[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: A BETTER WAY TO INCREASE EFFICIENCIES FOR HOUSING VOUCHERS AND CREATE UPWARD ECONOMIC MOBILITY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 25-945 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. Serial No. 114-101 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Pennsylvania DAVID SCOTT, Georgia LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia AL GREEN, Texas BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ROBERT HURT, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BILL FOSTER, Illinois RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida PATRICK MURPHY, Florida ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ANN WAGNER, Missouri KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona ANDY BARR, Kentucky JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DENNY HECK, Washington LUKE MESSER, Indiana JUAN VARGAS, California DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine MIA LOVE, Utah FRENCH HILL, Arkansas TOM EMMER, Minnesota Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Vice EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking Chairman Member EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BILL POSEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas ROBERT HURT, Virginia GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin STEVE STIVERS, Ohio KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio ANDY BARR, Kentucky DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: September 21, 2016........................................... 1 Appendix: September 21, 2016........................................... 37 WITNESSES Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Blom, Dominique, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Public Housing Investments, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.................................................... 4 Lovell, Cheryl, Executive Director, the St. Louis Housing Authority...................................................... 10 Sard, Barbara, Vice President, Housing Policy, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)............................ 5 Thrope, Deborah, Staff Attorney, the National Housing Law Project (NHLP)......................................................... 7 Young, Ailrick, Executive Director, the Laurel Housing Authority. 9 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Blom, Dominique.............................................. 38 Lovell, Cheryl............................................... 47 Sard, Barbara................................................ 55 Thrope, Deborah.............................................. 70 Young, Ailrick............................................... 83 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Waters, Hon. Maxine: Written statement of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities................................................ 91 Written statement of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.................................................. 94 THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: A BETTER WAY TO INCREASE EFFICIENCIES FOR HOUSING VOUCHERS AND CREATE UPWARD ECONOMIC MOBILITY ---------- Wednesday, September 21, 2016 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Royce, Garrett, Pearce, Posey, Ross, Barr, Rothfus, Williams; Cleaver, Velazquez, Capuano, Clay, Ellison, Beatty, and Kildee. Ex officio present: Representatives Hensarling and Waters. Also present: Representative Palazzo. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. Without objection, the Chair can call a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Today's hearing is entitled, ``The Future of Housing in America: A Better Way to Increase Efficiencies for Housing Vouchers and Create Upward Economic Mobility.'' Before we begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize myself for 3 minutes to give an opening statement. Today's hearing serves as another opportunity for this subcommittee to look at the state of housing in our Nation and to examine potential changes to Federal housing programs that would maximize the investment of taxpayer funds and serve more families in a smarter way. Too often, the regulatory regime surrounding public housing authorities (PHAs) has the ultimate effect of stifling opportunities for tenants. Rules preventing flexibility and modernization for PHAs mean more work and fewer served. Archaic rules surrounding housing vouchers limit the ability of residents to pursue financial independence. All of this, combined with a budget situation that is not improving, means that we need to think differently about the way we administer housing programs. With H.R. 3700, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act, this subcommittee worked together because we shared a similar vision. We looked at the programs and processes of HUD and the Rural Housing Service to see where we could enact commonsense reforms and make both Departments work better for the American people. Together, and with incredible support from housing industry leaders, residents, and advocates, we made meaningful strides to raise up those in need and give more Americans the opportunity, as I always say, to have not just a place to live but a place to have a life. That is also the objective of the Speaker's Task Force on Poverty. Speaker Ryan has charged each of us with developing policy solutions that foster independence and freedom and allow for a better way. Today, we will hear from a panel of witnesses who will offer ideas for reform of rules impacting public housing authorities and the Housing Choice Voucher Program, among others. We will also discuss the Administration's housing choice voucher mobility demonstration program. It is my hope that the spirit that fostered H.R. 3700 continues to lead us to more collaborative reforms. We can and should continue to push for meaningful change that creates upward economic mobility and better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We have a distinguished panel with us today, including Cheryl Lovell, executive director of the St. Louis Housing Authority. This committee is always glad to see and hear from fellow Missourians. My colleagues and I look forward to each of your testimonies. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome those of you who are here to provide us with information. We have an opportunity today to take a very close look at the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program as well as discuss and perhaps receive some suggestions from you on the best ways to increase and enhance the portability process for residents who rely on these vouchers. Everyone here knows the importance of housing choice vouchers in our overall public housing strategy. Administered by the public housing authorities, these vouchers enable low- income individuals to live in private-market rental units by providing funding that makes up the difference of the amount the individual can afford and the rental payment itself. Currently, about 2.2 million Americans rely on this program. These vouchers go to some of our most vulnerable populations: extremely low-income families; seniors; and the disabled. All parents want the best outcome for their children, whether they are poor or rich, and providing a child with a safe, reliable home is vital to their growth, just as helping children access educational opportunity is vital to their overall success and well-being. By improving upon the portability process, we will help families move to areas with lower rates of poverty. A number of our witnesses have cited a 2015 study by Harvard Professor Raj Chetty which finds that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood significantly improves college attendance rates and earnings for children who were young when their families moved. Though we have some conflict on some parts of this program, I think that you, as witnesses, can provide us with valuable information about HUD's more recent actions on this issue, including the President's Fiscal Year 2017 funding request for a mobility demonstration program, which I hope we can get through. I think it is critically important for us to demonstrate this program so that when we come back next year we will be able to put programs like this into play. Last year, this committee was able to push past the paralyzing partisan divide, due to the leadership of our chairman, and we passed a long-needed overhaul of many of our public housing policies. And without the support of many in this room today, H.R. 3700 would not have been possible. So I want to thank all of you who helped make it possible, and we need your help now. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentleman. Today, we welcome the testimony of Ms. Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Public Housing Investments, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ms. Barbara Sard, vice president of housing policy at the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities; Ms. Deborah Thrope, staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project; Mr. Ailrick Young, executive director of the Laurel Housing Authority in Laurel, Mississippi; and Ms. Cheryl Lovell, the executive director of the St. Louis Housing Authority in St. Louis, Missouri. Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony, and without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record. Before we turn to questioning, I would like to extend a special welcome to my fellow Missourian on today's panel, and yield to the gentleman from St. Louis, Mr. Clay, for an introduction. Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri is recognized. Mr. Clay. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just very briefly, I want to introduce my constituent, who has advanced the cause of quality, affordable housing for thousands of low- and moderate-income residents in St. Louis. Ms. Cheryl Lovell, the executive director of the St. Louis Housing Authority, became the executive director just about the same time that I was first elected to Congress. Some of the members of the subcommittee may recall that for many years prior to that, the St. Louis Housing Authority was considered a symbol of dysfunction, despair, and decline. Today, that is no longer the case, and much of that improvement is because of Cheryl's tenacity and commitment to doing things right. During her tenure, the HUD rating score for the St. Louis Housing Authority has risen from a dismal 14 to an admirable 92. During the last 16 years, the St. Louis Housing Authority has developed over 2,200 new rental units, of which over 1,000 units are public housing; and they have used public and private partnerships, leveraging $200 million in public money with $325 million of private funds, for a total development portfolio of $525 million in completed projects. Cheryl has also worked closely with my staff and I to make Section 8 work better for more low-income citizens and to also leverage other HUD support, such as HOPE VI grants, which has helped to transform shameful public housing failures into attractive and welcoming housing where citizens can live in dignity. I am pleased to welcome her here, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for the opportunity to introduce her. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Lovell, as you can see, you have a very passionate advocate in Mr. Clay for housing issues, and we certainly are excited to have him on the committee, and he has done a fantastic job for you. With that, Ms. Blom, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DOMINIQUE BLOM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF PUBLIC HOUSING INVESTMENTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Ms. Blom. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to discuss how HUD is working to make its housing programs more efficient while expanding economic mobility for Americans who count on us. I am Dominique Blom, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments at HUD. The Housing Choice Voucher Program, which the committee has asked specifically about, is one of HUD's most important initiatives in this ongoing effort. HUD provides direct housing assistance to 2.3 million households living in public housing and the project-based rental housing program, and supports another 2.2 million Americans who are elderly, disabled, and families with children through housing choice vouchers. This support is vital to helping these citizens keep a roof over their head. In fact, without housing choice vouchers, much of the progress we have made as part of President Obama's Opening Doors plan to end homelessness in our Nation, implemented in partnership with the Congress, would not have been possible. HUD is a principal partner in fulfilling the President's vision of a Nation in which everyone has a secure home. That is why we have stepped up our work through efforts like the Family Unification Program to help end youth homelessness, especially among Americans who are involved in the foster care system, many of whom are often at greatest risk of becoming homeless. In addition to helping more Americans secure a stable home, HUD is also working to ensure that more of the families we support live in neighborhoods of opportunity, and housing choice vouchers are a central part of this effort. As our Moving to Opportunities demonstration has shown, mothers who use their vouchers to move to safer, low-poverty neighborhoods experience a host of health benefits, including a 50 percent lower rate of diabetes and a 42 percent reduction in severe obesity, and the youngest children of these mothers have higher rates of college attendance and 31 percent higher earnings as a result of their move. We look forward to working with the members of the committee to make this program even more effective in the future. Further, HUD continues our efforts to expand the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration. For 20 years, the MTW initiative has given public housing authorities greater flexibility to invest in innovation and use Federal resources in a smarter way for the families that they serve. By expanding this important effort to 100 more public housing authorities, HUD will learn from new policy interventions and apply that knowledge to our entire housing authority portfolio, to include simplifying the administration of housing assistance programs. The MTW expansion will help us build on other actions HUD has undertaken to reduce Administration requirements for PHAs across the Nation. HUD held a multiyear review of existing requirements, resulting in a streamlining rule to make administration of a number of PHA programs more efficient amid reduced funding. And HUD believes our new rules support the progress we anticipate as a result of two important bills enacted in the past year by Congress, namely the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act and the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act. Within its existing authority, HUD is working to streamline and create more efficiencies so that we deliver for the people who count on us directly while also strengthening our Nation as a whole. We look forward to working with this committee and with your colleagues in Congress to continue the important progress we have already achieved. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Blom can be found on page 38 of the appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Ms. Blom. Ms. Sard, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF BARBARA SARD, VICE PRESIDENT, HOUSING POLICY, THE CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES (CBPP) Ms. Sard. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. I am Barbara Sard, vice president for housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning, and particular thanks to the two of you and your staff and the members of this committee for your leadership and persistence in enacting H.R. 3700, the first comprehensive reform of the low-income housing programs in nearly 2 decades. The recent report of the Speaker's Task Force on Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility recommends in part that we should enhance the portability of housing vouchers and reform the fragmented system of thousands of public housing agencies. We agree with those recommendations and we think they form the foundation for a new stage of bipartisan work to improve the low-income housing programs. These recommendations are based on a strong body of evidence that the chairman referred to, and Ms. Blom referred to, which shows that growing up in safe, low-poverty neighborhoods can improve results for adults and children, including, most notably, an increase in earnings among young adults of, on average, $3,500 per year--very significant impacts. Unfortunately, only a small share of families now use vouchers in low-poverty areas--just one in eight of the families with children served by the program--though the program is effective for poor African-American and Hispanic families with vouchers, who are nearly twice as likely as other poor minority children to grow up in low-poverty neighborhoods. Yet, we have 343,000 children in families with vouchers living in extremely poor neighborhoods today, and we need to do better to help those children and others like them to have a better chance at a better life. One of the major barriers to families making such moves to opportunity is the fragmented system of voucher administration, as the Speaker's Task Force noted. More than 1,500 housing authorities administer vouchers in metropolitan areas. In most of these areas, one agency administers the program in the central city, and one or more agencies serve the surrounding suburban communities. In many cases, a lot more agencies surround the central city. For families, this fragmentation means that they are less likely to get useful advice about opportunities that other communities offer and more likely to have trouble using their voucher to find housing because they don't get information about landlords who will rent to them, and moving to another housing authority's jurisdiction requires them to deal with yet another bureaucracy whose staff may not be very welcoming to what they consider outsiders. For Federal taxpayers, this fragmentation increases costs of Federal oversight and of local agency administration, as the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found. Federal policymakers can help solve this problem. As Mr. Cleaver mentioned, one opportunity in front of you is to agree with the Senate and fund the regional housing mobility demonstration that the Administration proposed. This is a very important start. But this modest demonstration is not enough. Encouraging housing authorities to consolidate or form a consortia enables them to retain their identity and their individual boards of directors, which I am sure you appreciate is very politically important, but they still get to combine their administrative functions and create economies of scale and efficiencies. Helping them do this ought to be a goal of Federal policy. But few agencies are going to take this step unless it really pays for them to do it, if it really creates efficiencies. And currently, policy doesn't do that. The key here is to enable agencies that form a consortia to have a single funding contract with HUD. It has been more than 2 years since HUD proposed a rule change to allow that to happen, and HUD has not followed through. Congress can expedite these changes by directing HUD to permit consortia to have a single voucher funding contract without delay. It is also important to modify administrative fee policy to remove disincentives to form consortia and encourage greater use of vouchers in high-opportunity areas. My testimony includes other recommendations that will facilitate consortia. But one thing Congress should not do is advance or enact the small agency reform bill. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Sard can be found on page 55 of the appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Ms. Sard. Ms. Thrope, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DEBORAH THROPE, STAFF ATTORNEY, THE NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT (NHLP) Ms. Thrope. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on increasing efficiencies for housing vouchers and creating upward mobility. I am here on behalf of the National Housing Law Project, a private, nonprofit organization that provides legal and technical assistance to local housing advocates, tenant leaders, and public officials nationwide. NHLP hosts the National Housing Justice Network, a vast field network of over 1,000 community-level housing advocates and tenant leaders. Our work with local advocates who deal with the day-to-day problems and opportunities presented by implementation of housing laws informs NHLP's policy advocacy, including the views that I am going to express today. The Housing Choice Voucher Program has great potential to provide housing choice and mobility to families nationwide. The cornerstone of the voucher program is the opportunity to move to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, medical services, quality jobs, and other amenities. And yet, an increasing number of poor families live in areas of highly concentrated poverty where over 40 percent of residents are low-income. Even families who are lucky enough to receive a Section 8 voucher remain segregated in low-rent, high-poverty neighborhoods. There are several reasons for this. Some voucher tenants choose to live in lower-income neighborhoods to be near friends, family, a local church, medical care, or other support networks. That is why vouchers are only part of the multifaceted national approach to address housing instability and homelessness. National housing policy must also consider the preservation of affordable housing and community investment and revitalization. In addition, for the families who wish to move to more economically diverse neighborhoods with a voucher, housing choice is limited. Voucher tenants across the country report that they cannot use their voucher in the private rental market and often end up returning to high-poverty areas with or without their voucher, because if they can't use their voucher, they have to give it back. And this is true even for families who have spent sometimes 10 to 15 years on the voucher wait list. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the voucher program, policymakers must prioritize eliminating the barriers families face when they try to use their voucher in that private market. First, in many places the value of a voucher does not reflect market rent, making it difficult, if not impossible, for families to find a place they can afford. The value of a voucher is primarily based on fair market rents, or FMRs. When HUD sets the FMR below market, the maximum assistance level for a voucher tenant is so low that families are effectively barred from many neighborhoods, and particularly areas of opportunity. If HUD revised its FMR methodology, voucher families would experience greater housing choice and mobility. Second, voucher families may find there is a shortage of landlords willing to rent to assisted families. In San Diego, for example, there are reportedly enough vouchers to end veteran homelessness, although not enough landlords willing to take them. It is important to implement policies to incentivize and increase levels of landlord participation. Third, mobility counseling is an essential component of the voucher program because it educates families about the advantages of moving to higher-opportunity areas and provides the support and resources to complete a successful housing search. We therefore fully support the Administration's proposal for a new housing choice voucher mobility demonstration. Last, there are nearly 4,000 PHAs administering public housing and/or Section 8 vouchers in this country. This structure creates real challenges for tenants and can greatly restrict mobility because: one, it is inefficient and confusing for tenants who have to apply to a number of different wait lists in one metro area; and two, it creates portability problems when tenants have to jump through administrative hoops to move to the jurisdiction of another PHA. To resolve the issues that arise when tenants face jurisdictional boundaries, Congress should enact policies that will encourage PHAs to form consortia, such as the provision in H.R. 4816 that allows agencies participating in a consortium to fully merge reporting applications. While the Small Public Housing Agency Opportunity Act, or H.R. 4816, includes this important provision regarding consortia, parts of the bill run the risk of negatively impacting voucher families. The bill essentially calls for the deregulation of small PHAs by allowing full funding flexibility. As we have seen through the Moving to Work demonstration program, though, financial flexibility can lead to a significant reduction in the number of families served by Federal dollars. H.R. 4816 also includes a rent demonstration that could cause extreme financial hardship to many tenants. A tiered rent system, gross rents, and unlimited minimum rents will likely harm the most vulnerable families. My written testimony includes a number of additional ways that this bill could negatively impact tenants. Congress can and should take steps to eliminate barriers to improve housing choice and mobility for voucher families. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Thrope can be found on page 70 of the appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you. With that, we recognize Mr. Young for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF AILRICK YOUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE LAUREL HOUSING AUTHORITY Mr. Young. Good morning, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the Housing Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Ailrick Young and I am the executive director of the housing authority of the city of Laurel, Mississippi. Although this testimony is representative of my own personal experience, I am also here representing my colleagues at public housing agencies across the country who have shared in my experiences. I want to thank the subcommittee for your work on passing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act. I also want to thank Congressman Palazzo for introducing and sponsoring the Small Public Housing Agency Opportunity Act of 2016, H.R. 4816. He and his staff have been invaluable assets to small housing authorities and to the affordable housing community in general. H.R. 4816 can offer solutions to allow small agencies to, among other things, increase efficiencies for housing choice vouchers, create upward economic mobility, and offer better housing solutions for their communities. The bill strives to find the appropriate balance between responsible government oversight and additional flexibilities to make sure agencies are able to responsibly provide safe and decent housing. H.R. 4816 is designed to assure the long-term viability and effectiveness of small agencies and the portfolios they manage. The bill encourages flexibility and enables smaller agencies managing fewer than 550 units of federally-assisted housing to explore innovative approaches to determining tenant rents while reducing administrative burdens unique to smaller agencies. It accomplishes this by streamlining reporting and other regulatory burdens. Many of the burdensome reporting requirements not only take valuable time away from staff who could be meeting the needs of those whom we serve, but many of the reporting requirements are not even required for HUD's multifamily program. If adopted, H.R. 4816 would also increase HUD's efficiency through more manageable and appropriate oversight. Smaller agencies typically perform well on all of HUD's assessments and tend to still superbly carry out their mission to provide affordable housing. Small agencies like Laurel need the flexibilities provided in H.R. 4816 in order to cope with this harsh reality and to continue to provide high-quality, safe, and affordable housing in our communities. I understand that you are also looking at regionalization of housing--of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. I believe that mandatory consolidation of agencies is a bad idea. Creating voluntary programs where agencies can choose to work together and where they can receive regulatory flexibilities that make this cooperation easier and feasible is a worthy goal. Although the Laurel Housing Authority is a small agency without vouchers, our jurisdiction is included in a larger regional voucher program. Being local, the public housing residents of the community of Laurel can easily assess our agency services, while voucher holders and applicants do not have the same level of access. This is critical to eligible families who are looking to receive housing assistance. Many of our residents have children, they are trying to hold down a job, are elderly, or do not have access to their own transportation. Easy access to our agency significantly increases their ability to apply for housing, interview for a unit, or interact with staff at our agency. I thank you for the work to help us serve our residents better, and I stand ready, with my affordable housing peers, NAHRO, and PHADA, to assist you as best we can in moving responsible small agency reforms like H.R. 4816 forward. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found on page 83 of the appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Young. And Ms. Lovell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. STATEMENT OF CHERYL LOVELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE ST. LOUIS HOUSING AUTHORITY Ms. Lovell. Good morning, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and other members of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. First, I want to thank Congressman Clay for his introduction. I have worked with his office for many years and we have been able to accomplish a lot in our area, with the assistance of Congressman Clay's office. My name is Cheryl Lovell and I am the executive director of the St. Louis Housing Authority. I am pleased to be here today to provide you information and insight on the proposed demonstration program for mobility counseling for families using housing choice vouchers. The demonstration program would allow public housing agencies to collaborate on initiatives to assist low-income families using existing vouchers to move to areas of opportunity. The government structure in St. Louis is relatively unique. The City of St. Louis is a city that is not in a county. The City is surrounded by St. Louis County, which contains almost 90 municipalities. St. Louis County has a separate housing authority. Together, the housing authorities serve almost 13,000 families in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Approximately 95 percent of these families are African-American, and the average income for families is about $12,500 a year. The families served are about half elderly and disabled and the other half families with children, mostly single parents. For many years, the St. Louis Housing Authority and the Housing Authority of St. Louis County have allowed voucher holders to rent units in each other's jurisdiction without using the portability process. The jurisdictional sharing process allows families a broader choice of units in the metropolitan area. Despite the efforts of both housing authorities, the housing choice voucher units are largely concentrated in areas of minority population or poverty. To address the concentration of voucher utilization, the St. Louis Housing Authority and the Housing Authority of St. Louis County are collaborating to design and implement a small mobility counseling program. The program focuses on moving families to areas with a concentration of poverty of less than 10 percent. Participation in the program is voluntary and open to all new or existing clients of both housing authorities. Our program is funded by a small, one-time grant which supports the program for 12 to 14 months. Our hope is that during the design phase, additional funding can be identified to continue and expand the program. The St. Louis metropolitan area is one of the most segregated cities in the country and the poverty rate of African-Americans is nearly 3 times higher than the poverty rate of the remaining population. While the current program is early in the development stage and will initially serve a limited number of families, both agencies view the program as critical to their missions. Providing families with extra services they may need to take advantage of areas of greater opportunity is a small step towards addressing historic segregation, and will provide participating families with a path to potentially break the cycle of poverty. Like St. Louis, many older urban areas remain segregated. As economic disparity tends to follow patterns of segregation, housing choice voucher families in many areas live in neighborhoods with a high concentration of poverty. Creation of a demonstration program will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of regional mobility programs and will provide an opportunity for HUD and their partnering housing authorities to develop innovative solutions to move families to areas of higher opportunity. A demonstration program also allows HUD to determine which solutions provide the best outcome and develop best practices. The results of a demonstration program could assist other housing authorities to develop and implement mobility programs. We hope that the results of the demonstration program will provide insight on how to increase the number and size of programs in areas where voucher holders are highly concentrated and areas of poverty. It is important to note that the award of demonstration program need not be equally distributed across the regions of the country but should focus on the areas with the greatest need and the strongest proposals for a mobility program. Funding of a demonstration program is important, as housing authorities currently lack resources to create such programs. Administrative fees for Housing Choice Voucher Programs have not been fully funded for several years. As have most housing authorities nationwide, both the St. Louis Housing Authority and the Housing Authority of St. Louis County have undertaken significant cost-cutting measures, including significant reductions in staff, to continue to operate their program. The proposed funding levels of the administrative fee does not provide sufficient resources to provide staff necessary to create the mobility counseling program. Funding of a demonstration program would provide the necessary resources to initially design and implement programs and potentially identify additional resources to maintain a program. Given the potential benefit that moving to a low-poverty area can have for a family, providing the authorization funding to a mobility demonstration program is a positive step toward finding solutions to persistent issues with segregation. It has been 50 years since the Fair Housing Act was enacted. The low- income families are often stuck in neighborhoods that offer little opportunity to change their lives. While mobility counseling programs should not replace programs that revitalize existing neighborhoods to generate new economic opportunities, a mobility demonstration program could assist in developing solutions that offer families choices. Thank you for inviting me to testify. [The prepared statement of Ms. Lovell can be found on page 47 of the appendix.] Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Ms. Lovell. With that, I recognize myself for questions. Ms. Blom, as we were going through the discussion here it appeared that most of the witnesses addressed the Administration's mobility demonstration program, and I didn't really catch from your testimony whether you approve, disapprove, support, or don't support it. Can you give me a definitive answer on whether you do or do not support the mobility demonstration program? Ms. Blom. Unequivocally, the Department does support the mobility demonstration program. The Administration has sought, as part of its Fiscal Year 2017 budget, to include $15 million for this mobility demonstration: $12 million of that would go directly to PHAs that work as part of the mobility demonstration; and $3 million of that would be used for an evaluation of the program. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Perfect. Thank you very much. Ms. Sard, you began the discussion--at least during your discussion you made the comment with regards to consolidation and forming consortiums as a way to address some issues and problems. Can you discuss the difference between a consolidation and a consortium, what problems you have, and if you have already analyzed it, whether you are going to save any money by doing this? Very quickly. Ms. Sard. We think that consolidation would be ideal to reduce the number of agencies and expand agencies' borders so families could move freely about the region-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. Are you going to save any money doing that? Ms. Sard. I'm sorry? Chairman Luetkemeyer. Will you save any money doing that? Ms. Sard. We expect that you would. Right-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. Have you done an analysis of how much? Ms. Sard. We estimate that there is now about $40 million in additional administrative fees that is paid to agencies because they are small, so some of that could be saved and that-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. Do you have a percentage of that? 10 percent? 20 percent? Ms. Sard. That is a small percentage of the overall amount, but it is really important to make that change because it is a disincentive now to do the right thing, which is to consolidate or form consortia. Chairman Luetkemeyer. All right. Very good. I want to be able to get Mr. Young's and Ms. Lovell's opinions on that. You kind of addressed it, Mr. Young, in your testimony, saying you didn't approve of the consolidation, but kind of alluded to maybe a consortium of working together on certain issues. Would you like to explain that just a little bit, please? Mr. Young. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think in most cases when we have local input and involvement in these changes, for example, it works better. There are instances where as governmental entities overlap and they consolidate and the housing authorities consolidate, as well, but it works better when that is worked at the local level and they worked out whether or not certain services that they can share. When it is mandated, I think if it is mandated it will not work as well as allowing agencies and governmental entities-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. Do you share with other PHAs any sort of consortium-type things that would help you right now that you can point to as a way that you are working together on certain things? Mr. Young. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We share as far as procurement. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. Very good. Ms. Lovell, would you like to address that question? You have some experience, apparently, because you work together, both the city and the county. Tell us your experiences on that and whether you would agree or disagree with Ms. Sard here on consolidation versus consortium. Ms. Lovell. We work together but the agencies remain independent. The consolidation and consortium issue really is mostly directed at very small housing authorities, and our two housing authorities are actually quite large, so we don't really have a lot of issues in common because of the two large housing authorities. The sharing of jurisdiction does create a lot of efficiencies between our two agencies because the formal portability process is very cumbersome and very time-consuming. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. With regards to Mr. Palazzo's bill, just a kind of quick question for a couple of you with regards to the rules and regulations he is trying to streamline, can you give us an example, Mr. Young, of some of the rules and regulations that he is trying to streamline that would be cost savings that would--either with monies that you are going to have to spend to comply with or people you are going to have to hire? What would be your--a quick synopsis? I have about 30 seconds. Mr. Young. A good example would be the provision in the bill for us to have a inspection every 3 years. Currently, that inspection is once a year. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Let me stop you right there. Ms. Blom, do you have any problem with something like that? Ms. Blom. From the Department's perspective, we believe that any kind of streamlining measures should be applicable to both large and small agencies, specifically with regard to the inspection protocol. We do believe that the current requirement of a 2-year inspection is the most appropriate interval for doing inspections. Chairman Luetkemeyer. It is kind of interesting because this is the Financial Services Committee--and I will make my remarks brief here--this is the Financial Services Committee and we just passed recently--and Mr. Barr, I think, is the gentleman that passed it--with regards to streamlining an examination process. And those banks that are not problem shops, that have clean records, that are small, they went to a longer inspection period--or examination period. So I am kind of curious here that that doesn't seem to translate from one industry to another. I appreciate your comments, but I am over my time. With that, let me recognize the ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a commitment to be at an event where I am speaking this morning. But I really did have to stay here because I, as you-- perhaps you know this, that at one time I represented six public housing authorities in Los Angeles when I was in the State legislature, and I am originally from St. Louis and have family who live in Pruitt-Igoe and Vaughan. And, of course, when I was young in St. Louis, most of my friends lived in Carr Square Village. That was about the only public housing that was offered way back then. So I pay a lot of attention to public housing. Mr. Young, you have come before us this day to advocate for less rules and regulations to operate your public housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs. Specifically, you are advocating for H.R. 4816, the Small Public Housing Agency Opportunity Act. Mr. Young, I recall a very serious letter of findings from HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity from March 2014 outlining civil rights violations that occurred as a result of egregious actions taken by the Laurel Housing Authority via your rental assistance demonstration application, which uncovered that 27 African-American households were evicted from a public housing development without due process and administrative grievance procedures to which they were rightfully entitled under existing law and regulations. I have been following this issue. I sent a letter to the HUD Secretary expressing my serious concerns about this conduct and the well-being of the wrongfully evicted tenants. My staff got very much involved with this. We sought out some of the low-income housing advocates who tried to do something about locating all of these African-Americans who had been evicted. And to date, I understand that HUD has uncovered even more concerns with your housing authority and that all of these issues are still outstanding today. So here you are, Mr. Young, to advocate for less rules and regulations despite the fact that you cannot even follow the basic rules protecting the rights and due process of your public housing residents. Your testimony suggests that the level of oversight and regulatory requirements applied to small PHAs is unnecessary and that scaling these back now will allow you to better serve residents. But it seems to me that loosening oversight and regulations, many of which serve as key protections for tenants, will only ensure that serious violations of tenant rights, such as those that occurred in your agency, will happen more often and go unreported. HUD advocated that exceptional measures needed to be taken to provide emergency relief for the 27 affected households. Has that been done, Mr. Young? Did these households receive emergency relief or were they welcomed back into the housing authority? What have you done since this incident to mitigate the egregious lapses in your housing authority to ensure this would never happen again? Mr. Young? Mr. Young. Yes, ma'am. Congresswoman, all of the affected people have been allowed to move back or their situations have been addressed. To this date, HUD has not provided us any final information regarding that incident. Ms. Waters. Excuse me. Let me just stop you here. Was it your responsibility or HUD's responsibility to go out and find these people and get them back? Because they have not been returned, is that right? Mr. Young. Yes, ma'am. We did contact all of those residents, and those who wanted to come back to the housing authority, all of them were allowed to if they wished-- Ms. Waters. How many of the 27 are back? Mr. Young. It is less than half a dozen, if I am not mistaken. Ms. Waters. It is my understanding that none of them are back. And so what I am going to do is I am going to get with HUD and I am coming to Laurel because when I tell you some of my family was in Pruitt-Igoe and in Vaughan, I am serious about public housing and the way tenants are treated. And I don't know that justice has been done in this case and why you did what you did. Why did you evict them? Mr. Young. Ma'am, those who were evicted, were evicted because they violated the rules. Ms. Waters. There was no proof. When HUD went down there and they took a look at what you had done, you had no documentation and no proof that violations had been made, particularly some of the accusations about drugs. They searched houses. They found nothing. What documents and what proof do you have? Mr. Young. When HUD came in and did their assessment, they asked for files that did not contain the documentation regarding those cases. Ms. Waters. So since 2014-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady's time has expired. Ms. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be coming to Laurel. Thank you. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Mr. Young, if you would like to respond to that, if you have anything else to add to that, we will give you another 30 seconds to respond if you so wish. Mr. Young. Yes, I would like to respond, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Yes, sir. Proceed. Mr. Young. Regarding that, HUD did come in and do an investigation regarding our RAD project, in which some of our residents were evicted due to a violation of our housing authority's rules that happened to coincide with this ongoing RAD project. The files that HUD looked into regarding the allegation did not contain the documentation that would have shown that due process was allowed to everyone involved. And when we tried to provide those documents to HUD, they went ahead and made their decision without the benefit of the additional documentation. But the documentation does exist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Young. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank each one of you for being here today. Ms. Blom, what is the cost of the program? What is the overall administrative cost of all the housing programs, basically? I am just looking for the big line figure. So the budget is, what, $21 billion or $22 billion? About what percent of that is used up in administrative costs? Ms. Blom. With regard to the Housing Choice Voucher Program-- Mr. Pearce. I am looking for the top-line number. Just the basic administrative cost for all the housing programs as a percent of the program budget. Ms. Blom. I will need to consult with experts back at HUD to be able to give you that exact figure-- Mr. Pearce. Thirty-something percent? Does about 33 percent sound right? $7 billion or $8 billion? Ms. Blom. I think for the variety of different programs there are different administrative costs associated with them. For the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which is about half of HUD's budget, housing authorities do receive an administrative fee for that. For the Public Housing Program, housing authorities are able to use a portion of their operating fund and capital fund to cover administrative costs. So each of the different programs has a different level of administrative costs and we can break that down for you as well as sum that up. Mr. Pearce. You talked about streamlining in your presentation. Have you succeeded in streamlining? Do you feel that your efforts there are paying off? Ms. Blom. I am happy to report that in April the Department published a rule which became effective, that streamlined programs for the Housing Choice Voucher Program as well as the Public Housing Program-- Mr. Pearce. And about how much do you think, with that report, are you saving and able to redirect? The reason I bring it up is, you say that you are short of funds, and almost always when I get to looking, administration takes up a big amount of the cost. And so if you are short of funds it seems like you would be measuring and saying, okay, we just freed up $30 million, $10 million, whatever the numbers happen to be. So do you have a kind of a top-line figure on how much you have saved by streamlining and able to redirect into better direction of the funding? Ms. Blom. The streamlining measures just went into effect in April so it is too early to tell to provide a monetary figure on the amount of savings that have been incurred to date. Mr. Pearce. So give me one example of a streamlined figure. Tell me--streamline action, tell me one thing you have done. Ms. Blom. Right. One example of streamlining is that housing authorities now only need to inspect units every 2 years instead of every 1 year. And in addition to that, when they--if there are other funding programs that assist that unit--for instance, a low-income housing tax credit program-- the housing authority can rely on the inspection process that has occurred with the low-income housing program-- Mr. Pearce. And you didn't do any projections on how much that was going to save when you implemented it? That would be a normal business practice: Okay, we are going to stop this and it is going to save us so many dollars. You did not do those projections? Ms. Blom. I will check to see if-- Mr. Pearce. Okay. Ms. Blom. --the Department has done that. Mr. Pearce. So when I look at your overall--your statement says that targeted long-term housing assistance can be important for ending homelessness. So as we consider the 2.2 million people in one set of the programs and 2.3 million in another set that you referred to, if we were going to be able to do a search of the names that compose that 2.2 million, 2.3 million people, 4.5 million total, how static are those names? In other words, are they actually moving into prosperity? Are they moving out of housing? Is it a very static group of people that you are dealing with? Ms. Blom. About half of the population is elderly or disabled, and that-- Mr. Pearce. So they are going to be very static. Ms. Blom. Exactly. Mr. Pearce. What about the other 50 percent? Ms. Blom. For the other 50 percent, it varies among housing authorities. Some families with children tend to stay for some time but there is also turnover in that population. Mr. Pearce. But you don't have an average? Like if I go to V.A. and ask them, what is the wait time, they can give me a wait time nationwide: ``Roughly 51 days. In your area, it might be a little higher.'' So do you have that nationwide figure of the mobility of these programs? Ms. Blom. I seem to recall that it was a 7-year period, but again, I will confirm that and we will provide that information to you. Mr. Pearce. Just an observation from up here: If your greatest objective is to move people into better living conditions it seems like that might be the one number that you would like to advertise. Ms. Lovell, you had mentioned also in your report that the choice program moving people to areas of higher opportunity, of course, we have a hope that is going to actually improve their status in life. Do you have any results for those 6,500 families that you work with through the choice program? Are they actually improving? You have figures in here on what their average income is, but do they improve when they move to an area of better opportunity? Ms. Lovell. Our demonstration program actually has not started yet. It was just recently funded so we don't have any information on-- Mr. Pearce. It says in your report you have 6,500 people receiving assistance through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and in the front of it you say you are going to measure the effectiveness of regional mobility programs. So you have 6,500 people but they haven't started receiving assistance? Ms. Lovell. No. What I am saying is the mobility counseling program was just recently funded so we don't know the effect of moving to a higher-income-- Mr. Pearce. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we will recognize the gentleman from Missouri, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My children believe that I just take every opportunity I can to quote Robert Frost, and that is probably accurate. I try to camouflage it but it doesn't work. Robert Frost said, ``Two roads diverged in a woods, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.'' When I think about my years and growing up in public housing there were two men--boys--who grew--spent at least 7 years in public housing, and we were--our parents were able to move. We are the only two who graduated from college, and most of them didn't graduate from high school. The point I want to make is I think it is critically important that we pay attention to Professor Chetty's comments, and I also think that it is important to run this mobility demonstration program as well as the consortia. But I want to concentrate--Ms. Blom, we have been concerned about housing on this committee, but we have also become concerned about the homeless, particularly after the economic collapse in 2008. Are there ways that programs like the voucher program are effective in reducing homelessness? Ms. Blom. Thank you very much for the question. The voucher program has proven to be very successful in reducing homelessness. There was a recent study that has been published that the voucher program is extremely effective, and reducing homelessness is one of the most effective ways of having people have stable housing once they have become homeless. The Department also has several programs within the public housing voucher program that target the homeless. One is the VASH Program, so that is veterans who are receiving vouchers and providing supports from the Veterans Administration; and then secondly, the Family Unification Program that is now targeting foster youth, and once they become adults, providing them with a voucher to prevent homelessness. And we currently have a demonstration that we are currently initiating to provide those individuals with support through the Family Self- Sufficiency Program. So we do currently use the voucher program as a very successful tool for preventing and ending homelessness. Mr. Cleaver. But it is just a demonstration. Ms. Blom. In two areas--with regard to the Family Unification Program, we are starting that demonstration. Just a couple of months ago, we started to identify housing authorities that are interested in this, and we have already seen improvements to that thanks to HOTMA, which allowed for an extension of the vouchers from 18 months to 36 months. I would say the VASH Program is beyond a demonstration and has proven to be effective. And the study that was recently released also, too, I think has proven that vouchers in and of themselves are an extremely effective way of ending homelessness. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. Mr. Young and Ms. Thrope, the two of you may be the most likely responders to this inquiry, but I represent three rural areas outside of Kansas City, the urban area--Saline and Lafayette Counties--and we do have public housing there, maybe per capita more than we have in Kansas City or St. Louis. But if we are able to increase mobility and coordination, do you think that will help these communities thrive or the public housing programs there? And I wondered about the--when HUD will finalize the rule. Maybe I have to get that from you, Ms. Blom, but in the rural areas how valuable would a consortia? If we were able to pool housing authorities from across counties and so forth, would that be of some help? Mr. Young. As far as in Mississippi, and it is a rural area, some of the housing authorities are 30, 40 miles away. So if you consolidate housing authorities from that great a distance I think you lose some resources, local resources and what have you, of people being on the ground. It is a little bit different, I think, in urban areas. It may work better. I just don't think that you would have the same level of customer service, support; you have people driving greater distances if you consolidate in the rural areas. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Secretary Blom, I am going to read you a list of just some of the recent developing HUD requirements for all public housing agencies: smoke-free protocol; community service certification; stricter Section 8 employment rules; Violence Against Women Act updates; conflicted instructions of the use of applicant's criminal records; restrictions on the use of demolition and disposition tools; the costly Green Physical Needs Assessment; rollout of small area fair market rents; and ambitious assessment of fair housing tools. These are just some; that is not all of them. These may be well-intentioned ideas, but do they really come with any funding? Each of these requirements will entail communications with residents, training for staff, and updates to local policies and procedures. And, of course, that takes time and money. If HUD doesn't provide the money and small agencies don't have the extra time to do this work, what do you suggest? Which of these is the highest priority? Which can be ignored? When is enough regulation enough? Ms. Blom. Thank you very much for that list of variety of different HUD programs. I think some of them are voluntary in nature, some of them are not in effect yet, and some of them are required. Housing authorities do receive funding from the Department, thanks to Congress, to support their administrative activities. I think the Department certainly realizes that there are a number of requirements that housing authorities currently face, and the Department has looked at that seriously and reduced the burden for the housing authorities. In April, the Department published a rule that would reduce burden for housing authorities. In addition to that, the Department is very eager to implement the time-reducing burdens associated with the FAST Act as well as with HOTMA, and we are focusing our attention on that so that we can, again, reduce burden and reduce cost for housing authorities. Mr. Posey. Tell me some of the burdens you have reduced. Ms. Blom. Some of the burdens that have reduced as a result of our current regulation is that the inspections only need to be done every 2 years instead of every 1, and that housing authorities can use protocols of other programs instead of having to inspect them themselves. Also, with regard to families who are on fixed incomes, the recertification of those incomes can now be done only every 3 years instead of on a more frequent basis. Mr. Posey. Do you expect to change any of the ones that I mentioned? Ms. Blom. Specifically with regard to the Physical Needs Assessment, the Department has not implemented that provision. And if it were to implement that provision, we would not make that a requirement for small PHAs. With regard to demolitions and dispositions, we are looking to provide more flexibilities to housing authorities on that through a notice process. And in addition to that, with regard to implementing the Moving to Work Program, providing 100 additional agencies with flexibilities, the Department is on a very accelerated timeframe to be able to offer those Moving to Work flexibilities to agencies as quickly as possible. Mr. Posey. The Public Housing Capital Fund is down another $18 billion, and the operating fund is down $6 billion below the need. Should there be a point where the Department stops adding new demands on agencies that receive just partial funding? Ms. Blom. I think the Department is looking to reduce requirements where it can, and at the same time we have a responsibility to ensure that the laws that are on the books are enforced and that the Department puts an emphasis on that, as well. Mr. Posey. Do you think there is a point where there is just too much? Ms. Blom. Again, I think that through HOTMA, which we were very pleased to have enacted, we will provide a number of reductions of burden for housing authorities. And again, the Department is working as quickly as possible to be able to implement those. Some we have already implemented directly, such as the flexibility for the vouchers so that benefits can go to families. Mr. Posey. So we agree that there is way too much regulation? Do we agree on that already? Ms. Blom. Again, the Department implements requirements that are-- Mr. Posey. If you agree we need to get rid of a bunch of them, then obviously we had too many. Do we agree on that? Ms. Blom. Again, I think the Department is doing its best-- Mr. Posey. Can't you just say yes or no? Do you agree with it or not? Ms. Blom. I think the Department is doing the best-- Mr. Posey. No, just say yes or no. Do you agree we had too many regulations? I hate this game. The bureaucrats come in here, and I ask you what time it is, and you describe a clock to me for 5 minutes, but you won't tell me what doggone time it is. Do you agree that we had too much regulation and that is why we are removing regulations now? Yes or no, please. Just say yes or no. Ms. Blom. I think the Department is-- Mr. Posey. Arrogant, petulent, and defiant. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I am sorry I couldn't get a yes-or-no answer. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez. She is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Thrope, I would like to discuss with you how HUD's proposed small area rule will work in New York City and other cities like New York with low vacancy. In fact, in New York it is expected that it will impact more than 55,000 voucher holders, and they might have to move or pay substantially more money in rent. Can you explain the problem of implementing HUD's small area proposal and the steps that you think HUD should take to limit its harm on individuals and families? Ms. Thrope. Great. Thank you, Representative Velazquez. First, I will explain a little bit about subsidy and assistance levels work in the voucher program. I talked a little bit about this earlier, but fair market rents are set by HUD and they are supposed to reflect average gross rent estimates in a given geographical area. HUD sets one FMR for what it calls metropolitan statistical areas, and these can actually be relatively large regions that encompass a fair number of cities and towns. So HUD's proposed small area FMR rule is specifically meant to address the problems that we have when we set FMRs based on large geographical regions, and it actually changed the way FMRs are calculated and uses zip code-level data, so much more granular- level data, when setting FMRs, which are what assistance levels are based on. So under HUD's proposed small area FMR, rule 31 housing authorities would be required to use small area FMRs, so the zip code-level rent data, in setting assistance levels, and other housing authorities would be able to opt in. And New York is one of the jurisdictions that would be impacted by small area FMRs. On the one hand, small area FMRs could actually help a lot of new voucher tenants entering the program because it increases the value of that voucher so it allows people to move to areas of higher opportunity and higher rent places. But unfortunately, for existing tenants it looks like small area FMRs, because a lot of existing tenants are in lower-income neighborhoods, could actually negative impact those tenants and cause rent increases and significant rent burdens. So we performed a rigorous data analysis of HUD's proposed small area FMRs and found that 78 percent of existing voucher holders could be negatively impacted by the small area FMR rule, and that amounts to over 400,000 voucher families in this country. Ms. Velazquez. What do you propose? Ms. Thrope. We propose first, an exception for low vacancy rate areas like New York, where if you increase the amount of rent a family has to pay they will absolutely, in most cases, be forced to move and so it could cause displacement. So a vacancy rate exception along with a provision that would hold all current tenants harmless from a small area FMR rule. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And, Ms. Sard, I have seen that the center has similar comments. If there is anything that you would like to add to what Ms. Thrope explained? Ms. Sard. Thank you, Congresswoman. We agree that the small area FMR change that HUD has proposed is a key policy change to help fulfill the goal that we have been talking about this morning of helping families with vouchers live in higher-opportunity areas. That said, we agree with what Ms. Thrope said about the importance of starting out the implementation with areas that aren't under such low vacancy/tight market pressure as New York. We also think it is important to target those areas where voucher use is concentrated in the poorest and most racially segregated neighborhoods. Ms. Velazquez. And I support that. Thank you so much. Ms. Blom, in August, Senator Schumer and I wrote a letter to Secretary Castro that was signed by the rest of the New York delegation. Neither Senator Schumer nor I have heard a response. So would you convey to Secretary Castro how important this issue is not only for New York but other cities across the country that will be negatively impact and that we expect a response back? Ms. Blom. Yes. Certainly. Ms. Velazquez. When does HUD expect to release the final rule? Ms. Blom. The final rule is still in process. We have taken into consideration strongly your recommendations, those of Senator Schumer, those of Ms. Thrope and Ms. Sard, as well as other comments that we received. Thanks to those comments, we are keenly aware of the issue of residents potentially being displaced, and while I can't speak to what the final rule says, I can assure everyone here that all of those comments have been taken into consideration and that we are mindful of that issue. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lovell, I want to talk a little bit about this notion of success and housing programs. This committee has taken a look over the past couple of years at the last 50 years of HUD and considered what works and what doesn't. I have been surprised that there seems to be a divergent view of defining success. In your testimony you note that your housing authority has a public housing occupancy rate and voucher utilization rate of 99 percent. Do you consider full occupancy to be the mark of a successful public housing program? Ms. Lovell. There are a number of marks that would indicate success. In the end, a public housing authority's business is a real estate business. It is a business that rents units, albeit to a very specific set of clients. But you would measure success the same way you would measure success with any real estate: Are the units rented? Is the maintenance being performed accordingly? Is the rent being collected? Is the physical condition of the property in good shape? Are your finances in good shape? Those are all measures of success of these programs. Mr. Rothfus. Apart from elderly and disabled individuals, what about able-bodied adults and looking at a metric and transitioning to independence? Should that be a consideration in determining whether a public housing authority is trying to help with this notion of upward mobility? Ms. Lovell. Certainly, upward mobility is the goal for all of our residents-- Mr. Rothfus. It is a goal, but is it measured in any way? Ms. Lovell. Currently, it is not measured in any particular way. It is measured with an individual grant. If you get a grant for a specific program, for specific funding to do a jobs training program or a family self-sufficiency program, the goals of the program are and the success of your achievements with that grant funding are measured. But for the most part there is very little funding for housing authorities to implement job training-type programs unless it is through a special grant, so they rely on their partners in the community to serve their clients. Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Young, I want to touch on a couple of issues here: the political challenges associated with consolidated public housing authorities and the potential operational difficulties that could result, especially when mergers might be involuntary. Do you believe that consortia between existing public housing authorities could be a first step towards a more efficient voucher system, as opposed to consolidation? Mr. Young. Congressman, I do believe that it would be beneficial, but I think that it has to start with the individual housing authorities, as I have stated earlier, working together to see what areas administratively that could benefit the number of housing authorities involved. Mr. Rothfus. Are there steps that we can be taking to address barriers or disincentives that would prevent PHAs from forming consortia? Mr. Young. Some of the regulations that is mentioned, but some of it prevents this consortia, as you have mentioned, of being able to move forward. Some loosening of the regulation would allow for more consolidation. Mr. Rothfus. If I can touch on with Ms. Blom, again, the dichotomy between the larger housing authorities and the smaller ones, though there are many small and very small public housing authorities across the country, they are only responsible for administering a small percentage of units-- roughly 6 percent. Many of these public housing authorities are regulated similarly to the large entities that manage thousands of units. Is that reasonable? Ms. Blom. I think from our perspective, we are looking at this from the families who are being served, and we believe that all of the families who are being served should have the ability to live in a place that is safe and decent for them. We believe that the Department should have the ability to be able to inspect units as needed to be able to ensure that families are living in safe environments. Mr. Rothfus. And there is a cost that goes with all of that when we are talking about scarce resources that we have. How much of HUD's resources and manpower are spent on regulating small public housing authorities? Do you know? Ms. Blom. I don't know that exact figure, but we have staff who are monitoring housing authorities based on a risk profile. Some of those are small agencies; some of them are larger agencies. Mr. Rothfus. I would be curious as to whether it is proportionate to their overall scale. We might want to follow up with you on that. So thank you. I yield back. Ms. Blom. Absolutely. We will do that. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, we go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, for 5 minutes. Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel for being here. As far as I am concerned, the question of whether there are too many regulations or too few regulations is the wrong question. It is whether we have the right regulations versus the wrong regulations. And as far as I know, in everything I have ever done most of my time in public life has been trying to fine tune those regulations trying to figure out what works, and what doesn't work. Things change and you want to change a regulation; you try something, it doesn't work, you try something else. That is why I am here. I don't think you will find anybody on either side of the aisle, anybody here, anybody I know who thinks that public housing should be a permanent situation for anyone if we can help it. And, by the way, my measure of success for all public housing authorities--not just for them, for us--is to put you out of business. I wish I lived in a society where there is no need for HUD, no need for any housing authorities, no need for any think tanks who try to help us work this through. I wish everybody had a job that could pay them enough money to live in safe, decent, affordable housing everywhere in this country. I am not sure with--I am not so sure that is your job. It probably is more my job than it is your job, and we are trying to do it. So the truth is I love you all but I am trying to put you all out of business. And I actually think if you are doing your job you are trying to put yourselves out of business as well. All that being said, we are here for upward mobility. Can anybody guarantee you know how to do this? Do you have the magic elixir? Anybody? I am not sure. If I knew, I would do it. So would you. We are here to try to struggle how to figure that out. I guess for me--we are always trying new things--HUD is trying some new things. I love the idea of the small area FMRs, but I also understand the difficulties in transitioning to them. And I love it because I come from Boston. Cambridge costs a lot more money than some of the other towns in my area, and you can't move. Well, you can, but it is really difficult to move from one place to another, to get a job, to get transportation, to get more affordable housing, to be able to build yourself up so you can get off Section 8. And that is why I like the concept. They are trying to figure out some mobility issues. That's not easy to do. I respect HUD's problem. However, while we are struggling to do that, we need regulations that prohibit inappropriate activity both by tenants and by housing authorities. We need them, period. When we are doing it this is an experiment unless, as I said--I didn't hear anybody jump up and say, ``I have the answers.'' It is an experiment. We are going to try something new, try to open up maybe some--deregulate a few places to allow a little bit more mobility. Good idea. I don't know if it is going to work, but I think it is worth trying. Yet in my area, I don't think anybody would disagree that the people of Massachusetts are pretty open-minded, pretty supportive of the concept of public housing. We have some of the best housing authorities in the country. HUD has reached into Boston to grab an Assistant Secretary repeatedly. We had people trying the Move to Work Program. We have some questions about it, but we are trying it. Last year Congress allowed HUD--didn't require, allowed you--to take the MTW programs and merge them if you want, come up with some regionalization. And to be perfectly honest, one of the good and bad things in New England, we have a long tradition, hundreds of years, of local government--small local governments. We don't have big places. Boston is one of the geographically smallest cities in America. If we were the size of Houston we would be 4 million people. But we chose that. Not a problem. Good, bad, or indifferent. It has good parts, and it has bad parts. But it makes these kinds of things problematic. Yet, after Congress allowed it my Boston Housing Authority and my Cambridge Housing Authority, two of the best in the country, asked HUD to be able to regionalize for the purposes of trying some of these things out. Two good agencies, area where everybody knows that our income differences and inequalities in Boston are huge--we are struggling with that. Mobility might help it. And yet HUD basically did not just say no, it just said, ``We are not accepting applications.'' They had the support of the smartest people in the country that you say you listen to on a regular basis. Yet, Ms. Blom, you said, ``No, we are not taking applications now. We know better than you what to do.'' What the heck are you thinking? Let them try it with some and experiment so you can learn from their experience. Why wouldn't you let that happen? Ms. Blom. Thank you very much for the question. The letter that did come to us from the Cambridge Housing Authority and the Boston Housing Authority I personally thought was intriguing. They had a very interesting proposal. I have spoken to staff at the Boston Housing Authority asking for a little bit more information on exactly what types of MTW flexibilities would they be seeking in order to create a regional program among those two agencies. You are absolutely correct that the letter that was sent back to the executive directors of those agencies did say that the Department is not quite ready at this moment to be able to accept applications for that. We are currently diligently working on setting up the framework for expanding the MTW Program to add an additional 100 agencies, and as part of that expansion we will be testing the regionalization, as well. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr. Young, you are a veteran, aren't you? Mr. Young. Yes, Congressman. Mr. Williams. I don't think anybody has said thank you today. We appreciate your service. Mr. Young. Thank you. Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. My first question to you, Mr. Young, is this: In your testimony you say HUD's implementation of portability is more complicated and burdensome than it needs to be. What changes would you suggest to HUD that would increase portability outcomes? Mr. Young. As I said earlier, we don't have a voucher program. What I hear from my peers is that the system is complicated and if we are allowed to figure out ways to work together, that we can do that. I probably have to get with my peers and provide some better answer for you on that, Congressman. Mr. Williams. If you would do that, it is--the problem is that big government sometimes gets in the way. How should HUD streamline its portability administration? Do you have an idea about that? Mr. Young. I need to provide you some information, get back with you on that. Mr. Williams. If you would do that, it would be great. Okay. Another question is, what changes need to be made that would incentivize PHAs to voluntarily collaborate on voucher administration? Mr. Young. Again-- Mr. Williams. Okay. Mr. Young. --personally we-- Mr. Williams. Would you get that to me? Mr. Young. Yes, Congressman. Mr. Williams. That would be great. Ms. Blom, a question to you. It has been suggested this morning that consolidation and regionalization of voucher administrations or a public housing agency would potentially harm local rural communities where the local leadership could become disengaged or residents are at a disadvantage to have reasonable access to housing officials. I am from Texas, and I represent a large rural population in the State of Texas, and this is something I would obviously be concerned about. So could regionalization or consolidation of voucher administrations place rural areas at a disadvantage, in your opinion? Ms. Blom. From the Department's perspective, the regionalization or the consolidation or consortiums are activities that housing authorities should be able to decide on their own if they want to go forward with that type of cooperation among those agencies. The Department is not requiring agencies to do such. Instead, we believe that agencies should make those decisions on their own. Some have and some haven't, at this point. Mr. Williams. So they might know better than you all? Ms. Blom. Right. And again, the Department wants to be able to facilitate that kind of regionalization and cooperation where agencies want to do it, but the Department is not mandating it. Mr. Williams. Okay. Another question would be how could some of these perceived disadvantages that I am talking about be addressed? Ms. Blom. Can you speak a little bit more about the types of disadvantages? Mr. Williams. The perception is that rural populations could have a problem, and if that is a disadvantage, how could we address that and make sure it doesn't happen? Ms. Blom. Again, I think from the Department's perspective, we do not want to regulate those smaller agencies and force them to do consolidation. If there are barriers there for consolidation where agencies want to do that, we are ready to provide them with advice. But the Department at this point is not seeking to ask smaller housing authorities to consolidate. Mr. Williams. New ideas, flexibility you would listen to? Ms. Blom. Excuse me? Mr. Williams. New ideas, flexibility from your rural areas you would listen to? Ms. Blom. I am having a hard time hearing your question. Mr. Williams. You are talking about flexibility and the rural areas have to have flexibility to have their own programs, and so forth. You support that. Ms. Blom. Yes, we do. Mr. Williams. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman yields back. With that, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Ellison. Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member. I am glad we are holding this hearing on the affordable housing crisis. To me, it is perhaps one of the most important things that Congress could be doing at this moment. On this screen are some quotes from Matthew Desmond. He is the author of a great book I recommend to everyone here. The book is called, ``Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City.'' And I will just say that according to Desmond, the majority of low-income renting families spend half of their income on housing; one in four families spend 70 percent of their income on housing--rent and utilities. And for those families, eviction is more likely the result of an inevitability than personal responsibility. It is a huge moral issue and deserves a solution. You can't fix it unless you fix housing. So I just wanted to sort of frame my comments in light of this. Let me just start with my--there is some other stuff up there. It just sort of lays out rental assistance program and how much our programs that exist now don't even reach the people who need them. And I definitely appreciate every one of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who believe that we need to have more efficiency, more flexibility, more creativity. I am all in with that. Fine, let's try it. But I cannot escape the fact that we simply don't have enough low-income housing. We don't have the units. Now, would one of you all like to challenge me on that? Do we have enough units or we simply not have them? Because in Minneapolis, where I am from, between public housing and Section 8, we may have a waiting list of about 15,000 people. And so could somebody--why am I wrong? You got it. Ms. Sard. You are absolutely right. Thank-- Mr. Ellison. See? Ms. Sard. --you for putting up our chart. And it is correct that only one out of four families eligible for Federal rental assistance programs receives help from any of them. It is a problem that has been getting dramatically worse over the last 15 years, at the same time that the number of households assisted has been static. Mr. Ellison. Right. Now, Ms. Sard, let me ask you just a general question: If you were 9 years old and homeless, how easy would it be to complete your homework assignment? Ms. Sard. Obviously, it would be much more difficult. Mr. Ellison. If you were on drugs and trying to get clean, what if you were living under a bridge and didn't have anywhere to live? Would it be easy to get clean on the street? Ms. Sard. No. Mr. Ellison. How about even holding a job? Homeless people have jobs. A lot of people don't know homeless people work every day. But how tough is it to keep that job or get it when you don't have an address? Ms. Sard. It is hard for homeless people who don't have an address. It is also hard for the millions of families who don't have a stable address, who are moving from house to house of people who will help them out temporarily. Mr. Ellison. Now, I only have 2 minutes left, and I have 1 minute where I have to ask a question. I am going to use my next minute to ask you all this question: Do you think there is a lot of discrimination against people on Section 8? Ms. Sard. Unfortunately, we know less than we should know about that question. I believe the Department is doing a study now about that discrimination. We also know that in jurisdictions that have passed State or local laws to prohibit that discrimination, those laws help, but they are not well enough enforced. And that is actually one of the things that I would hope the regional mobility demonstration would focus on. Mr. Ellison. I wish we could just really kind of get together with landlords to tell them that a Section 8 tenant is not going to be a bad tenant necessarily. Some are, but other tenants who pay full rent are bad tenants, too. And I think that because of the way the program is administered people kind of think--they look down on Section 8 and public housing, but the truth is when they say there is about $28 billion in unmet maintenance needs for public housing. And when Congress went great guns, when we did the most we did about $4 billion with the stimulus package. We are not doing what we are supposed to do in here. By the way, do you know how much the mortgage interest deduction program costs? $70 billion. Do you know how much HUD's total budget is? A lot less. We spend up to about over $100 billion on middle- and upper-income people giving them government money for housing. Government money. Okay, maybe welfare for upper-income people like me, but we don't do nearly as much for people who desperately need housing and don't have the same level of option. Are you all as mad about this as I am? Do you guys see this as an issue? No? Yes? Ms. Sard. Yes. Mr. Ellison. Okay, thank you. So let me just wrap up by saying this. Now, I am trying to help people, with a lot of my colleagues, and I would like to ask, Ms. Blom, if you could answer this question. Ms. Blom, I am interested in the power of--oh, man. Chairman Luetkemeyer. Do you want to wrap it up? Mr. Ellison. Yes. I am interested in the power of rent reporting pilot for the HUD assisted attendance. Do you understand what I am asking you? Chairman Luetkemeyer. Okay. Ms. Blom. I think it is an intriguing idea. We would like to talk with you further about that concept and see if it is an idea that we can promote in the future. Mr. Ellison. Okay. We will do that. Ms. Blom. Thank you. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership and for the ranking member, my friend, Mr. Cleaver from Missouri, thank you for your joint leadership in holding this important hearing. And I want to compliment and thank all of the witnesses here on our panel for your dedication to helping our fellow Americans who are struggling and who, as Ms. Sard just pointed out, need help. To Ms. Sard's testimony that only one in four families in need or who are eligible for Section 8 housing is actually getting those vouchers, I wanted to direct my initial question to Ms. Blom and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. My understanding is that the total budget, annual budget for Section 8 vouchers, is about $21 billion-plus annually. Is that about right? Ms. Blom. That is right. Mr. Barr. So we spend $21 billion on Section 8 vouchers but only one out of four eligible families get them. Is that correct? Ms. Blom. I need to double-check that figure, but there certainly is more of a need than funding that is available. Mr. Barr. Okay. Now, I think Ms. Sard's testimony was about one out of four. So one out of four eligible families gets an allocation of what we spend annually on Section 8 vouchers, which is a little over $21 billion annually. Ms. Sard. Or any other Federal rental assistance. Mr. Barr. Thank you. So, Ms. Blom, my question is this: I have read and I understand that a full one-third of HUD's annual budget of $21 billion for Section 8 vouchers is spent on administrative expenses, not on actually housing low-income Americans. Is that an accurate figure? Ms. Blom. My belief is that there is much more funding going directly to housing payments than the administrative fee that housing authorities receive and that the budget does set aside a certain amount of money directly for housing assistance payments versus funding that goes to-- Mr. Barr. Is that number an accurate number? Anyone, is that an accurate number? Ms. Sard. The Congress provides for administrative fees to administer the voucher program about 8 percent of the total funding--8 percent. Mr. Barr. Okay. So of $21 billion, how much is not actually spent on rental payments to landlords? Ms. Sard. I believe this year it is on the order of $1.6 billion. Mr. Barr. Okay. So-- Ms. Blom. That is correct. Mr. Barr. So all of this administrative expense, okay, and not sheltering people who actually are eligible--my question is this: Do we agree that these administrative expenses are too high? Are they too high? Ms. Blom. The Department administered an administrative fee study which actually showed that the administrative fees that housing authorities receive is less than what it costs to run an effective Housing Choice Voucher Program. As a result of that, the Department has requested as part of the 2017 budget an increased amount of funds for administrative fees so that housing authorities receive the funding that they need to be able to properly administer the housing choice voucher-- Mr. Barr. Well, someone disagrees with the statistics that you are offering. There is some analysis out there that says a full one-third of all Federal dollars spent on the Section 8 program is spent on administration and overhead. Would you at least stipulate and agree that would be too much, it would be too high, it would be excessive? Ms. Blom. One-third is certainly too much. Mr. Barr. Okay. Let's talk about how we can get a little bit of administrative efficiency here. The consolidation idea, I would applaud anyone who is considering the ideas. Mr. Young, I am very sympathetic to the small public housing authorities and the agencies that have to deal with a lot of the administrative compliance costs, but I do believe economies of scale is a policy objective. I applaud a demonstration project. Can anyone speak to the idea of encouraging greater competition for these scarce Section 8 voucher allocations so that we reward public housing agencies, and maybe even non- public authorities, maybe some private institutions, some dioceses, some not-for-profit organizations who actually deliver results in delivering efficiency and more units for less cost? Is that a concept that any of you are open to? Ms. Sard. If I may, sir, we at CBPP have supported the idea of a demonstration of competition. It actually was once 20 years ago recommended by Senate Republican appropriators for HUD to look into it and HUD rejected it at the time. But vouchers are different from public housing. Public housing is, by design, publicly owned on publicly-owned land. The administration of rental assistance can be much more flexible, and we ought to be looking for the best performance for the money. Mr. Barr. Well, amen to that. And I would encourage everybody on this committee to consider a competition so that we deliver more units and less cost. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. With that, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank Ranking Member Cleaver, both of you, for holding this informative hearing. Let me start with Ms. Lovell. In your testimony, you state that St. Louis is one of the most segregated cities in the country and that economic disparity tends to follow the patterns of segregation. You also note that an important first step to a successful mobility counseling program is to dispel stigma and myths about the HCV Program among landlords and communities. Can you talk a little bit more about how structural discrimination can limit the mobility of voucher holders and other households, and can neighborhoods block landlords from getting established in these neighborhoods? Ms. Lovell. Thank you for the question. When Congressman Ellison was talking I--yes, there is a huge stigma against Section 8 voucher holders for--a lot of landlords won't accept them because they believe that somehow voucher holders are less reliable tenants. In fact, there are bad tenants everywhere. No matter how much you pay in rent you can be a good or a bad tenant, and the vast majority of Section 8 voucher holders are families who are just like everybody else, just want to have a decent place to live, and a roof over their head and a safe neighborhood in which to raise their children. There is a structural--there are many neighborhoods that are very opposed to not only Section 8 but even any rental housing. In St. Louis a couple of years ago, there was a big demonstration against an elderly development that was located in--I am not sure--in your district in South County, which to me just spoke to the stigma of not only affordable assisted housing but also the racial stigma that still exists in our community. Mr. Clay. Yes. Thank you for that response. Mr. Young, in follow up to Ms. Waters' questions, you indicated that some rules were violated. Were other tenants complaining about violations or was this an initiative by your housing authority? What specifically were the rules violated? Mr. Young. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't say that rules were violated. I said that HUD accused us of rule violation of the residents dealing with our RAD demonstration project. And since, we have tried to provide HUD with the information and the documentation that would dispute their allegations but have yet to resolve the issue with them. But there is proof that exists that all of the affected residents had the opportunity to exercise their due process. Mr. Clay. Wait a minute now. Were they evicted? Mr. Young. Yes, sir. Mr. Clay. And they were evicted because of-- Mr. Young. Of violation of the housing authority's policies. Mr. Clay. Okay, specifically what kind of violation? Mr. Young. Some of them may have dealt with--may--I believe, as Congresswoman Waters mentioned earlier, with drug violations. Some of them were just normal violations of the policy regarding guests, or a number of various violations. Mr. Clay. In the case of drug violations, were any criminal charges filed and were any drugs found? Mr. Young. To be honest, it has been--this has been over a 2-year process and, to be honest, I probably need to review the files. There were various reasons and various different cases that HUD looked into. Mr. Clay. That gives me pause and concern when you put these struggling families out and then it makes their situation that much more difficult, that much more challenging. Where is the compassion for the people who need a roof over their head? Mr. Young. Congressman, I totally agree with you. We have a number of different levels that we go through before we evict any residents. That is a serious matter with us when you are evicting a family and they have to find somewhere else to stay. And usually we do not go to that point unless it gets to a situation where it is affecting the safety and well-being of the other families in a development. Mr. Clay. All right. I yield-- Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. Next, the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Royce. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, witnesses, for joining us today. The cost of the Housing Choice Voucher Program consists really of two parts, right? You have the payments to owners to cover the difference between a tenant's contribution and the rent, and then you have the administrative fees paid to participating housing authorities. And logic would dictate that reducing the resources extended on one would free up resources for the other, but the pool of these resources that they are drawn from, that is not infinite. So the housing authorities in my district are unable to accept applicants to Section 8 wait lists, they tell me, because the administrative costs are rising. And I would like to ask Ms. Sard, you pointed to housing authority consolidation and also HUD shuttering poorly run or poorly performing, I guess I should say, housing authorities as a way to increase that efficiency. And I was going to ask you, how will that alleviate the wait for these families in need? Ms. Sard. I want the committee to be clear that today's consortia rules don't create the kinds of efficiencies that they potentially could, and that makes them less attractive to PHAs and less useful to families. So we need changes-- Mr. Royce. We need to reform that. Ms. Sard. I think the key thing is to allow the agencies that agree to form a consortia to have a single funding contract with HUD. That means instead of each of them doing all the paperwork and HUD doing all the paperwork on the reporting, that saves time. It saves time on maintenance of waiting lists. Right now, each individual housing authority maintains their own waiting list. Families often apply to as many as they can in an area to maximize their chances of getting assistance, as they should, but-- Mr. Royce. On economies of scale-- Ms. Sard. --that is a waste of resources. Mr. Royce. Right, right. Are you suggesting city-wide we could do this, or county-wide as the most-- Ms. Sard. It is going to vary in the area. There are a lot of parts of the country that have county-wide authorities. Mississippi, in fact, is a leader in having regional housing authorities as a strategy to work in rural areas. Mr. Royce. That we should-- Ms. Sard. It is going to vary. Mr. Royce. We should pursue that. The second issue, you speak of efficiency here. I am encouraged by HUD's Moving to Work contract renewals and the expansion of that pilot program, and I will just tell you I have talked at length to the board of supervisors through that local payment standards. The housing authority, for example, of San Bernardino County in my district oversaw a reduction per unit cost from $730 to $652 in addition to a 9 percent decrease in residents living in the two highest-poverty areas. So that is kind of a win-win. We are spending more efficiently there while moving residents closer to better opportunities, which is why the board really likes the program. Ms. Blom, how has the Moving to Work contributed to economic mobility and efficiency in public housing? What characteristics can be replicated in other affordable housing programs so authorities like San Bernardino's can expand their success? And I will just share with you that I have expressed my feelings about this to Secretary Castro many times. I am glad to see HUD making progress, albeit slowly. And with that, I will go to your answer. Ms. Blom. Thank you very much. The Moving to Work demonstration that currently has 39 agencies participating, including San Bernardino, have been leading the way on reducing administrative costs and providing more housing choice and self-sufficiency options to families. We used that as one of the pieces of information to help inform the streamlining rule that we published in April. But going forward, with regard to the 100-PHA expansion on MTW, we are going to be rigorously studying the policy areas for that expansion so that we can better utilize that research to be able to make changes and simplify and reduce burden to housing authorities. So I appreciate your support-- Mr. Royce. A quick response on Ms. Sard's comments, too. Were you in concurrence with some of her suggestions on-- Ms. Blom. I think with regard to consortium the Department believes that this is a vehicle that housing authorities should voluntary choose to do and that we are looking to provide guidance on consortium beyond just the voucher program but also on public housing, and we need to look at that in a unified way. Mr. Royce. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member. And thank you to all of our witnesses here today. Let me just start by saying this is very dear to me. I have over 20 years of experience with working with public housing authorities and doing relocation work, so let me just tell you I know the difficulties, I know the funding fiasco, I know the issues that many of my people have living in poverty. And I see it as our role, your role, and especially those who are hands- on running public authorities, that you have a special obligation. We come here, we quote articles from Harvard and how well people are doing and they are moving out of poverty and what they are doing with their Section 8 vouchers, and we know the real reality. We know, as Congressman Ellison just said, in most of our communities we have long, long wait lists for them to get a Section 8 voucher. People wait what seems like to them a lifetime. So for the record I want to say I want more information, Mr. Young, about what is happening. I am appalled sitting here hearing from my colleagues and learning that earlier some 27 people were evicted and--or put out of facilities where you have responsibilities of leadership and administration and it was 2 years ago; 2 years ago is not like it was 20 years ago. Coming here, there is an expectation that we will get information from you all, and that is something that you are going to hear a lot more about, and I want responses to what happened to those folks, where are they, what are we doing. Because this is what makes it bad for us when we come here trying to help individuals be more self-reliant, to be self- sufficient, all the terminology that we have used for over the last 40 years that we want people to move out of poverty. So you get where I am coming from. So let me get to my questions, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to also say some thank you's. I am from the great State of Ohio, and Ms. Blom, just to let you know, I have worked for 15 years with the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority and our $30 million Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant is converting a public housing portfolio through rental assistance demonstration. And we were very sensitive when we went into a public housing entity, Mr. Young. I know what it is like, that you get people in there who have all kind of issues because they haven't had the opportunities that many of us have had, and especially people who look like us, or me. So I want to thank you for the dollars and saying to us not to displace anyone. If they need treatment, they get treatment. We brought in mental health counselors; we brought in drug counselors; we did financial literacy. So with all that said, Ms. Blom, in your testimony you discuss the problems with prioritizing subset populations for housing assistance absent targeting funding. Could you briefly expand on that or tell us why that is a problem and what it means for at-risk individuals in need of housing assistance? Ms. Blom. Thank you very much, and thank you for your support of the Choice Neighborhoods Program. The Columbus Housing Authority has done a phenomenal job of creating new housing in Columbus to support low-income families. With regard to your question--I'm sorry, remind me again what your question was? Mrs. Beatty. In your testimony, you discussed the problem with prioritizing subset populations for housing assistance absent of targeted funding. Ms. Blom. Thank you very much for that reminder. The housing authorities have the ability to establish the preferences for families who are on their waiting list. And depending on the locality, some jurisdictions may want to provide preferences for homeless; some may want to provide preferences for homeless youth; some may want to provide preferences to veterans, or to women who have been a victim of domestic violence. I think from the Department's point of view, we want to allow housing authorities and jurisdictions to have the ability to decide what is the most important policy objective for their jurisdiction and to allow housing authorities to have that flexibility. Mrs. Beatty. Okay. Thank you. I yield back my 1 second. Chairman Luetkemeyer. The gentlelady's time has expired. With that, we are at the end of the hearing, and we want to thank all our witnesses today for your testimony and for taking time out of your schedules to be here to answer our questions and to inform us. Your expertise and your insights are very important to us and we certainly appreciate everything that everybody has said. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X September 21, 2016 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]