provision.The bill would authorize new preservation
project-based vouchers for all units
undergoing an eligibility event. The vouchers
would be provided in lieu of enhanced
vouchers, if requested by a property owner.
Before agreeing to a contract with an owner, a
PHA would be required to determine:
-that the units would be economically viable,
-that there is significant demand for them,
-that they will contribute to a community
revitalization plan, or the goal of
deconcentrating poverty and expanding
housing and economic opportunities; or



CRS-36
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
-that the continued affordability is an
important asset to the community.
These vouchers would not be considered when
calculating the cap on a PHAs use of funds to
provide project-based assistance (25%) and the
units would be subject to the same eligibility
requirements as an enhanced voucher. (Sec.
15)
No provision.The bill would add a provision permitting a
PHA to transfer a portion of its vouchers and
iki/CRS-RL34002funding to a PHA in another jurisdiction (inthe same or a contiguous metropolitan area or
g/wcounty) and would direct the Secretary to
s.orencourage such voluntary agreements and
leakpromptly execute the necessary funding and
contract modifications. (Sec. 10(8))
://wiki
http
urden ReportCurrent law requires the Secretary to monitorThe bill would require the Secretary to monitorSame as House bill, except would require the
rent burdens and review payment standardsrent burdens and submit a report to CongressSecretary to distinguish rent burdens resulting
that result in a significant percentage ofannually on the percentage of families that arefrom families paying minimum rent, or
families paying more than 30% of theirpaying more than 30% of their incomesresulting from the use of gross income or
incomes towards rent. The Secretary maytowards rent and the percentage of families thatwelfare income for calculating rent instead of
require a PHA to adjust its payment standard asare paying more than 40% of their incomesadjusted income.
a result of the findings of this review. (42 USCtowards rent.
1437f(o)(1)(E))
The Secretary would be required to provideSame as House bill, except the Secretary
PHAs with a report on the percentage ofwould be required to make the report public.


families paying more than 30% of their
incomes towards housing costs (and those
paying above 40%) and could require PHAs to
adjust their payment standards.

CRS-37
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
The Secretary would also be required to submitSame as House bill, except the Secretary
a report annually on the degree to whichwould have to include a breakdown by racial
voucher assisted families are clustered inand ethnic groups, and would be required to
lower-rent, higher poverty areas and how amake the report public.
greater geographic distribution of such families
could be achieved.
If a PHAs percentage of families paying aboveIf a PHA has a high concentration of families
30% of income towards rent was higher thanin different racial and ethnic groups clustered
the national average, or if a PHAs percentagein high poverty areas, or if more than 5% of
iki/CRS-RL34002of families paying above 40% of incometowards rent was higher than the nationaltheir families are paying more than 40% oftheir income towards rent, then the PHA must
g/waverage, then the PHA would be required toadjust its payment standard. In such cases, the
s.oreither adjust its payment standard or explainSecretary could not deny a request to increase
leakwhy they are choosing not to adjust theira payment standard to 120% of FMR, to
payment standard. In such cases, the Secretaryremedy high rent burdens or deconcentrate
://wikicould not deny a request to increase a paymentpoverty, if the PHA had reviewed its payment
httpstandard to 120% of FMR to remedy high rentstandard, reviewed its rent reasonableness
burdens or high concentrations of poverty.policies and procedures, reached out to
landlords, provided search assistance,
reviewed utility payment burdens, and had a
payment standard of 110% for the previous six
months.
PHAs would be required to report on rentSame as House bill. (Sec. 11)


burdens in their annual plans. PHAs could set
payment standards at 120% of FMR without
prior HUD approval where necessary to
provide reasonable accommodation to a person
with a disability. (Sec. 12)

CRS-38
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
nt ReasonablenessPHAs are required to ensure that rents chargedNo provision.The bill would establish a different rent
for assisted units are reasonable compared toreasonableness standard for Low Income
comparable unassisted dwelling units in theHousing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units. Rent
private market. (42 USC 1437f(o)(10)(A))would be considered reasonable in tax credit
units if it was comparable to rent for other
units in the building that were not occupied by
voucher holders. Rents would not be
considered reasonable if they exceeded the
higher of (1) the rents charged in non-voucher
assisted units, or (2) the PHAs payment
standard for the unit size. (Sec. 11(d))
iki/CRS-RL34002arket RentsHUD currently sets Fair Market Rents (FMRs)The bill would require HUD to establishSimilar to the House bill, except it would also
g/wbased on the 40th percentile rent for eachadditional market areas for FMRs, includingrequire the Secretary to establish separate
s.ormetropolitan statistical area and non-metropolitan cities, urban counties, and certainmarket areas for each county in the country
leakmetropolitan area (counties) in the country. other market areas, at the request of PHAs. It(not just urban counties, as in the House bill),
HUD also establishes minimum FMRs for non-would not require PHAs to reduce paymentexcept for counties wholly within metropolitan
://wikimetropolitan areas. FMRs are used forstandards for currently-assisted families ifareas or counties in certain New England
httpestablishing maximum subsidies in the voucherFMRs in their area were to decrease. (Sec. 13)states (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT). Also,
program, called payment standards, which arewould permit the Secretary to establish
set by PHAs between 90-110% of FMR (withminimum FMRs in each state. (Sec. 12)
some exceptions).
nant ScreeningUnder current law, PHAs can establishThe bill would limit a PHAs screening toSame as the House bill, except clarifies that
H)selection standards and screen otherwise-criteria directly related to a tenants ability tothe provision would not limit a PHAs ability
eligible tenants using those standards, subjectfulfill the obligations of the assisted lease. to deny assistance because of an applicant’s
to fair housing and nondiscrimination laws. (42Applicants or tenants deemed ineligible forcriminal background, or any other permissible
USC 1437f(o)(6))admission or continued tenancy would begrounds related to safety and security in public
required to be notified of the reason, andor assisted housing.
provided an opportunity for an informal
hearing. (Sec. 14)Also, would prohibit PHAs from treating
public housing residents receiving tenant
protection vouchers as a result of a demolition
or disposition as new applicants (and therefore
subject to elective screening). (Sec. 13)



CRS-39
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
nced VouchersEnhanced vouchers are provided to familiesThe bill clarifies that families would beSame as House bill. Also includes a provision
who live in certain subsidized properties whopermitted to stay in their units regardless ofestablishing that families are not required to
are at risk of being displaced because their rentnormal family or unit size limitations adoptedrequalify under the selection standards of the
is increasing to market rate. This generallyby the PHA, except that a family could bePHA in order to be eligible for assistance.
happens when the subsidy contract on therequired to move to an appropriate-sized unit inIncludes a provision stating that the owner of
property ends. The value of an enhancedthe building, if available. (Sec. 15)the unit must accept the enhanced voucher and
voucher is permitted to exceed the localcan terminate the tenancy only for serious or
payment standard in order to permit a family torepeated violation of the terms of the lease.
remain in their unit. Tenants have a right toWould require the Secretary to issue
remain in their units if they receive anregulations within six months of enactment.
enhanced voucher, so property owners are(Sec. 14)
iki/CRS-RL34002required to accept them. (42 USC 1437f(t))
g/wploymentNo provision.The bill would authorize the use of vouchers inSame. (Sec. 16)
s.oronstrationa state demonstration program designed to
leakpromote employment among persons with
disabilities. (Sec. 17)
://wiki
httpudy to IdentifyParticipation in the voucher program isNo provision.The bill would require the Government
stacles to Usingvoluntary for most property owners. However,Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a
in Federallysome communities have enacted source ofstudyto determine whether any statutory,
ousingincome discrimination laws that requireregulatory, or administrative provisions of the
landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. housing voucher program or of other federally
Further, some programs that fund thesubsidized housing programs, or policies and
construction or rehabilitation of affordablepractices of housing owners or public housing
housing (the HOME program, the Low Incomeagencies or other agencies, may have the
Housing Tax Credit program, and multifamilyeffect of making occupancy by voucher
properties purchased from HUD) prohibitholders in federally subsidized housing
owners of properties that receive suchprojects more difficult to obtain than
assistance from refusing to lease to voucheroccupancy by non-voucher holders. It would
holders.require GAO to report to Congress within six
months on the findings from the study and any
recommendations for statutory, regulatory, or
administrative changes.
(Sec. 17)



CRS-40
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
entificationIn order to receive assistance, each householdThe bill would add a requirement that voucherNo provision.


entsmember must be a citizen or an eligible non-assistance could only be provided to a
citizen. However, a household can receivehousehold if all adult members of a household
pro-rated assistance if the family is a mixedcan provide:
family, meaning it has some citizen/eligible-a Social Security card with a state or federal-
non-citizen members and some ineligible non-government issued photo identification card,
citizen members. PHAs make the-a state identification card in compliance with
determination of each persons status. Everythe REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13),
applicant must sign a certification that he/she is-a passport, or
a citizen, an eligible non-citizen, or is choosing-a photo identification card issued by the
not to provide documentation (and is thereforeSecretary of the Department of Homeland
iki/CRS-RL34002ineligible for assistance). PHAs are notrequired to ask for documentation fromSecurity. The bill would require HUD to issue
g/wcitizens, although they may adopt a policyregulations implementing the provision. (Sec.
s.orrequiring documentation. Eligible non-citizens21)
leakmust provide documentation from the
://wikiImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS)and provide a signed verification consent form
httpdescribing transmission and use of the
information obtained. If a family certifies that
the required evidence is temporarily
unavailable and it needs more time, a PHA
may provide an extension of up to 30 days. (42
USC 1436a)
Household members over the age of 6 must
also provide their Social Security numbers
and/or certify that they have not received a
Social Security number in order to receive
assistance. (42 USC 3543(a))

CRS-41
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
ility PaymentsUtility costs are considered a part of the grossNo provision.If an owner fails to pay for utilities that are
rent for a unit. Any utilities not included in theintended to be included in the rent for a unit,
monthly rent for a unit are estimated using athe bill would permit a PHA to make payments
utility schedule established by the PHA anddirectly to a utility provider, taken out of the
added to the rent for the purpose ofpayments that the PHA would otherwise make
determining a family’s voucher assistance. to the landlord, to continue utility service.
The utility allowance can be paid to the tenant,Before doing so, a PHA would be required to
or directly to a utility company.notify the owner of its intentions, unless the
unit is, or would become, uninhabitable
without the utility service. (Sec. 19)
iki/CRS-RL34002ited EnglishficiencyIn 2001, President Clinton signed ExecutiveOrder 13166 which stated that in order to be inThe bill would require HUD to establish a taskforce comprised of industry groups, fundingSame as House bill. (Sec. 20)


g/wcompliance with Title VI of the Civil Rightsrecipients, community-based organizations,
s.orH and PBRA)Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis ofcivil rights groups, and other stakeholders to
leaknational origin), administrators ofestablish a list of vital documents to be
federally-funded programs must provide accesscompetently translated to improve access for
://wikito persons with Limited English Proficiencypersons with limited English proficiency.
http(LEP). The EO required federal agencies to
develop guidance implementing it. TheWithin six months of their identification, HUD
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued modelwould be required to produce translations of
guidance in 2002; HUD’s final guidance,vital documents in all necessary languages, and
which took effect in 2007, largely mirrored themake them available on HUD’s website.
DOJ’s guidance. The guidance is not
necessarily a new set of requirements, asThe Secretary would also be required to
grantees were always required be indevelop and carry out a plan to assist recipients
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rightsof federal funds in improving access for
Act. Rather, the guidance is designed to helpindividuals with Limited English Proficiency.
grantees understand how they can ensure that
they are in compliance when it comes toThe bill would require HUD to develop and
serving LEP persons. The guidance states thatmaintain a housing information resource center,
HUD grantees are required to take reasonablewhich would provide translation of written
steps to ensure meaningful access to theirmaterials and a toll-free interpretation service
programs and activities by LEP persons. Thetelephone line. The center would also be
guidance states that it is necessary for eachcharged with collecting and evaluating for
recipient to undertake an individualizedaccuracy, or developing and making available,

CRS-42
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
assessment to determine how to meet thattemplates and documents including
requirement using a four-factor analysis, whichadministrative and property documents, legally
is meant to help determine LEP needs in abinding documents, consumer education and
community and how to balance those needsoutreach, and rights and responsibilities
against resource constraints. The four factorsdocuments. The center would also be charged
are:with conducting a study evaluating best
(1) the number or proportion of LEP personspractice models for serving LEP persons for all
eligible to be served or likely to beHUD programs. Within 18 months of
encountered by the program or grantee; enactment, the center would be required to
(2) the frequency with which LEP personssubmit a report to Congress with
come in contact with the program; recommendations for implementation. The
iki/CRS-RL34002(3) the nature and importance of the program,activity, or service provided by the program tocenter would also be charged with providinginformation relating to culturally and
g/wpeople’s lives; and linguistically competent housing services for
s.or(4) the resources available to thepersons with LEP.
leakgrantee/recipient and costs.
://wiki Once a grantee determines what the needs inThe bill would authorize such sums asnecessary to fund these activities and would
httpthe community are, the guidance states thatrequire HUD to submit a report regarding its
they should consider developing a languagecompliance with the requirements within six
assistance plan outlining how they are going tomonths, and annually thereafter. (Sec. 18)


meet those needs. Meeting those needs may
include providing oral and written translations.
Specifically, HUD has stated that housing
providers should provide translations of vital
documents. However, the guidance does not
define the term vital document. (See Federal
Register, Vol. 72, No. 13, Monday, January
22, 2007, page 2732).

CRS-43
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
fective DateNot applicable.Unless otherwise specified, the provisions ofUnless otherwise specified, the provisions of
the legislation would take effect beginningthe legislation would take effect beginning
January 1, 2008. (Sec. 19)January 1, 2009. Sections 3, 4, and 12 (related
to income, eligibility, and FMRs) would take
effect on the first day of 2010. PHAs and
owners would be required to notify tenants as
soon as possible about how the changes made
by the act would affect the tenants specifically
and all tenants generally. (Sec. 22)
ervationProperties that require prior HUD approval toThe bill would require HUD to approve theNo provision.
iki/CRS-RL34002sionsprepay their mortgages are not eligible toreceive enhanced vouchers under current law.prepayment of the mortgage for the HeritageApartments in Malden, Massachusetts, and
g/wBRA)(12 USC § 4119)provide tenant-based rental vouchers to the
s.orcurrent residents of the property. (Sec. 15)
leakUnder administrative provisions included in
the FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations acts,The bill would also direct the Secretary to
://wikiHUD is permitted to transfer project-basedtransfer project-based rental assistance
httprental assistance contracts from one property tocontracts, restrictions, and debt from one
another, but only if the transfer complies withbuilding to another for properties owned by
stipulations included in the appropriations acts.two specific organizations in two counties in
(See Sec. 318 of P.L. 109-115)Ohio. (Sec. 19)
llection of Data onThe Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)No provision.The Senate bill would require HFAs to provide
nts in Tax Creditprogram is administered federally by thedata to HUD annually on the race, ethnicity,
Internal Revenue Service, but the credits arefamily composition, age, income, use of rental
awarded and the program is administered byassistance, disability status, and monthly rental
her)state housing finance agencies (HFAs). HFAspayments of households residing in each tax
award the tax credits and monitor compliance. credit property. HUD would be required to
Information about who lives in LIHTC units ispublish a rule establishing standards and
not collected nationally.definitions for the data collection, provide
states with technical assistance in establishing
systems for collecting and submitting the data,
and coordinate with other federal agencies to
minimize duplicative reporting requirements.
The Secretary of HUD would be required to



CRS-44
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
compile the data and make it publicly
available not less than annually. The bill
would authorize to be appropriated $2.5
million for FY2009, and $900,000 annually
for FY2010-FY2013, to cover the costs of
developing the standards, providing technical
assistance, and compiling and publishing the
reports. (Sec. 18)
fect of IncomePHAs receive public housing operating fundsUnder the bill, If HUD determines that changesSimilar provision. If a PHA determines that
lculation Changesfrom the federal government to help make up theto the income definitions and calculations (aschanges to the income definitions and
iki/CRS-RL34002 PHA Revenuedifference between what tenants pay in rent andwhat it costs to run public housing. In FY2007,contained in the bill) reduced the rental incomeof a PHA (beyond a de minimus amount)calculations (as contained in the bill) reducedthe rental income of a PHA (by more than ½
g/wH only)PHAs began receiving their public housingduring the period in which rental income isof 1% of dwelling rents from the preceding
s.oroperating funds under a new formula, whichfrozen, the Secretary would be required toyear, as projected in the first quarter of the
leakincludes new estimates of what it should cost tomake adjustments to agency budgets. calendar year), the PHA could certify to HUD
run public housing. As a part of the transition totheir projected reduction by April 15 of each
://wikithe new formula, the calculation was modified toHUD would be required to report to Congressyear, and, within 45 days, the Secretary would
httpfreeze tenant income at the FY2004 level. As ain FY2008 and FY2009 on the effects of thebe required to reimburse the agency, if funds
result, if PHAs are able to increase the amount ofamendments made in this legislation on PHAare available. PHAs would be required to
rent that they collect from tenants, their publicrevenue. (Sec. 4(f))maintain necessary records for audits or
housing operating funds will not be reduced andreviews.
they can keep the additional income. Tenant
income is scheduled to beunfrozen inContains the same reporting requirements as in
FY2009.the House bill, except changes dates to
FY2009 and FY2010. (Sec. 4(f))



CRS-45
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
oving to WorkUnder the Moving to Work Demonstration,The House bill would create a new HousingNo provision.
PHAs may receive waivers allowing them toInnovation Program. Like MTW, HIP would
H)combine their public housing and Section 8allow PHAs to combine public housing and
voucher funds and receive waivers of mostSection 8 voucher funds and receive waivers of
other program rules and requirements. Themany program requirements. Unlike MTW, it
purpose of the program is to provide PHAs andwould contain detailed program requirements, a
the Secretary the flexibility to design and testtiered system of participants (some with more
various approaches for providing andwaiver ability than others) and performance
administering housing assistance. The HUDstandards. The Secretary would be permitted to
Secretary is authorized to select up to 30 PHAsselect up to 60 PHAs to participate in the full
to participate. (42 USC 1437 Note)program, and up to another 20 to participate in
iki/CRS-RL34002a more restricted version of the program. Existing MTW agencies would be phased-in to
g/wthe HIP program (Sec. 16)
s.or
leak
oving to Work/Housing Innovation Program
://wikiec. 16 of SEVRA, adding Sec. 36 to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937)
httpMoving to Work Demonstration Housing Innovation Program No provision.
(Codified under 42 USC 1437 Note. Hereafter,(Section 16 of the bill would add Sec. 36 to the
citations are shown by their subsection under theact. Hereafter, citations are shown as they would
Note)be included in the act)
esThe purpose of the program is to provide PHAsThe purposes of the program would be to provideNo provision.


and the Secretary the flexibility to design andPHAs and the Secretary the flexibility to design
test various approaches for providing andand evaluate approaches to administering
administering housing assistance thathousing assistance that
-reduce cost and achieve greater cost-increase housing opportunities for low-income
effectiveness in federal expenditures;families (including preventing homelessness,
-give incentives to families with children whererehabilitating or replacing housing at risk of
the head of the household is working, seekingphysical deterioration, and developing additional
work, or preparing for work; andaffordable housing);
-increase housing choices for low-income-leverage other Federal, State, and local funding
families. (a)sources, including the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit program, to expand and preserve afford
able housing opportunities, including public
ho usi ng;

CRS-46
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
-provide financial incentives and other support
mechanisms to families to obtain employment
and increase earned income;
-test alternative rent-setting policies to determine
whether rent determinations can be simplified
and administrative cost savings can be realized
while protecting extremely low- and very
low-income families from increased rent burdens;
-are subject to rigorous evaluation to test the
effectiveness of such innovative approaches; and
-are developed with the support of the local
iki/CRS-RL34002community and with the substantial participationof affected residents. (Sec. 36(a))
g/w
s.or
leakrityAuthorizes the Secretary to conduct an MTWWould direct the Secretary to carry out a housingNo provision.


demonstration and select up to 30 agencies forinnovation program and would permit the
://wikiparticipation. (b)Secretary to designate up to 60 PHAs to
httpparticipate at any one time. (Sec. 36(b))
The Secretary could designate an additional 20
PHAs to participate under modified terms. (Sec.
36(b)) Such agencies:
-would be subject to the provisions of law
governing income eligibility and rent calculation;
-would be subject to all provisions of voucher
law except provisions related to leasing of PHA-
owned units and those otherwise waived under
(e)(3) (relating to lease terms and limits on
project-based assistance);
-would be prohibited from imposing time limits
on the term of housing assistance;
-would be prohibited from conditioning
assistance on the employment status of one or
more family members;
-would face limits to demolishing or disposing of
dwelling units, including a modified one-for-one

CRS-47
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
replacement requirement, a requirement that
guarantees a right of return for displaced tenants,
and adoption of a comprehensive outreach plan
developed in conjunction with residents.
(Sec. 36(h))
If the number of PHAs participating in the
program drops below 40, the Secretary would be
required to promptly solicit applicants and select
PHAs to increase program participation to at least
40 PHAs. (Sec. 36(d)(4))
iki/CRS-RL34002TW AgenciesNot applicable.Each existing MTW agency would be designatedNo provision.
g/wto participate in the housing innovation program,
s.oras long as the MTW agency was not in default of
leakits MTW agreements and the Secretary
determines the MTW agency is meeting the goals
://wikiand objectives of its MTW plan. Within two
httpyears of enactment of the legislation, each such
PHA would be required to make changes to its
policies in order to comply with the requirements
of innovative housing program (Sec. 36(c))
ofNo term specified in law; in practice, generallyThe Secretary would be permitted to carry out theNo provision.
rticipation5- to 7-year contracts, with extensions.housing innovation program only during the 10-
year period beginning upon enactment of the
legislation. (Sec. 36(b))
ParticipationAs a part of their applications, PHAs mustPHAs would be required to provide opportunitiesNo provision.


provide for citizen participation through a publicfor resident and public participation, including:
hearing. ((c)(2)) The plan submitted to HUD-notifying the families they serve of the impact of
must take into account public comments andproposed policy changes and including providing
comments from current and prospective residentsa schedule of meetings for the annual plan
((c)(3))-holding at least one meeting with the resident
advisory board to review the annual plan each
year;

CRS-48
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
-holding at least one annual public meeting to
obtain comments on the annual plan each year
(large PHAs (15,000 units/vouchers or more)
would be required to hold additional meetings);
-making the proposed annual plan available for
public inspection at least 30 days before the
public meeting and at least 30 days before board
approval;
-having the plan approved by the board of
directors in a public meeting. (Sec. 36(e)(7))
iki/CRS-RL34002sPHAs must submit plans. The plans mustinclude that includes criteria for:Participating PHAs would be required to submitan annual plan each year, containing:No provision.


g/w -families to be assisted, 75% of whom must be-a list of all program initiatives and policy
s.orvery low-income;changes, including references to relevant laws or
leak - reasonable rent policies designed toregulations;
encourage employment and self sufficiency;-a description of changes from preceding year;
://wiki - continuing to assist substantially the same-a description of property redevelopment or
httpnumber of people;portfolio repositioning strategies and proposed
- maintaining a comparable mix of familieschanges in policies or uses of funds to pursue
(by family size); andsuch strategies;
- assuring housing meets quality standards.-documentation of compliance with public
((c)(3))participation requirements;
-certifications related to compliance with the
Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting
employment discrimination against persons with
disabilities), the Americans with Disabilities Act,
and the rules, standards and policies in the
approved plan; affirmatively furthering fair
housing; and compliance with obligations under
the national evaluation; and
-a description of the PHAs asset management
str a te gy.

CRS-49
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
PHAs that wished to make changes to the policies
and initiatives covered under the plan would be
required to consult with the public and the
resident advisory board. (Sec. 36(e)(8))
The Secretary would be required to approve or
disapprove each annual plan within 45 days of
submission. If the Secretary did not disapprove
the plan within 45 days, the plan would be
considered approved (subject to judicial review).
The Secretary would be permitted to disapprove
iki/CRS-RL34002a plan only if:-the Secretary determines that the plan is not in
g/wcompliance with the requirements of the
s.or program;
leak-the annual plan or most recent annual report is
://wikinot consistent with other information available tothe Secretary; or
http-the plan or report or activities are not in
accordance with applicable law.
tion andAgencies applications must:In addition to existing MTW agencies, within 18No provision.


-request the authority to combine public housingmonths, the Secretary would be required to select
and Section 8 voucher funds;additional PHAs to participate.
-be submitted after public hearings and citizen
participation; The Secretary is to develop a competitive process
-include a plan, developed by the agency withincluding the following requirements:
public and resident comments; and-Any PHA could be selected, including near-
-may also include a request technical assistancetroubled agencies, except that no more than 5
from HUD to assist with design of theagencies that are near-troubled may be selected,
demonstration and participation in a detailedexcept agencies under alternative management
evaluation. ((c)(3))are not eligible. Near-troubled agencies would
remain subject to requirements regarding tenant
In selecting applicants, the Secretary must takerent contributions, eligibility and continued
into account:participation.
-the potential of the agency to plan and carry out-The process should select for representation
a program under the demonstration;among agencies of characteristics including large

CRS-50
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
-the relative performance of the agency on theand small PHAs; urban, suburban and rural
Public Housing Assessment System; andPHAs; and across regions of the US.
-other appropriate factors set by the Secretary.-An agency applying must have provided notice
(d)to residents and the local community at least 30
days prior to 2 required public meetings in which
the PHA is to consider comments regarding the
implications of changes under the proposal and
possible impact on residents. (Sec. 36(d)(1)
Selection criteria must include
-the extent to which the proposal identifies rules
iki/CRS-RL34002and regulations that impede the goals of theproposal and why participation in the program is
g/wnecessary to achieve the goals of the proposal;
s.or-the extent of commitment and funding for the
leakproposal from local government and nonprofit
://wikiagencies and support for the proposal byresidents, resident advisory boards and members
httpof the community
-the extent to which an applicant has a successful
history of implementing similar strategies;
-whether the proposal pursues a priority strategy,
and, if so the extent to which such strategy is
likely to (1) achieve the objectives of developing
additional affordable housing units and
preserving, rehabilitation, or modernizing
existing public housing units or (2) achieve the
purpose of moving families toward economic self
sufficiency without imposing a significant rent
burden on the lowest income families as well as
additional purposes identified in the proposal;
and
-other factors established by the Secretary in
consultation with participating agencies, program
stakeholders, and evaluators. (Sec. 36(d)(2))



CRS-51
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
After selecting agencies, the Secretary would be
required to promptly amend the applicable
contract to provide that (1) agencies may
implement policies that are not inconsistent with
this section without specifying such policies and
without negotiation with the Secretary and (2) the
activities to be implemented by the PHA in a
given year must be described in and subject to
the annual plan. Existing MTW agencies could
choose to be subject to these provisions in lieu of
their current agreement prior to expiration of
iki/CRS-RL34002their current contract. (Sec 36(d)(3))
g/w PHAs may be exempted from most provisions ofParticipating PHAs would be permitted combineNo provision.


s.orentsthe U.S. Housing Act of 1937, although SectionPublic Housing operating funds, Public Housing
leak18 (demolition and disposition requirements) andcapital funds, and Section 8 voucher funds, using
Section 12 (Davis Bacon and community servicesuch funds for any activities authorized under
://wikirequirements) cannot be waived. ParticipatingSection 8(o) or 9 of the US Housing Act, and
httpPHAs may combine Public Housing operatingother activities, which would include, without
funds, Public Housing capital funds, and Sectionlimitation:
8 voucher funds to provide housing assistance-Providing capital, operating, or other financing
for low-income families and services to facilitateassistance for housing previously assisted under
the transition to work on such terms anda contract between the PHA and the Secretary;
conditions as set by the PHA and approved by-Acquiring, building, rehabilitating, financing, or
the Secretary. (42 USC 1437f Note)providing capital or operating assistance for low-
income housing and related facilities (and for
PHAs must continue to assist substantially thelonger terms that currently permitted under
same total number of eligible low-incomeSection 8 voucher rules);
families and maintain a comparable mix of-covering the costs of acquisition and
families (by family size) as would have beenimprovement of sites, utility services, demolition,
served if the assistance had not been combinedplanning and administration of eligible activities;
under the demonstration. (42 USC 1437f Note)-providing housing counseling (renter and
homeowner) for families assisted under the
-75% of families assisted must be very lowprogram;
income;-safety, security, law enforcement and anti-crime
-PHAs must establish reasonable rent policiesactivities to protect and support families assisted
designed to encourage employment and selfunder the program;

CRS-52
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
sufficiency;-tenant-based rental assistance (including project-
-PHAs must continue to assist substantially thebasing of TBRA);
same number of people; -providing financial assistance to preserve low-
-PHAs must maintain a comparable mix ofincome housing assisted by HUD, or state or
families (by family size); andlocal low-income housing programs. (Section
-PHAs must assure housing meets quality36(e)(1)(A))
standards. (42 USC 1437f Note).
The bill does specifies that participating families
retain the same rates of judicial review of agency
action as they would otherwise have had under
the existing programs. It also specifies that
iki/CRS-RL34002PHAs must comply with the followingrequirements in current law:
g/w -tar ge ting
s.or-tenant participation on PHA board
leak-the definition of low- and very-low income
://wikifamilies-resident Advisory board requirements
http-HQS standards
-rights of public housing applicants and voucher
applicants
-grievance procedures
-Public Housing lease requirements (although
shorter leases funded with tax credits can have
shorter leases);
-designation of housing for the elderly and
disabled (although, subject to certain
requirements, the designations can be made for
five year periods);
-voucher program lease requirements and
eviction protections;
-limits on project-based assistance (but the limit
can be raised from 20% to 50%) and certain
resident choice provisions;
-p o r tab ility;
-Section 12 (Davis Bacon); and
-Section 18 (Demolition/Disposition of public



CRS-53
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
housing). (Sec. 36(e)(3)
Before adopting any material change to the
requirement of the US Housing Act related to
tenant rents or contributions or conditions of
continued occupancy or participation, an agency
mu s t
-conduct an impact analysis of the proposed
policy on currently assisted families and those on
the waiting list, including high rent burdens and
make the proposed policy and impact findings
iki/CRS-RL34002available for public inspection (at least 60 daysbefore the public meeting, discussed below);
g/w-hold a public meeting on the proposed change
s.or(which can be combined with the draft annual
leakplan or annual report meeting);
://wiki-have the change approved by the board ofdirectors in a public meeting;
http-obtain approval from the Secretary, and agree
that the policy may be included as a part of the
national evaluation.
Once the change is adopted, the agency must:
-provide adequate notice to residents;
-execute a lease addendum or participation
agreement specifying the requirements applicable
to both the resident and the agency;
-reassess rent, subsidy level, and policies on
program participation no less often than every
two years, including a revised impact analysis, to
be made public;
-include information in the annual report
sufficient to describe any hardship requests, the
use of any transition rules, and adverse impacts
resulting from the changes and mitigation
strategies employed by the PHA.



CRS-54
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
These requirements do not apply to existing
policies at MTW agencies, but it does apply to
future policy changes at existing MTW agencies.
(Sec. 36(e)(4))
PHAs may use Section 8 voucher funds for
purposes other than Section 8 vouchers only if
(1) the PHA used no less than 95% of vouchers
or voucher funds in the prior calendar year or (2)
after approval, the PHA achieves such utilization
for a 12 month period. This restriction does not
iki/CRS-RL34002apply to agencies under existing MTWagreements. (Sec. 36(e)(1))
g/w
s.orPHAs must continue to assist
leak-not less than substantially the same number of
://wikieligible low-income families as served in the baseyear (adjusted for allocations of additional
httpvouchers or reductions in/prorations of funding);
-a comparable mix of families by family size
(adjustments based on waiting list permissible)
except that the Secretary can suspend this
requirement for up to three years based on
modernization or redevelopment activities in an
approved annual plan. (Section 36(e)(2)).
The amount of assistance received by the agencyThe amount of assistance received by aNo provision.
is not diminished by their participation in theparticipating agency, subject to appropriations
demonstration. MTW agencies are funded based(and any applicable proration), would not be
on their agreements with HUD, although they arediminished by participation in the program. (Sec.
subject to any funding prorations. (f)36(e)(5))
uation,The Secretary is to provide training and technicalThe Secretary would be required to conductNo provision.


ssment, andassistance during the demonstration and conductdetailed evaluations of all participating PHAs in
ancedetailed evaluations of up to 15 agencies toorder to
andardsidentify replicable program models promoting-determine PHAs success in achieving the
the purpose of the demonstration.(b)purposes of the program; and

CRS-55
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
Funding was authorized to provide technical-to identify successful program models that can
assistance and fund a detailed evaluation (i)be replicated by other agencies. (Sec. 36(f)(1))
In making assessments, the Secretary mustThe Secretary (or an evaluating entity contracted
consult with representatives of PHAs andby the Secretary) would be required to establish
residents. (h)performance measures, which may include use of
a baseline performance measure, and may
include performance measures for
-increasing housing opportunities for low-, very
low-, and extremely low-income families,
replacing or rehabilitating at-risk housing, and
iki/CRS-RL34002developing additional housing;-leveraging other Federal, State, and local
g/wfunding resources (including the Low-Income
s.orHousing Tax Credit (LIHTC)), to expand and
leakpreserve affordable housing, including public
://wikihousing;-moving families to self-sufficiency and
httpincreasing employment rates and wages without
imposing a significant rent burden;
-reducing administrative costs; and
-other performance measures established by the
Secretary or evaluating entity. (Sec. 36(f)(4))
The Secretary and GAO must have access to allPHAs would be required to keep recordsNo provision.


rtsrelevant document. prescribed by the Secretary as necessary to
disclose funding and spending under the
Agencies must keep records as required by theprogram, to ensure compliance with program
Secretary. Agencies must supply reports and inrequirements, and to measure performance.
a form and time set by the Secretary which:PHAs must provide access to any books,
-document use of funds,documents, papers or records necessary for
-provide data requested by the Secretary forevaluation to the Secretary and the Comptroller
assessing the demonstration, andGeneral of the United States (GAO). (Sec.
-describe and analyze the effect of activities in36(g)(3 and 4))
meeting objectives.(g)

CRS-56
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
In lieu of other reporting requirements,
participating PHAs would be required to submit
an annual report to the Secretary, including:
-a description of the sources and uses of funds
under the program (including an annual
consolidated financial report), accounting
separately for funds made available for the
voucher program, public housing capital fund,
and public housing operating fund, and a
comparison of the agencies actions under the
program with its annual plan;
iki/CRS-RL34002-an annual audit;-a description of each hardship exemption
g/wrequested and granted or denied as well as the use
s.orof any transition rules;
leak-documentation of public and resident
://wikiparticipation;-a comparison of the incomes, sizes, and types of
httpfamilies assisted by the program compared to a
base year;
-every two years, an evaluation of rent, subsidy
level, and program participation requirements;
-a description of any ongoing local evaluations
and the results of any completed local
evaluations. (Sec. 36(g)(2))
The annual report would also be required to
include information necessary to permit the
Secretary to evaluate the performance and
success of the agency in achieving the purpose of
the demonstration (Sec. 36(g)(5))
As a part of the annual report, participating PHAs
would be required to submit information annually
to the Secretary regarding families assisted under
the program and other data required by the
Secretary (Section 36(e)(6)).



CRS-57
sionHousing Choice Voucher Program CurrentSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007thSection 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008th
theLaw(H.R. 1851, 110 Congress)(S. 2684, 110 Congress)
ograms to which it(United States Housing Act of 1937, as(as passed by the House)(as introduced in the Senate)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regula tions)
to CongressThe Secretary had no later than 180 days afterThe Secretary would be required to submit threeNo provision.
the third year of the demonstration to submit toreports to Congress evaluating the programs of
Congress a report evaluating programs carriedparticipating PHAs participating in this program
out under the demonstration, including findingsand in MTW, including findings and
and recommendations for applicable legislativerecommendations for legislative action. An
changes. (h)initial report is to be submitted within three years
(Report submitted in 2004)of enactment; an interim report is to be submitted
within five years of enactment; and a final report
is to be submitted within 10 years of enactment.
(Sec. 36(f)(2))
iki/CRS-RL34002Not less than 48 months after enactment, theGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) would
g/wbe required to report to Congress on the extent
s.orthat participating PHAs are meeting the goals and
leakobjectives of the program. (Sec. 36(f)(2))
://wikithorization ofFY1996-FY1998, the Secretary was authorizedWould authorize to be appropriated $10 millionNo provision.
httppriationsto use up to $5 million for technical assistance tofor capacity building and technical assistance
PHAs and to conduct detailed evaluations. (i)each year for FY2008-2012 and $15 million for
the purpose of conducting evaluations. (Sec.
36(j) and (k))
Table prepared by CRS.