Rewrite paper

The section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program was established in 1974 and is now the largest federal low-income housing assistance program in the United States. This program is overseen by the Department of Housing Urban Development (HUD) and administered by state or local public housing agencies (PHAs), the program helps families afford decent, safe and sanitary housing and currently assists more than two million households. The PHAs provide vouchers to eligible low-income families with children, the elderly, veterans and disabled people. Who in turn use them to rent housing in the private market they might otherwise not be able to afford. The voucher recipients generally pay thirty percent of their monthly income toward the rent and the voucher subsidizes the remainder. In the housing voucher program there is a system which determined fair market rent (FMR). This Fair Market Rent is determined by the existing rental prices within community, the size of unite and finial the actual rent paid to the landlord.

Keywords: low-income housing, long wait list, location choice, discrimination

The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HVC) is one of the primary vehicles designed to provide affordable housing for low-income families with children, the elderly, veterans and disabled people throughout the United States. The stated objective of the program is to make housing more affordable, thereby enabling these participants to improve the quality of their housing, ending homelessness, relocate into better neighborhoods, and enhance their job opportunities. The program is supposed to directly impact participant as well as affect social and economic externalities such as the prices of nearby homes, (Carlson, Haveman, Kaplan & Wolfe, 2012).

The HCV began in 1974 and quickly grew to became one of the dominate programed of subsidized housing in the United States (Galvez, 2010). Its operated by the United Sates Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered by over three thousand local public housing authorities. The Housing Choice Program is now the federal government’s largest housing assistance program providing rental subsidies to over two million households across the country, (Sard & Coven, 2006). The program which is operated by Department of Housing and Urban Development in conjunction with over three thousand local public housing authorities serving more than two million households and over one million minor children.

The HCV program is structured to target extremely low-income households were thirty percent of the area median income are below and roughly eighty percent of the voucher holders are below this income level. Meaning that assistance goes to the neediest such as people living on disability benefits, low-income families with children, elderly and veterans.

HVC provides a monthly subsidy to cover the difference between the cost of the housing and what the participant can afford to pay up to a locally defined Fair Market Rent payment standard. And FMR is defined as the dollar amount below which forty percent of the standard

quality rental housing units are rented in an area. Participants typically pay approximately thirty percent of their income for rent and utilities with the program paying the balance, (Green, 2011).

The Housing Choice Voucher program eligibilities begins with a submission of an application to a housing authority. After submission applicants are assigned to a waiting list then when the applicants name arises to the top of the waiting list the household meets with the housing authority staff to learn the rules and requirements of the program. After obtaining a choice voucher the applicant searches for the rental housing in the private rental housing market and also selecting housing that is of higher quality and better neighborhood than their pervious housing. Once this process occur the receipt of a voucher location does change and the meetings with housing authority staff during the application process is likely to result in an increase in the public benefits also. For example, a recipient of choice voucher may become better positioned to secure subsidized child care services given the potential change in neighborhood and also the distribution of child care center, (Carlson, Haveman, Kaplan &Wolfe, 2012) found that these increased benefits and services. Which also increase the well-being of participants and enhance the well-being of society as a whole. Also for the participants and society, this gain can be conceived of as the recipient value of the additional services plus the consumer surplus associated with the increased receipt of in kind benefits.

In addition, the housing choice voucher program can also lift families out of homelessness and prevent families from becoming homeless in the first place. And that is why vouchers are the primary Federal Housing assistance that targets extremely low-income families with children, elderly, veterans and disabled people. And with the federal government involvement the amount of money allocated in the vouchers has increased due to Congress decisions on how to structure the program. Congress has also authorized to issue the Housing and Urban Development more vouchers to help deal with the long and growing waiting lists for voucher assistance around the country.

Overall the Housing Choice Voucher program has shown both genuine successes and also some significant shortcoming. Ludwig et al (2012) studies have consistently shown that the program has helped improve the quality of housing for people and has resulted in some measureable improvements in their well-being. The researchers have also found that once a family receive a voucher they are not likely to become homeless again. However, there are many major shortcomings to the Housing Choice Voucher program. For example, the waiting lists are long in many communities, recent funding cuts, the program changes and its abilities to help many families to get out of homelessness. Although the demand for vouchers far exceeds their supply as evidenced by long wait lists about one third of recipient return them unused, (Finkel & Buron, 2001).

Also the shortages of affordable housing along with some landlord’s reluctance to accept vouchers has meant that not every family is able to use its voucher. And the reason behind the story is that landlord usually expects a prospective tenant to bring documentation of assets including their credit score, (Marr,2005) found that credit problems were common and participants did not know how to correct them or present them in a more positive light. All because only a portion of the monthly rent is subsidized and the voucher holding tenant must pay thirty percent of his or her income to the landlord. This raises a concerned to the landlord due to the fact that the portion of the rent to be paid by the renter is still too much of a risk for them to assume according to the landlord’s standard criteria. In addition, the housing units of landlord who lease to the voucher holder are subjected to a secondary inspection to determine if the unit meets HCV guidelines for the unit quality and safety. And in the process the landlord bears a cost for the process in terms of lost time on the market and expenditures if improvements are required. The program does not compensate landlords for lost income associated with waiting for the housing unit to be inspected and certified, (Varady, Wang, Murphy & Stahlke, 2013) recounted one landlord perspective, “The fact that their tenant and their program cost us a lot of money they don’t care” (para. 2) this point out the frustration of landlord’s relation to the costs associated with delays whiles waiting for certification.

Although HCV are cost effective way to serve low-income families with children, elderly, veterans and disabled people in need. It’s cheaper to fund a voucher than it is to put a family in a shelter and provide them with expensive social services. Also HCV assure that families are in a stable housing rather than on our streets and costing money in the form of other state and federal government sponsored programs. For example, without HCV many children of homeless parent would be placed in foster care. HCV also prevent the separation of families which in many places the program is far less expensive than putting a child in foster care, (Walker, 2014).

HCV enable people to also move closer to better job opportunities, support networks and better schools to by giving this population the best chance to escape poverty. Because HCV can prevent a family from becoming homeless it saves money on expensive systems of care. And since children who experience homelessness are more likely to develop health and psychological problems which requires a lifetime of care, HCV save dollars and prevent most of these issue. The HCV program can and should help deconcentrate the massive poverty in united states in order to improve the life prospect for the low-income families with children, elderly, veteran and disabled people which is why the voucher policy is necessary.

References

Carlson, D., Haveman, R., Kaplan, T., & Wolfe, B. (2012). Long-term earnings and employment effects of housing voucher receipt. Journal of Urban Economics,71, 128-150.

Finkel, M., & Kennedy, S. (1994). Section 8 rental voucher and rental certificate utilization study: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Galvez, M. M. (2010). What do we know about housing choice voucher program location outcomes? A review of recent literature. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Green, R. K. (2011). Thoughts on rental housing and rental housing assistance. Cityscape, 13,39

Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J, R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults. Science, 337, 1505-1510. Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1224648.

Marr, M. D. (2005). Mitigating apprehension about section 8 voucher: The positive role of housing specialists in search and placement. Housing Policy Debate, 16,85-111.

Sard, B., & Averez-Sanchez, T. (2011). Large majority of housing voucher recipients work, are elderly, or have disabilities. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.