Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program
A Brief Introduction
The History of the Section 8
Housing Program




1937 US Housing Act focused on PHAs building,
owning and managing housing.
By the 1970’s, the public housing stock stood at
approximately 1.2 million units.
Mid-1970’s, Congress pushes a new housing
policy channeling housing resources to private
owners to build and maintain affordable housing.
It becomes Section 8 of the US Housing Act and
creates two forms of subsidy:


project-based with 20 year contracts
tenant based
Program Today

Section 8 is the largest rental subsidy
program in the country.
2.1 million tenant based units authorized
 900,000 project based but decreasing


States with the highest number of units
New York- approximately 300,000
 California- approximately 350,000

Program Today

Who’s served in the tenant based
program?
64% are families with children
 15% elderly
 13% persons with disabilities


Majority live in non-poverty census tracts
Eligibility - Who Qualifies

Income Eligible



Primarily based on income, adjusted for
family size
The income of 75% of the new admissions
into the program must be under 30% of
area median income:
Alameda County
 One person - $17,400
 Two people - $19,850
 Three people - $22,350
 Four people - $24,850
 Five people - $26,850
 Six people $30,800
Partnerships and Controlling Documents
Voucher, Lease and Contract
Property Owner
Housing Authority
Tenant
Income Eligibility and Rent
Calculation

Income based rent
rent is calculated at 30% of adjusted income
 minus a HA established utility allowance
ExampleAdjusted monthly income $719 X 30% =$216
Utility allowance is $46
$216 - $46 = $170 tenant monthly rent

Section 8 Reform
Proposals
Housing Assistance for Needy
Families (HANF) & Flexible
Voucher Programs
2004 HANF Program Components


Participation was optional
2004 was to be the transition year



PHAs would continue to administer Section 8
program while States prepared to take over
$100M set aside for state capacity building
Program Administration




State housing agencies
PHAs, or
other entities (preference to faith based entities)
Administrative Fees capped at 10% of the
budget authority
HANF Program Funding $13.6B

Number of families served to be the “same”
based on renewal funding




2.077M vouchers authorized for FFY 2003
Renewal funding provided for 1.91M vouchers
$36 million for 5500 incremental vouchers for
non-elderly disabled persons living in public
housing units that are designated for the elderly
(not an increase in units)
$72 million for Family Self Sufficiency
Coordinators
Program Specifics…few!






Housing was the only authorized use of $’s
Current participants would be grandfathered into
HANF program
“Majority” of vouchers for ELI families
Modeled on CDBG (entitlement communities)
Earnings cap to transition families out of
program
Annual Adjustment Factor amount unknown
2005 Flexible Voucher Program
Basic Design
Return to the dollar-based voucher
approach –don’t cap number of families.
 Simplify statutory and regulatory design.
 Give much more flexibility to PHAs.
 Continue the program as tenant-based
rental
 Continue homeownership option
 Continue project-based option in a more
streamlined fashion, e.g. PHA does not
have to get HUD approval for location.

Program Administration



Program to be administered by the
current administrators/PHAs.
HUD to focus on measuring a few, basic
performance measures --utilization of
funds, number of families served,
financial management --not processes.
In cases where the PHA fails to or is no
longer willing to administer the program,
HUD to select another entity to administer
the program.
Flexible Voucher Funding
Funding to be proportionate to funding
received by the PHA in FY 2004
 Subsequent funding to be adjusted by an
inflation factor

2006 Proposal
No details yet
 Likely to be similar to the 2005 Flexible
Voucher Program
