Bill Overview
Title: Housing Access Improvement Act
Description: This bill increases from 20% to 50% the amount of funding for the Housing Choice Voucher program that a public housing agency (PHA) may use for project-based vouchers. (This program subsidizes rent for low-income recipients.) Under current law, a PHA must use at least 80% of its funding for tenant-based vouchers (which subsidize recipients' rental of any private apartment that meets program guidelines) and may use up to 20% of its funding for project-based vouchers (which attach to a specific rental unit that the landlord commits to make available for voucher recipients for a contracted term).
Sponsors: Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-20]
Target Audience
Population: Low-income individuals and families relying on rental assistance programs
Estimated Size: 11000000
- The Housing Choice Voucher program is a significant component of U.S. rental assistance, directly impacting millions of low-income households.
- The change from 20% to 50% for project-based vouchers could significantly influence the housing options available to these households and landlords involved in this scheme.
- The bill will primarily impact low-income individuals and families who are eligible for or already benefiting from the Housing Choice Voucher program.
- Landlords participating or seeking to participate in the project-based voucher system will be impacted by the increased funding allocations.
Reasoning
- The policy explicitly targets low-income individuals and households, so the interviews focus on those people, including those who are already part of the Housing Choice Voucher program and those who may be affected by the increase in project-based vouchers.
- Landlords who may or may not participate in the voucher program are also included to understand additional perspectives.
- The policy change could moderately impact the Cantril Wellbeing scores for those heavily reliant on housing assistance.
- Not all low-income people will be directly affected; thus, the estimation of impact ranges from none to high depending on individual circumstances.
- Interviews with different demographic sections ensure a comprehensive outlook, considering age, gender, and personal background.
- Budget constraints mean not all eligible persons can be covered in the first year, but the long-term increase in funds aims to help more people progressively over 10 years.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could offer more stability since project-based vouchers might ensure a home for longer periods.
- Worried that shifting funds might mean fewer tenant-based vouchers available.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Restaurant Cook (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Optimistic that project-based vouchers might shorten wait times or offer viable housing options.
- Concerns that finding specific project-based housing may not align with job location.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increase in project-based vouchers could ensure steady occupancy for long tenure.
- Worries about potential bureaucratic challenges or shifts in tenant demographics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though not directly impacted as not receiving assistance, hopeful for low-income family members.
- Believes the focus should also support education-linked housing options.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Dallas, TX)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased project-based vouchers could mean longer stability in current housing projects.
- Hopeful for better community support with consistent residents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Administrative Assistant (Miami, FL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Neutral about the policy as currently not impacted.
- Worried about long-term tax implications or potential rent hikes influencing housing markets at large.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Factory Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful this policy will decrease wait times or offer new housing opportunities.
- Has concerns about being uprooted to different areas if project-based units are far off.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Self-employed (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Doesn't foresee personal impact but aware of housing market ripple effects.
- Wonders if more should be done for small landlords participating in similar programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Nurse (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes more project-based options could complement current access to healthcare and social services for her community.
- Concerned about losing tenant-based flexibility despite needing housing security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Artist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes increased housing allocation will support diverse communities in housing projects.
- Worries about finding LGBTQ+ friendly environments in available project-based units.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 2: $850000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $950000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 10: $1100000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 100: $1300000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1500000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial increase in project-based vouchers might strain public housing agencies due to sudden changes in funding and operational structures.
- Project-based vouchers require long-term commitments from landlords, which might limit housing options in less desirable locations.
- The change may also impact the balance of housing supply and demand, potentially raising rents in non-participating areas.