Bill Overview
Title: Choice in Affordable Housing Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes programs and grants to incentivize landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program (i.e., Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance). The bill authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide one-time incentive payments to landlords, security deposit payments, bonuses to public housing agencies that employ landlord liaisons, and amounts for other recruitment purposes. Additionally, the bill allows dwelling units to meet Housing Choice Voucher program inspection requirements by satisfactory inspection through participation in other housing programs. Landlords not yet participating in a low-income housing assistance program may request inspection by a public housing agency to determine whether the dwelling meets requirements prior to selection by a tenant. Finally, HUD must expand the use of an alternative method of calculating fair market rent for purposes of the Housing Choice Voucher program.
Sponsors: Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]
Target Audience
Population: Low-income families and individuals relying on subsidized housing programs globally
Estimated Size: 7500000
- Landlords will directly benefit from financial incentives and reduced bureaucracy when joining the Housing Choice Voucher program.
- Low-income families that are eligible for the Housing Choice Voucher program may experience increased access to housing options if more landlords choose to participate.
- Existing public housing agencies will receive bonuses and support, allowing them to better serve low-income families.
- The legislation aims to lower the administrative barriers for landlords, encouraging more housing opportunities for low-income individuals.
Reasoning
- To evaluate the policy, we should consider both direct and indirect beneficiaries. Directly, landlords are incentivized financially, potentially increasing their willingness to provide low-income housing, thus affecting their economic wellbeing. Indirectly, low-income tenants may find better or more stable housing options, impacting their life satisfaction and stress levels. Additionally, public housing agencies' efficiency might improve, affecting service delivery to low-income families.
- Given the scope of the policy, impacts may differ across regions with varying housing demands and landlord participation rates. It's also crucial to account for individuals not directly impacted (e.g., those already benefiting from housing assistance or not eligible for vouchers) to contextualize the policy's overall effect.
- Considering the budget, initial impacts may be limited in reach but could scale over time as more landlords participate and more tenants benefit, suggesting a gradual improvement in wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Single mother working part-time (New York City, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often struggle to find decent housing within the city limits that accepts rental assistance.
- It would be great if more landlords participated in the program, giving us better choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Landlord (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Participating in this program could reduce some financial uncertainties I have with vacancies.
- The incentives sound promising if they genuinely simplify the process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public housing agency worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With better funding and bonuses, we could improve our services and help more families find suitable housing.
- The reduction in bureaucratic hurdles excites many of us as it can lead to more quickly housed families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech support specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't directly benefit from such programs, but if more affordable options open up, it might help indirectly with local rent prices.
- I'm wary of how long it will take for impacts to be felt in high-demand areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Rural Kansas)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My area doesn't see much landlord participation, so current options are limited.
- If more landlords joined the program, I'd feel more secure about future housing decisions.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real estate investor (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incentives could mitigate some risk and provide stable rental income.
- I appreciate efforts to ease entry into such programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Housing policy analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining processes could close gaps we've identified in getting housing assistance to those in need.
- We need to monitor how landlords actually respond to these incentives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Bartender (Detroit, MI)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If more landlords accept vouchers, it might be easier for people like me to find stable housing.
- It's frustrating seeing good housing options and not being able to live there because they don't take vouchers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Public housing agency manager (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our agency could use any extra support to meet the rising demands for assistance.
- It's crucial to see if these initiatives translate to more actual housing opportunities.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
School teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More affordable options could prevent my frequent moves.
- Hopeful that incentives will entice more property owners to open up their rentals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $240000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $140000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $170000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $150000000)
Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- The raised administrative burden on public housing agencies and HUD to manage new inspection protocols.
- Adjustment period needed for landlords and agencies as new calculation methods for fair market rent are implemented.
- Potential fluctuations in landlord participation determined by initial incentive attractiveness.