The following issue briefs, updated for 2013, provide concise explanations of important policy and program areas, along with CLPHA's concerns and recommendations for addressing particular challenges in each.
Click on a title or image below to read the issue brief.
|Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Administrative Fees|
HCV Administrative Fees have not been fully funded for years. Given the consistently prorated appropriations over the past decade, CLPHA members found ways to make their programs work as well as possible within their funding constraints. After a number of years at a steady proration of about 90 percent, Administrative Fee funding began a precipitous decline in 2011 that reached a 75 percent proration under the current fiscal year 2013 (FY13) continuing resolution. Under sequestration, HUD estimates that housing authorities will receive only 69 percent of the administrative funding for which they are eligible.
|Moving To Work (MTW)|
Housing authorities with MTW status have a much greater capacity to participate in the revitalization and reinvigoration of their communities than can be accomplished within the bounds of the traditional public housing and Section 8 program structures. It does not make sense to limit their ability to serve current affordable housing and service needs strictly to programs designed, defined, and allocated in particular project-based or tenant-based forms in response to the needs of decades past. The current system is too focused on regulation and compliance rather than innovation and solution-finding.
|Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS)|
The interim PHAS rule released in early 2011 created myriad issues for the industry, including but not limited to: retroactive scoring; lack of training and guidance on the new scoring system; precipitous and unexplained drops in physical inspection scores; and unreasonable occupancy standards. HUD accepted public comments on the interim rule from CLPHA and others, but has not published responses to date. Additionally, CLPHA has several specific concerns about HUD’s proposed outline for final PHAS.
|Public Housing Capital Fund
When the Capital Fund was first established, it provided sufficient funds for the full amount of public housing’s accrual needs and some portion of the capital needs backlog. However, in recent years, the Capital Fund appropriation has dwindled, and the amount appropriated no longer contributes to the reduction of the capital needs backlog. As a result, our nation loses 10,000 to 15,000 units each year from our public housing stock. With the replacement cost of a public housing unit estimated at approximately $135,000, it does not make good economic sense to let units fall into a state of disrepair.
|Public Housing Operating Fund
In the past several years, Congress has not appropriated the funding level calculated by the formula and instead has appropriated an operating subsidy that is deeply prorated. Since the final implementation of the funding formula in 2007, the proration level has ranged between 80 and 90 percent of the calculated subsidy need. Without a sufficient operating subsidy, housing authorities might be forced to delay maintenance, decrease services, and reduce staff: this ultimately leads to a loss of units and to a lower occupancy rate for the remaining units.
|Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) - added 6/18
RAD is an important tool in the recapitalization and preservation of our nation’s public housing stock. With more than 10,000 units of public housing lost each year due to a lack of funding and a backlog of capital repairs totaling $26 billion, RAD enables the capital investments necessary to preserve these much-needed units. It does so by allowing for the use public funds already available to leverage private capital. Converted properties remain under public control and are subject to a one-for-one replacement rule, meaning residents are safeguarded from losing their assistance and no hard units are lost.