Bill Overview
Title: A bill to require certain public housing agencies to absorb port-in housing choice vouchers, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires a public housing agency that uses less than 95% of its budget authority in a given year to accept a housing choice voucher from a family that received the voucher from an agency in a different jurisdiction.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Families using housing choice vouchers and associated individuals
Estimated Size: 5500000
- There are approximately 2.2 million families using housing choice vouchers in the United States.
- The bill affects families with housing choice vouchers who wish to port their voucher to a different jurisdiction.
- Public housing agencies (PHAs), landlords, and communities where the families might move to could also be impacted.
- PHAs using less than 95% of their budget authority are particularly impacted, as they will now have to absorb more port-in vouchers.
Reasoning
- The population that this policy targets are families using housing choice vouchers who might want to move to a different jurisdiction but face difficulties doing so currently. This bill will particularly impact those in jurisdictions with a low utilization of their voucher budget.
- Considering a budget of $120,000,000 in year 1, the focus is on families likely to move due to work, education, or family ties, which might be roughly around 100,000 families given average voucher cost estimates.
- Several stakeholders are indirectly affected: those working at public housing agencies, landlords, and local communities, especially in areas that have more affordable housing options and are attractive relocation targets.
- A range of outcomes in wellbeing scores is expected based on the current economic condition, availability of housing, and social services in the areas the families move into.
Simulated Interviews
Waitress (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I really hope this policy helps me move to where I can get a better job. I've been stuck in Atlanta waiting for my voucher transfer.
- This could change a lot for me and my daughter, especially being closer to family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's gotten harder to secure a stable job here, and moving would help but it's been difficult with the current system.
- We're hoping this allows us to finally get to a better community for my kids' schools.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's challenging to leave, my network is here but costs are rising.
- If this change allows me to live closer to my daughter without red tape, that would ease a lot of my worries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelancer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a freelance worker, moving would not only be for work but lifestyle improvement too.
- It's usually a bureaucratic mess; anything to ease that would be great.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Moving to a smaller community might help me with a new start and opportunities for my kids.
- If this policy passes, it could take a weight off my shoulders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Artist (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The art scene out of state is tempting, but current restrictions really hinder that option.
- With this policy, we might afford a better home and healthcare access for my partner.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's really important for us to be together without financial strain.
- This policy could ease our relocation headache, allowing us to focus on building a future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd like to move closer to my partner's new job but the voucher process is a bottleneck.
- I feel stuck unless this policy passes to facilitate the move.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tech Support (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our main need is accessible housing, which often isn't available locally.
- The policy could widen our options significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Government Employee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As we look towards retirement, moving to a more affordable and warmer place is ideal.
- This policy might allow us to transition smoothly without waiting too long.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $155000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 10: $160000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $320000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- The realignment of voucher acceptance policies could shift demographic balances and housing demand across jurisdictions.
- Increased administrative costs for PHAs not previously absorbing port-in vouchers will require additional funding or reallocation of current funds.
- Potential economic opportunity for voucher holders could enhance long-term community stability and economic integration.