For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 12 rent. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34002