On May 17, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity held a hearing on a bill (H.R. 1999) that would convert the existing Section 8 voucher program into a flexible voucher program. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson testified in support of the proposal before the full committee on May 11 (see The Source, 5/13/05).
In a press release after the hearing, Chair Bob Ney (R-OH) stated, “Not a day goes by that I don’t talk to a constituent or an organization concerning the problems inherent to this program, such as long waiting lists, lack of affordable Section 8 voucher housing, and various funding concerns. It is my hope to continue identifying the top-level issues regarding the current operation, administration, and funding of the Housing Choice Voucher Program and to craft solutions that will address the effectiveness and efficiency of the government’s role in the administration of the program.”
Margery Austin Turner, director of the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said that one of the greatest strengths of the Section 8 voucher program “is that it allows families to choose the type of housing and neighborhood that best meets their needs.” She explained that without choice, voucher recipients would be concentrated in low-income areas, adding, “Social science research clearly shows that living in a distressed, high-poverty neighborhood undermines the well-being of families and the long-term life chances of children. There is ample evidence that residents of poor, inner-city neighborhoods are less likely to complete high school and go on to college, more likely to be involved in crime (either as victims or as perpetrators), more likely to be teenage parents, and less likely to hold decent-paying jobs.” Ms. Turner expressed her opposition to H.R. 1999, stating, “The bill threatens to severely restrict mobility and housing choice. Specifically, families would not be permitted to use their housing vouchers to move from one jurisdiction to another unless the administering housing agencies had a standing agreement. In other words, suburban jurisdictions could simply refuse to accept voucher holders seeking to move out of distressed city neighborhoods in order to be closer to job opportunities or to give their children the advantages of attending safe, high-performing public schools.”
Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, California Daniel Nackerman expressed his support for certain provisions of H.R. 1999. Specifically, he stated that the bill “proposes to minimally change the income levels of persons served by targeting 90% of vouchers to households below 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) in lieu of the current 75% at 30% AMI…The margins are small but the total savings are large and some agencies may need this route to savings in order to continue to administer the program viably. Generally, the new targeting would continue to serve the bottom third income levels of the entire American population just as the previous program did.” Mr. Nackerman also noted that the measure would implement a simpler income verification process, stating, “This would eliminate disincentives to employment and create significant savings to program costs as subsidies slow while employment income grows. This will also provide an opportunity to serve more families, as the average participation time in the program will be reduced.” Finally, Mr. Nackerman lauded expansion of the Moving to Work program.
The subcommittee also heard testimony from Tarrah Leach, a participant in the Section 8 program since 1998. Ms. Leach is a single mother of three children after having escaped from two abusive marriages. While receiving assistance under the Section 8 program, she received her GED and attended college to become a licensed practical nurse. Ms. Leach stated that the Section 8 program “helped me achieve so many of my goals. If it had not been for the Housing Assistance, I, as a single mother, would not have been able to put a roof over my children’s heads. I wouldn’t have had the time to devote to school to better my education for myself and my children.” She added, “I know I am not the only single mother out there with children that has goals and sees them slowly fade away because of the struggles that we go through to survive. Facing issues like not receiving child support to having to work all the time, or to have the government to want to take programs away, are the barriers that challenge our ability to attain those goals.”
