by Dean Hartwell
Recently,
in a break from foreign policy, the Bush Administration proposed changes to the
government program that helps low-income individuals find housing. Some of
its proposals make sense, but the Section 8 program needs more than reforms; it
needs a total overhaul.
Right
now, local housing authorities receive money from the federal government.
They use this money to identify needy residents, to match them with owners of
property willing to participate in the program, and to inspect those
properties.
Section
8 currently covers over two million families throughout the nation. The
program pays for roughly two-thirds of a program recipient’s rent in the form
of vouchers to the owners of the renters.
The Bush
Administration correctly points out that the federal program inefficiently and
inconsistently requires the government to contract with 2,500 housing agencies
around the nation. In part because of that, a shortage of voucher money
in one area may not be made up by a surplus in another area.
Also,
the rules do not allow local governments very little flexibility in
administration. Section 8 money may only be used for housing with Section
8 tenants and may not be used to address the root causes of their poverty, like
unemployment.
As a
consultant for a city housing agency, I used to negotiate the rent on behalf of
Section 8 tenants. I had to read through complicated regulations to
determine an amount that represented “Rent Reasonableness.” All too
frequently, I wound up arguing with the owners over how much the government
should pay.
The
federal government required inspections for all units in which Section 8
tenants resided. I saw units in ill-repair and I wondered if the owners
would have done a better job of maintaining their places if the tenants had
more of a choice as to where they wanted to live.
These
problems with the Section 8 program came to mind when Bush announced his
proposals. The Administration should take its plan to contract with the
states a step further: why should the government help people find places to
live?
We
should instead remove the middle party and allow low-income tenants to choose
their own units and owners. Instead of spending money on an ineffective
program, it could provide money directly to the tenants.
How
would the money be distributed?
The
government should pay the two-thirds of a Section 8 tenant’s rent directly to
the tenant on a monthly basis for a period of two years. At the end of
that time, the checks for all but those on limited assistance, such as Social
Security. At that point, tenants would be expected to come up with their
own funding for rent.
They
would be assisted by another facet of my proposal: the government, with no need
for a Rent Reasonableness or Inspections program, could abolish these divisions
of Section 8 and refund the money to the states. The states could then
use the money to create jobs, with Section 8 tenants as preferred customers.
This
approach would allow Section 8 tenants a chance to approach the rental market
with more choices. They would not be limited to the units with a few
specified owners and would have the incentive to remove the stigma of receiving
government assistance at the end of two years.
President
Bush has taken a much-needed look back at the home front. It remains to
be seen whether he can lead low-income tenants into bigger and better homes.