Bill Overview
Title: Dignity in Housing Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to inspect each public housing project with more than 100 units at least every two years to determine whether the project and units are maintained in compliance with federal standards. Inspections must be performed by HUD employees or designees, and may not be performed by officers, employees, or agents of a public housing agency. HUD must make the results of these inspections publicly available online. These inspections are in addition to the annual inspection already required of every public housing project under current law.
Sponsors: Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals and families residing in public housing projects
Estimated Size: 2500000
- Public housing provides affordable living spaces to individuals and families with low income.
- The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees public housing in the United States.
- As of recent reports, there are approximately 1.2 million households in public housing across the US.
- Public housing residents will be directly affected because their living conditions will be subject to more frequent inspections.
- Under the current guidelines, there are millions of individuals and families relying on public housing assistance in the US.
Reasoning
- Public housing residents will be directly affected as their living conditions will be subject to more frequent inspections, which should enforce better maintenance and living standards.
- Low-income families may see an improvement in their quality of life if maintenance issues are addressed more regularly.
- The effect will vary; for some it could be significant if their current housing conditions are not being well-maintained.
- The policy targets those in public housing projects with over 100 units, suggesting a common profile will be low-income individuals or families.
- Those not residing in public housing, or in smaller public housing developments, are unlikely to be directly impacted, though they might still hold opinions on public housing policies.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time they do more inspections. Our building has so many issues that don't get fixed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More inspections might push them to actually fix things around here. My kids deserve better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- They should be doing this already. I'm hopeful but cautious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelancer (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might help, but what's needed is proper funding for real repairs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Disabled Veteran (Detroit, MI)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More inspections are good, but if issues aren't fixed, what's the point?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Single Mother (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'll believe it when I see changes, there's plenty to fix.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inspections might improve our area, we have high hopes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Part-time worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve seen a lot here, hope it's not just talk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Frequent inspections are needed, but action is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Full-time caregiver (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inspections add accountability, but repairs matter most.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $152000000 (Low: $102000000, High: $202000000)
Year 3: $154000000 (Low: $104000000, High: $204000000)
Year 5: $158000000 (Low: $108000000, High: $208000000)
Year 10: $165000000 (Low: $115000000, High: $215000000)
Year 100: $180000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Key Considerations
- The increase in inspection frequency aims to improve living conditions for millions in public housing projects.
- HUD will need to allocate additional resources for inspections and IT infrastructure for publishing results.
- Economically disadvantaged groups will potentially benefit from improved housing standards.