Section 8 Housing Case Study

For the past fifty years the shift from meeting the housing needs of the poor through government projects-based housing to a more individual approach, has been slowly implemented. Housing vouchers now enable underprivileged populations to move from high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods to more un-segregated, low-poverty neighborhoods. Low-poverty neighborhoods have less crime, better opportunities for employment, and more diverse schooling options. Some housing advocates however, contend that housing assistance is unnecessary and is an income subsidy that should be combined with other social safety nets (Clark, W. 2008).

The Public Policy Institute states that Section 8 project-based rental assistance contracts involving HUD and for-profit owners contracting private multifamily housing, which is made available by HUD to low-income households who qualify for housing assistance. The subsidy is such that pays the difference "between 30 percent of the household's income and the contract rent; the subsidy is paid by HUD to the landlord." (AARP Public Policy Institute, 2002) In addition, HUD has Dispersal programs for renters of Section 8 housing due to the desire of the public to avoid to concentration of poverty-level residents in urban areas. This is because there is a general consensus that Section 8 subsidized housing tends to drive down the market prices of property in the same area. There are various challenges that are faced by the Section 8 subsidized housing program as it assists low-income households obtain appropriate housing through the provision of rental assistance.

One of the causes of homelessness in Baltimore City is lack of affordable housing, this includes subsidized housing from the state. Lack of affordable housing in Baltimore City is due to an increase luxury housing and Baltimore’s decrease desire for rental housing (Mayor’s Office of Human Services, 2013). Available housing is not proportional to the wages of people living in Baltimore City. Nearly half of renters in Baltimore spend 35% of their income or more on their rent. The waiting list for Baltimore City opened in 2014 and 74,000 households applied for 25,000 available slots for up to six years to own a voucher (“Homelessness in Baltimore,” 2017). For the extremely poor population there are only 42 available homes for over 100 people who identify with the population (Public Justice Center, 2015). Therefore, Baltimore needs to make affordable housing for their population or there should be an increase in jobs and wages. However, the private sector is not interested in developing houses for the low-income population because it is not profitable compared to selling a building to a company to make luxury housing (Richman, 2015).

In the first step of establishing a plan for impoverished children residing in section 8 communities housing would be to identify the problem. In order to understand a plan that needs to be made for the human rights and social and economic justice for these individuals, there must be an understanding of what aspect of their rights and justice is not already being met by society. After establishing what is the problem, having an understanding of why it’s a problem helps better set up the next step of collecting information on that issue and coming to a conclusion of how it happened to gain a better angle of how to solve it. In order to have an effective advocacy plan, we need to do research on finding out what is not being offered to them that is being offered to other children that are not residing in impoverished section 8 housing. If better and

Affordable housing is defined as a specific, measurable ratio of income-to- housing expense. They are homes made available specifically to individuals and families whose income is at or below 80% of the median income for the area, as established by the Office of Housing and Urban Development, and where the housing costs for those homes are less that 30% of the household’s gross

In Fiscal Year 2016, the area median income for Chicago was $76,900. Because Housing Choice Vouchers are intended to assist low income families, eligibility for vouchers is limited to households whose income does not exceed 80% of area median income, which was approximately $61,520 in 2016. More importantly, distribution requirements specify that at least 75% of Section 8 vouchers must go to households designated as “very low income,” meaning that their income does not exceed 30% of the area median income. In 2016 in Chicago, the figure constituting 30% of area median income was approximately $18,456. Complainant’s annual income, excluding the Section 8 voucher, was $8,796, thus placing her within the very low income threshold for housing seekers. Therefore, it appears that Respondent’s minimum income policy excluded over 75% of Section 8 voucher holders. As such, this facially-neutral policy has a disparate impact on persons with a Housing Choice Voucher as a source of

The educational gap between low-income children and the average American presents a serious problem that has only been perpetuated through government-funded public housing projects. Indeed, this divide eventually translates to a disparity of college acceptance rates and job placement rates. Thus, the academic success of children from low-income families directly threatens their upward mobility. A continued shift toward increased tenant-based housing would give families the opportunity to move out of their economically segregated neighborhoods and choose the neighborhood that best meets their children’s needs. Indeed, despite the Housing Choice voucher program’s current flaws, in each of the case studies, the housing choice vouchers have resulted

New Hope Housing likely had strengths related to their employee development program, their effectiveness in housing people in need, and their niche for ensuring individuals who would typically be rejected housing. Some of their weaknesses likely related to their secured funding and current dependence on government funding. Some of their opportunities relate to finding solutions for permanent housing, as this is currently a struggle for the people they serve. Lastly, their threats likely also have to do with their government funding. As budgets change, money is moved around and can impact this organization for the better or for the worse.

Two public policies that have been passed within the last fifty years that have shaped our social and political consciousness are Affordable housing and SNAP. Affordable housing “In general, housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate guideline or general rule of thumb”(HUD.GOV). Affordable housing is for people of low income. Many people that are able to receive Affordable Housing also are able to receive SNAP. SNAP or Food Stamps are “any of the coupons sold or given under a federal program to eligible needy persons and redeemable for food at designated grocery stores or

The social program that addressed John and Jane’s problem of affordable housing is the Section 8- (Housing Choice Voucher Program) that was implemented through The Housing and Community Act of 1974. This is a federal program to assist low income families, the elderly and disabled to afford safe housing (hud.gov). Those who are eligible are responsible for finding their own housing which can include single family- homes or apartments outside of public housing units. The units must meet standards of health and safety which the PHA set. These vouchers are received by the local Public Housing Agencies and eligibility is set by the PHA, it is based on the total gross income and cannot be over 50% of the income for that area, by

The utilization of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit or LIHTC has had an overall positive effect on housing for low-income families in the United States. Four key outcomes of the LIHTC are: First, there is less likelihood of segregation within the tax-credit housing than in the government provided section 8 and government-subsidized voucher programs (Schwartz, p. 115). Second, the purpose of the program, which was to subsidize mixed income housing to low and working class families, is provisionally being met (Khadduri, Buron, & Lam, p. 10). Third, through decentralization of the implementation of the LIHTC program the federal government allowed the state governments more latitude in the dissemination of the tax credits to appropriate developers (Furman Center, p. 2). Finally, there is a correlation between the areas where LIHTC housing properties are developed in the impact on the sounding region. This correlation is both positive and negative in nature, but heavily is judged on the region that the LIHTC is built in and as to whether it is in an urban center, suburb, or in the metro areas (Deng, pp. 46-48). These four outcomes will guide the body of this paper about the overarching theme of LIHTC as a policy tool as opposed to section 8 housing or government provided housing.

In order to help meet housing needs for struggling families, the United States Government, through the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides benefits to help those families pay rent and support their own homes through the Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program. Carlson, Haveman, Kaplan, and Wolfe (2011) found that an estimated 5.2 million Americans rely on the housing vouchers, and the vouchers help “very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market” (p. 233). The family or individual is able to lease a rental home with the help of the voucher and the voucher amount depends on the family’s income.

I have worked in property management for affordable housing and I have witness several instances where individuals have abused the system by living in affordable housing who should of not been living in subsidize housing. Those individuals who abuse the

Living in a Section 8 neighborhood my whole life, I’ve learned a lot about struggles that most kids at my school haven’t even come to see. In my neighborhood, everybody has something working against them and statistically speaking, most of the kids here will never go to college, will never have a stable career, and will end up in prison, if not dead. I know myself growing up without a father and my mom working day and night to support the family, I often didn't get the support I needed growing up and a lot of the kids here are in the same position. We’ve have had to take care of ourselves and fill the position our parents can’t.

Deluca at el (2013) found that voucher program falls short of what it could be doing to overcome the existing economic and racial segregation in America’s cities. They also found residents in vouchers had limitation in "housing search resources, involuntary mobility, landlord practices, and several aspects of the voucher program itself limit families’ ability to escape disadvantaged areas, and the voucher program’s regulations and funding structures do not incentivize housing authorities to promote neighborhood mobility and residential choice"( Deluca at el, 2013, p268). The voucher program falls because the policies can never work, or because the outcomes we observe are solely