Order Code RL34002
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program:
Issues and Reform Proposals
in the 110th 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
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). 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.

---

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, 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/

---

CRS-3
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, but
no further action was taken in the 108th 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.

---

CRS-4
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].

---

CRS-5
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.

---

CRS-6
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.

---

CRS-7
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...)

---

CRS-8
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.

---

CRS-9
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...)

---

CRS-10
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 costs
began rising rapidly in 2002 and 2003.36 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.

---

CRS-11
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...)

---

CRS-12
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.

---

CRS-13
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

---

CRS-14
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...)

---

CRS-15
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.

---

CRS-16
! 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
Velázquez.)
! 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.

---

CRS-17
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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
Initial Eligibility
Generally, families are initially eligible if they
The bill would not change initial income
Same as House bill (H.R. 1851). (Sec. 4(a))
are low-income (80% or below of area median
eligibility, although it would change the
(Also applies to Public
income (AMI)) and, for the voucher program,
definition of income, which would affect
Housing (PH) and
are either very low-income (at or below 50%
eligibility (see “Definition of Income” below).
Project-based Section 8
of AMI), previously received assistance, or
It would also set an asset limit, making families
Rental Assistance
meet other criteria established by the Secretary.
whose net family assets exceed $100,000
(PBRA))
(42 USC 1437a(a) and 42 USC 1437f(o)(4))
ineligible for assistance. (See “Treatment of
Assets” below). (Sec. 4(a))
Ongoing Eligibility/
If family income rises above the low-income
Upon income re-examination, if family income
Same as House bill, except clarifies that, at
Treatment of Over-
level, the family may continue to receive
were to rise above the low-income level, the
recertification, family income should be
Income Families
assistance. (42 USC 1437a(a)(1))
family would no longer be eligible for
compared to the highest eligibility threshold
(PH and PBRA)
assistance (would not apply to families with
(80% of AMI) for the area since the family
tenant protection vouchers). In the case of
began receiving assistance. Also clarifies that,
public housing and project-based Section 8, the
if families are over-income and their
PHA or property owner could choose to waive
eviction/benefit suspension is delayed for six
this provision upon recertification. PHAs and
months, but during that period they again
owners could also choose to delay eviction or
become income-eligible, owners/PHAs can
termination for up to six months. In the case of
continue to provide the family with assistance
units with initial income eligibility at 95% of
beyond 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))
Treatment of Assets
There is no asset limit for eligibility, rather
The bill would limit eligibility for households
Same as House bill.
PHAs and owners must impute income from
with assets above a certain threshold.
(PH and PBRA)
assets and include that amount in a household’s
Specifically, households would be ineligible for
income calculation for purposes of determining
assistance 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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 savings
family assets. The bill would also exclude
accounts (Sec. 529 and 530 plans);
equity in real property (other than property in
-equity accounts in HUD homeownership
which the family has ownership interest and a
programs;
right to reside, as determined under the asset
-Family Self Sufficiency accounts;
limit). It would not define the term disabled
-the value of personal property (except items of
(the House bill uses the SSI definition). It
significant value, as determined by the
would also adopt a different version of the
Secretary);
personal property exemption; the Senate bill
-the value of a retirement account;
would exempt necessary items of personal
-amounts recovered from civil actions or
property, 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 resulted
the 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
trust).
PHAs and owners could calculate net family
Same as House bill.
assets based on information provided by the
family at the time income is reviewed.
PHAs could choose not to enforce the asset
Same as House bill.
limits for public housing residents.
A PHA or owner could delay eviction of a
Same as House bill, except clarifies that a

---

CRS-20
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
family or termination of assistance to a family
PHA or owner could continue to provide
based on non-compliance with the asset limit
assistance beyond six months if the family
for up to six months.
came into compliance during the delay. (Sec.
(Sec. 4(a))
4(a))
Income Review
Family income must be reviewed upon
Income would be reviewed initially and
Same as House bill, except would use a $1,000
(PH 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 if
reexamination, rather than $1,500. Would also
a decrease in income, they may request a mid-
their income or deductions changed such that
permit PHAs to make interim income reviews
year reexamination. If the family experiences
their income dropped by $1,500 (or a lower
when income changes by less than $1,000, but
an increase in income, the PHA or owner can
amount set by the PHA or owner);
only if the amount for increases is not lower
choose whether to conduct a mid-year
-income would be required to be reexamined if
than the amount for decreases. (Sec.
reexamination.
income rose more than $1,500 (increases in
3(a)(1)(B))
earned income are not counted for this purpose
unless the family’s income had been
reexamined because of a drop in income), due
to either changes in income or deductions.
-following initial review, fixed income families
would 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))
Definition of Income
The term income includes income from all
The bill would strike the definition of income
Same as House bill, except would also exclude
sources from each member of the household,
and replace it with a definition that includes
deferred Veterans Administration disability
(PH and PBRA)
as determined in accordance with criteria
income from all sources from each member of
benefits received in a lump sum or in
prescribed by the Secretary, but does not
the household, including recurring gifts and
prospective monthly payments. (Sec. 3(b))
include income subject to mandatory federal
receipts, actual income from assets, and profit

---

CRS-21
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
exclusions. The definition of income adopted
or loss from business. It would exclude
in regulation includes imputed returns on assets
imputed 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 and
or scholarships used for the cost of attendance
spouse). (42 USC 1437a (b) and 24 CFR
or 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.
3(b))
Definition of Adjusted
Adjusted income, which is used for
The bill would strike the current deductions and
The bill would strike the current deductions
Income
determining rent, is income, minus the
replace them with the following deductions:
and replace them with the following
following deductions:
-$725 for elderly or disabled families;
deductions:
(PH and PBRA)
-$400 for elderly or disabled families;
-$500 for each minor, full-time student, or
-$700 for elderly or disabled families;
-certain unreimbursed medical expenses above
person with disabilities;
-$480 for each minor, full-time student, or
3% of a family’s income;
-certain unreimbursed medical expenses or
person with disabilities;
-reasonable child care expenses that allow for a
attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses
-certain unreimbursed medical expenses or
family member to be employed or further his
that are greater than 10% of income for elderly
attendant care and auxiliary apparatus
or her education;
and disabled families; and
expenses 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 and
except that the Secretary must establish
-additional deductions established by the PHA,
disabled;
procedures to ensure that such deductions do
except that the Secretary must establish
-child support, up to $480 per child (subject to
not 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 by
deduction 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 income
similar to the definition of earned income
disregard for certain public housing residents
included 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
employment or increase their earnings can
expenses greater than 5% of annual income, if
have 100% of their increased earnings
such 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. Disabled
Deduction amounts would be adjusted annually
Section 8 voucher holders are eligible for the
by an inflation factor set by the Secretary and
Deduction 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))
Income Calculation
Not specified in statute, but in regulation, HUD
PHAs and owners would be permitted to use
PHAs and owners would be required to use
has established a system for calculating income
prior year’s unearned income, as determined by
prior year’s income when conducting annual
(PH and PBRA)
that attempts to predict income in the coming
the PHA, to determine the next year’s unearned
income reviews (or three-year reviews in the
12 months and requires third-party verification
income, and could make adjustments as
case of fixed-income families) and would be
(in the voucher program). (24 CFR 5.609 and
necessary to reflect current income.
required to use anticipated income when
982.516)

calculating initial income or conducting an
interim reexamination (because of an increase
or decrease in income).
If prior year’s fixed income were used, the
The bill would require PHAs and owners to
PHA or owner would be required to apply
make inflationary adjustments for fixed
inflationary adjustments, as determined by the
income families. For families that are not
Secretary. PHAs and owners could make other
considered fixed-income families, the bill
adjustments as appropriate to reflect current
contains 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 for
The bill does not include a definition of
purposes of calculating rent, earned income
“earned 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 year’s income or
discussed).

---

CRS-23
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
$10,000.
PHAs could use income calculations used in
Like 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 be
not be penalized for making de minimus
penalized solely for making de minimus errors
errors. (Sec. 3(a)(1)(B))
in calculating family incomes. (Sec. 3(a)(1)(F))
Tenant
Tenant contributions are statutorily set as the
PHAs would be permitted to establish
No provision.
Contributions
greatest of:
alternative rent structures, including ceiling
Towards Rent
-30% of a family’s adjusted gross income
rents, tiered rents, flat rents, or other forms of
-10% of a family’s gross income
income-based rent for non-elderly, non-
(PH and PBRA)
-welfare rent, or
disabled households. However, tenants could
-the minimum rent set by the PHA (not to exceed
not be required to contribute more towards their
$50, with a hardship exemption).
rent than if their contribution had been
established under the standard formula. (Sec.
Families cannot be required to contribute more
3(a)(1)(E))
than their tenant contributions (most commonly,
30% 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.
Targeting
PHAs must target 75% of all vouchers issued
PHAs would be required to target 75% of
Same as House bill. (Sec. 5)
each year to families at or below 30% of area
vouchers to those at or below the higher of
(PH 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 target
Puerto Rico or any other territory or possession
40% of all PH and project-based units made
of the U.S.). PHAs and owners would be
available each year to households at or below
required 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)
Inspection of Units
PHAs must inspect units to ensure that they
The bill would continue to require inspections
Same as House bill, except clarifies that initial
meet federal housing quality standards (HQS)
prior to occupancy, except in the case of a
inspections must be conducted pursuant to

---

CRS-24
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
prior to occupancy and at least annually
property that has been found to meet quality
“subparagraph c” which requires that PHAs or
thereafter. PHAs cannot make payments for
standards under any federal housing program in
contractors conduct inspections within 15 days
units that fail to meet HQS within a period
the previous 12 months, in which case the PHA
of a request for an inspection. Also includes
designated by the PHA. If a defect is life
could authorize occupancy prior to inspection
inspections under the LIHTC program as an
threatening, the owner must correct the defect
and then make retroactive rent payments after
example of other acceptable program
within no more than 24 hours. For other
the unit passes inspection.
inspections.
defects, the owner must correct the defect
within no more than 30 calendar days (unless
If a unit were to fail an initial inspection for
extended by PHA). PHAs can choose to use
non-life threatening reasons, the PHA could
local, state, or federal housing quality
make payments for up to 30 days while the unit
standards (HQS), as long as state or local
is repaired.
standards are as strict or stricter than federal
standards.
Thereafter, units would be required to be
inspected at least 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.
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
conditions.
Both statute and regulations require that units
A PHA would be required to perform an
Same as House bill, except does not include
remain in HQS compliance, but neither include
interim reinspection upon the request of a
language requiring an interim inspection upon
a requirement that PHAs conduct interim
tenant or a government official, which must be
request of “a government official.”
reinspections at the request of a tenant.
conducted within 24 hours for life threatening
However, HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher
conditions or within 15 days in the case of non-
Guidebook does require PHAs to conduct
life threatening conditions.

---

CRS-25
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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 rent
Similar to House provision. Uses the term
payments for non-compliant units. A PHA
“abate” rather than “withhold.” Clarifies that
could choose to use the withheld rent payments
PHAs can make repairs to address only life-
to make repairs (or contract to have repairs
threatening conditions.
made) at the property to bring it into
compliance.
Owners could not evict a family or refuse to
Same as House bill, except also includes
renew a lease because a PHA withheld rent due
requirements for PHAs. PHAs would be
to a failed inspection, although a tenant could
required to: (1) notify tenants when abatement
choose to terminate the tenancy by notifying
begins (2) notify tenants that, if after 120 days,
the owner.
the owner is still not in compliance, the tenant
will 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 does
Similar to House bill. Period of 120 days
not make repairs within 60 days (or other
rather than 60 days and no language allowing
reasonable period established by the PHA), the
for “other reasonable period.”
PHA would be required to terminate payments
for the unit.
If the PHA terminates assistance due to
Similar to House bill. If the PHA terminated
noncompliance, the lease would also terminate
assistance, the tenant’s lease term would
and the tenant could remain in the unit only if
terminate simultaneously. The Senate bill
s/he signed a new, unassisted, lease. Upon
does not include the language in the House bill
termination of assistance, the PHA would be
clarifying that tenants would be required to
required to give the tenant at least 90 days to
sign new, unassisted leases in order to remain

---

CRS-26
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
find a new unit. If the tenant had not located a
in their units once assistance was terminated.
new unit within that period, the PHA would be
Once assistance is terminated, the family
required to extend the search period or provide
would have at least 120 days to lease a new
the tenant with a preference of occupancy in a
unit with their voucher.
PHA-owned or operated unit. PHAs would be
required to provide each family with reasonable
If the tenant had not located a new unit within
search assistance, including use of two months
that period, the PHA would be required to
of any withheld assistance for relocation
extend 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
be provided to each individual or family
residing in the unit, and specifies that
relocation expenses include moving expenses
and security deposits. Permits PHAs to
require families receiving security deposit
assistance to remit any refunded security
deposit from the previous landlord to the PHA.
PHAs would be permitted to waive
Similar to House bill, but does not contain
enforcement and tenant relocation provisions if
language applying to “other person in tenant’s
the damages were caused by the tenant, a
control” and does not include liability
member of the tenant’s household, a guest of
statement. (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 issue
No 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Portability
Families receiving voucher assistance, (in
Receiving PHAs would be required to absorb
Receiving PHAs would be required to absorb
some circumstances, only after one year), can
portability vouchers and absorbing agencies
portability vouchers after an initial month. As
move to any jurisdiction in the country where a
would have priority to receive reallocated
in the House bill, receiving agencies would be
voucher program is being administered. The
funds. (Sec. 6(b)) (See also “Funding
given priority for reallocated funds. The
receiving PHA has the choice of administering
Allocation”).
Senate bill also includes language clarifying
the voucher on behalf of the originating PHA
that the absorption requirement would not
and billing the originating PHA for its costs, or
override other arrangements under which
absorbing the voucher into its program by
PHAs are administering vouchers outside of
replacing it with one of the PHA’s own
their jurisdictions.
vouchers. (42 USC 1437f(r))
Under the Senate bill, the absorption
requirement would be phased-in. A PHA
could only absorb up to 1/8 of another PHAs’
portability vouchers each quarter for calendar
years 2010 and 2011 (unless otherwise agreed
to by the PHAs).
If the Secretary did not have sufficient funds
to 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Funding Authorization
There is no specified authorization of
The bill would authorize such sums as
Similar to House provision, except modifies
appropriations to renew existing vouchers,
necessary for FY2008-FY2012 to renew
the House bill’s list of units authorized for
although the law does direct the Secretary to
voucher contracts and provide tenant protection
tenant protection vouchers to include state-
renew existing vouchers, subject to
vouchers (for all units eligible for such
funded public housing and other public
appropriations. (42 USC 1437f(dd))
vouchers, as listed in the bill, not just occupied
housing (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 sums
removed pursuant to a Section 22 voluntary
as necessary to create 100,000 new incremental
The bill would also authorize such sums as
conversion. The bill does not specifically list
dwelling vouchers for FY2000 and FY2001
necessary to fund 20,000 new incremental
housing removed pursuant to a Section 18
and such sums as necessary for incremental
vouchers each year for FY2008-FY2012. (Sec.
demolition or disposition. (Sec. 6(a))
vouchers in FY1999 and FY2002-FY2003. It
18)
authorized such sums as necessary for
The Senate bill includes the same
FY2000-FY2003 to fund tenant protection
authorization for incremental vouchers (for
vouchers and it also authorized $50,000,000
FY2009-FY2013), except it clarifies that such
for FY2000, and such sums as may be
vouchers are to be distributed competitively,
necessary for each subsequent fiscal year, for
with a preference for efforts to preserve
vouchers for the disabled displaced by
affordable housing and PHAs that are
conversion of units to elderly-only.
administering their vouchers regionally. (Sec.
21)
Funding Allocation
Under current law, subject to appropriations
Renewal funding would be allocated based on
Same as House bill, except that overleasing
and beginning in FY1999, the Secretary is
leasing and cost data from the previous year,
would be limited each year to 103%, not just
directed to renew all expiring voucher
plus an annual adjustment factor, with
FY2009. (Sec. 6(a)).
contracts by applying an inflation factor to an
adjustments for the first-time renewal of tenant-
allocation baseline (established using
protection vouchers, portability vouchers, and
Also, assistance amounts abated and used to
negotiated rulemaking), adjusted for new
other adjustments as necessary (including for
make repairs for life-threatening conditions or
authorized vouchers (including tenant-
changes in voucher utilization rates and costs
used 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 their
renewal funding. (Sec. 2(a)(3))
Beginning in FY2003, the annual
agreements. The Secretary would be required
appropriations law began to include
to allocate funds under the formula by the later
instructions on how the Secretary was to
of February 15 of each year or 45 days
distribute funds, in lieu of the statutory
following enactment of the appropriations act.
formula. In FY2004, PHAs were funded based
on the number of vouchers they had actually
Leasing 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
with adjustments) and the cost of those
calendar year, adjusted for vouchers set-aside
vouchers (based on their end of the year
for 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 costs
Costs 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 some
maintain existing vouchers that would have
adjustments, pro-rated to fit within the amount
been otherwise lost due to a proration. Leasing
appropriated. In FY2006, PHAs received a
rates 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
In FY2007, Congress adopted a new funding
Secretary would apply a pro-rata reduction to
formula that funded agencies based on their
each agency’s budget (not applicable to
costs and utilization over the prior 12 months,
funding for enhanced vouchers). If Congress
increased for inflation, and adjusted for the
provided more funding than necessary to fund
cost of portability vouchers or the first time
all agencies at their eligibility, HUD would be
renewal of enhanced vouchers. A similar
required to reallocate the excess funds. (Sec.
formula was adopted for FY2008.
6(a)).
MTW agencies have always been funded
according to their agreements, subject to any
proration.
Since FY2003, PHAs have been prohibited
from over-leasing (using excess funds to
provide more vouchers than their allocated
baseline).
The Secretary would be required to recapture
Similar to House bill. The bill would require
from PHAs unspent funds in excess of 5% of
the Secretary to offset agencies’ future budgets
agency budgets each year through FY2011
to account for unspent excess funds, rather
(except at the end of FY2007, at which time all
than recapture those funds. The bill also
but 12.5% of an agency’s allocation could be
contains different phase-in provisions. PHA’s
recaptured). Not later than May 1 of each
unspent funds in excess of 12.5% of the
year, HUD would be required to calculate the
FY2008 allocation would be offset in FY2009,
aggregate amount of unused funds, set aside
unspent funds in excess of 7.5% of the

---

CRS-30
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
amounts necessary to reimburse PHAs for
FY2009 allocation would be offset in FY2010,
increased costs due to portability and Family
and unspent funds in excess of 5% of
Self Sufficiency (FSS) activities, and reallocate
allocations in FY2010-FY2012 would be
the remaining amount to PHAs, with priority
offset in FY2011-FY2013. PHA’s excess
given based on utilization. Reallocated amounts
tenant-protection funds would not count in the
could be used to increase leasing rates up to
calculation 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
remaining funds would be given based on both
utilization and relative need in a community.
(Sec. 6(a))
The Secretary would be required to issue
Same as House bill. (Sec. 6(c))
guidance to PHAs to ensure that, to the
maximum extent practicable, vouchers issued
to non-elderly disabled families, pursuant to
guidance in appropriations acts, remain
available to such persons. (Sec. 6(c))
Reserves and
Prior 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
Advances
month program reserve. In FY2005,
of their FY2007 allocation and up to 5% of
permitted to retain up to 12.5% of their
appropriations law reduced agency reserves to
their allocations each subsequent year. (See
FY2008 allocation, up to 7.5% of their
one week, but did not provide HUD with the
discussion of recaptures above).
FY2009 allocation and up to 5% of their
authority to recapture subsequent unused
allocations for FY2010-FY2012. (See
funds. In FY2006 and FY2007, agencies were
discussion of recaptures above.)
guaranteed no minimum reserve, but HUD was
not directed to recapture unspent funds.
PHAs would be permitted to take an advance
Same advance provisions as House bill. (Sec.
on their subsequent years’ appropriation during
6(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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Advances would be repaid through reductions
in the subsequent year’s allocation.(Sec. 6(a)).
Administrative Fees
Prior to FY2004, administrative fees were paid
The bill would strike the existing statutory fee
Same as House bill, except would allow the
to PHAs on a per unit basis, calculated roughly
language 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 unit
long as it is based on a per-occupied-unit, per-
add-on fees for special expenses. This formula
is 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 issuing
the cost of issuing vouchers to new
Note) Since FY2004, as directed in
vouchers to new participants;
participants be provided both for units leased
appropriations laws, PHAs have received the
-be updated each year using an index that
within the jurisdiction of the PHA and those
same proportion of total administrative funds
reflects the costs of administering the program;
leased outside the jurisdiction of the PHA.
that they received in the previous year. In
and
(Sec. 7(a))
FY2006, the amount available for
-include an amount for the cost of Family Self
administrative fees was equivalent to just under
Sufficiency coordinators.
9% of the amount provided for vouchers.
The Secretary would be required to publish the
fee rate for each geographic area annually in
the Federal Register. (Sec. 7(a))
FSS Program Fees
Currently, PHAs apply for funding to cover the
The bill would add an administrative fee for the
Same as House bill. (Sec. 7(b))
cost of their FSS coordinators by responding to
cost of FSS coordinators. It would also require
a Notice of Funding Availability published
the 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 FSS
scientific evaluation of FSS. The bill would
funding provided each year by Congress in the
authorize $10 million for the evaluation and
appropriations bills (in FY2008, Congress set
would permit the Secretary to set-aside up to
aside $49 million in tenant-based rental
10% of FSS funds for innovative or highly
assistance funding for FSS).
successful FSS programs. (Sec. 7(b))
Downpayment
Current law authorizes PHAs to provide a
Downpayment assistance would be authorized,
Same as House bill. (Sec. 8)
Assistance for
downpayment grant for an eligible first time
not subject to direct appropriations. The
First-time
homebuyer in lieu of providing monthly rental
maximum grant would be $10,000. The bill
Homebuyers
assistance payments in the voucher program.
specifies that providing voucher-funded
The amount is capped at less than or equal to
downpayment assistance would not limit a
the sum of the monthly rental assistance
PHA from providing downpayment assistance
payments the family would have received for a
from other sources. (Sec. 8 (a))

---

CRS-32
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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))
Manufactured
Families can use their vouchers to pay for the
The bill would allow vouchers to be used for
Same as House bill. (Sec. 8(b))
Housing
rental of the real property on which
both the cost of renting land and the cost of
manufactured housing owned by a family (as a
purchasing a manufactured home. It would no
principal residence) is sited. PHAs must
longer require PHAs to establish separate
establish separate payment standards for
payment standards. (Sec. 8(b))
manufactured housing, limited by the payment
standard set by the Secretary. (42 USC
1437f(o)(12))
Credit Reporting
No provision.
The bill would permit PHAs to submit to
No provision.
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)
Grantee Performance
PHAs are evaluated annually through the
The Secretary would be required to establish
Similar to House bill. The Senate bill
Section 8 Management Assessment Protocol
new performance standards and a performance
modifies several criteria in the House bill. It
(SEMAP), which is a set of 14 criteria
assessment system for the voucher program.
would add compliance with targeting
established by HUD via regulation, which
HUD would be required to periodically assess
requirements to the list of performance
primarily focus on agency compliance with
PHAs 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 to
would also include accuracy of the calculation
-Sound determination of reasonable rent for
achieve 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 subsidy
payments.
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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
-Timely annual reexaminations of family
-timeliness of activities related to landlord
than periodic) assessments and require that the
income,
participation; and
results 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 of
Using these standards and procedures, the
The Senate bill would also require the
allowances for tenant utility costs,
Secretary would be required to conduct an
Secretary to establish — via regulation —
-Ensuring that units comply with the housing
assessment of the performance of each agency
procedures and mechanisms to help poorly
quality standards before families enter into
and submit a report to Congress regarding the
performing PHAs improve. (Sec. 9)
leases and PHAs enter into housing assistance
result of each assessment. (Sec. 10)
contracts,
-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,
-Enrollment of families in the FSS program as
required and helping FSS families achieve
increases in employment income.
(24 CFR 985)
Treatment of PHA-
Families are permitted to use their vouchers to
No provision.
The bill would require the PHA to arrange for
owned units
lease PHA-owned units (that are not public
third-party inspections and rent
housing units) as long as the local units of
determinations, rather than the unit of local
government, or another entity approved by the
government or Secretary-approved entity.
Secretary conducts inspections and rent
(Sec. 2(b))
determinations. The PHA is responsible for
covering the expenses.

---

CRS-34
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Project-based
PHAs may attach up to 20% of their voucher
The bill would change the project-basing limit
Same, except clarifies that supportive services
Vouchers
funding to existing housing units, a practice
so that PHAs could use up to 25% of their
provided to families are to be comprehensive.
referred to as project-basing vouchers. No
funding for project-based vouchers and an
(Sec. 10(1) and (2))
more than 25% of units in a building may have
additional 5% if used to serve the homeless.
project-based vouchers attached to them (with
The bill would change the concentration
some exceptions). Families living in units with
requirement to no more than the greater of 25
project-based vouchers are permitted to move
units 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)
In areas:
In areas:
-with success rates of less than 75%,
-with success rates of less than 75%;
-where the payment standard is at 110% of
-where the payment standard is at 110% of
FMR, and
FMR,
-where families have automatically been given
-where the PHA has requested an increased
90 days to find a unit,
payment standard, and
the 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 into
The bill would allow PHAs to use 15-year
Same as House bill. (Sec. 10)
contracts of up to 10 years (renewable) with
contract periods to facilitate use with the Low-
property owners, subject to the availability of
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.
appropriations. (42 USC 1437f(o)(13))
The bill would ensure that families residing in a
Same 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
It would also permit PHAs and owners to
Same 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)
The bill clarifies that PHAs would receive
No provision.
administrative fees for project-based vouchers
in the same manner as for other vouchers. (Sec.
11)
No provision.
The bill would permit PHAs to attach project-
based vouchers to PHA-owned units without
undergoing 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
-that the continued affordability is an
important asset to the community.
These vouchers would not be considered when
calculating the cap on a PHA’s 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
funding to a PHA in another jurisdiction (in
the same or a contiguous metropolitan area or
county) and would direct the Secretary to
encourage such voluntary agreements and
promptly execute the necessary funding and
contract modifications. (Sec. 10(8))
Rent Burden Report
Current law requires the Secretary to monitor
The bill would require the Secretary to monitor
Same as House bill, except would require the
rent burdens and review payment standards
rent burdens and submit a report to Congress
Secretary to distinguish rent burdens resulting
that result in a significant percentage of
annually on the percentage of families that are
from families paying minimum rent, or
families paying more than 30% of their
paying more than 30% of their incomes
resulting from the use of gross income or
incomes towards rent. The Secretary may
towards rent and the percentage of families that
welfare income for calculating rent instead of
require a PHA to adjust its payment standard as
are paying more than 40% of their incomes
adjusted income.
a result of the findings of this review. (42 USC
towards rent.
1437f(o)(1)(E))
The Secretary would be required to provide
Same as House bill, except the Secretary
PHAs with a report on the percentage of
would 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
The Secretary would also be required to submit
Same as House bill, except the Secretary
a report annually on the degree to which
would have to include a breakdown by racial
voucher assisted families are clustered in
and ethnic groups, and would be required to
lower-rent, higher poverty areas and how a
make the report public.
greater geographic distribution of such families
could be achieved.
If a PHA’s percentage of families paying above
If a PHA has a high concentration of families
30% of income towards rent was higher than
in different racial and ethnic groups clustered
the national average, or if a PHA’s percentage
in high poverty areas, or if more than 5% of
of families paying above 40% of income
their families are paying more than 40% of
towards rent was higher than the national
their income towards rent, then the PHA must
average, then the PHA would be required to
adjust its payment standard. In such cases, the
either adjust its payment standard or explain
Secretary could not deny a request to increase
why they are choosing not to adjust their
a payment standard to 120% of FMR, to
payment standard. In such cases, the Secretary
remedy high rent burdens or deconcentrate
could not deny a request to increase a payment
poverty, if the PHA had reviewed its payment
standard to 120% of FMR to remedy high rent
standard, 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 rent
Same 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Rent Reasonableness
PHAs are required to ensure that rents charged
No provision.
The bill would establish a different rent
for assisted units are reasonable compared to
reasonableness standard for Low Income
comparable unassisted dwelling units in the
Housing 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 PHA’s payment
standard for the unit size. (Sec. 11(d))
Fair Market Rents
HUD currently sets Fair Market Rents (FMRs)
The bill would require HUD to establish
Similar to the House bill, except it would also
based on the 40th percentile rent for each
additional market areas for FMRs, including
require the Secretary to establish separate
metropolitan statistical area and non-
metropolitan cities, urban counties, and certain
market areas for each county in the country
metropolitan 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 payment
except for counties wholly within metropolitan
metropolitan areas. FMRs are used for
standards for currently-assisted families if
areas or counties in certain New England
establishing maximum subsidies in the voucher
FMRs in their area were to decrease. (Sec. 13)
states (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT). Also,
program, called payment standards, which are
would permit the Secretary to establish
set by PHAs between 90-110% of FMR (with
minimum FMRs in each state. (Sec. 12)
some exceptions).
Tenant Screening
Under current law, PHAs can establish
The bill would limit a PHA’s screening to
Same as the House bill, except clarifies that
(PH)
selection standards and screen otherwise-
criteria directly related to a tenant’s ability to
the provision would not limit a PHA’s ability
eligible tenants using those standards, subject
fulfill the obligations of the assisted lease.
to deny assistance because of an applicant’s
to fair housing and nondiscrimination laws. (42
Applicants or tenants deemed ineligible for
criminal background, or any other permissible
USC 1437f(o)(6))
admission or continued tenancy would be
grounds related to safety and security in public
required to be notified of the reason, and
or 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Enhanced Vouchers
Enhanced vouchers are provided to families
The bill clarifies that families would be
Same as House bill. Also includes a provision
who live in certain subsidized properties who
permitted to stay in their units regardless of
establishing that families are not required to
are at risk of being displaced because their rent
normal family or unit size limitations adopted
requalify under the selection standards of the
is increasing to market rate. This generally
by the PHA, except that a family could be
PHA in order to be eligible for assistance.
happens when the subsidy contract on the
required to move to an appropriate-sized unit in
Includes a provision stating that the owner of
property ends. The value of an enhanced
the building, if available. (Sec. 15)
the unit must accept the enhanced voucher and
voucher is permitted to exceed the local
can terminate the tenancy only for serious or
payment standard in order to permit a family to
repeated violation of the terms of the lease.
remain in their unit. Tenants have a right to
Would require the Secretary to issue
remain in their units if they receive an
regulations within six months of enactment.
enhanced voucher, so property owners are
(Sec. 14)
required to accept them. (42 USC 1437f(t))
Employment
No provision.
The bill would authorize the use of vouchers in
Same. (Sec. 16)
Demonstration
a state demonstration program designed to
promote employment among persons with
disabilities. (Sec. 17)
Study to Identify
Participation in the voucher program is
No provision.
The bill would require the Government
Obstacles to Using
voluntary for most property owners. However,
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a
Vouchers in Federally
some communities have enacted source of
study “to determine whether any statutory,
Subsidized Housing
income discrimination laws that require
regulatory, or administrative provisions of the
Projects
landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers.
housing voucher program or of other federally
Further, some programs that fund the
subsidized housing programs, or policies and
construction or rehabilitation of affordable
practices of housing owners or public housing
housing (the HOME program, the Low Income
agencies or other agencies, may have the
Housing Tax Credit program, and multifamily
effect of making occupancy by voucher
properties purchased from HUD) prohibit
holders in federally subsidized housing
owners of properties that receive such
projects more difficult to obtain than
assistance from refusing to lease to voucher
occupancy 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Identification
In order to receive assistance, each household
The bill would add a requirement that voucher
No provision.
Requirements
member must be a citizen or an eligible non-
assistance could only be provided to a
citizen. However, a household can receive
household if all adult members of a household
pro-rated assistance if the family is a mixed
can 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 person’s status. Every
the 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 therefore
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
ineligible for assistance). PHAs are not
Security.
required to ask for documentation from
The bill would require HUD to issue
citizens, although they may adopt a policy
regulations implementing the provision. (Sec.
requiring documentation. Eligible non-citizens
21)
must provide documentation from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
and provide a signed verification consent form
describing 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Utility Payments
Utility costs are considered a part of the gross
No provision.
If an owner fails to pay for utilities that are
rent for a unit. Any utilities not included in the
intended to be included in the rent for a unit,
monthly rent for a unit are estimated using a
the bill would permit a PHA to make payments
utility schedule established by the PHA and
directly to a utility provider, taken out of the
added to the rent for the purpose of
payments 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)
Limited English
In 2001, President Clinton signed Executive
The bill would require HUD to establish a task
Same as House bill. (Sec. 20)
Proficiency
Order 13166 which stated that in order to be in
force comprised of industry groups, funding
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights
recipients, community-based organizations,
(PH and PBRA)
Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
civil rights groups, and other stakeholders to
national origin), administrators of
establish a list of vital documents to be
federally-funded programs must provide access
competently translated to improve access for
to persons with Limited English Proficiency
persons with limited English proficiency.
(LEP). The EO required federal agencies to
develop guidance implementing it. The
Within six months of their identification, HUD
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued model
would 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 the
make them available on HUD’s website.
DOJ’s guidance. The guidance is not
necessarily a new set of requirements, as
The Secretary would also be required to
grantees were always required be in
develop and carry out a plan to assist recipients
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights
of federal funds in improving access for
Act. Rather, the guidance is designed to help
individuals with Limited English Proficiency.
grantees understand how they can ensure that
they are in compliance when it comes to
The bill would require HUD to develop and
serving LEP persons. The guidance states that
maintain a housing information resource center,
HUD grantees are required to take reasonable
which would provide translation of written
steps to ensure meaningful access to their
materials and a toll-free interpretation service
programs and activities by LEP persons. The
telephone line. The center would also be
guidance states that it is necessary for each
charged with collecting and evaluating for
recipient to undertake an individualized
accuracy, or developing and making available,

---

CRS-42
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
assessment to determine how to meet that
templates and documents including
requirement using a four-factor analysis, which
administrative and property documents, legally
is meant to help determine LEP needs in a
binding documents, consumer education and
community and how to balance those needs
outreach, and rights and responsibilities
against resource constraints. The four factors
documents. The center would also be charged
are:
with conducting a study evaluating best
(1) the number or proportion of LEP persons
practice models for serving LEP persons for all
eligible to be served or likely to be
HUD programs. Within 18 months of
encountered by the program or grantee;
enactment, the center would be required to
(2) the frequency with which LEP persons
submit a report to Congress with
come in contact with the program;
recommendations for implementation. The
(3) the nature and importance of the program,
center would also be charged with providing
activity, or service provided by the program to
information relating to culturally and
people’s lives; and
linguistically competent housing services for
(4) the resources available to the
persons with LEP.
grantee/recipient and costs.

The bill would authorize such sums as
Once a grantee determines what the needs in
necessary to fund these activities and would
the community are, the guidance states that
require HUD to submit a report regarding its
they should consider developing a language
compliance with the requirements within six
assistance plan outlining how they are going to
months, 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Effective Date
Not applicable.
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of
the legislation would take effect beginning
the 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)
Preservation
Properties that require prior HUD approval to
The bill would require HUD to approve the
No provision.
Provisions
prepay their mortgages are not eligible to
prepayment of the mortgage for the Heritage
receive enhanced vouchers under current law.
Apartments in Malden, Massachusetts, and
(PBRA)
(12 USC § 4119)
provide tenant-based rental vouchers to the
current residents of the property. (Sec. 15)
Under administrative provisions included in
the FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations acts,
The bill would also direct the Secretary to
HUD is permitted to transfer project-based
transfer project-based rental assistance
rental assistance contracts from one property to
contracts, restrictions, and debt from one
another, but only if the transfer complies with
building 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)
Collection of Data on
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
No provision.
The Senate bill would require HFAs to provide
Tenants in Tax Credit
program is administered federally by the
data to HUD annually on the race, ethnicity,
Projects
Internal Revenue Service, but the credits are
family composition, age, income, use of rental
awarded and the program is administered by
assistance, disability status, and monthly rental
(Other)
state housing finance agencies (HFAs). HFAs
payments 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 is
publish 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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)
Effect of Income
PHAs receive public housing operating funds
Under the bill, If HUD determines that changes
Similar provision. If a PHA determines that
Calculation Changes
from the federal government to help make up the
to the income definitions and calculations (as
changes to the income definitions and
on PHA Revenue
difference between what tenants pay in rent and
contained in the bill) reduced the rental income
calculations (as contained in the bill) reduced

what it costs to run public housing. In FY2007,
of a PHA (beyond a de minimus amount)
the rental income of a PHA (by more than ½
(PH only)
PHAs began receiving their public housing
during the period in which rental income is
of 1% of dwelling rents from the preceding
operating funds under a new formula, which
frozen, the Secretary would be required to
year, as projected in the first quarter of the
includes new estimates of what it should cost to
make adjustments to agency budgets.
calendar year), the PHA could certify to HUD
run public housing. As a part of the transition to
their projected reduction by April 15 of each
the new formula, the calculation was modified to
HUD would be required to report to Congress
year, and, within 45 days, the Secretary would
freeze tenant income at the FY2004 level. As a
in FY2008 and FY2009 on the effects of the
be required to reimburse the agency, if funds
result, if PHAs are able to increase the amount of
amendments made in this legislation on PHA
are available. PHAs would be required to
rent that they collect from tenants, their public
revenue. (Sec. 4(f))
maintain necessary records for audits or
housing operating funds will not be reduced and
reviews.
they can keep the additional income. Tenant
income is scheduled to be “unfrozen” in
Contains the same reporting requirements as in
FY2009.
the House bill, except changes dates to
FY2009 and FY2010. (Sec. 4(f))

---

CRS-45
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Moving to Work
Under the Moving to Work Demonstration,
The House bill would create a new Housing
No provision.
PHAs may receive waivers allowing them to
Innovation Program. Like MTW, HIP would
(PH)
combine their public housing and Section 8
allow PHAs to combine public housing and
voucher funds and receive waivers of most
Section 8 voucher funds and receive waivers of
other program rules and requirements. The
many program requirements. Unlike MTW, it
purpose of the program is to provide PHAs and
would contain detailed program requirements, a
the Secretary the flexibility to design and test
tiered system of participants (some with more
various approaches for providing and
waiver ability than others) and performance
administering housing assistance. The HUD
standards. The Secretary would be permitted to
Secretary is authorized to select up to 30 PHAs
select up to 60 PHAs to participate in the full
to participate. (42 USC 1437 Note)
program, and up to another 20 to participate in
a more restricted version of the program.
Existing MTW agencies would be phased-in to
the HIP program (Sec. 16)
Moving to Work/Housing Innovation Program
(Sec. 16 of SEVRA, adding Sec. 36 to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937)
Program
Moving 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 the
act. Hereafter, citations are shown as they would
Note)
be included in the act)
Purposes
The purpose of the program is to provide PHAs
The purposes of the program would be to provide
No provision.
and the Secretary the flexibility to design and
PHAs and the Secretary the flexibility to design
test various approaches for providing and
and evaluate approaches to administering
administering housing assistance that
housing 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 where
rehabilitating or replacing housing at risk of
the head of the household is working, seeking
physical deterioration, and developing additional
work, or preparing for work; and
affordable 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
housing;

---

CRS-46
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
-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
community and with the substantial participation
of affected residents. (Sec. 36(a))
Authority
Authorizes the Secretary to conduct an MTW
Would direct the Secretary to carry out a housing
No provision.
demonstration and select up to 30 agencies for
innovation program and would permit the
participation. (b)
Secretary to designate up to 60 PHAs to
participate 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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))
MTW Agencies
Not applicable.
Each existing MTW agency would be designated
No provision.
to participate in the housing innovation program,
as long as the MTW agency was not in default of
its MTW agreements and the Secretary
determines the MTW agency is meeting the goals
and objectives of its MTW plan. Within two
years 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))
Term of
No term specified in law; in practice, generally
The Secretary would be permitted to carry out the
No provision.
Participation
5- to 7-year contracts, with extensions.
housing innovation program only during the 10-
year period beginning upon enactment of the
legislation. (Sec. 36(b))
Resident Participation
As a part of their applications, PHAs must
PHAs would be required to provide opportunities
No provision.
provide for citizen participation through a public
for 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 and
proposed policy changes and including providing
comments from current and prospective residents
a 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
-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))
Plans
PHAs must submit plans. The plans must
Participating PHAs would be required to submit
No provision.
include that includes criteria for:
an annual plan each year, containing:
-families to be assisted, 75% of whom must be
-a list of all program initiatives and policy
very low-income;
changes, including references to relevant laws or
- reasonable rent policies designed to
regulations;
encourage employment and self sufficiency;
-a description of changes from preceding year;
- continuing to assist substantially the same
-a description of property redevelopment or
number of people;
portfolio repositioning strategies and proposed
- maintaining a comparable mix of families
changes in policies or uses of funds to pursue
(by family size); and
such 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
strategy.

---

CRS-49
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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
a plan only if:
-the Secretary determines that the plan is not in
compliance with the requirements of the
program;
-the annual plan or most recent annual report is
not consistent with other information available to
the Secretary; or
-the plan or report or activities are not in
accordance with applicable law.
Application and
Agencies’ applications must:
In addition to existing MTW agencies, within 18
No provision.
Selection Criteria
-request the authority to combine public housing
months, 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 with
including the following requirements:
public and resident comments; and
-Any PHA could be selected, including near-
-may also include a request technical assistance
troubled agencies, except that no more than 5
from HUD to assist with design of the
agencies that are near-troubled may be selected,
demonstration and participation in a detailed
except 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 take
rent 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
-the relative performance of the agency on the
and small PHAs; urban, suburban and rural
Public Housing Assessment System; and
PHAs; 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
and regulations that impede the goals of the
proposal and why participation in the program is
necessary to achieve the goals of the proposal;
-the extent of commitment and funding for the
proposal from local government and nonprofit
agencies and support for the proposal by
residents, resident advisory boards and members
of 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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
their current contract. (Sec 36(d)(3))
Program
PHAs may be exempted from most provisions of
Participating PHAs would be permitted combine
No provision.
Requirements
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, although Section
Public Housing operating funds, Public Housing
18 (demolition and disposition requirements) and
capital funds, and Section 8 voucher funds, using
Section 12 (Davis Bacon and community service
such funds for any activities authorized under
requirements) cannot be waived. Participating
Section 8(o) or 9 of the US Housing Act, and
PHAs may combine Public Housing operating
other activities, which would include, without
funds, Public Housing capital funds, and Section
limitation:
8 voucher funds to provide housing assistance
-Providing capital, operating, or other financing
for low-income families and services to facilitate
assistance for housing previously assisted under
the transition to work on such terms and
a 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 the
longer terms that currently permitted under
same total number of eligible low-income
Section 8 voucher rules);
families and maintain a comparable mix of
-covering the costs of acquisition and
families (by family size) as would have been
improvement of sites, utility services, demolition,
served if the assistance had not been combined
planning 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 low
program;
income;
-safety, security, law enforcement and anti-crime
-PHAs must establish reasonable rent policies
activities to protect and support families assisted
designed to encourage employment and self
under the program;

---

CRS-52
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
sufficiency;
-tenant-based rental assistance (including project-
-PHAs must continue to assist substantially the
basing of TBRA);
same number of people;
-providing financial assistance to preserve low-
-PHAs must maintain a comparable mix of
income housing assisted by HUD, or state or
families (by family size); and
local low-income housing programs. (Section
-PHAs must assure housing meets quality
36(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
PHAs must comply with the following
requirements in current law:
-targeting
-tenant participation on PHA board
-the definition of low- and very-low income
families
-resident Advisory board requirements
-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;
-portability;
-Section 12 (Davis Bacon); and
-Section 18 (Demolition/Disposition of public

---

CRS-53
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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
must
-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
available for public inspection (at least 60 days
before the public meeting, discussed below);
-hold a public meeting on the proposed change
(which can be combined with the draft annual
plan or annual report meeting);
-have the change approved by the board of
directors in a public meeting;
-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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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
apply to agencies under existing MTW
agreements. (Sec. 36(e)(1))
PHAs must continue to assist
-not less than substantially the same number of
eligible low-income families as served in the base
year (adjusted for allocations of additional
vouchers 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)).
Funding
The amount of assistance received by the agency
The amount of assistance received by a
No provision.
is not diminished by their participation in the
participating agency, subject to appropriations
demonstration. MTW agencies are funded based
(and any applicable proration), would not be
on their agreements with HUD, although they are
diminished by participation in the program. (Sec.
subject to any funding prorations. (f)
36(e)(5))
Evaluation,
The Secretary is to provide training and technical
The Secretary would be required to conduct
No provision.
Assessment, and
assistance during the demonstration and conduct
detailed evaluations of all participating PHAs in
Performance
detailed evaluations of up to 15 agencies to
order to
Standards
identify replicable program models promoting
-determine PHAs’ success in achieving the
the purpose of the demonstration.(b)
purposes of the program; and

---

CRS-55
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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 must
The Secretary (or an evaluating entity contracted
consult with representatives of PHAs and
by 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
developing additional housing;
-leveraging other Federal, State, and local
funding resources (including the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)), to expand and
preserve affordable housing, including public
housing;
-moving families to self-sufficiency and
increasing 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))
Record Keeping and
The Secretary and GAO must have access to all
PHAs would be required to keep records
No provision.
Reports
relevant document.
prescribed by the Secretary as necessary to
disclose funding and spending under the
Agencies must keep records as required by the
program, to ensure compliance with program
Secretary. Agencies must supply reports and in
requirements, 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 for
evaluation to the Secretary and the Comptroller
assessing the demonstration, and
General of the United States (GAO). (Sec.
-describe and analyze the effect of activities in
36(g)(3 and 4))
meeting objectives.(g)

---

CRS-56
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
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;
-an annual audit;
-a description of each hardship exemption
requested and granted or denied as well as the use
of any transition rules;
-documentation of public and resident
participation;
-a comparison of the incomes, sizes, and types of
families 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
Provision
Housing Choice Voucher Program Current
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007
Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008
(including the
Law
(H.R. 1851, 110th Congress)
(S. 2684, 110th Congress)
programs to which it
(United States Housing Act of 1937, as
(as passed by the House)
(as introduced in the Senate)
applies)
amended and Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations)
Reports to Congress
The Secretary had no later than 180 days after
The Secretary would be required to submit three
No provision.
the third year of the demonstration to submit to
reports to Congress evaluating the programs of
Congress a report evaluating programs carried
participating PHAs participating in this program
out under the demonstration, including findings
and in MTW, including findings and
and recommendations for applicable legislative
recommendations 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))
Not less than 48 months after enactment, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) would
be required to report to Congress on the extent
that participating PHAs are meeting the goals and
objectives of the program. (Sec. 36(f)(2))
Authorization of
FY1996-FY1998, the Secretary was authorized
Would authorize to be appropriated $10 million
No provision.
Appropriations
to use up to $5 million for technical assistance to
for 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))
Source: Table prepared by CRS.

---