WINTER 2019

Evidence Matters

Transforming Knowledge Into Housing and Community Development Policy

LANDLORDS AND

VOUCHERS

IN THIS ISSUE

02 Landlords: Critical Participants in the

Housing Choice Voucher Program

10 HUD-Sponsored Research Sheds New

Light on HCV Landlords

14 PHAs Encourage Landlord Participation

With Incentives

Landlords: Critical Participants in the HIGHLIGHTS

ture Housing Choice Voucher Program

n The success of the Housing Choice

fea

T

Voucher program depends on the par-

he Housing Choice Voucher

Landlords decide whether to partici-

ticipation of private-market landlords.

(HCV) program is a federal hous-

pate based on factors such as financial

n HUD and the public housing agencies

ing assistance program that helps house

considerations, perceptions about

that administer the voucher program

2.2 million low-income households

voucher holders, and bureaucratic issues

can work together to reduce admin-

stably and affordably. The HCV program

related to the program’s administration.

istrative burdens and actively recruit

depends on landlord participation to

State and local governments and

and incentivize landlord participation.

make privately owned units available

public housing agencies (PHAs) have

n Local governments can also imple-

to voucher holders; therefore, their

pursued several strategies to increase

ment targeted tax incentives and

participation determines the number

landlord participation in the HCV

ease regulatory barriers to make the

of available units and their geographic

program, including local laws prohibit-

voucher program more attractive to

distribution, which in turn affects tenant

ing discrimination based on source of

landlords.

mobility, healthy housing, fair hous-

income as well as various incentives,

ing choice, and other HUD goals and

supports, and streamlined processes.

strategies. Research shows that many

HUD recently completed a seven-site

landlords choose not to accept hous-

listening tour to elicit feedback from

The Housing Choice

ing vouchers, threatening the purpose

landlords that a task force will consider

Voucher Program

and objectives of the HCV program.

in making policy recommendations.

The HCV program began as the Section

8 Existing Housing Program under the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974, which issued participating

households a rental certificate covering

the difference between 25 percent of

adjusted family income (later changed

to 30%) and the fair market rent. In

1983, an offshoot of the program called

the Freestanding Voucher program per-

mitted housing agencies to determine

a payment standard other than the

Fair Market Rent (FMR) and allowed

households to choose units that cost

more than the payment standard if they

could pay the amount exceeding 30

percent of income plus the certificate.

The Section 8 Existing Housing cer-

tificate program and the Freestanding

Voucher program were merged under

the Quality Housing and Work Respon-

sibility Act of 1998 and renamed the

Housing Choice Voucher program.1

The HCV program is funded by HUD

and administered by more than 2,000

local PHAs.2 Households apply for

rental assistance through the PHA,

which then determines eligibility and

allocates vouchers. In general, an

eligible household’s income must

not exceed 50 percent of the median

income of the county or metropolitan

area in which the household uses the

Research shows that many landlords choose not to accept vouchers, even in areas that protect against discrimination based on source of income.

voucher. PHAs also must designate

2

Editor’s Note

First used in the 1970s, housing vouchers — beginning as the Section 8 program and now as the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program — have become HUD’s primary means for providing housing assistance to low-income renters.

The HCV program subsidizes rental payments for privately owned units, making the landlords who own these homes critical to the program’s success. Despite their important role in supplying affordable housing, landlords have not been the subject of much research until recently. Current HUD-sponsored research is beginning to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge about how and why landlords choose to accept vouchers. This knowledge should help HUD, public housing agencies (PHAs), and local government entities improve the efforts they are already implementing to increase landlord participation. This issue of Evidence Matters focuses on the research regarding landlord acceptance of vouchers, the efforts to increase participation, and the implications of landlord participation for the housing choices of voucher households.

The lead article, “Landlords: Critical Participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program,” provides a basic overview of the HCV program and the role that landlords play in it; examines the implications of voucher acceptance for assisted households; surveys existing research on landlord participation; and provides examples of the types of program and initiatives that HUD, PHAs, and local governments are pursuing to increase voucher acceptance. The Research Spotlight, “HUD-Sponsored Research Sheds New Light on HCV Landlords,” by Meena Bavan and Paul Joice, discusses the findings of two recent HUD-sponsored studies, “A Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers,” and

“Urban Landlords and the Housing Choice Voucher Program: A Research Report.” Finally, the In Practice article, “PHAs Encourage Landlord Participation With Incentives,” discusses initiatives in Marin County, California, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, that offer financial benefits, education, and streamlined administrative processes to encourage landlords to lease to voucher holders.

We hope that this edition of Evidence Matters provides a helpful overview of this critical topic. Our next issue will focus on tax incentives. Please provide feedback on any of our issues at www.huduser.gov/forums.

— Rachelle Levitt, Director of Research Utilization Division 75 percent of vouchers to households

HUD may grant exceptions for locali-

average family contribution of $370

earning no more than 30 percent of

ties to set payment standards at up to

per month.4 Despite the large number

the area median income. Because of

120 percent of FMR. Some localities use

of households served by the program,

the high demand for vouchers, many

Small Area FMRs to determine market

approximately three out of every four

PHAs have waiting lists, and some PHAs

rates for smaller geographies, which

households that are eligible for assis-

even closed their waiting lists when the

better reflect the rent variation within

tance do not receive it.5 In addition,

number of waiting households grew

a metropolitan area. The PHA pays the

many voucher holders are unable

too large for the PHA to assist within

landlord a subsidy, and the voucher

to find an eligible rental unit and a

a reasonable period. PHAs can select

household pays 30 percent of its in-

landlord who accepts vouchers within

voucher recipients from their wait-

come for rent and utilities. In addition,

the time required to use the voucher.

ing lists according to criteria such

the household pays the difference

The most recent national data (from

as homelessness, severe cost burden,

between the subsidy and the rent

2000) found that 69 percent of house-

or displacement. Eligible households

charged if the rent exceeds the pay-

holds who received vouchers from

that receive vouchers rent housing

ment standard, although it cannot

large metropolitan PHAs successfully

from landlords who agree to accept the

spend more than 40 percent of its

secured a rental unit within the pro-

vouchers. The rental property is subject

income for rent.3

gram’s designated timeframe. Success

to inspection and must meet PHA

rates vary considerably according to

health and safety standards. The PHA

In 2017, the HCV program assisted

local conditions, however.6 A 2010

determines a payment standard based

approximately 2.2 million households

study on the Seattle Housing Authority

on the HUD FMR calculated for the

representing more than 5 million

found that approximately 40 percent

area. Payment standards range between

people, with an average subsidy per

of voucher holders failed to lease up

90 and 110 percent of FMR, although

household of $753 per month and an

within 120 days.7

3

of Daro Management Services

Photo courtesy

HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program can better meet its goals to promote tenant choice when landlords in high-opportunity neighborhoods accept vouchers.

The Nation’s Rental Units

units in the private market, landlords

landlords participating in the HCV pro-

and Landlords

play a pivotal role. Landlord participa-

gram finds that most rent to only one

As of 2016, the United States had ap-

tion determines how many units are

voucher household, with the average

proximately 47.1 million rental units,

available for HCV participants, where

number of HCV leases per landlord

of which approximately 44 million

those units are located, and how well

highest in central cities and lowest in

were occupied. Most of the nation’s

the program achieves goals such as

rural areas.10 Research on the Atlanta

rental stock, 61 percent, is in multi-

making units available in high-oppor-

area finds that some large investor

family buildings, and 39 percent is

tunity neighborhoods and alleviating

landlords in distressed neighborhoods

in single-family units, which includes

high concentrations of voucher holders

prefer voucher tenants for the stable pay-

single-family detached and attached

in very low-income neighborhoods.

ments and the fact that the possibility of

homes as well as mobile homes and

Yet we have limited information about

losing a voucher makes tenants respon-

recreational vehicles. Individual inves-

the number and characteristics of the

sive to the PHA, whereas others report

tors own 74 percent of the nation’s

nation’s landlords. Using data from the

that the inspection process discourages

rental properties and 48 percent of the

2015 Rental Housing Finance Survey

them from accepting vouchers.11

units, and limited liability companies

and the Internal Revenue Service’s

and limited liability partnerships own

Statistics of Income division, HUD

Landlord Decisionmaking

15 percent of rental properties and 33

estimates that the United States has 10

and Treatment of Voucher

percent of the units, with the remain-

to 12 million total landlords and only a

Holders

ing 11 percent of properties and 19

fraction of them participate in the HCV

With some notable exceptions, little re-

percent of units owned by housing co-

program. HUD reports that between

search exists on the role of landlords in

operatives and nonprofit organizations,

2009 and 2016, the number of unique

the HCV program, limiting stakehold-

real estate corporations and investment,

landlords participating in the HCV

ers’ understanding of how landlords

trustee for estate, tenant in common,

program declined from 775,000 to

decide to participate in the program

and general partnerships.8

695,000.9 Research on specific locales

and how they interact with and treat

suggests possible patterns of landlord

voucher holders. Two recently released

Because the success of the HCV pro-

participation, but those findings may

HUD-sponsored studies, Garboden et

gram depends on the availability of

not be generalizable. A study of Illinois

al.’s “Urban Landlords and the Housing

4

Choice Voucher Program” and Cun-

Landlords also consider numerous other

future participation; a good experi-

ningham et al.’s “A Pilot Study of

factors, including nonfinancial ones,

ence with a renter could lead to

Landlord Acceptance of Housing

when deciding whether to participate

further participation, whereas a bad

Choice Vouchers,” attempt to fill some

in the HCV program. Besides financial

one could prompt a landlord to avoid

of that knowledge gap. (For more on

concerns, landlords’ perceptions of

voucher holders.16

the methodology and findings of this

voucher tenants and anticipated tenant-

research, see “HUD-Sponsored Research

related issues, as well as their tolerance

Garboden et al. find that negative

Sheds New Light on HCV Landlords,”

for dealing with bureaucracy (both of

experiences with the program typically

p. 10.) Garboden et al. find that the

which may also have financial implica-

involve some combination of frustration

decision to accept vouchers is generally

tions), are significant considerations in

with the bureaucratic elements of the

motivated by a cost-benefit analysis of

their decision.14 Some landlords report

program, costs associated with inspec-

renting to voucher holders versus

that they accept vouchers because they

tions, and conflicts with tenants that

nonvoucher holders, primarily con-

feel a duty to help low-income renters.

were difficult to address because of the

sidering financial factors relating to

In some cases, landlords discovered

constraints related to the program.17

faster occupancy and rent payment.

that their willingness to accept vouchers

Landlords might be uncertain about

According to Garboden et al., “[T]he

increased the demand for their rental

which responsibilities toward tenants

costs and benefits to the program are

units, and they may appreciate the sta-

belong to them and which belong to

weighed against the hypothetical coun-

bility of the payment from the PHA.15

the PHA, and they may expect PHAs to

terfactual tenant that a landlord might

be more involved than they are obli-

otherwise rent to in the open mar-

Many landlords ultimately choose not

gated to be.18

ket.”12 Garboden et al. find that the

to participate in the HCV program.

local market context is a crucial factor

Misperceptions and negative stereo-

Cunningham et al.’s study examines the

in this evaluation. This research also

types about voucher holders contribute

differential treatment of voucher hold-

suggests that the size of the landlord’s

to landlords’ reluctance to participate.

ers early in the housing search process

holdings and administrative capacity can

A landlord’s first experience with a

and finds that landlords often refuse

influence the decision to participate.13

voucher holder often affects their

to accept vouchers.19 The widespread

Photo courtesy of Daro Management Services

Public housing agencies can streamline bureaucratic processes and offer financial incentives such as damage loss mitigation and vacancy loss protection to make the Housing Choice Voucher program more attractive to landlords.

5

Photo courtesy of Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia

Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia’s Move to Opportunity program helps equip voucher households to be responsible tenants and provides a liaison to help landlords, such as those pictured here, navigate the HCV program successfully.

refusal of landlords to accept vouch-

options available to voucher holders.

access the intended benefits of federal

ers poses significant challenges to the

For example, a 2012 survey of landlords

housing assistance. Voucher recipients

success of individual HUD-assisted

in the Austin, Texas MSA found that

who successfully lease up spend less

households and to the program as a

91 percent of landlords declined to

money on housing and utilities and can

whole. Some landlords may discourage

rent to HCV households and that only

spend more money on food, and receiv-

voucher holders through advertise-

6 percent of all units surveyed were

ing a voucher significantly reduces the

ments explicitly stating that they will

open to HCV households (defined as

risk of homelessness. Some voucher

not accept vouchers, whereas others

eligible under the program, not subject

holders use the subsidy to improve their

may screen out voucher holders who

to minimum income requirements that

housing conditions (such as living in

apply.20

would disqualify voucher households,

less crowded units or in buildings with

and having a landlord willing to accept

fewer code violations) and access low-

Research by Kathleen Moore, fellow at

a voucher).22 Differential treatment of

poverty, amenity-rich neighborhoods.24

the University of Wisconsin-Madison

voucher holders often continues be-

Institute for Research on Poverty, rein-

yond the search process into the period

Research shows that only about 20

forces these findings. Moore’s research, after lease up; specifically, landlords percent of voucher households rent

based on landlord responses to more

may leverage the punitive powers of the

in a low-poverty neighborhood, and

than 6,000 email inquiries across 14 cit-

PHA, namely the authority to revoke

voucher households are “somewhat

ies, also finds evidence that landlords

the voucher, in conflicts with tenants.23

spatially concentrated.”25 Another

refuse to rent to voucher holders. Fewer

study finds that voucher households

testers who indicated that they would

Impacts of Limited

are more economically and racially seg-

use vouchers received positive responses

Landlord Participation

regated than an extremely low-income

than did testers who did not indicate

Landlord participation rates affect the

comparison group. Several factors

that they would use vouchers, and these

overall availability of rental options as

contribute to these spatial patterns

results held for every racial category.21

well as the location and quality of avail-

beyond simply the willingness of land-

More localized research also demon-

able options, thus shaping the extent

lords to accept vouchers, but landlords

strates the significantly limited housing

to which low-income households can

affect these outcomes and can help

6

alter them. Metzger finds that voucher

could encourage wider participation.30

State and local government incentives.

households renting in jurisdictions with

Since fiscal year 2014, HUD has given

State and local governments can also

laws preventing discrimination based

PHAs the authority to conduct inspec-

offer incentives for landlords to partici-

on source of income (SOI) live in less

tions biennially instead of annually,

pate in the HCV program. Targeted tax

racially segregated areas than do those

providing regulatory relief for property

incentives are a strategy for deconcen-

renting in jurisdictions without such

owners.31 The Housing Opportunity

trating poverty by shaping the financial

protections.26 Deconcentrating the

Through Modernization Act of 2016

context for landlord decisionmaking.

clusters of HCV renters in high-poverty

authorized HUD to allow PHAs the

In Virginia, for example, the Communi-

areas, which Andrew Greenlee of the

discretion, under certain circumstances,

ties of Opportunity Program issues

University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-

to approve units for lease up before

tax credits to landlords in low-poverty

paign notes can lead to stigmatization

passing an inspection.32 PHAs can also

areas of the Richmond/Petersburg

or isolation, will require broader partici-

collaborate regionally to make rules more

metropolitan area who rent to voucher

pation among landlords in low-poverty

consistent — or more flexible — to ease

holders.38 The state of Oregon developed

areas, who historically have participated

portability (when tenants move from

a Housing Choice Landlord Guarantee

at lower rates.27

one PHA’s jurisdiction to another) and

program that reimburses landlords

ease the burden on landlords who own

up to $5,000 for damages caused by

Strategies To Increase

properties in several jurisdictions and

an HCV tenant that exceed normal

Landlords’ Participation

otherwise would need to learn the rules

wear and tear; the state of Washington

HUD, PHAs, and state and local gov-

of each PHA.33

implemented a similar landlord mitiga-

ernments have implemented numerous

tion program.39 At the local level, Los

strategies, including both incentives

PHAs, through Small Area FMRs or

Angeles County’s Homeless Prevention

and disincentives, to increase landlords’

tiered payment standards, can also

Initiative funded the Housing Authority

participation in the HCV program.

make participation more financially

of the County of Los Angeles’ Home-

attractive in higher-cost areas by ensur-

less Incentive Program, which pays

HUD and PHA programs, policies, and

ing that participating landlords can

holding fees, rental application fees,

incentives. PHAs can actively recruit

charge rents similar to what they would

vacancy loss claims, and damage claims

landlords through outreach efforts that

charge market-rate renters without

for voucher holders who have been

introduce potential participants to the

vouchers.34 Some PHAs have devoted

homeless to encourage landlords to

mechanics of the program and its ben-

funds to reimburse landlords for costs

accept vouchers for a specific popula-

efits. Some PHAs employ landlord liaisons

incurred through renting to voucher

tion.40 Local governments that conduct

to cultivate relationships with landlords

holders, such as vacancy or damage,

inspections of private rental units could

and property managers.28 Greenlee notes

and others have supplemented security

also coordinate or combine inspections

that, in addition to recruitment, PHAs

deposits.35 On the tenant side, PHAs

with PHAs.41

should focus on retention, including

can extend allowable tenant search

those landlords who take on HCV con-

times, provide search assistance, and

Legal requirements. At present, federal

tracts when they acquire a property but

improve their lists of available units to

fair housing laws do not prohibit

might not wish to renew the contracts

include more units in high-opportunity

discrimination against voucher holders

and continue to participate in the long

neighborhoods.36

based on SOI. Some states and local

term. PHA-led training sessions and con-

jurisdictions do have SOI laws, although

tinuing education can support landlords

In an effort to connect more HCV

some do not explicitly protect housing

and equip them with the necessary skills

families with units in high-opportunity

vouchers as an income category, and

for success with the voucher program.

neighborhoods, Ascend STL’s Mobility

in some cases state laws may preempt

Some housing agencies have established

Connection program, a partnership

local SOI laws. Research is mixed on

hotlines for landlords with questions

with the St. Louis Housing Authority

the effectiveness of SOI laws. Free-

about program requirements or tenant

and the Housing Authority of St. Louis

man finds that jurisdictions with SOI

issues. Notably, such recruitment, reten-

County, offers a free listing service for

antidiscrimination laws have voucher

tion, and support efforts may require

property owners, prescreening of ten-

utilization rates that are 4 to 11 percent-

additional resources from HUD.29

ants who have received counseling to

age points higher than jurisdictions

help them transition to a new home,

without such laws.42 Finkle and Buron

HUD and partnering PHAs can also

and staff assistance in completing pro-

find that voucher holders in jurisdic-

ease many of the bureaucratic burdens

gram paperwork.37 (For more on how

tions with SOI laws are 12 percent

that landlords cite as reasons not to par-

PHAs are helping increase landlord

more likely to find a unit within the

ticipate in the program. Improved and

participation in the HCV program, see

voucher’s time limit than voucher hold-

expedited inspections and streamlined

“PHAs Encourage Landlord Participa-

ers in places without such protections.43

processes for signing contracts online

tion With Incentives,” p. 14.)

Cunningham et al. also find that rates

7

of landlord acceptance were higher in

need a household income of $900 per

tenants, how changing housing markets

areas with SOI protections, although

month, or three times their $300 con-

influence landlords’ decisions, whether

the researchers caution against drawing

tribution to the rent.47

landlord incentive programs improve

definitive conclusions given that the

program outcomes, how SOI laws

study was not designed to test the ef-

Research. Research, and effective

are enforced, and whether less strict

fectiveness of SOI protections.44 Moore,

dissemination of that research, can

inspection processes result in lower

however, finds no significant associa-

play an important role in increasing

housing quality, among others.48

tion between SOI laws and landlord

landlord participation by identifying ef-

responses.45 Some observers point

fective practices. HUD’s recent reports

Research can also help address fears

out that prohibitions on SOI discrimi-

on landlords and the HCV program

and misconceptions that discourage

nation can be difficult to enforce.46

have begun to shed light on what had

landlords from accepting vouchers. For

Moore suggests that SOI laws should

been a largely overlooked aspect of the

example, landlords may believe that ac-

explicitly include protection for vouch-

HCV program, but much more work

cepting vouchers will not be lucrative,

ers and adds that steering — referring

must be done to understand how and

but participation in the HCV program

HCV applicants to units other than the

why landlords choose to participate

does not mean that landlords must

one to which they applied — should

and what effects these factors have on

charge voucher tenants below-market

also be illegal. Moore also suggests

the program and on voucher-assisted

rents. Research on the Milwaukee area

that any income-scaling requirement

households, and HUD can continue

finds that landlords charge voucher

during screening should calculate the

to play a leading role in such research.

households between $51 and $68 more

minimum required household income

Among the topics that could be consid-

than households without vouchers in

based on the household’s contribution

ered in future research are how PHAs

comparable units and neighborhoods,

to the rent; for example, if a unit costs

are using the flexibility afforded by

suggesting that renting to voucher

$1,000 per month to rent and the land-

the Moving to Work demonstration to

holders does not reduce income for

lord requires a monthly income of three

increase landlord participation, how

landlords. (These findings, however,

times the rent, eligible tenants would

landlords interact with PHA staff and

also suggest that the HCV program is

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD held seven listening sessions with landlords across the country, including one in Salt Lake City, Utah, to solicit input on increasing participation in the HCV program.

8

overpaying these landlords.)49 Similarly,

Policy Priorities, 17 April.

Poverty: Patterns of Housing Voucher Use, 2000 to

research could help allay landlords’

3 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

2008,” Housing Policy Debate 24:3, 545.

ment. “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet” (www.

27 Greenlee, 510.

concerns about crime; Gould Ellen,

hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/

28 Cunningham et al., 66.

Lens, and O’Regan find that increased

programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet). Accessed 3 Octo-29

ber 2018; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Interview with Andrew Greenlee, 19 October 2018.

voucher use in a neighborhood does

Development. “Small Area Fair Market Rents” (www.

30 Garboden et al. 2018b, 23.

not increase crime rates.50

hudexchange.info/programs/public-housing/small-

31 Moore, 4.

area-fair-market-rents/). Accessed 16 November 2018.

32 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

4 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Finally, research is needed to evaluate

ment. 2017. “Housing Opportunity Through Mod-

Office of Policy Development and Research. “Picture

ernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) – Housing Quality

the effectiveness of the various pro-

of Subsidized Households” (www.huduser.gov/portal/

Standards (HQS) Implementation Guidance, ” Notice

datasets/assthsg.html). Accessed 2 December 2018.

grams and policies mentioned above.

PIH 2017-20 (HA), 27 October.

5 National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2018. “Out

Moore notes that the experimentation

33

of Reach: The High Cost of Housing,” 6.

Interview with Kathleen Moore, 19 October 2018.

34

in landlord outreach and incentives

6 Meryl Finkel and Larry Buron. 2001. “Study on Section

Cunningham et al., 67.

35 Ibid.

that PHAs and local governments are

8 Voucher Success Rates, Volume I: Quantitative Study

of Success Rates in Metropolitan Areas, ” Office of 36 Ibid., 68–9.

now conducting, as well as the variation

Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of

37 Ascend St. Louis. “Property Owners” (www.ascendstl.

in SOI laws and enforcement, offer re-

Housing and Urban Development.

org/property-owners/). Accessed 17 October 2018; 7 Galvez, quoted in: Erin Graves. 2016. “Rooms for

searchers a tremendous opportunity to

Ascend St. Louis. “Partners” (www.ascendstl.org/

Improvement: A Quality Metasynthesis of the Housing

partners/). Accessed 13 November 2018.

learn more about effective strategies.51

Choice Voucher Program,” Housing Policy Debate 26:2, 356.

38 Virginia Department of Housing and Community

As research and experience grows, says

Development. “Communities of Opportunity Tax

8 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard Univer-

Greenlee, sharing best practices among

sity. 2017. “America’s Rental Housing 2017,” 13–4.

Credit” (www.dhcd.virginia.gov/index.php/housing-

programs-and-assistance/tax-credit-programs/

PHAs, local governments, and land-

9 Todd M. Richardson. 2018. “Landlords, ” PD&R Edge.

communities-of-opportunity-tax-credit.html). Accessed lords will be important.52

10 Andrew J. Greenlee. 2014. “More Than Meets the Mar-

17 October 2018.

ket? Landlord Agency in the Illinois Housing Choice

39 Oregon Housing and Community Services. “Housing

Voucher Program,” Housing Policy Debate 24:3, 506.

Listening to Landlords

Choice Vouchers: Landlord Guarantee Assistance”

11 Dan Immergluck and Jonathan Law. 2014. “Investing

(www.oregon.gov/ohcs/Pages/housing-choice-land-

Recognizing that landlords, whose role

in Crisis: The Methods, Strategies, and Expectations

lord-guarantee-assistance.aspx). Accessed 17 October

of Investors in Single-Family Foreclosed Homes in

in the success of the HCV program is

2018; Poverty & Race Research Action Council. 2018.

Distressed Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 24:3,

“Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building

critical, currently underparticipate in

590.

a Successful Housing Mobility Program — Appendix

12

the program, HUD has embarked on a

Philip M.E. Garboden, Eva Rosen, Meredith Greif,

B: State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-

Stefanie DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. 2018a. “Urban

campaign to encourage landlords to ac-

Income Discrimination, ” 80.

Landlords and the Housing Choice Voucher Program:

40 Community Development Commission/Housing

cept vouchers. In September 2018, HUD

A Research Report,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 36.

Authority of the County of Los Angeles. “Homeless In-

launched a series of landlord engage-

centive Program (HIP)” (www.hacola.org/section-8/

13 Philip M.E. Garboden, Eva Rosen, Stefanie DeLuca,

ment forums with sessions in seven cities,

and Kathryn Edin. 2018b. “Taking Stock: What

homeless-programs/hip). Accessed 17 October 2018.

41 Minneapolis Public Housing Authority. 2016. “Analy-

during which landlords were invited to

Drives Landlord Participation in the Housing Choice

Voucher Program,” Housing Policy Debate 28:6, 9–10.

sis of Potential Inspections Coordination between the

share their experiences and their ideas

14 Ibid., 13.

Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the Min-

for making the program more attractive

neapolis Department of Regulatory Services, ” 1.

15 Greenlee, 509, 514–5.

42

to those not yet participating and more

Lance Freeman. 2011. “The Impact of Source of

16 Ibid., 509.

Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational

user friendly for those who are already

17 Garboden et al. 2018b, 17.

Outcomes: Assisted Housing Research Cadre Report,”

18

participating. HUD’s new Landlord

Greenlee, 516.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

19 Mary Cunningham, Martha Galvez, Claudia L.

ment, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Task Force will consolidate input from

Aranda, Rob Santos, Doug Wissoker, Alyse Oneto, Rob

43 Cited in: Garboden et al. 2018b, 4.

the forums and make policy recom-

Pitingolo, and James Crawford. 2018. “A Pilot Study of

44

Landlord Acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers,”

Cunningham et al., 66.

mendations to increase landlord

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

45 Moore, 31; Interview with Kathleen Moore.

participation in the HCV program,

ment, xi.

46 Garboden et al. 2018b, 2.

including in the low-poverty neighbor-

20 Garboden et al. 2018b, 19.

47 Moore, 33.

21

hoods where participation rates are

M. Kathleen Moore. 2018. “‘I don’t do vouchers’:

48 Interview with Andrew Greenlee; Interview with

Experimental evidence of discrimination against hous-

Kathleen Moore.

currently lowest. With increased landlord

ing voucher recipients across fourteen metro areas,”

49 Matthew Desmond and Kristin L. Perkins. 2016. “Are

participation, the HCV program will offer

working paper, 1, 24–5.

Landlords Overcharging Housing Voucher Holders? ”

22 Austin Tenants’ Council. 2012. “Voucher Holders

wider choices and greater opportunities

City and Community 15:2, 137–62.

Need Not Apply: An Audit Report on the Refusal of

to voucher-assisted households.53

50

Housing Choice Vouchers by Landlords in the Austin

Ingrid Gould Ellen, Michael C. Lens, and Katherine

MSA.”

O’Regan. 2012. “American murder mystery revisited:

23 Greenlee, 518–9.

do housing voucher households cause crime?” Housing Policy Debate 22:4, 551–72.

1 Alex F. Schwartz. 2015. Housing Policy in the United

24 Ingrid Gould Ellen. 2017. “What Do We Know About

51

States, 3rd ed., New York: Routledge, 227–8.

Housing Choice Vouchers? ” NYU Furman Center and Interview with Kathleen Moore.

52

2 Barbara Sard. 2018. “Housing Choice Voucher Pro-

NYU Wagner, 1, 4–5.

Interview with Andrew Greenlee.

gram: Oversight and Review of Legislative Proposals:

25 Kirk McClure, Alex F. Schwartz, and Lydia B. Taghavi.

53 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

Testimony of Barbara Sard, Vice President for Housing

2014. “Housing Choice Voucher Location Patterns a

ment. 2018. “HUD Launches Campaign to Boost

Policy, Before the House Financial Services Subcommit-

Decade Later,” Housing Policy Debate 25:2, 5.

Landlord Acceptance of Housing Vouchers, ” press

tee on Housing and Insurance,” Center on Budget and 26 Molly W. Metzger. 2014. “The Reconcentration of

release, 20 August.

9

HUD-Sponsored Research Sheds

HIGHLIGHTS

New Light on HCV Landlords

n Landlord participation has been an

understudied aspect of the Housing

spotlight

Choice Voucher program, but two

ch

The “choice” in the Housing Choice Landlords also have a choice to make: recent HUD-sponsored studies are Voucher (HCV) program’s name

whether to rent to a voucher-recipient.

helping to fill that research gap.

refers to the opportunity tenants have

The Fair Housing Act prohibits land-

n A paired-testing study finds that many

to choose where they want to live.

lords from discriminating on the basis

landlords do not accept housing

resear

This choice, however, is heavily depen-

of race, color, national origin, sex, dis-

vouchers, thereby limiting the housing

dent on landlords willing to accept

ability, and more, but it does not explicitly

options available to voucher house-

vouchers. Unlike the public housing

prohibit landlords from refusing to

holds.

program, in which a limited number

rent to voucher holders. Complicating

n Landlords may refuse vouchers for

of hard units are available in desig-

this issue is the fact that most voucher-

various reasons, including financial

nated housing developments, the

holders are members of protected

considerations, concerns about ten-

HCV program allows tenants to rent

classes. In 2017, 69 percent of voucher

ants, and administrative burdens.

a privately owned unit. When public

households were nonwhite, 79 percent

housing agencies (PHAs) issue vouchers,

of voucher households had a female

the recipients approach their housing

head of household, and 23 percent of

search using the same steps they would

all individuals in voucher households

concern that landlords may use voucher

follow if they did not have a voucher

had a disability. In some cities, voucher

receipt as a proxy for racial discrimination.

— they look at available rental listings,

receipt is correlated even more strongly

visit units, submit an application to a

with protected class status; for example,

While federal law does not explicitly

landlord, and eventually sign a lease with

of the 47,588 households receiving a

require landlords to accept vouchers,

the landlord. The HCV program imposes

voucher from the Chicago Housing

some states and local governments have

some constraints on the search process —

Authority, 96 percent are nonwhite.

passed local source-of-income ordi-

for example, prospective units must pass

There are 378 PHAs, serving a total of

nances that specifically protect housing

an inspection, and the rent charged by

623,694 voucher families, where at least

choice vouchers. As of June 2018, 12

the landlord must be reasonable — but

90 percent of voucher families are

states and the District of Columbia have

voucher recipients have considerable

members of a racial minority group.¹

implemented source-of-income protec-

discretion to choose their preferred units. Fair housing advocates have expressed tion laws that cover housing vouchers.²

Many more city and county govern-

ments have passed similar ordinances.

Outside of these jurisdictions, however, the

law allows landlords to choose whether to

rent to a tenant with a voucher.

Evidence from the Moving to Oppor-

tunity demonstration also suggests that

when voucher holders can access low-

poverty neighborhoods, their families

experience significant mental and

physical health benefits. In addition,

children who move into lower-poverty

neighborhoods while young experience

improved long-term economic success,

including higher college attendance

rates and future earnings.3, 4

Although the HCV program’s success de-

pends on landlords to provide voucher

holders with access to safe and decent

affordable housing in neighborhoods

of opportunity, tightening rental mar-

Photo courtesy of Daro Management Services

HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program depends on the participation of private landlords.

kets throughout the country are making

10

Source: Mary Cunningham, Martha Galvez, Claudia Aranda, Robert Santos, Douglas Wissoker, Alyse Oneto, Rob Pitingolo, and James Crawford. 2018. “A Pilot Study of

Landlord Acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, xii.

it increasingly difficult for voucher

whether landlords treat voucher hold-

acceptance tests were completed, mean-

families to find landlords willing to

ers differently from similar renters

ing that the researchers reviewed an

participate in the HCV program.

without a voucher.⁵

average of 90 advertisements for each

completed voucher acceptance test.

What factors influence a landlord’s

The sites included in the study were

The voucher acceptance tests revealed

decision to accept or refuse a potential

Fort Worth, Texas; Los Angeles, Califor-

further voucher rejection. In Fort

tenant with a voucher? How frequently

nia; Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia,

Worth, 78 percent of landlords stated

do landlords turn away voucher hold-

Pennsylvania; and Washington, DC. At

that they would not accept a tenant with

ers? Until recently, very little research

each site, the research team reviewed

a voucher. The voucher denial rate was

focused on these questions and others

online advertisements to identify units

similarly high in Los Angeles (76 per-

related to landlords.

that appeared to meet the criteria for

cent) and Philadelphia (67 percent).

the voucher program — units with

Voucher denial rates were considerably

Landlord Acceptance of

an appropriate number of bedrooms

lower in Newark and Washington, DC,

Housing Choice Vouchers

and a rent below the PHA payment

at 31 percent and 15 percent, respec-

HUD’s Office of Policy Development

standard. The first stage of the testing

tively. Notably, Newark and Washington,

and Research has a long history of

process, the “voucher acceptance test,”

DC, were the only sites fully covered by

sponsoring Housing Discrimination

consisted of a female tester who would

state or local laws that require landlords

Studies that use paired-testing to

be perceived as white calling the hous-

to accept vouchers.

document the disparate treatment

ing provider to ask, “Do you accept

of protected classes under the Fair

housing vouchers?” If the landlord

The researchers also explored whether

Housing Act. These studies typically

was willing to accept vouchers, the test

the poverty rate of the neighborhood

have focused on housing discrimination

moved on to the second stage, which

in which a unit was located affected

against racial and ethnic minorities (such

consisted of paired tests by phone and

landlords’ responses. They found that

studies were conducted in 1977, 1989,

in person.

in four of the five sites, the voucher de-

2000, and 2012). More recent studies

nial rate in low-poverty neighborhoods

have explored housing discrimination

The researchers found that just finding

was significantly higher than in high-

against families with children; people

eligible housing units and complet-

poverty neighborhoods. For example,

with disabilities; and lesbian, gay,

ing the voucher acceptance test was

in Philadelphia, the voucher denial rate

bisexual, and transgender individuals. In

extremely difficult. For 16 months, they

was 83 percent in low-poverty neighbor-

September 2018, HUD released its first

screened more than 341,000 advertise-

hoods but only 55 percent in high-poverty

comprehensive study of how landlords

ments to find 8,735 units that appeared

neighborhoods. Washington, DC, was

treat households with housing choice

to be eligible for a voucher recipient.

the only site where voucher denial rates

vouchers. Researchers from the Urban

Some of those units subsequently

in low- and high-poverty neighborhoods

Institute carried out a rigorous testing

turned out to be unavailable or ineligi-

were not statistically different; this

strategy across five sites to determine

ble, and in the end only 3,780 voucher

finding could be because Washington,

11

DC, was the only site in which payment

for example, in-person tests showed

Hopkins University. This study presents

standards varied by neighborhood,

landlords were more likely to ask con-

findings from 127 in-depth interviews

meaning that the HUD subsidy in a

trol testers for information about their

with landlords and property managers in

higher-rent area would be larger (and

employers. Note, however, that the

Baltimore, Cleveland, and Dallas as well

more appealing to the landlord) than

in-person tests were conducted with a

as direct ethnographic observations with

the subsidy in a lower-rent area.

subset of landlords — specifically, those

approximately one-third of interviewees.6

who had already indicated a willingness

The researchers sought to understand

In Los Angeles and Fort Worth, re-

to accept vouchers and had followed

the respondents’ business strategies and

searchers were able to complete only

through with scheduling and showing

attitudes about the HCV program. Most

126 and 142 paired telephone tests,

up for an in-person meeting.

of the landlords interviewed participated

respectively, because voucher denial rates

in the HCV program and offered sub-

in these cities were extremely high; the

This study highlights the difficulties fac-

stantial insight into the costs and benefits

number of in-person tests completed at

ing low-income housing seekers wishing

of participation.

these sites was even lower. As a result,

to rent an affordable rental unit with

the paired-testing portion of the study

a voucher, particularly in opportunity

One important observation from this

took place almost entirely in Newark,

neighborhoods and in markets without

study is that the landlords who were

where the researchers completed 426

source-of-income protections.

interviewed were surprisingly heter-

paired telephone tests and 374 paired

ogenous. They were demographically

in-person tests. Paired testing revealed

Reasons Why Landlords

diverse: 53 percent were nonwhite,

that landlords would often fail to show

Choose To Participate in

and 40 percent were female. A wide

up for scheduled appointments, and

the HCV Program

variation also existed in the number of

voucher testers experienced these “no

Why do some landlords turn away

units they owned and operated, with

shows” significantly more often than

voucher holders, whereas others are

some landlords owning only a few units

did control testers. Control testers were

more willing to participate in the HCV

and others owning 100 or more. Some

also told about more units, although

program? What do landlords like or dis-

landlords were real estate profession-

the difference was small (1.39 units

like about the program? Questions such

als; others were amateurs with little

for control testers and 1.19 units for

as these are the focus of another recent

business expertise who were seeking

voucher testers). Otherwise, differential

study sponsored by HUD and carried

supplemental income. The low end

treatment was minimal and may even

out by researchers from the Poverty

of the rental market, where most of

indicate a preference for voucher tenants;

and Inequality Research Lab at Johns

the interviewees focus their real estate

Source: Mary Cunningham, Martha Galvez, Claudia Aranda, Robert Santos, Douglas Wissoker, Alyse Oneto, Rob Pitingolo, and James Crawford. 2018. “A Pilot Study of

Landlord Acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, xii.

12

activity, is very challenging, and most

feelings about whether voucher tenants

Conclusion

landlords expressed some degree of

were “better” or “worse” than market-

Landlords are critical to the success of

economic vulnerability. An unexpected

rate tenants. Across the three cities, 21

the HCV program and in the housing

repair, an extended vacancy, or a tenant

to 44 percent of landlords saw voucher

and neighborhood opportunities avail-

who does not pay the rent could pose a

tenants as better or about the same as

able to voucher tenants. For the first

significant business threat for many of

market-rate tenants. The most common

time, we have rigorous, quantifiable

these landlords.

sentiment, however, was that voucher

evidence on how frequently landlords

tenants are worse than market-rate

accept vouchers. We also have rich,

Because of the volatility of the low-rent

tenants, according to 20 percent of Bal-

qualitative information on landlords’

market, many landlords are attracted to

timore landlords, 30 percent of Dallas

attitudes about the HCV program and

the stability and certainty that the HCV

landlords, and 45 percent of Cleveland

the reasons they choose to participate

program provides. The guaranteed rent

landlords. The researchers state that

in the program. Some of this new

from the PHA was cited as a positive as-

disentangling landlords’ prejudices

evidence is concerning — for example,

pect of the HCV program by 48 percent

from attitudes informed by actual nega-

the extremely high rate of voucher

of Cleveland landlords, 59 percent of

tive experiences is difficult. Although

denial in some sites. In other ways,

Baltimore landlords, and 61 percent of

conflicts between landlords and tenants

however, the research is encouraging;

Dallas landlords. Another reason some

— often related to housing maintenance

landlords are more likely to accept

landlords cited for liking the HCV

and repairs — are bound to happen

vouchers under certain circumstances,

program was the desire to “do good” or

sometimes, landlords expressed frustra-

and those circumstances are mostly

“help others.” Across the three sites, 15

tion that the PHA did not take their

within the control of HUD and PHAs.

to 22 percent of landlords mentioned

side during such conflicts.

By seeking to understand landlords’

such altruistic motivations. Although

perspectives, HUD and PHAs have a

most of the landlords accepted vouch-

Finally, landlords complained about

real opportunity to increase landlord

ers, they still had complaints about the

their interactions with the PHA. Many

participation in the HCV program,

program. These complaints may help

landlords (50% in Baltimore and 60%

increase the diversity of housing options

explain why other landlords refuse to

in Cleveland) see housing quality

available to voucher tenants, and help

accept vouchers.

standards inspections as burdensome

tenants access housing in higher-oppor-

and costly. Only 12 percent of Dallas

tunity neighborhoods.

One complaint that the landlords

landlords felt that way, perhaps because

expressed involved financial concerns.

their housing stock is newer and higher

— Meena Bavan and Paul Joice,

HUD Staff

Although participating landlords ap-

in quality. The most frustrating part of

preciate the reliable rent stream from

the inspection process seems to be the

a housing voucher, their opinions vary

inconsistency and unpredictability of

1

about the amount of rent they receive.

outcomes. Along with the inspection

Author’s analysis of data from: U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development. “Picture of Subsi-

Among Cleveland and Dallas landlords,

process, landlords express a general

dized Households” (www.huduser.gov/portal/datas-

33 percent and 21 percent, respectively,

frustration with PHAs and bureaucratic

ets/assthsg.html). Accessed 4 November 2018.

2

believed that payment standards for

hurdles. In Baltimore and Cleveland,

Poverty and Race Research Action Council. 2018.

Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a Suc-

voucher holders were lower than the

nearly half of interviewees cited interac-

cessful Housing Mobility Program, appendix B. Updated rent they could get from a market-tions with the PHA as a negative factor.

14 September.

3 Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Jens Ludwig, Lawrence F. Katz,

rate tenant. When voucher payment

At all three sites, fewer than 6 percent of

Lisa A. Gennetian, Greg J. Duncan, Ronald C. Kes-

standards are lower than market-rate

interviewees cited PHA interactions as a

sler, Emma Adam, Thomas W. McDade, and Stacy

Tessler Lindau. 2011. “Moving to Opportunity for

rents, landlords are less interested in

positive factor.

Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Final Impacts

choosing voucher tenants. Many other

Evaluation, ” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban challenges, including vacancies and

The study suggests that there are op-

Development.

4 Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz.

property damage, ultimately affect the

portunities to recruit landlords in the

2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighbor-

landlord’s bottom line.

HCV program by focusing on the things

hoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to

Opportunity Project,” American Economic Review 106:4, that are most important to them: reliable

855–902.

A second complaint concerned voucher

rent payments and tenants that stay and

5 Mary Cunningham, Martha Galvez, Claudia Aranda,

tenants themselves. Landlords often

care for the property. Some PHAs have

Robert Santos, Douglas Wissoker, Alyse Oneto, Rob

Pitingolo, and James Crawford. 2018. “A Pilot Study of

worry about tenant “quality.” A “bad”

already undertaken measures to address

Landlord Acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers,”

tenant might be less likely to pay the

these issues, including having a fund

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment.

rent, more likely to cause damage, or

for paying rent on an empty unit so that

6 Philip Garboden, Eva Rosen, Meredith Greif, Stefanie

more likely to cause problems that may

landlords do not lose money while waiting

DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. 2018. “Urban Land-

require intervention by law enforce-

for an inspection or when rehabbing a

lords and the Housing Choice Voucher Program: A

Research Report, ” U.S. Department of Housing and ment officials. Landlords had mixed

unit damaged by a previous tenant.

Urban Development.

13

PHAs Encourage Landlord

HIGHLIGHTS

ctice Participation With Incentives

n With benefits to landlords such as a

24-hour customer service hotline,

pra

in

For individuals and families par- is so expensive that many families “are vacancy and damage loss protec-ticipating in the Housing Choice

working poor and cannot afford to live

tion, and security deposit assistance,

Voucher (HCV) program, the ability to

in the area where they work.”5 More

the Landlord Partnership Program

secure housing that meets their needs

than 2,000 families and individuals in

in Marin County, California, has in-

creased the lease-up rate for voucher

depends on the willingness of land-

Marin County’s competitive housing

holders.

lords in the private market to accept

market used vouchers to rent units in

vouchers. Landlords may be hesitant to

2015, but hundreds more had difficulty

n Landlords are satisfied with the Cam-

lease to voucher recipients because of

finding landlords who would accept

bridge Housing Authority’s service

the program’s administrative burdens

their vouchers. Of the 192 vouchers

and its vacancy and damage payment

incentives, which can help encourage

or misperceptions about tenants with

issued from January to September 2016,

landlords to rent to voucher recipients

vouchers. As a result, voucher holders

only about 30 percent were used.6 To

in high-opportunity areas.

may have fewer available housing options

address these challenges, MHA con-

and be more concentrated in disad-

vened a landlord advisory committee

vantaged neighborhoods.1 To expand

to brainstorm solutions and identify

affordable housing options for voucher

incentives to make the HCV program

In the first 2 years of the program, MHA

recipients, many public housing

more appealing. With input from the

offered families up to $2,500 for security

agencies (PHAs) are using incentives,

committee, a working group composed

deposits. The renewed contract for the

streamlined administrative processes,

of county and MHA officials and local

program allows MHA to cover security

and customer service support to en-

landlords developed the Landlord Part-

deposits up to the payment standard

courage landlords to participate in the

nership Program (LPP).7 The program

based on the number of bedrooms;

HCV program.2 With its Landlord Part-

aims to expand rental housing options

security deposits must be returned to

nership Program, the Marin Housing

for low-income families and individuals

MHA when tenants move out if there

Authority in California has been work-

in Marin County by providing incen-

are no damages. The program offers

ing to expand housing options for HCV

tives to landlords for participating in

vacancy loss coverage up to the pay-

tenants by providing landlords with se-

the HCV program and streamlining

ment standard for the corresponding

curity deposits, damage loss mitigation,

the administrative process.8 On July

bedroom size to landlords who com-

vacancy loss protection, and a 24-hour

26, 2016, the Marin County Board of

mit to rent to another voucher holder.

customer service hotline, among other

Supervisors approved and funded the

Scott-Miller notes that these vacancy

services. Through landlord education

LPP with a contract to MHA.9 The

payments help ensure that landlords do

and vacancy and damage incentives, the

program began as a two-year pilot from

not lose money while waiting for a new

Cambridge Housing Authority strives

August 2016 through June 2018, and in

tenant.13 Landlords can also receive up

to mitigate uncertainty in leasing to

August 2018, the board voted to renew

to $3,000 per family for loss mitigation

voucher holders in a high opportunity

the program for two more years.10 Before

if a unit is damaged beyond normal

area. These initiatives demonstrate that

instituting the program, the board also

wear and tear. The owner has 21 days to

with financial safeguards and PHA sup-

unanimously passed a fair housing or-

submit a claim to MHA with photos and

port, landlords are amenable to leasing

dinance, effective December 2016, that

estimates of the damage.14

to voucher holders.

prohibits landlords in unincorporated

areas of Marin from advertising their

As part of its outreach effort, MHA

Partnering With Landlords

preference for prospective tenants’

trains landlords in landlord/tenant

in Marin County

source of income (SOI).11

issues and housing quality standards

The low rental vacancy rate in Marin

(HQS) inspections.15 MHA has also part-

County, California, coupled with the

Encouraging Landlords

nered with Fair Housing Advocates of

high-cost market, makes finding hous-

The working group identified three

Northern California to conduct future

ing difficult for families.3 As of September

major barriers for landlords and ten-

training sessions and share information

2018, the monthly median rent for

ants: security deposits, burdens during

about LPP. MHA’s quarterly newsletters

a one-bedroom unit in Marin County

tenant vacancy, and the perception that

also provide useful tips and information on

was $2,940, considerably higher than

voucher holders will damage units.12

maintaining rental properties.16 Landlords

the statewide median rent of $2,016.4

To reduce these barriers, LPP offers

can call a dedicated 24-hour answering

D’Jon Scott-Miller, HCV program

security deposits, damage protection,

service or email inquiries to an address ex-

manager at Marin Housing Authority

and vacancy loss coverage as well as a

clusive to owners.17 An online portal also

(MHA), explains that housing in Marin

customer service hotline and workshops.

provides information on inspections

14

Marin Housing Authority

A critical component of the Landlord Partnership Program is outreach to landlords to ensure that they have the resources necessary to maintain their properties and forge positive relationships with tenants.

and housing assistance payments.18 The

program.24 Before LPP launched, the

used services; in LPP’s first year, the

landlord advisory committee continues

percentage of voucher holders who

program used nearly all the money

to inform MHA of the types of train-

successfully found appropriate hous-

allocated for these services. In 2017,

ing sessions, outreach, and program

ing was 30 percent.25 The success rate

MHA asked the Board of Supervisors

improvements that are most useful for

grew to 59.52 percent in October 2018,

to reallocate the funds reserved for

landlords.19

and more families are able to use their

voluntary rent guidelines to increase

vouchers within the county, according

security deposit assistance from

MHA also offers landlords loans of up

to Scott-Miller.26 From July 2016 through

$125,000 to $180,000, vacancy loss

to $35,000 to rehabilitate units.20 Land-

June 2018, 1,193 families and individu-

coverage from $30,000 to $85,000, and

lords do not have to repay the loan

als received vouchers, and 707 of them

damage mitigation from $64,000 to

unless they sell their property or decide

used their vouchers to secure housing.

$89,000.30 The board approved the real-

to rent to tenants without vouchers.21

Of the successful voucher holders,

location, and as of June 2018, MHA’s

Landlords with properties in unincor-

about 53 percent leased units within

expenditures on security deposits

porated areas of the county are eligible

30 days.27 As of June 2018, the landlord

exceeded 100 percent of the alloca-

for waivers or reductions of building

liaison answering service responded

tion, whereas damage mitigation and

permit fees if at least half of the units

to 100 percent of the calls in person, 7

vacancy loss payments expended 58

meet affordability standards. The fee

days a week. All calls were answered by

percent and 72 percent, respectively,

waivers or reductions are prorated

a receptionist trained to respond to fre-

of the funds allotted. LPP’s successes

based on the percentage of affordable

quently asked questions; more detailed

have garnered national attention;

units in the property.22

inquiries were redirected to three other

in 2018, MHA received three HUD

staff members.28 MHA largely credits the

awards: Landlord Outreach and Cus-

Realizing Positive

LPP, along with tenant education and

tomer Service, Housing Choice Voucher

Outcomes

housing search assistance, for the rise in

Program of the Year, and Housing

LPP has exceeded its goals in several

the lease-up rate.29

Choice Voucher High Performer.31

areas. The Board of Supervisors deter-

mined that tenants’ ability to use their

The three services that have increased

Although LPP has faced few challeng-

vouchers increased by 22 percent from

utilization rates the most are secu-

es, Scott-Miller notes that, because

June 2015 to June 2018.23 Since the pro-

rity deposit assistance, vacancy loss

the program depends on county

gram launched, a total of 103 landlords

coverage, and damage loss mitigation.

funding, ongoing uncertainty persists

have participated, and 123 additional

Vacancy loss coverage and security

about how long the program can be

families have been housed under the

deposit assistance are the most widely

sustained.32 Scott-Miller explains that

15

rent increases, already a challenge

(MTW) agency, CHA has the ability to

Issuing Payments

for the HCV program, have led to a

develop and test strategies focused on

A landlord can agree in writing to

funding shortfall, leaving MHA unable

self-sufficiency and expanded housing

accept a reduced security deposit that

to issue new vouchers.33 From 2016 to

choice for low-income families and

does not exceed the tenant’s portion of

2018, the fair market rent (FMR) for a

individuals.38 According to Hannah

the rent or $200, whichever is higher. If

one-bedroom unit in the San Francisco,

Lodi, director of leased housing at

a unit is damaged beyond normal wear

California area rose from $1,814 to

CHA, the MTW designation grants the

and tear, the landlord should provide

$2,499.34 The 2018 FMRs reflect the local

agency the flexibility to “observe what

CHA with a written statement indicat-

rental market and make “MHA par-

is going on in our community and

ing that the cost to repair the damage

ticipants much more competitive with

target policies and programs accord-

would exceed the value of the security

renters on the open market,” according

ingly.”39 The end of rent control and

deposit. Upon receiving the written no-

to Scott-Miller.35

an economic boom brought about

tice, CHA will inspect the damage within

a tight rental market in Cambridge

five business days. The landlord must

MHA continues to work to mitigate

that hindered low-income residents

itemize each damaged item and the

landlords’ perceived stigma toward

from successfully finding units.40 In

cost to repair it and notify the tenant of

voucher holders and dispel the percep-

2016, the estimated rental vacancy

the charges within 30 days after moving

tion that voucher tenants will damage

rate in Cambridge was 3.5 percent.41

out of the apartment. The tenant has

units. To this end, landlord outreach,

In August 2018, the monthly median

15 days to refute the charges in writing.

information dissemination, and loss

rent for a one-bedroom apartment

If the tenant does not respond to the

mitigation have been useful tools.36

was $2,337 — about $1,000 higher

charges, CHA will pay the landlord

than the national median.42 CHA has

for all damage incurred in excess of

Landlord Incentives in

sought to overcome these difficult

the security deposit. Any tenant rejec-

Cambridge, Massachusetts market conditions by finding ways to

tions of the charges are referred to the

The Cambridge Housing Author-

encourage landlords to accept vouch-

director of leased housing for a final

ity (CHA) in Massachusetts offers

ers.43 In its inaugural 2000 MTW

decision. Landlords can receive vacancy

long-term rental housing and rental

Annual Plan, CHA authorized issuing

and damage payments only after a lease

assistance for more than 7,700 low-

vacancy and damage payments to

is issued to a new voucher holder.45 If

income families, seniors, and disabled

landlords who agree to rent to HCV

the landlord waives the security deposit

individuals.37 As a Moving to Work

holders.44

entirely and there are tenant damages,

Cambridge Housing Authority’s incentives to landlords, such as vacancy and damage payments, help increase housing options for voucher families who might otherwise have to return their unused vouchers.

16

The vacancy and damage payments through the Cambridge Housing Authority, along with guaranteed housing assistance payments, can make the Housing Choice Voucher program attractive to landlords in such a high-opportunity area.

CHA will pay the landlord up to one

appealing.50 CHA regularly conducts

Lodi points out that PHAs must be

month’s full contract rent as compensa-

landlord surveys to determine areas

attuned to the characteristics of their

tion.46 If a tenant vacates a unit without

for improvement and overall cus-

local markets when implementing

prior notice, landlords can receive up

tomer service satisfaction. As part of

similar initiatives. No “one size fits all

to 80 percent of one month’s contract

broader strategic planning in fall 2017,

approach” exists, and PHAs must step

rent if they waive the last month’s rent

a CHA survey of several stakehold-

back from their preconceived notions

at lease-up. If a new tenant moves in

ers, including landlords, determined

about where tenants want to live, she

during the middle of a month, the

that “a strong majority of landlords

says. Currently, more than half of CHA’s

vacancy payment is prorated.47

were happy with our level of service to

tenant-based voucher holders are us-

them,” says Lodi.51

ing their vouchers outside of the city

Engaging Landlords

of Cambridge because they could not

Lodi stresses that overcoming misper-

Breaking Barriers

locate an affordable unit or a landlord

ceptions about voucher holders

The 2018 FMR for a one-bedroom

willing to accept their voucher within

through landlord education is critical.

unit in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy

the city. To address this issue, CHA has

CHA educates landlords about the

metropolitan area was $1,421, up from

used its MTW authority to partner with

various incentives it offers. Tenants

$1,372 in 2017.52 Although the basic

nonprofit affordable housing owners to

also receive information about the

range for payment standards is 90 to

increase the number of project-based

incentives to share with landlords

110 percent of FMR, CHA currently

units in Cambridge. Although this

who might be unsure about renting

sets its payment standards at above 120

strategy has preserved many units in

to HCV holders.48 On 38 occasions in

percent of FMR.53 Gray notes that even

Cambridge and allowed participants to

2016, CHA issued damage and vacancy

with the higher payment standard,

remain in the city, CHA also acknowledges

payments totaling $40,401 to land-

recipients still have difficulty using

the value of preserving tenant-based vouch-

lords.49 Mackenzie Gray, leasing officer

their vouchers because Cambridge

ers to give participants more flexibility.

II at CHA, notes that as a high-oppor-

is a high-cost market, and landlords

Some voucher holders who needed to

tunity area, market rent in Cambridge

may prefer to lease to a tenant who is

move out of Cambridge have indicated

far exceeds what landlords can get

able to pay the full market rent. An

a desire to return, even if it means giv-

renting to voucher tenants, but the

increased payment standard often results

ing up the mobility of the tenant-based

vacancy and damage payments com-

in fewer people served. According to

voucher to move into a project-based

bined with the security of knowing

Lodi, as FMRs increase, it is important

unit. Others have established a sense

that housing assistance payments are

that participants can still find units

of community elsewhere and were not

guaranteed can make the HCV program

and that CHA can pay for them.54

willing to uproot.55

17

24 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

October 2018.

25 Quadel Consulting Corporation, 24-4; County of

Marin 2018a, 2.

26 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

October 2018.

27 County of Marin. 2018d. “Landlord Partnership Pro-

gram Report: July 1, 2016–June 30, 2018.”

28 Ibid.

29 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

October 2018.

30 County of Marin 2017a, 3.

31 County of Marin 2018d, 2.

32 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

October 2018.

33 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 25

October 2018.

34 HUD User. “FY 2018 Fair Market Rent Documenta-

tion System” (www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/

fmr.html#2018). Accessed 15 October 2018; HUD

User. “Final FY 2016 Fair Market Rent Demonstra-

tion System” (www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.

html#2016). Accessed 6 November 2018.

The Landlord Partnership Program has contributed to the increase in the number of voucher families who have 35 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 25

successfully found housing in Marin County, California.

October 2018.

36 County of Marin 2018b, 1.

Conclusion

5 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

37 Cambridge Housing Authority. “About” (www.

October 2018.

The success of landlord incentives in

cambridge-housing.org/about/default.asp). Accessed 6 Damon Connolly. 2016. “Join Us on Oct. 5 as We Work

24 October 2018; Email correspondence with Hannah

Marin County and Cambridge demon-

to Preserve Affordable Housing in Marin,” District 1

Lodi, 5 November 2018.

strates that through financial assistance,

Newsletter, 4–5.

38 Cambridge Housing Authority. “Moving to Work”

7 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

education, and streamlined administra-

(www.cambridge-housing.org/about/mtw/default.

October 2018.

asp). Accessed 24 October 2018.

tive processes, the HCV program can

8 Marin Housing Authority. “Landlord Partnership Pro-

39 Interview with Hannah Lodi, 4 October 2018.

be appealing to landlords. According to

gram” (www.marinhousing.org/landlord-partnership-

40 Interview with Hannah Lodi; The Council of Large

program.html). Accessed 2 July 2018.

Scott-Miller, the cornerstone of Marin’s

Public Housing Authorities. 2001. “Testimony of

9 County of Marin. 2017a. “Report on Work Plan Imple-

success is “partnership,” and the Land-

Michael Johnston, Director of Leasing and Occupancy

mentation Status, ” 2.

for the Cambridge Housing Authority, Cambridge,

lord Partnership Program could not

10 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

Massachusetts, ” 1.

have accomplished positive outcomes

October 2018; County of Marin. 2018a. “Landlord

41 U.S. Census Bureau.

Incentives Programs Renewed with County’s Local

without the full support of the county

42

Partners, ” press release, 9 August.

City of Cambridge. “Demographics and Statistics

FAQ” (www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/factsandmaps/

leadership and staff.56 By offering vacan-

11 County of Marin. 2016a. “Supervisors Pass Fair Hous-

demographicfaq). Accessed 6 November 2018; Zillow cy and damage payments to landlords,

ing Ordinance, ” press release, 9 November.

Home Values. 2018c. “United States Home Prices &

12 County of Marin. 2018b. “Marin County/Marin Hous-

CHA is working to increase housing

Values” (www.zillow.com/home-values/). Accessed 4

ing Authority Landlord Partnership, ” 1.

December 2018.

options in a high-cost market. Marin

13 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

43 Interview with Hannah Lodi.

and Cambridge offer useful models for

October 2018 and 5 November 2018.

44 Cambridge Housing Authority. 2018. “Moving to

14

other PHAs looking to develop similar

Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 5

Work Annual Plan 2018,” B33–4; Cambridge Housing November 2018; Marin Housing Authority.

Authority. 2008. “Moving to Work Annual Report: initiatives based on their local market

15 County of Marin. 2017b. “Annual Report: Landlord

Fiscal Year 2008,” 5.

conditions.

Partnership Program, September 1, 2016 – June 30,

45 Cambridge Housing Authority. 2017. “Administrative

2017.”

Plan for the Federal Housing Choice Voucher Pro-

16 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

gram: Part 1 — Tenant and Project Based Vouchers,”

1 Lance Freeman. 2011. “The Impact of Source of

October 2018.

11-3–4, 14-4–5.

Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational

17 County of Marin. 2016b. “New Program Rolls Out for

46 Email correspondence with Hannah Lodi, 15 October

Outcomes, ” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Marin’s Landlords on October 5, ” press release, 29

2018.

Development, Office of Policy Development and

September; Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-

47 Cambridge Housing Authority 2017, 14-4.

Research, vii.

Miller, 18 October 2018.

48 Interview with Hannah Lodi; Interview with Macken-

2 Quadel Consulting Corporation. 2001. “Utilization,” in 18 County of Marin 2017b.

zie Gray, 4 October 2018.

Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook. Washington, 19 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

49 Cambridge Housing Authority 2018, B34.

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

October 2018.

ment, 24-12–5.

50 Interview with Mackenzie Gray.

20 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 5

3 U.S. Census Bureau. “Selected Housing Characteris-

51 Interview with Hannah Lodi.

November 2018.

tics: 2012–2016 American Community Survey 5-Year

52 HUD User. “FY 2018 Fair Market Rent Documenta-

21

Estimates” (factfinder.census.gov). Accessed 13

Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

tion System.”

November 2018.

October 2018.

53 Interview with Hannah Lodi.

22

4 Zillow Home Values. 2018a. “Marin County Home

Marin Housing Authority; County of Marin. 2016c.

54 Interview with Mackenzie Gray; Interview with Han-

Prices & Values” (www.zillow.com/marin-county-ca/

“Board of Supervisors Hearing: Landlord Incentives

nah Lodi.

home-values/). Accessed 4 December 2018; Zillow

and Voluntary Rent Guidelines, ” 26 July, 6.

55

Home Values. 2018b. “California Home Prices &

23 County of Marin. 2018c. “Landlord Incentives Pro-

Interview with Hannah Lodi.

Values” (www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/). Accessed

grams Renewed with County’s Local Partners, ” press 56 Email correspondence with D’Jon Scott-Miller, 18

4 December 2018.

release, 9 August.

October 2018.

18

Additional Resources

n “How Do Small Area Fair Market Rents Affect the Location and Number of Units Affordable to Voucher Holders?”

(2018), by the New York University Furman Center, examines how the implementation of Small Area Fair Market Rents

impacts choices for households receiving housing choice vouchers. furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_

SAFMRbrief_5JAN2018_1.pdf.

n “Role of Landlords in Creating Healthy Homes: Section 8 Landlord Perspectives on Healthy Housing Practices,” (2017), by Valerie L.Polletta, Margaret Reid, Eugene Barros, Catherine Duarte, Kevin Donaher, Howard Wensley, and Lisa Wolff, conducted focus groups with landlords to identify challenges to making rental units for housing choice voucher

households healthy living environments. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0890117116671081.

n “How to attract more landlords to the housing choice voucher program: a case study of landlord outreach efforts,” (2016), by David P. Varady, Joseph Jaroscak, and Reinout Kleinhans, studies the landlord outreach efforts by the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority and discusses the policy implications of its findings. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108

0/17535069.2016.1175741.

n “Examining Neighborhood Opportunity and Locational Outcomes for Housing Choice Voucher Recipients: A Compara-tive Study between Duval County, Florida, and Bexar County, Texas” (2017), by Ruoniu Wang, Rebecca J. Walter, Abdulnaser A. Arafat, Xuesong Ding, and Ammar A. Naji, compares outcomes in two communities to investigate whether voucher households are able to reside in high-opportunity neighborhoods. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/

cico.12254.

n “Achieving Housing Choice and Mobility in the Voucher Program: Recommendations for the Administration” (2018), by Deborah Thrope, examines barriers facing families with housing vouchers and proposes policy recommendations.

www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AH-27-1_11Thrope.pdf.

n “Mitigating Apprehension About Section 8 Vouchers: The Positive Role of Housing Specialists in Search and Placement”

(2010), by Matthew D. Marr, uses ethnographic research to describe strategies housing specialists can use to eliminate apprehension among landlords. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2005.9521535.

n “Realizing the Housing Voucher Program’s Potential to Enable Families to Move to Better Neighborhoods” (2016), by Barbara Sard and Douglas Rice, examines evidence that vouchers can increase positive outcomes for families and pro-

poses policy solutions to overcome challenges. www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/11-9-15hous.pdf.

n “National and State Housing Fact Sheets & Data” (2017), by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, provides state

and national voucher utilization data. www.cbpp.org/research/housing/national-and-state-housing-fact-sheets-data.

For additional resources archive, go to www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/additional_resources_2019.html.

Evidence Matters

Editor: Rachelle Levitt

Discuss this issue on the Evidence Matters Forum at www.huduser.gov/

forums. You can subscribe to Evidence Matters at www.huduser.gov/

Authors: Meena Bavan (HUD),

portal/evidence.html.

Paul Joice (HUD), and Sage

Computing staff

19

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

PRESORTED

HUD User

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

P.O. Box 23268

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Washington, DC 20026—3268

HUD

PERMIT NO. G—795

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Return Service Requested

Scan here for past issues

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

www.huduser.gov n 800.245.2691

Document Outline

- FEATURE: Landlords: Critical Participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program

- RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT: HUD-Sponsored Research Sheds New Light on HCV Landlords

- IN PRACTICE: PHAs Encourage Landlord Participation With Incentives

- Additional Resources

Table of Contents

FEATURE: Landlords: Critical Participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program

RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT: HUD-Sponsored Research Sheds New Light on HCV Landlords

IN PRACTICE: PHAs Encourage Landlord Participation With Incentives

Additional Resources