Order Code RL34002
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Issues and Reform Proposals
in the 110th Congress
May 16, 2007
Maggie McCarty
Analyst in Social Legislation
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). Nearly 10 years 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. It will be updated to reflect legislative
activity.
Many of the key features of the Section 8 voucher 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. In part in
response to funding issues, and in part in response to programmatic issues, there have
been calls for deregulation of public housing authorities through expansion of the
Moving to Work Demonstration. Legislation in the 110th Congress would expand
participation in the demonstration, from 32 agencies to 250 agencies (S. 788).
On March 29, 2007, Representative Waters, the chairwoman of the House
Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity, introduced a Section 8 voucher reform bill, co-sponsored by the ranking
member of the subcommittee and the chairman and ranking member of the full
committee. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) would make
modifications to several features of the existing program, including how income is
calculated, how inspections are conducted, and how portability is treated, and it
would adopt a new Section 8 voucher funding formula. It is narrower in scope than
a similar bipartisan reform bill introduced in the 109th Congress and approved by the
House Financial Services Committee (H.R. 5443, 109th Congress). The President’s
FY2008 budget request indicated that HUD would advance the Administration’s
preferred reform proposal in the 110th Congress, although it has not been introduced.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Moving to Work Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Voucher Reform Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Key Provisions of H.R. 1851 to Current Law . . . . . . . 14

---

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program: Issues and Reform Proposals
in the 110th 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). Nearly 10 years 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.

---

CRS-2
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.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
PHAs is used to renew existing vouchers. No funds have been provided for
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/
publiclist_vhosites.xls].

---

CRS-3
additional vouchers since 2002.9 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.
9 While no new vouchers (often referred to as incremental vouchers) have 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, but
no further action was taken in the 108th Congress (H.R. 1851/S. 947).
11 For more reading on the merits and drawbacks of various voucher block grant ideas, see
Housing Policy Debate, Volume 14, Issue 3, 2003.

---

CRS-4
Rent Structure
Under the current rules of the voucher program, families are required to pay
roughly 30% of their adjusted incomes toward rent.12 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 contribution.
Critics of the current rent calculation, including the Bush Administration13 and
some PHA groups,14 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 decreases in the income they need to run the property. If the tiers were set
higher, then more tenants would face rent increases, but PHAs would see increased
program income.
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.
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
12 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).
13 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].
14 Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), Rent Reform: Fair and
Simple Solutions, 2005, available at [http://www.phada.org/pdf/rentreform.pdf].

---

CRS-5
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.15 If PHAs choose to disregard
increased earnings, they must pay the difference out of their own budgets 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.16
Calculation of Income
Under the current voucher program, rent is based on a family’s annual adjusted
income. The current system for calculating income has been criticized as
cumbersome and prone to errors.
Annual income, for the purpose of rent determination, is defined as all amounts
that are anticipated to be received by all members of a household during the
15 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].
16 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.

---

CRS-6
subsequent 12 months, with some exclusions (such as foster care payments).17
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.18 Once the total amount of income has been
determined, the family may qualify to have certain amounts deducted from total
income, 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.19
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,20 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)), with a requirement
that 75% of all vouchers be targeted to extremely low-income families (30% or
below AMI).21 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
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.22 Low-
17 Summarized from 24 CFR 5.609.
18 See 24 CFR 982.516 (a).
19 See 24 CFR 5.611 for a list of deductions.
20 See Government Accountability Office (GAO), Progress and Challenges in Measuring
and Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies, GAO-05-224, Chapter 5.
21 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.
22 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/

---

CRS-7
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.23
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.24 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 new vouchers have not been funded for
several years, turnover in the current program is the only 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.25 Further, while time limits and work requirements
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
22 (...continued)
programs/hcv/fvp/wponfvp.pdf].
23 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.
24 Howard Husock, “The Housing Reform That Backfired,” The City Journal, Summer 2004.
25 Jeffery Lubell, et al. Work Participation and Length of Stay in HUD-Assisted Housing,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Volume 6, Number
2, 2003.

---

CRS-8
most households need work supports (such as child care and transportation
assistance) in order to make them successful in becoming financially self-sufficient.26
Such supportive services are not currently part of the voucher program, and would
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.27
Low income housing advocates promote providing incentives for families to
increase their work efforts and their incomes, rather than limits and requirements.
Non-elderly, non-disabled families could be encouraged to find and increase work
through expansions in the Family Self-Sufficiency program, a Section 8 voucher
program which provides work supports and deposits tenant rent increases resulting
from work into escrow accounts on their behalf.
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).28 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
participate and families losing out on units in tight markets. Further, some HQS
failures may be for what 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 occurrence of substandard
stock varies widely; areas with relatively new stock (particularly in the southwest)
may only need inspections every couple of years to ensure quality, whereas areas with
relatively old stock (such as the northeast) may require more frequent inspections,
perhaps even more than once a year, in order to ensure quality. While 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
26 See CRS Report RL30797, Trends in Welfare, Work and the Economic Well-Being of
Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2005, by Thomas Gabe.
27 Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance and Accountability Report,
FY2004, pp. 2-65.
28 See 24 CFR 982.401 for HQS.

---

CRS-9
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 agreements29 to having a national pool of vouchers that could be used to
smooth out the absorption process.30
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 PHAs could help improve program mobility.31
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
29 See Section 113 of H.R. 1999, 109th Congress.
30 Statement of Richard Godfrey, Executive Director, Rhode Island Housing, Hearing before
the Committee on House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity, March 9, 2007.
31 Margery Turner and Bruce Katz, “Who Should Run the Housing Choice Voucher
Program: A Reform Proposal,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 2, 2001.

---

CRS-10
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 costs
began rising rapidly in 2002 and 2003.32 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 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.
This change was generally supported by PHA groups and low-income housing
advocates, but opposed by the Administration. (For more information, see CRS Report
RS22376, Changes to Section 8 Housing Voucher Renewal Funding,
FY2003-FY2006, 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, up to 30 agencies can apply to HUD for waivers of
most rules that govern public housing and Section 8 (those under the U.S. Housing
32 See Government Accountability Office, Policy Decisions and Market Factors Explain
Changes in the Costs of the Section 8 Programs, April 2006.

---

CRS-11
Act of 1937 (P.L. 75-412)).33 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 1937 Act, as
amended, 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.34
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 Housing Act of 1937
except for the 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.
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.35 Low income housing advocates, particularly the National 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
do under current law and that the agencies will disconnect rent-setting policies from
income with the result that tenants will pay increased rents.36
33 Congress later directed HUD to approve the applications of two additional PHAs,
increasing the number of MTW agencies to 32.
34 For more information on MTW, see Housing Agency Responses to Federal Deregulation:
An Assessment of HUD’s “Moving to Work” Demonstration, Urban Institute, 2004.
35 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,
2006.
36 See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Three Public Housing Bills Introduced in
Senate, Memo to Members: Vol 12, No. 10, March 9, 2007.

---

CRS-12
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.
Voucher Reform Legislation
Every year since 2003, the President has proposed eliminating the Section 8
voucher program and replacing it with a new initiative. Bills to enact the President’s
reform have been introduced in Congress, although no further action has been taken.
Bills from 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. A similar bill, the Section 8
Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) has been 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.
Similar to SEVRA from the 109th Congress, H.R. 1851 largely maintains the
structure of the Section 8 voucher program, but makes 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.
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, and allow them to continue to
make payments for up to 30 days following a minor violation, presuming it is not life-
threatening. 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

---

CRS-13
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 HUD Assistant Secretary with responsibility for the voucher
program, testified that the Department favors voucher reform and will be offering a
proposal (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.37
Assistant Secretary Cabrera’s testimony also reiterated support for the “budget-
based” funding allocation formula in place in FY2005 and FY2006.38
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 with rent setting
policies and would adopt a funding formula that is similar to the one in place in
FY2007.
H.R. 1851 is cosponsored by the chair and ranking member of both the
subcommittee and the full committee in the House. No comparable legislation has
been introduced in the Senate.
37 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
House of Representatives, “The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act,” March 9, 2007.
38 Ibid.

---

CRS-14
Table 1. Comparison of Key Provisions of H.R. 1851 to Current Law
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Initial Eligibility
Generally, families are initially eligible if they are low income
The bill would not change income eligibility, although it would
(80% or below of area median income (AMI)) and are either very
change the definition of income, which would affect eligibility (see
(Also applies to Public Housing
low-income (at or below 50% of AMI), were previously receiving
“Income” below). It also sets an asset test such that assistance
(PH) and Project-based Section
assistance, or meet other criteria established by the Secretary. (42
could not be provided to families whose net family assets exceeded
8 Rental Assistance (PBRA))
USC 1437a(a) and 42 USC 1437f(o)(4))
$100,000 or who had present ownership interest in real property
suitable for occupation and in which the family had the right to
reside. (Sec. 4(a))
Ongoing Eligibility/ Treatment
If a family’s income rises above the low-income level, they may
Upon income re-examination, if family income was to have risen
of Over Income Families
continue to receive assistance. (42 USC 1437a(a)(1))
above the low-income level, the family would no longer be eligible
for assistance (does not apply to families with tenant protection
vouchers). In the case of public housing and project-based Section
8, the PHA or property owner could choose to waive this provision
upon recertification, or, if they choose not to waive the provision,
they could delay implementation for up to 6 months. (Sec. 4(b))
Treatment of assets
There is no asset limit in the program, rather PHAs and owners
The bill would limit eligibility for households with assets above a
(PH and PBRA)
must impute income from assets and include that amount in the
certain threshold. Specifically, households would be ineligible for
household’s income calculation.
assistance initially or at recertification if the family:
-had net family assets above $100,000;
-had present ownership interest in and a legal right to reside in real
property (except for participants in the voucher or public housing
homeownership program, victims of domestic violence, and
households making a good faith effort to sell such property).
The bill defines 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:
-Indian trust land;
-equity accounts in HUD homeownership programs;
-Family Self Sufficiency accounts;
-the value of personal property (except items of significant value,
as determined by the Secretary);
-the value of a retirement account;

---

CRS-15
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
-amounts recovered from civil actions or settlements based on
claims of malpractice, negligence, or other breach of duty, that
resulted in a member of the family being disabled; and
-the value of trust funds (as long as it is held in trust).
PHAs and owners can calculate net family assets based on
information provided by the family.
PHAs can choose not to enforce the asset limits for public housing
residents.
A PHA or owner can delay eviction of a family based on non-
compliance with the asset limit for up to 6 months.
(Sec. 4(a))
Income Review
Family income must be reviewed upon selection for assistance and
Income would be reviewed initially and reexamined annually
(PH and PBRA)
annually thereafter. (42 USC 1437a(a)(1)) If a family experiences
thereafter, except:
a decrease in income, they may request a mid-year reexamination.
-families could request reexamination earlier if their income or
If the family experiences an increase in income, the PHA or owner
deductions change such that their income drops by $1,500 (or a
can choose whether to conduct a mid-year reexamination.
lower amount set by the PHA or owner);
-income must be reexamined at any point that income or
deductions change such that income rises more than $1,500
(increases in earned income are not counted for this purpose unless
the family’s income had been reexamined because of a drop in
income);
-following initial review, families with fixed incomes would be
permitted to self-certify their income each year for up to three
years. (Defined as 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).
(Sec. 3(a))
Definition of Income
The term income means income from all sources from each
The bill would strike the definition and replace it with a definition
member of the household, as determined in accordance with
that includes income from all sources from each member of the
(PH and PBRA)
criteria prescribed by the Secretary, but does not include income
household, including recurring gifts and receipts, actual income
subject to mandatory federal exclusions. The definition of income
from assets, and profit or loss from business. It would exclude
adopted in regulation includes imputed returns on assets and
imputed returns on assets, all earned income from dependent full-

---

CRS-16
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
excludes income in excess of $480 for full-time students (including
time students, certain lump-sum Social Security payments,
head of household and spouse). (42 USC 1437a (b) and 24 CFR
mandatory federal exclusions, and other exclusions set by the
5.609)
Secretary.
PHAs and owners would not be required to keep documentation of
exclusions established by the Secretary or required by federal law.
(Sec. 3(b))
Definition of adjusted income
Adjusted income is income, minus the following deductions:
The bill would strike the current deductions and replace them with
-$400 for elderly or disabled families;
the following deductions:
(PH and PBRA)
-certain unreimbursed medical expenses above 3% of a family’s
-$725 for each elderly or disabled family;
income;
-Certain unreimbursed medical expenses or attendant care and
-reasonable child care expenses that allow for a family member to
auxillary apparatus that are greater than 10% of income for elderly
be employed or further his or her education;
and disabled families;
-$480 for each member of the household who is under 18, a
-$500 for each minor, full-time student, or person with disabilities;
full-time student, or over 18 and disabled;
and
-child support, up to $480 per child (subject to appropriations);
-additional deductions determined by the PHA, except that the
-spousal support (subject to appropriations);
Secretary must establish procedures to ensure that such deductions
-earned income of minors;
do not increase federal expenditures.
-earned income for certain Section 8 residents (subject to
appropriations);
Deduction amounts are to be adjusted annually by an inflation
-other permissible exclusions as determined by the PHA. (42 USC
factor set by the Secretary and rounded down to the nearest
1437a(b))
multiple of $25. (Sec. 3(b))
Income Calculation
Not specified in statute, but in regulation, HUD has established a
PHAs and owners would be permitted to use prior year’s income
system for calculating income that attempts to predict income in
to determine next year’s unearned income and could make
(PH and PBRA)
the coming 12 months and requires third-party verification (in the
adjustments as necessary to reflect current income. Earned income
voucher program). (24 CFR 5.609 and 982.516)
would be calculated as the previous year’s earned income, minus
an amount equal to 10% of the lesser of the prior year’s income or
$10,000 (only when calculating rent). If prior year’s fixed income
were used, the PHA or owner would be required to apply
inflationary adjustments, as determined by the Secretary. PHAs
and owners could make other adjustments as appropriate to reflect
current income. PHAs can use income calculations used in other
programs (such as TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps). PHAs and
owners could not be penalized solely for making de minimus errors
in calculating family incomes. (Sec. 3(a)(7))

---

CRS-17
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
Targeting
PHAs must target 75% of all vouchers issued each year to families
PHAs would be required to target 75% of vouchers to those at or
at or below 30% of area median income (AMI). (42 USC
below the higher of 30% of AMI or the poverty line (except in
1437f(o)(4) and 1437n(b)) PHAs and owners must target 40% of
Puerto Rico or any other territory or possession of the U.S.). PHAs
all PH and project-based units made available each year to
and owners would be required to target 40% of all PH and project-
households at or below 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)
Inspection of Units
PHAs must inspect units to ensure that they meet federal housing
The bill would continue to require inspections prior to occupancy.
quality standards prior to occupancy and at least annually
However, if a unit were to fail inspection for non-life threatening
thereafter. PHAs can choose to use local, state, or federal housing
reasons, the PHA could make payments for up to 30 days while the
quality standards (HQS), as long as state or local standards are as
unit is repaired. Thereafter, units would be required to be
strict or stricter than federal standards. (42 USC 1437f(o)(8))
inspected every two years. An inspection conducted pursuant to
requirements under a federal, state, or local housing program (such
as the HOME program) would be considered sufficient as long as
the PHA certifies to the Secretary that the standards or
requirements provide the same or greater protection to occupants
as HUD’s HQS. (Sec. 2)
Portability
Families receiving voucher assistance, after one year, can move to
The bill would require receiving PHAs to absorb portability
any jurisdiction in the country where a voucher program is being
vouchers and give them priority to receive reallocated funds. (Sec.
administered. The receiving PHA has the choice of administering
6(b)) (See Funding Allocation).
the voucher on behalf of the originating PHA and billing the
originating PHA for its costs, or absorbing the voucher into its
program by replacing it with one of the PHA’s own vouchers. (42
USC 1437f(r))
Funding Authorization
The voucher program is permanently authorized, although there is
The bill would replace the existing renewal formula and authorize
no specified authorization of appropriations.
such sums as necessary to renew voucher contracts and provide
tenant protection (for all units eligible for such vouchers, not just
occupied units, subject to appropriations) through FY2012. (Sec.
6(a))
Funding Allocation
Under current law, subject to appropriations and beginning in
Renewal funding would be allocated based on leasing and cost data
FY1999, the Secretary is directed to renew all expiring voucher
from the previous year, plus an annual adjustment factor, with
contracts by applying an inflation factor to an allocation baseline,
adjustments for the first-time renewal of tenant-protection
adjusted for new authorized vouchers (including tenant-protection
vouchers, vouchers set aside for project-based commitments, and
vouchers). The baseline was set at a level sufficient to continue
other adjustments as necessary, including adjustments necessary to

---

CRS-18
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
assistance for the actual number of families assisted as of October
address changes in voucher utilization rates and costs related to
1, 1997. (42 USC 1437f(dd))
natural and other major disasters. Moving to Work (MTW)
agencies would be funded pursuant to their agreements.
Beginning in FY2003, the appropriations law began to include
instructions on how the Secretary was to distribute funds. In
The leasing and cost data would be calculated annually by using
FY2004, PHAs were funded based on the number of vouchers they
the average for the preceding calendar year and adjusted for
had actually used as of their end of the year statement (with
project-based voucher set asides and for any advances. If funding
adjustments made for changes) and the cost of those vouchers
were insufficient to fully fund all PHA budgets, then the Secretary
(based on their end of the year statement, not adjusted for
would apply a pro-rata reduction to each agency’s budget (not
changes). In FY2005, PHAs were funded based on their actual
applicable to funding for enhanced/tenant protection funds). If
costs and number of vouchers in use over a three-month period in
Congress provided more funding than necessary to fund all
FY2004, with some adjustments, pro-rated to fit within the amount
agencies at their eligibility, HUD would be required to reallocate
appropriated. In FY2006, PHAs received a pro-rata share of the
the excess funds.
amount appropriated, based on what they had received in FY2005.
In FY2007, Congress adopted a new funding formula that funded
The Secretary would be required to recapture from PHAs unspent
agencies based on their costs and utilization over the prior 12
funds in excess of 2% of agency budgets each year. Not later than
months, increased for inflation, and adjusted for the cost of
May 1 of each year, HUD would be required to calculate the
portability vouchers or the first time renewal of enhanced
aggregate amount of unused funds, set aside amounts necessary to
vouchers.
reimburse PHAs for increased costs due to portability and Family
Self Sufficiency (FSS) activities, and reallocate the remaining
Prior to FY2005, PHAs could use excess funds to provide extra
amount to PHAs, with priority given based on utililization.
vouchers above their baseline, a practice referred to as maximized
Reallocated amounts could be used to increase leasing rates up to
leasing. That practice has been prohibited in annual appropriations
(but not over) their authorized level. (Sec. 6(a)).
acts since FY2003.
Reserves and Advances
Prior to FY2005, agencies were provided a 12-month program
PHAs would be permitted to retain up to 1/12 of any reserves
reserve. In FY2005, appropriations law reduced agency reserves to
accumulated prior to FY2008 and up to 2% of their funding each
one week, but did not provide HUD with the authority to recapture
year subsequent.
subsequent unused funds. In FY2006 and FY2007, agencies were
guaranteed no minimum reserve, but HUD was not given authority
PHAs would be permitted to take an advance on their subsequent
to recapture unspent funds.
years’ appropriation during the last 3 months of each calendar year
in order to pay for additional voucher costs, including the cost of
temporary overleasing. The advance is to be reduced by any
unobligated balances available to the PHA. Advances would be
repaid through reductions in the subsequent year’s allocation.(Sec.
6(a)).

---

CRS-19
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
Administrative Fees
Prior to FY2004, administrative fees were paid to PHAs on a per
The bill would direct the Secretary to develop a formula for
unit basis calculated roughly as a percentage of fair market rent
allocating administrative fees and require that the fees:
(FMR), with add-on fees for special expenses. This formula was
-be payable to each PHA for each month a dwelling unit is under
set by the Secretary, based on guidance in statute. (42 USC
contract;
1437f(q) and 42 USC 1437f Note) Since FY2004, as directed in
-include an amount for the cost of issuing vouchers to new
appropriations laws, PHAs have received the same proportion of
participants; and
total funds that they had received in the previous year. In FY2006,
-be updated each year using an index that reflects the costs of
the amount available for administrative fees was equivalent to just
administering the program.
under 9% of the amount provided for vouchers.
The Secretary would be required to publish the fee rate for each
geographic area in the Federal Register. (Sec. 7)
Grantee Performance
PHAs are evaluated annually through the Section 8 Management
The Secretary would be required to establish performance
Assessment Protocol (SEMAP), which is a set of 14 criteria
standards and a performance assessment system for the voucher
established by HUD via regulation, which primarily focus on
and voucher homeownership program.
agency compliance with program rules and regulations rather than
program goals or outcomes. Its 14 indicators include:
HUD would be required to periodically assess PHAs on their
-Proper selection of applicants from the housing choice voucher
performance regarding:
waiting list,
-quality of the dwelling units obtained using assistance;
-Sound determination of reasonable rent for each unit leased,
-extent of utilization of assistance amount provided to the agency;
-Establishment of payment standards within the required range of
-financial condition of the agency;
the HUD fair market rent,
-timeliness and accuracy of reporting by the agency to the
-Accurate verification of family income,
Secretary;
-Timely annual reexaminations of family income,
-effectiveness in carrying out policies to achieve deconcentraion of
-Correct calculation of the tenant share of the rent and the housing
poverty; and
assistance payment,
-other areas the Secretary deems appropriate.
-Maintenance of a current schedule of allowances for tenant utility
costs,
Using these standards and procedures, the Secretary would be
-Ensuring that units comply with the housing quality standards
required to conduct an assessment of the performance of each
before families enter into leases and PHAs enter into housing
agency and submit a report to Congress regarding the result of each
assistance contracts,
assessment. (Sec. 10)
-Timely annual housing quality inspections,
-Performance of quality control inspections to ensure housing
quality,
-Ensuring that landlords and tenants promptly correct housing
quality deficiencies,
-Ensuring that all available housing choice vouchers are used,
-Expansion of housing choice outside areas of poverty or minority
concentration,

---

CRS-20
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
-Enrollment of families in the FSS program as required and helping
FSS families achieve increases in employment income.
If PHAs fail SEMAP, they can be deemed “troubled.” Troubled
agencies must agree to an onsite assessment and a plan designed to
bring them into compliance. If the PHA is unwilling or unable to
abide by its plan to move to compliance, the Secretary can:
-contract with another PHA or private manager to administer the
program;
-appoint a receiver;
-take over the administration of the program; or
-other actions the Secretary deems appropriate. (24 CFR 985)
Downpayment
A PHA may, in lieu of providing monthly assistance payments,
Downpayment assistance would be authorized, not subject to direct
assistance for
provide a downpayment grant for an eligible first time homebuyer
appropriations. The maximum grant would be $10,000. The bill
first-time homebuyers
less than or equal to the sum of the monthly assistance payments
specifies that any downpayment assistance is not to limit a PHA
the family would have received for a year. The availability of
from providing downpayment assistance from other sources. (Sec.
downpayment assistance is subject to direct appropriations, and
8)
since direct appropriations have never been provided for this
purpose, downpayment assistance has never been provided in the
voucher program. (42 USC 1437f(y))
Project-based vouchers
PHAs may attach up to 20% of their vouchers to existing housing
Same, except would permit a higher maximum rent for project-
units. No more than 25% of units in a building may have project-
based vouchers in Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects than is
based vouchers attached to them. Families living in units with
currently permitted under HUD regulations. (Sec. 11)
project-based vouchers are permitted to move after one year. (42
USC 1437f(o)(13))
Credit Reporting
No provision.
The bill would permit PHAs to submit to consumer credit reporting
agencies information regarding the past rent payment history of a
family in the voucher program, subject to the written consent of the
family. (Sec. 9)
Rent Burden Report
Requires the Secretary to monitor rent burdens and review
The bill would require the Secretary to monitor rent burdens and
payment standards that result in a large percentage of families
submit a report to Congress annually on the percentage of families
paying more than 30% of their incomes towards rent. The
that are paying more than 30% of their incomes towards rent. The
Secretary may require the PHA to adjust the payment standard as a
Secretary would also be required to provide PHAs with a report on
result of the findings of this review. (42 USC 1437f(o)(1)(E))
the percentage of families paying more than 30% of their incomes

---

CRS-21
Feature
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current Law
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended and Title 24 of
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
the Code of Federal Regulations)
(as introduced)
towards housing costs and could require PHAs to adjust their
payment standards. The Secretary would also be required to
submit a report annually on the degree to which voucher assisted
families are clustered in lower-rent, higher poverty areas and how a
greater geographic distribution of such families could be acheived.
(Sec. 12)
Effective Date
Not applicable.
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of the act would take
effect beginning January 1, 2008. (Sec. 13)

---