Attachment C
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Introduction
Resident Advisory Boards (RABs) provide Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and residents a forum to engage and share information, especially the Annual Plan. Section 511 of the United States Housing Act and the regulations in 24 CFR Part 903 require PHAs to establish one or more RABs as part of the PHA Plan process. For this purpose, the role of RAB is to assist the PHA in developing the PHA Plan and in making amendments or modifications to the plan (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020).
It is well known that the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV Program), formally the Section 8 Program, does not have resident councils. Nonetheless, PHAs with a significant size tenant-based assistance program must ensure that HCV Program participants are adequately represented or that reasonable efforts are made to secure their participation in the RAB. A significant size tenant-based assistance program is one where at least 20 percent of the PHA’s total number of households receive tenant-based assistance.
Some PHAs operate a low rent public housing program and a HCV Program while others manage a HCV Program solely. The Santa Monica Housing Authority operates the latter. Regardless, PHAs are not exempt from the RAB requirement and must also appoint one or more RABs that adequately represent the population served.
Since there are no resident councils in the HCV Program that comply with the tenant participation regulations under the tenant-based assistance program, HCV Program only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process and some potential flexibility in the way they operate. The regulations state that participation on the RAB is limited to residents who are assisted under federally assisted public housing and HCV tenant-based programs.
Purpose of Report
This report summarizes data collected from a cohort of PHAs that operate HCVs across the country. A total of 13 PHAs comprised the cohort that operates HCVs solely.
These PHAs administer 2,500 or fewer vouchers, and are, in general, comparable to the Santa Monica Housing Authority. None of the 13 PHAs are responsible for providing conventional or low rent public housing units.
A set of survey questions were developed to obtain qualitative and quantitative information from HCV Program personnel or other PHA administrative staff. Data were collected mostly via telephone interviews between November 3 and 20, 2022, but a Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
few were completed by zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings as the method of engagement with PHAs in the cohort.
Findings from the Survey:
1. Description of Cohort: Thirteen (13) PHAs, representing thirteen (13) states, comprised the cohort of agencies for this analysis. Each administers 2,500 or fewer vouchers. Like the Santa Monica Housing Authority, the HCV Program or tenant-based program at these PHAs is in high demand by participants seeking affordable housing.
2. Source of Findings: Information was obtained primarily by telephone interviews with PHA personnel and via Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings in a few instances. Some data were taken from the HCV Administrative Plan to augment qualitative information. Significant findings are summarized below:
a. Membership on the RAB is defined in Section 511 of the United States Housing Act and the regulations in 24 CFR Part 903 that stipulate RAB’s membership is limited to individuals receiving services under federally assisted public housing and HCV tenant-based programs. The regulations give participants in the HCV Program adequate representation on the RAB. b. RAB meetings are open to all HCV participants who are not only expected but are encouraged to participate in these meetings. Participants serve on committees and are able to vote on both operational and administrative matters.
c. During the annual and/or 5-year process, public comments are solicited from the network of stakeholders, including the general public, housing advocates, service providers, landlords, voucher holders, etc. RAB members frequently help promote the importance of these public meetings that enable the PHA to document policy and programmatic recommendations to be included in the annual and 5-year plan.
d. RAB members at the thirteen (13) PHAs in the cohort were appointed by the Executive Director/CEO of the agency. The Mayor appointed one member at each PHA. Letters of recommendation for appointment to RAB were generally received from community and faith-based leaders, local elected officials, HCV participants, landlords, PHA employees and union representatives. The pool of recommendations tends to be larger than the Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
size of the RAB. Exclusive of the Mayor’s appointment, all other recommended appointments were approved by the Board of Commissioners. e. There were no elected members of RAB within the cohort. Note, however, at many, but not all PHAs that administer 8,000 or more vouchers, an election is held every three years to determine the RAB membership. These elections are managed by a Third-Party Independent Monitor.
f. The average number of RAB members for most PHAs is between seven (7) and twelve (12) members at a PHA comparable in size to the Santa Monica Housing Authority. PHAs that administer a large number of vouchers solely have RABs with membership ranging between twelve (12) and twenty-one (21) members.
g. PHAs in the cohort with HCV Program units solely do not pay members a stipend after they attend regular meetings or perform other functions as a representative on the RAB. However, they are reimbursed for transportation expenditures or cost of meals at approved events for the organization. h. Members of RAB meet monthly in a public forum. HCV participants are notified via email or the PHA website. The meetings are generally held at the PHA.
i. Non-public RAB meetings are held at will as determined by the leadership.
There is usually an Executive Committee meeting prior to the public meeting to discuss the agenda and other administrative matters. Some RABs meet with the PHA leadership prior to the public meeting as well. j. All of the thirteen (13) in the cohort provide some type of training. They include payment for RAB members to attend housing conferences and certificate training sponsored by public housing industry associations (i.e., National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Alliance of Resident Services in Affordable and Assisted Housing, Mass Union f Public Housing Tenants, etc.). RAB members also attend other training or webinars sponsored by housing institutes at universities, research and development organizations, and human service agencies that focus on the well-being of the family.
Examples of these organizations include Health Care for Residents in Public Housing, Urban Institute, and National Housing Law Project.
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
k. PHAs provide refreshments for the monthly RAB meeting. Depending on the time of the meeting, food also is served, ranging from box lunches or a light dinner menu (salad, pizza/lasagna, chicken item, drink and desert). l. PHAs generally schedule workshops during the years to empower RAB leaders on PHA matters. Seven (7) of the thirteen (13) in the cohort provide at least one workshop annually for RAB members. Workshops, for examples, provide a HUD update, status on the waiting list, state of the PHA, proposed revisions for the annual /5-year plan, pending housing legislation, etc. These workshops provide timely updates and keep lines of communication open between RAB and the PHA administration.
m. None of the PHAs in this analysis have a Client Advisory Board. n. All of the RABs have a budget, but four (4) RABs in the cohort developed a budget and submitted it to the PHA for approval (Annapolis Housing Authority, Charter Oak Communities, Fall River and York Housing Authority). The budgets were approved. The remaining nine PHAs support RAB with funds from the local government or by using discretionary funds charged to the budget that funds the office of the Executive Director/CEO. o. Camden Housing Authority, Nevada Rural Housing Authority and Annapolis Housing Authority provide technical assistance to RAB through an advisor. The scope of work for the advisor includes developing/revising by-laws, developing an electronic membership data base (email address, cell phone number, etc.), designing a RAB website, preparing an annual report of RAB accomplishments, etc.). p. For this cohort, three (3) RABs referenced above have had their tax exempt status for five years or longer: Fall River Housing Authority, Charter Oak Communities, and York Housing Authority. At each of these PHAs, the RAB implements at least one program to assist HCV Program family members (i.e., summer camping programs for elementary children, back to school supplies, distribution of free laptops and reduced Internet service for students in partnership with the Comcast Internet Essential Plus Initiative, etc.). It may not be reasonable for new RABs to implement social programs, but they should be expected to serve in an advisory capacity only. q. All of the RABs in the cohort have by-laws. There also is an executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RAB and the PHA for the Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
cohort. It details the responsibilities of both parties. For example, in these MOUs, the PHA recognizes the importance of on-going discussions in good faith related to issues of mutual concern. RAB also agrees, for example, to hold regular meetings with HCV Program participants and promotes PHA strategic initiatives. The scope of roles varies, but the MOU provides a clear roadmap of the relationship between the two parties.
r. The application process and appointment process are one and the same. To become a RAB member requires an appointment by the Mayor and or Executive Director/CEO of the PHA. There should, however, be an application process that includes an application form that collects sociodemographic information on nominees and a statement of his/her interest in serving as a member of RAB.
s. The HCV Program is a complex operation. Understanding the many procedures and giving advice to remedy problems can be challenging at times for RAB members. Thus, the importance of receiving a comprehensive and initial RAB orientation cannot be overemphasized. All of the PHAs in the cohort provided RAB members an initial orientation. It included, for example, an introduction to the PHA, description of the tenant-based voucher assistance program, different types of vouchers, selection of landlords, inspection of rental units, rent payment standards, leasing procedures, participant grievances, management of the waiting list, termination of contract, and other information.
3. Statistics on Vouchers: For the cohort, 13 PHAs administered 2,500 or fewer vouchers. PHAs with the smallest number of HCVs administered were Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (329), East Peoria Housing Authority (352) and Annapolis Housing Authority administered (389). Those PHAs that administered the number of vouchers similar to the Santa Monica Housing Authority were Charter Oak Communities (1,800), Housing Authority of Maricopa County (1,442), Nevada Rural Housing Authority (1,393) and York Housing Authority (1,402). The remaining PHAs in Table 1 (see attachment) administer between 2,000 and 2,500 vouchers. As a result of the demand for vouchers, many PHAs close the waiting list annually for a period of time. The goal is to be able to offer a voucher eventually to all applicants on the waiting list. However, demand is always higher than available resources. Too many applicants have been on the waiting list for years according to HCV Program directors. Residents are frequently vocal when vouchers are not available or if they remain on the waiting list an unreasonable length of time. Many residents Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
resort to social action that includes filing a complaint with HUD, requesting help from elected officials, taking their experience with the PHA to the media, and seeking an audience with funders to cease payment to the PHA until the residents’ demands are met. These actions may have negative consequences for the PHA.
4. Federal vs State Vouchers: Fall River Housing Authority was the only PHA responsible for vouchers funded by the State of Massachusetts. Currently, the agency is administering 287 state vouchers, approximately 12% of the total number of vouchers the agency administers. Eligibility requirements for state vouchers are comparable to the federal litmus test.
5. HCV Program Budget: All PHAs in the cohort have a budget developed from HUD administrative fees and Housing Assistance Payments (HAPs) for administering the HCV Program. On average, the HCV Program administrative budget was relatively small and is reflected in the following examples from the cohort: Annapolis $4,667,447; Camden $15, 511,361; Maricopa $14,060,736; Nevada $15,171,202; Peoria $11,082,183; South Carolina $12,060,00; and York $11,248,626. Note further that Annapolis, Camden, and York receive an annual subsidy from the local government to support HCV Program operations. In previous years, the average subsidy ranged between $47,000 and $95,000 annually. More often, this additional funding helped to cover expenditures for managing project-based vouchers.
6. HCV RABs: All thirteen (13) HCV Programs in the cohort currently have a RAB.
PHAs with a significant size tenant-based assistance program must ensure that HCV participants are adequately represented or that reasonable efforts are made to secure their participation in the RAB. As noted previously, a significant size tenant-based assistance program is one where at least 20 percent of the PHA’s total number of households receive tenant-based assistance.
A profile of the thirteen (13) HCV Programs:
a. Fall River Housing Authority administers approximately 2,500 vouchers. The program covers families, elderly, and handicapped persons. Subsidies are available to house families in private apartments in the Greater Fall River Area. RAB is comprised of nine (9) members. Eight (8) members of RAB are appointed by the PHA and one is appointed by the Mayor for a three-year term. There is no term limit. State and local funding support RAB operations.
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
b. Charter Oak Communities is a leading champion for the tenant-based assistance program in Connecticut. The PHA administers 1,800 vouchers. It has a six-member RAB appointed by the PHA and Mayor jointly. RAB members serve a three-year term. Although the RAB does some fundraising and solicitation to support itself, it is funded by the local government and with discretionary funds from the Executive Director’s budget. c. York Housing Authority manages 1,402 vouchers for the county-wide service area. The program helps families afford safe, decent and sanitary rental housing that is available through private landlords. RAB is made up of seven (7) members. All are appointed by the PHA and serve a three-year term.
RAB members meet monthly with the Executive Director and discuss administrative matters and concerns brought to them by HCV participants.
Discretionary funds support the operation of RAB.
d. Annapolis Housing Authority administers 389 rental vouchers which offer the opportunity to choose affordable rental housing through the Anne Arundel County area. It also offers participants a chance to improve their quality of life by selecting a location that provides significant employment opportunities and better schools. Freedom of choice enables families to obtain affordable housing outside areas of high poverty concentration. e. Camden Housing Authority administers 2,178 HCVs. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The PHA partners with GoSection8.com which provides an enhanced program to list rental properties online.
f. East Peoria Housing Authority is responsible for 352 vouchers. Participants rent from eligible landlords on the open market. Housing units include houses, apartments, and mobile homes. The waiting list has been closed for two years due to high demand for vouchers beyond the available number of vouchers the PHA administers.
g. Lafayette Housing Authority administers 2,212 vouchers, serving Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes. At present, there are 108 applicants on the HCV Program waiting list which is down 46% from last year. In response to the decrease in applications, the PHA developed a marketing strategy to effectively communicate to the community the availability of affordable rental housing with opportunities for landlord participation in the HCV Program.
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
h. Randolph County Housing Authority is responsible for administering 755 HCVs for Randolph, Barbour, Tucker, Lewis, Upshur and Pendleton County.
Acceptable rental units include single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, townhomes and mobile homes. Eligibility for a voucher also includes certain categories of eligible non-citizens.
i. Housing Authority of Maricopa administers 1,442 vouchers for its jurisdiction. The PHA only issues vouchers in surrounding cities that do not have their own housing department or are unincorporated. j. Nevada Rural Housing Authority administers 1,393 vouchers. Participants may use their vouchers in the counties of Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Lander, Lincoln, Ney, Storey and White Pines.
k. SC State Finance and development Authority administers 2,131 vouchers. A MOU was executed with the SC Department of Mental Health to assist participants with case management services, domestic violence, independent living, and transition from the Home Again Program to re-integrate in the community.
l. Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority administers 329 vouchers. A major goal is to provide excellent service to HCV participants and landlords. Self-sufficiency is encouraged for participants and their family members by promoting opportunities for success.
m. Youngtown Metropolitan Housing Authority administers 2,280 vouchers.
The PHA encourages individuals who own rental properties to participate in the HCV Program. Good landlords with good properties are always sought.
The program provides a great opportunity to assist families by providing low- income families safe, decent and affordable housing.
7. RABs As 501 C-3 Organizations: For this cohort, three (3) of the thirteen (13) RABs referenced above have had their tax-exempt status for five years or longer:
Fall River Housing Authority, Charter Oak Communities, and York Housing Authority. At each of these PHAs, the RAB implements at least one program to assist HCV Program family members (i.e., summer camping programs for elementary children, back to school supplies, and distribution of free laptops and reduced Internet service for students in partnership with the Comcast Internet Essential Plus Initiative). RABs that are 501 C-3 organization have a recognizable advantage over those that are not. They are eligible to receive resources from Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
foundations for their participants. Resources include, for example, technology to improve career opportunities, university scholarships or educational assistance, investment/savings accounts, and other amenities to enhance individual wellbeing. It may not be reasonable for new RABs to implement social programs but serve in an advisory capacity only.
8. RAB Membership: For PHAs that operate HCVs solely, members on the RAB were appointed. Mayors generally appoint at least one member on the RAB. For the cohort, an appointment is for a three-year term. None of the PHAs in the cohort have term limits at present. Recommendations for membership for these RABs were made by landlords, PHA administrative personnel, HCV Program participants, or via self-nominations. The PHA evaluated and selected members from each stakeholder group that submitted a recommendation.
9. Diversity and Inclusion: Three (3) of the PHAs that currently have an HCV RAB, an important goal is to appoint or elect members who are proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion. RAB is expected to be a culturally diverse organization comprised of HCV family members it represents. To that end, RAB is expected to mirror the demography of the HCV Program. Based on comments from HCV directors, younger HCV residents are less inclined to serve on the RAB and older RAB leaders shy away from collaborating closely with residents who are culturally diverse, LGBTQ, or exercise other sexual orientations. Many believe that leadership training and coaching will help remedy this challenge and interest those from diverse walks of life to participate as board members.
10. Non-HCV Participants on the RAB: There is no evidence from the cohort that landlords are members of RAB. Resident leaders have expressed a belief that it would be a conflict of interest to do so. According to HUD, the Conflict of Interest provision of 24 CFR 982.161 prohibits the PHA from entering any contract or arrangement in connection with the tenant-based programs in which certain classes or persons have any interest. Landlords would, indeed, have a financial interest. There is no evidence from the cohort that members of a Continuum of Care Program (CoC) or Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) serve on the RAB. However, some RABs believe it would be acceptable to HUD to create standing committees that include landlords, funding organizations, external service providers, representatives from partnering agencies, and other stakeholders. To do so eliminates the issue of priority treatment for landlords who receive HAP payments from the PHA.
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
11. Profile of RAB Representatives: The thirteen (13) PHAs with RAB members in the cohort have a recognizable profile. They are parents, older residents, grandparents, disabled and elderly residents. Some are employed or receive retirement benefits. Others are retired or receive government subsistence (public assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security benefits, etc.). Noteworthy experiences include volunteers, members on other community boards, lay leaders at their place of worship, mentors to students and advocates for social justice matters.
12. Primary Responsibilities of RAB Members: During a typical year, RAB members in the cohort participate in many essential functions. Examples include: developing the annual plan, serving on departmental committees and work groups at the PHA, making recommendations for PHA policy revisions, and serving as primary advocate for participants of the HCV Program by communicating to management concerns, ideas and recommendations for change and program improvements.
13. Sources: HCV Programs are not eligible to receive Tenant Participation Funds from HUD and must look to local government to fund them. Without funding from local government, the operation of RAB at the Santa Monica Housing Authority would be incapacitated and unable to participate in essential training or attend housing events developed by industry associations on its behalf.
14. Structure of RAB: The structure of the HCV Programs with a RAB includes roughly five officers including general members. They are President, VicePresident, Secretary, Treasures, and Sargent at Arms. At the York Housing Authority, there is a Parliamentarian. The roles of both are similar. RABs in the cohort also have by-laws that specify terms, role of offices, committee structure and functions, attendance, conflict of interest, ethical conduct, and other requirements to ensure the organization runs efficiently.
15. Length of Term of RAB Members: Most RAB members serve a three-year term based on elections conducted by a Third-Party Independent Monitor. (TPIM).
Most do not have term limits, but should, based on feedback from the PHAs in the cohort. Many, if not most, remain in office in perpetuity and enjoy the benefits of the position. For resident leaders in the cohort, they have been on RAB an average of four years.
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
16. Achievement of Fair Representation: One of the challenges facing RABs across the country is achieving fair representation. RABs should mirror, to the greatest extent possible, the demographic characteristics of the HCV Program. Fair representation means that seats on the RAB should be filled by a diversity of residents - those who are elderly, disabled, young mom and dads, college students, employed persons and others with an interest to serve faithfully.
Members of most RABs in the cohort are elderly residents. There is, however, a young representative on the RAB at Charter Oak Communities. Exciting young residents to sever on the RAB remains a challenge.
17. Payment of Stipends to RAB Members: All thirteen (13) PHAs in the cohort with HCV Program solely do not pay RAB members a stipend.
18. Accommodations to RAB Members: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RAB and the PHA was executed. The MOU specifies reimbursable activities such as transportation cost related to RAB functions and meals for attendance at approved events for the organization. To be compensated by the PHA, the RAB member must complete a monthly report.
19. Participation in the Development of the Annual Plan: There was 100% participation in the Annual Plan by RAB members at HCV sites only. RAB members also have a voice in developing the HCV Administrative Plan.
Additionally, members of RAB have a role in town hall meetings that are organized by the Executive Director’s office for the purpose of discussing these plans and obtaining input from the community.
20. Required Community Activities by RAB: None of the PHAs in the cohort reported a PHA requirement that RAB members must participate in community activities. There was, however, an expectation that they do so as RAB leaders.
Members of RAB at Camden Housing Authority and Youngtown Housing Authority confirmed that they support their children’s schools as volunteers, serve on a community taskforce, advocate for more affordable housing, organize events to address crime, advocate the elimination of neighborhood decay, work on ending homelessness, and participate in the eradication of other problems that disenfranchise families. HCV Participants are passionate about the wellbeing of families, especially children and elderly persons.
21. Meetings with Executive Staff: RABs in the cohort reported that they meet monthly with the Director of the HCV Program. Occasionally, the President/CEO participates in these meetings. An agenda is developed to keep the meeting focused. Residents believe these meetings strengthen their relationship with the PHA, give them an opportunity to bring matters of concern Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
to leadership, and help track PHA response to HCV Program management and customer service challenges. At these meetings, RAB members discuss the Annual Plan and other PHA reports. Note that four additional PHAs that do not have a RAB schedule a bi-annual townhall meeting with HCV participants to engage with them on important matters. These meetings are facilitated by the Director of the HCV Program or CEO/President.
22. Training Provided to RAB Members: With restrictions for travel and in-person training imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the RABs have not attended conferences during the past three years. Certificate training occurs at these conferences on leadership development and capacity building topic such as repositioning the PHA, grass root organizing and engagement for social action, and working with culturally diverse populations. Housing industry groups sponsor these training activities for resident leaders. However, NAR-SAAH, for example, trained RAB leaders in 2021 at Fall River Housing Authority, Annapolis Housing Authority, Camden Housing Authority, Youngstown Housing Authority and York Housing Authority. More RAB training has been scheduled during 2023 and these RAB leaders are also taking advantage of online training or webinars to the extent there is funding to support these training events.
23. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RAB and PHA: There is an executed MOU between the RAB and the PHAs for the cohort. It details the responsibilities of both parties. For example, in the MOU, the PHA recognizes the importance of on-going discusses in good faith related to issues of mutual concern. RAB also agrees, for example, to holds regular meetings with HCV participants and promotes PHA strategic initiatives. The scope of roles varies, but the MOU provides a clear roadmap of the relationship between the two parties.
24. RAB Meetings and Notification: Routine meetings of RAB are held monthly and committee meetings more often. Announcements are mailed to members and are posted in the HCV administrative office. Three PHAs in the cohort places a RAB meeting notice on the PHA website or in the resident newsletter. HCV participants are permitted to attend RAB meetings. Meeting notices are prepared in the language spoken by residents (i.e., English, Spanish, and other languages as requires).
25. Use of Consultants to Provide Technical Assistance: For the PHAs in the cohort that have a RAB, none are currently using consultants to provide technical assistance. RAB responsibilities can become complex and challenging at times.
PHAs should not assume RAB members always have the skillsets and Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
experiences to manage these challenging responsibilities absent technical assistance from consultants or other housing experts.
26. Providing Legal Representation for RAB: In some but not all situations, the PHA provides legal representation for RAB. Examples include policy disputes and removal of members from office. RABs seek assistance from Legal Aid and local attorneys who will provide pro bono legal assistance. A drawback at times, however, is that Legal Aid and private attorneys seek business from the PHA and are potentially using their assistance for RAB to get in the front door. Many PHAs require RAB to report their engagement with external law firms and legal organization to determine whether the PHA can remedy the situation internally.
27. Participation in Meetings of Legislative Bodies: In reviewing State law for the cohort, there were no guarantee to attend and participate in meetings of legislative bodies. Nevertheless, many RABs attend these meeting to stay connected with elected officials. For example, the RAB at the Fall River Housing Authority attends meetings of the County Commissioners; in Annapolis, RAB representatives attend meetings of the City Council and State House of Delegates located in walking distance of the PHA administrative office. RAB leaders give remarks during the public comment segment of these meetings. Elected officials frequent follow-up with PHA management in response to the remarks provided by RAB members. The dynamics at play are noteworthy.
28. Documents Subject to Public Records Act: Some RAB documents are subject to the Public Records Act. However, in California, for example, “Government Code 6255 exempts from disclosure any records if on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” It is the customary practice by RABs in other states to agree to make records available if they are requested by the PHA Director or its Legal Department. Some PHAs include this requirement in the above referenced MOU between the two parties.
29. Participation in Grievances, Lease Hearings and Administrative Matters:
Frequently, participants feel their rights are not protected by the PHA. HCV participants expect RAB members to participate in meetings to address their concerns. Participation in these matters gives participants “a voice” in decisions regarding lease violations by the landlord; HCVP inspections; closing or opening the waiting list; and other administrative matters. A frequent problem is convincing RAB members to preserve confidential of information discussed.
30. HCV Program Reporting Requirement: For the cohort, the HCV Program reports directly to the Deputy Executive Director or President and CEO of the Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
PHA. The reporting requirement may vary by other PHAs elsewhere in the country. In some instances, the HCV Program reports to the City Administrator, City Council, or a Municipal Board. In such cases the PHA is not an independent municipal agency but is a department in the city’s human services agency.
31. Impactful RAB Activities: Based on survey responses, activities that have been most impactful include expenditures to attend annual housing conferences in different cities around the country; free computer/laptops and school supplies for HCV students; meetings with the PHA Director and other senior personnel; and in-kind support from the PHA. These are also interpreted as incentives and have tremendous appeal to RAB members.
Recommendations
1. Consult with HUD to determine the eligibility of a Client Resident Advisory Board vs a traditional RAB for the HCV Program. It may be possible to receive a waiver to the Conflict of Interest provision (24 CFR 982.161) if it is not a Federal statute. Members of Congress enact Federal statutes and are the only ones to amend them. The Secretary of HUD has the authority to grant a waiver to a regulation.
2. Pay a monthly stipend to the HCV members who serve on the RAB if the cost is funded by local government. Resident participation funds allocated by HUD cannot be used for this purpose. However, in lieu of paying stipends, other benefits could be provided, and they include leadership training, payment to attend housing conferences, and reimbursement for business-related transportation. These may be acceptable alternatives.
3. Once the RAB has been organized, it should file an application to become a 501 C-3 tax exempt organization. The application is an 18 to 22-page document and generally takes about six months to be processed. A consultant should assist the RAB in completing the application. Once tax exempt status has been received, filing the annual IRS Form 990 timely is important. Delinquent filing will result is revocation of the exemption.
4. Allow each City Council member to appoint two HCV participants to serve on the RAB. Procedures for appointments and eligibility requirements to serve on the RAB should be developed. Eligible appointees should be: an HCV participant at the Santa Monica Housing Authority; 18 years of age, named on the HCV; has been a HCV participant for a minimum of one year; have no rental payment delinquencies if head of household; and have a valid ID (CA Driver’s Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
License, State ID, Passport or ID issued by the PHA. Note that Live-in aides are ineligible to serve on the RAB.
5. Develop application procedures for those interested in serving on the RAB.
Residents interested in becoming a RAB member must complete an application for appointment and submit it to the PHA. The application will obtain standard contact information, a brief statement of the applicant’s interest in serving on the RAB and contact information for two references.
6. Conduct a mandatory orientation for those appointed to serve on the RAB. The orientation will serve as the appetizer before the main course of training to be offered at a later date. During the orientation, the facilitator will review the responsibilities of the RAB, its mission, responsibilities of each officer, required meetings with HCV participants, management of funds, required reports, code of conduct and other matters.
7. Finalize a RAB operating budget for year one and two, as a start. Funding for RAB operations at the Santa Monica Housing Authority is not allocated by HUD and should, therefore, be provided by the City Council.
8. Develop a RAB structure appropriate for the Santa Monica Housing Authority.
The structure should emerge from strategic planning sessions with RAB members and PHA personnel. During these sessions, models of RAB structures from different PHAs in the country should be discussed, including the responsibilities of ad hoc and standing committees.
9. Draft by-laws for the new RAB. The PHA should file an application with the appropriate city or state agency to establish RAB as a non-profit organization in the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, by-laws and articles of incorporation should be developed. The Legal Office at the PHA can assist with these activities.
10. Resolve upfront the fair representation challenge if it exists. This matter should be appropriately addressed in the development of by-laws and MOU between RAB and the PHA.
11. Procure technical assistance to support the start-up and implementation of RAB.
A consultant should be hired to provide technical assistance to RAB for start-up and implementation functions for a minimum of one year.
Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV):
Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities
Conclusions:
The HCV Program addresses housing needs for extremely low-income households and gives recipients the freedom to choose the kind of housing and location that best meet their needs. Many recipients can find housing in neighborhoods that offer social, educational, and economic opportunities for themselves and their children.
However, not all recipients are happy with the HCV Program and have strong criticisms of it. For example, shortage of moderately priced rental housing, tight market conditions, racial and ethnic discrimination, landlords who are unwilling to accept voucher payments, and ineffective local administration of the program contribute to the problem. The biggest problem is that federal spending for affordable housing is woefully inadequate.
Over the years, residents attending NAR-SAAH events specifically and other housing industry conferences have expressed their opinions about the strengths and weakness of the federal HCV Program absent a RAB at their PHA. According to many residents, the strengths of the HCV Program are appreciated, but the structural weakness of not having a RAB cannot be ignored. Based on size, by not having a RAB violates Section 511 of the United States Housing Act and the regulation in 24 CFR Part 903.
During NAR-SAAH conferences, HCV recipients frequently do not understand payment standards and they also complain about the way African-Americans and Hispanics are over-represented in neighborhoods where vouchers are clustered and under-represented in communities where they are widely dispersed.
The HCV Program does not work perfectly, but improvements can be made. HCV participants have good ideas and opinions that “make sense” for the PHA. Excluding the voice of residents in discussions to improve the program will continue to have negative consequences.
Creation of a RAB at the Santa Monica Housing Authority will give members a structure to engage with the leadership of the agency on a range of topics such as landlord relations, unit inspections, payment standards, and portability provisions as examples. Some families in the HCV Program experience complex social problems (i.e., substance abuse, depression, domestic violence, gang affiliation, illegal household members, etc.). The PHA’s regular engagement with RAB can be a benefit for addressing these social entanglements and family circumstances.
TABLE 1
Survey Results of PHAs Administering 2,500 or Fewer Vouchers
A B C D E F G H I J K
1 Public Housing Authorities and State # of
Vouchers
In
Compliance?
RAB
Budget
(Rounded)
RAB
Budget Per
Voucher
RAB Funding RAB
Size
How Often
Meetings?
Stipend to
RAB
Members
501-C3 Have a
CAB?
2 Annapolis Housing Authority (MD) 389 Yes $ 7,500 $ 19 Local Gov't 5 Monthly No No 3 Camden Housing Authority (NJ) 2,178 Yes $ 13,000 $ 6 Local Gov't 7 Monthly No No 4 Charter Oak Communities (CT) 1,800 Yes $ 9,200 $ 5 Local Gov't 6 Monthly No √ No 5 East Peoria Housing Authority (IL) 352 Yes $ 5,000 $ 14 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 6 Fall River Housing Authority (MA) 2,459 Yes $ 14,000 $ 6 State Gov't 9 Monthly No √ No 7 Lafayette Housing Authority (IN) 2,212 Yes $ 8,600 $ 4 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 8 Randolph County Housing Authority (WV) 755 Yes $ 5,100 $ 7 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 9 Housing Authority of Maricopa County (AZ) 1,442 Yes $ 4,750 $ 3 Discretionary 6 Monthly No No 10 Nevada Rural Housing Authority (NV) 1,393 Yes $ 10,600 $ 8 Discretionary 6 Monthly No No 11 SC State Housing Finance & Development Authority (SC) 2,131 Yes $ 8,000 $ 4 Discretionary 5 Monthly No No 12 Rice County Housing & Redevelopment Authority (MN) 329 Yes $ 10,000 $ 30 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 13 York Housing Authority (PA) 1,402 Yes $ 11,300 $ 8 Discretionary 7 Monthly No √ No 14 Youngtown Housing Authority (OH) 2,280 Yes $ 10,100 $ 4 Local Gov't 7 Monthly No No