|
|
|
|
Proposed
Legislation
|
Flexible
Voucher Program and Other Reforms: Proposed Legislation, State and
Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005 (SLHFA)
- The assisted housing programs have become overly complex and
burdensome to administer thus making it more difficult to serve
families that need help.
- Unintended consequences have led to programs that disincentivize
work and independence.
- Rising costs experienced by the Housing Choice Voucher program
have led to the need to reexamine programs to ensure dollars allocated
are spent in the most effective way.
Key Facts:
- About 20 income exclusions and 18 mandated exclusions/deductions
go into calculating rent and income.
- One study indicated that it would consume more than 6 hours
of PHA staff time to correctly conduct the required tenant interview
and income calculation process.
- While many families stay less than five years in assisted housing,
even more stay 5 years and more. It is likely that those families
that do stay at least five years will end up staying up to 10
years.
- In 1998, the Housing Choice Voucher program consumed 36 percent
of the HUD budget. Today, it absorbs nearly 60 percent.
What is Provided?
- SLHFA provides local Housing Authorities the ability to fashion
housing programs that best meet the needs of their local populations.
- However, PHAs can retain much of what they are doing now if
they so choose.
- SLHFA would change the one-size-fits-all approach to assistance.
SLHFA would offer PHAs the freedom to set reasonable subsidy standards
based on local market conditions, and therefore serve as many
families as possible within their grant amount.
- SLHFA provides an incentive program (MTW) that would provide
even greater flexibility.
Key Facts:
- Despite record high vacancy rates and soft rental markets in
pockets across the country, the average per unit rental payment
has increased by 37 percent over the past five years. Yet, according
to the Consumer Price Index, the average nationwide rent increase
was only 13 percent.
- PHAs can continue to serve the same percentage of extremely
low income families that they are currently serving; they can
continue to use the existing rent structures; they can continue
to provide local preferences for homeless and other groups.
|
|
|