ToolsandStrategiesforImproving

CommunityRelationsin

theHousingChoiceVoucherProgram

U.S. Department o f Housing and Urban Development 

O ffice of Po licy Development and Research 

Acknowledgements 

This guidebook is the product of a collaborative effort between Abt Associates Inc. and Amy Jones 

and Associates Inc. Amy Jones is the principal author, with assistance from Mary Joel Holin, Linda 

Pistilli, and Jennifer Turnham at Abt Associates. Jill Khadduri provided thoughtful and constructive 

technical review. Judith D. Feins, MaryAnn Russ, and Caryn Nagler contributed to the research 

underlying the guidebook, as did Eugene Rizor of Quadel Consulting Corporation. Jeff Smith 

provided production assistance. 

This guidebook was prepared under Contract C-OPC-18571, Task Order 4 for HUD’s Office of 

Policy Development and Research. The authors acknowledge the thoughtful guidance and support 

provided by Dr. Harold R. Holzman, the Government Technical Monitor. Robert Gray and Les 

Rubin also made helpful contributions to the research. 

Finally, the authors would like to thank the housing authority administrators, community groups, 

elected officials, and nonprofit organizations who so generously shared information and ideas with us. 

Special thanks goes to the eight public housing authorities who volunteered to participate in the study: 

Housing Authority of Baltimore City; Lynn (MA) Housing Authority; New Jersey Department of 

Community Affairs, Division of Housing and Community Resources; Housing Authority of Cook 

County (IL); Fairfax County (VA) Redevelopment and Housing Authority; Montgomery County 

(PA) Housing Authority; San Antonio (TX) Housing Authority; and Syracuse (NY) Housing 

Authority. 

Table of Contents 

Preface................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter One

The Housing Choice Voucher Program: A Unique and Changing Community Relationship ..... 3

Chapter Two

Understanding Your Community..................................................................................................... 13

Chapter Three

Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! ..................................................................... 31

Chapter Four

Engaging Productively with Your Community............................................................................... 51

Appendix A

Study Site Summaries........................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix B

Developing a Community Profile ..................................................................................................... 69

Preface 

Have you noticed a change in community attitudes about your 

Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)? For many years, the 

HCVP was known as Section 8 tenant-based assistance (in this publication, the 

term “HCVP” is used to describe the concept historically described as “Section 

8”). For most communities, HCVP subsidies remain an essential and positive 

response to affordable housing needs. However, some PHAs have noted a 

general lessening of community support for their goals and activities, while 

others have experienced active resistance to new initiatives related to HCVP such 

as portability and special mobility programs. 

Why has HCVP become controversial in some localities and not in others? Are 

such controversies: 

... the inevitable consequence of demographic and economic changes in the 

community? 

... a disconnect between program rules and street reality? 

... a reflection of the way PHAs operate their programs? 

... or some other, as yet unidentified, factor? 

Is there anything HCVP administrators can do to prevent a decline in 

community support for the program or to restore confidence in the program once 

it has been lost? This guidebook is the end product of a study commissioned by 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to look into 

these and other questions related to community acceptance of HCVP. Eight 

PHAs that volunteered to share their experiences were studied in some detail. 

The purpose of the study was to try to understand the factors that lead to 

community dissatisfaction with HCVP and to assess the effectiveness of 

strategies employed by PHAs to eliminate or alleviate community concerns. 

Although a guidebook cannot possibly address the specific circumstances in each 

of the more than 2,600 PHAs that administer HCVP, we believe it can do three 

things: 

� Provide information about the experiences of communities and HCVP 

administrators that have dealt with significant resistance to HCVP; 

� Identify key factors that appear to make an HCVP vulnerable to community 

or neighborhood controversy; and 

1 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

� Share selected ideas and tools that have been found to be effective in 

preventing or resolving community concerns about the program. 

2
Chapter One: HCVP: A Unique and Changing Community Relationship 

Chapter One

The Housing Choice Voucher

Program: A Unique and Changing

Community Relationship

In most localities, the HCVP has a decades-long history of successful program 

implementation. Nationwide, more than 1.4 million households receive HCVP 

tenant-based assistance—most with little notice or fanfare in the surrounding 

community. With housing choice at the core of its mission, the program provides 

the opportunity to integrate low-income households into the fabric of the 

community, rather than concentrating and isolating them in specific projects. 

The program has succeeded in many important respects. Studies indicate that 

HCVP recipients live in better quality housing than similar unassisted families. 

They also are less likely than public housing residents to live in high-poverty 

neighborhoods. While other forms of subsidized housing—particularly projectbased subsidies—have languished, the HCVP tenant-based program has 

continued to grow, serving an ever-increasing number of households in need. 

1.1 Why Has HCVP Become a Concern in Some 

Communities? 

Have you taken the pulse of your community lately with respect to acceptance of 

the HCVP? Have questions and complaints increased? With such a record of 

success, one might ask why the HCVP tenant-based program has become the 

subject of controversy in some communities. Recent research suggests that there 

are a number of reasons why HCVP has become a point of contention. 

The Program Has Become Larger and More Visible 

HCVP certificates and vouchers now represent about one-third of the nation’s 

assisted housing. As the number of households served has grown, the visibility of 

the program has increased in many communities, as have the challenges for program 

administrators. 

3 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Although the opportunity for mobility was part of the program’s original design, 

historically a large share of assisted households used their subsidies in the units in 

which they already lived or within the same neighborhoods. As landlords in those 

neighborhoods became familiar with HCVP they also became willing to accept new 

families interested in moving to the neighborhoods. Now, the program has assisted 

so many families in some neighborhoods that significant concentrations of 

subsidized units are evident. In such cases, one key contribution of the program to 

the community—the deconcentration of assisted housing—is lost. Where serious 

concentrations of tenant-based assistance exist, even supporters of the program begin 

to express concerns. 

As HUD has placed an increasing emphasis on portability, mobility, and fair 

housing enforcement, HCVP families also have been successful in finding 

housing in neighborhoods that were previously inaccessible due to high rent 

levels and/or landlord discrimination. In those neighborhoods, even a relatively 

small number of HCVP families increase the program’s visibility. General 

uncertainty about something new, as well as concerns about “outsiders,” may 

fuel community opposition in areas with little prior HCVP experience. 

The Program’s Mission Has Become More Complex 

Expectations of the program also have expanded. The income targeting 

provision of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA), 

which requires that not less that 75 percent of new families admitted to the 

program have incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income, makes 

tenant-based HCVP, rather than public housing, the program for the lowest 

income families. Furthermore, special allocations of tenant-based subsidies have 

been provided for specific purposes such as the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) 

program, Family Unification, opt-outs and prepayments in properties with 

project-based HCVP assistance, relocation under HOPE VI and other 

redevelopment efforts, and welfare to work initiatives. Each initiative has 

intensified the spotlight on the HCVP and the families it serves and in some 

communities raised concerns about the need for services for some of these 

special populations. 

Perceptions Exist that HCVP Tenants are High-Risk Neighbors 

In many communities in which controversies have arisen, the belief exists that 

the attributes of HCVP participants have changed in recent years—that today’s 

HCVP families are proportionately much more likely to contain members with 

4 
Chapter One: HCVP: A Unique and Changing Community Relationship 

behavioral problems, as well as more likely to need significant supportive 

services. 

The perception that the characteristics of HCVP participants have changed may 

be true to some extent. The circumstances of families entering the HCVP did 

change, especially during the 1980s and early 1990s when federal and local 

preferences resulted in increasing admissions of families who were homeless or 

at risk of homelessness. In addition, the percentage of households headed by 

minorities in the HCVP has grown more quickly in the past five years than it has 

in the public housing program. However, in the second half of the 1990s, HUD 

data show that the percentage of family households (compared to elderly 

households) in the program has held steady or declined, while the percentage of 

households with wages as a primary source of income has increased significantly. 

Of course, none of the statistics about the characteristics of HCVP households 

can confirm or refute perceptions of the risks associated with these populations. 

PHA staff in the study sites learned that they must deal with community concerns 

about risk—whether or not it is possible to document the basis for these 

concerns. 

Perceptions that the Program is Poorly Administered Have 

Triggered Concerns 

Within this complex framework of family choices, market dynamics, and 

program changes, HCVP administrators are challenged to maintain positive 

community relationships, maximize opportunities for program participants, and 

run cost-effective, compliant programs. Where problems have arisen, the 

perception that HCVP administrators have not done all that they should has been 

part of the equation. 

1.2 What Can and Should Be Done?—The HCVP Community 

Relations Study 

Notions that the administration of the HCVP is simple in contrast to public 

housing have gone by the wayside. It doesn’t “run itself” anymore (if in fact, it 

ever did). With the 30th anniversary of the program’s creation, a reassessment of 

community concerns and perceptions is appropriate. In 1999, Abt Associates 

Inc. was asked by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research to conduct 

a study of a small sample of communities that have faced local opposition to 

tenant-based HCVPs. The overall purpose of the HUD study was to analyze a 

5 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

range of conflict situations and identify strategies that are effective in defusing 

community opposition and building an improved image of the HCVP. 

The study sites were selected to represent both a range of local experience with 

community resistance to HCVP and an assortment of responses. The researchers 

made every effort to document the perspectives fairly and accurately. Where 

controversies did exist, researchers did not attempt to determine who was “right,” 

but rather to capture the dynamics of the conflict to better understand the causes 

and to identify successful outcomes. 

The table on the following page provides a brief overview of the characteristics 

of the eight study sites. Further detail on the individual communities and the 

nature of the conflicts that took place can be found in Appendix A of this 

Guidebook. 

1.3 Lessons Learned from the Study 

The Core Conflict Issues 

� Concentration vs. Choice. One of the key dilemmas identified during the 

study was the tension between community concerns about concentrations of 

HCVP families and the fundamental premise of the program that permits 

families to choose where to live. Community concerns ranged from a 

general sense that “too many” HCVP families lived in an area, to specific 

suggestions that the number of HCVP families be limited when a 

neighborhood reaches a saturation point. Because the concept of choice is so 

essential to the philosophy of the HCVP, many PHAs felt both disinclined 

and powerless to address the concentration issue. 

PHAs rightly defend housing choice as a core value of the HCVP tenantbased program. But this does not mean that the PHA is powerless to address 

community concerns. The study suggests several avenues of action for 

PHAs that are not incompatible with housing choice. First, some PHAs have 

now recognized that the concentration of HCVP families may reflect a lack 

of options, rather than a real choice by HCVP participants. When inadequate 

Fair Market Rents or payment standard policies limit the neighborhoods in 

which the use of HCVP is viable, families do not have true housing choice. 

Families also may be unaware of the full range of neighborhoods in which 

they can use their HCVP assistance and may 

6 
Chapter One: HCVP: A Unique and Changing Community Relationship Camden County, NJ • Poor curb appeal of rental units 

Poor curb appeal of rental units 

• Poor curb appeal of rental units • Declining school scores and 

Lynn, MA • High rents in the urban core Baltimore, MD • Poor upkeep of rental units 

• Disruptive tenant behavior 

Disruptive tenant behavior 

• Disruptive tenant behavior • Disruptive tenant behavior 

housing choice vouchers in city and county) 

Declining property values Disruptive tenant behavior 

Disruptive tenant behavior 

• Concentration of HCVP 

property values 

countywide) • 

Unresponsive landlords Concentration of HCVP 

• Unresponsive landlords 

Montgomery County, PA • Special education costs 

San Antonio, TX • High crime rates 

Basic Characteristics of the Eight Study Sites 

PHA Name (& number of HCVP vouchers Scope of Conflict Concerns Raised 

11,000 housing choice vouchers citywide) • Div. of Housing (approx. 18,000 housing choice • 

choice vouchers in Lynn City) • 

1,700 housing choice vouchers countywide) • 

the other just outside the city limits • 

Two HCVP units on one street in a • 

San Antonio Housing Authority (approx. 12,000 Two neighborhoods – one in the city, 

Montgomery County Housing Authority (approx. Single borough in a suburban county 

Cook County, IL Housing Authority of Cook County (approx. Multiple municipalities in suburban Fairfax County, VA Suburban community developed 

Agency (approx. 2,500 housing choice vouchers among a major highway New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Suburban community 

Housing Authority of Baltimore City (approx. City neighborhood 

housing choice vouchers citywide) city neighborhood 

Lynn Housing Authority (approx. 2,000 housing Citywide 

10,000 housing choice vouchers in suburban county 

county)

Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing

Syracuse, NY Syracuse Housing Authority (approx. 3,000 

vouchers statewide) 

City/Town 

administered) 

7
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

select a known neighborhood out of habit or fear of the unknown. With 

improved PHA counseling, these families might well exercise their choice to 

move to areas with lesser concentrations of HCVP families 

� The Need to Address Problem Behaviors and Conditions. Alarm about 

concentrations of HCVP families is often the manner in which a 

community’s concern is first articulated. However, upon investigation the 

communities’ concerns were actually about a concentration (or perceived 

increase in) particular problems or behaviors such as crime and poor housing 

quality�not the presence of HCVP families who live in quality housing, pay 

the rent, and comply with lease requirements. Once again, the interests of 

the community, the interests of most HCVP families, and the concept of 

housing choice are not incompatible on this issue. Engaging with the 

community in problem-solving around these issues, rather than merely 

defending an HCVP family’s right to choose, enabled several PHAs in the 

study to undertake significant problem solving that benefited HCVP families 

as well as the community in general. 

The guidebook elaborates on these important issues and other valuable lessons 

uncovered by the study. These lessons are highlighted below and form the 

framework for the remaining chapters of the guidebook. 

The Role of Neighborhood or Community in HCVP Conflicts 

It seems clear that PHAs should become knowledgeable about where and how 

HCVP is used in their jurisdictions and how the program affects and is affected by 

community demographic and economic trends. The findings below highlight key 

issues. Chapter 2 elaborates on these issues, makes the case for greater PHA 

involvement in understanding neighborhood and community conditions and 

demographic trends and provides a model for developing and using a community 

profile to identify potential problem areas and to support problem solving. 

� Neighborhoods that are experiencing economic decline, or are perceived 

to be “not what they used to be,” are vulnerable to HCVP conflict. 

Anxieties about neighborhood decline often fuel resistance to HCVP. Trends 

that are the result of larger economic factors, such as a drop in property 

values or decrease in homeownership rates, changes in the racial makeup of 

the neighborhood, or a downward trend in public school test scores are often 

attributed to the HCVP. 

8 
Chapter One: HCVP: A Unique and Changing Community Relationship 

� Although concentration is a dominant issue, areas with the highest 

concentration of poverty and/or the highest concentration of HCVP 

recipients may not be those that experience conflict. Among the study sites 

where HCVP conflict emerged, poverty rates ranged from 6 to 41 percent, with 

half of the sites at or below 10 percent. The fraction of the population made up 

by HCVP households ranged from 2 to 14 percent, with most sites falling into 

the 3 to 6 percent range. Thus, it appears that what makes a community 

vulnerable to conflict erupting around the HCVP is not a specific degree of 

poverty or concentration of HCVP households; rather, it is the perception that the 

community is changing or that the families moving in are visibly different from 

existing residents in race or class. 

� Before the HCVP controversy began, the HCVP administrators in most 

of the sites studied did not have a firm grasp of the number and 

locations of HCVP recipients across their jurisdictions. Having better 

information about the locational patterns of program participants and how 

they had changed over time might have alerted housing authorities earlier to 

potential problems. Improving their knowledge could have enabled program 

administrators to be more proactive in their dealings with neighborhood 

organizations. 

Housing Authority Practices and HCVP Conflict 

The study confirms that there is no substitute for a well-run program. Although 

high quality program management won’t necessarily protect a PHA from 

controversy, it can help to establish (or restore) the community’s confidence in 

the PHA, and thereby cause local residents to give PHAs the benefit of the doubt 

in moments of crisis. Chapter 3 elaborates on the findings summarized below 

including making recommendations for improvements in the key areas of 

program management that tend to be the focus of community concerns. 

� HCVP conflict is almost always fueled by concerns that the program is 

being poorly administered. Whether these concerns are accurate or not, 

housing authorities should address the following administrative concerns, many 

of which contributed to the conflict at one or more study sites: 1) insufficient 

efforts to assist families to move to a broad range of neighborhoods; 2) 

inadequate attention to rent reasonableness and housing quality standards; 3) 

insufficient tenant screening at admission; 4) alleged negative HCVP household 

behavior; and 5) unresponsiveness to community complaints. 

9 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

� Increased coordination and collaboration is needed among PHAs and 

other assisted housing providers operating in the same or overlapping 

jurisdictions. Community residents are unlikely to recognize differences 

among various types of assisted housing programs or understand which 

HCVP families belong to which administering agency. Different policies, 

procedures, and methods of communication further hinder community efforts 

to report or resolve problems. PHAs in overlapping jurisdictions need to 

collaborate to ensure that their respective programs are not working at crosspurposes. At minimum, they should exchange information about the number 

and location of units in adjacent jurisdictions and share strategies for 

communicating with the community. 

Strategies for Effective Resolution of HCVP Community Conflicts 

Ignoring community concerns will not make them disappear. The PHAs that 

were most successful in resolving community concerns were those that greatly 

increased communication with program participants and stakeholders and took 

on problem-solving roles in the community. Although taking these actions 

required the PHAs to devote precious resources to non-traditional activities, most 

felt that it was more cost effective to address community concerns proactively 

rather than risk them escalating into more serious political, and in some cases 

legal, disputes. Chapter 4 describes the strategies that participating PHAs found 

most effective in strengthening community relations and addressing HCVP 

conflict. In summary, an effective strategy appears to be: 

� Take Community Concerns Seriously. Most of the housing authorities studied 

did not take the initial community complaints about the HCVP seriously. In 

addition, many reacted in a defensive way, providing information about the 

program and its participants that may have been factually accurate but that did 

nothing to engage those on the other side of the controversy in useful dialogue. 

In the cases where the housing authority did not take the initial complaints 

seriously, they did not go away. The failure to act promptly to address 

community concerns universally resulted in conflict escalation. 

� Get at the Real Issue(s). Understanding and resolving HCVP conflict 

requires probing for the issues that underlie the surface complaints. HCVP 

controversies often appear at first to be about relatively minor, “nuisance” 

issues. These initial complaints, however, are often symptomatic of deeper 

concerns about which people feel very strongly—such as fears about 

10 
Chapter One: HCVP: A Unique and Changing Community Relationship 

economic losses or resentment about apparent unfairness. To reach a 

solution that works, the actions taken must address the underlying issues. 

� Make it Your Problem. Resolving community conflict over the HCVP 

requires that the housing authority “take ownership” of the problem, 

regardless of whom is at fault. Taking ownership of the problem generally 

means making both practical changes—such as improving compliance—and 

cultural changes, such as viewing whole neighborhoods, not just assisted 

families, as customers. 

� Be Part of the Solution. In most cases, the housing authority will not be able 

single-handedly to turn the neighborhood around, but it can take steps to 

ensure that HCVP is perceived as part of the solution, not part of the 

problem. In many instances, the housing authority is not in a position to 

solve the underlying problem, but a prompt and collaborative response 

(particularly collaborations with the police department and other housing and 

service organizations) can go a long way toward calming community fears 

and addressing those issues that focused opposition on the HCVP. 

� Broaden Your Perspective. As HCVP becomes a more visible presence in a 

growing number of neighborhoods, housing authorities must begin to take on 

broader, non-traditional roles. If housing authorities want to improve the 

image and acceptance of the HCVP over the long term, they should 

reconsider their role with respect to the larger community. This includes 

getting involved in neighborhood revitalization activities and taking 

leadership positions in community-building initiatives. 

11 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Checklist 1: Five Steps to Effective Resolution of HCVP Conflict 

� Take it Seriously 

Ignoring community complaints does not make them go away. 

always makes things worse 

� Get at the Real Issues 

HCVP conflict is usually about something deeper than noisy neighbors or unkempt 

lawns. 

identify long-term solutions. 

� Make it Your Problem 

In order to resolve community conflict, you will need to take ownership of the 

problem, regardless of who is at fault. 

changes to your program, developing new local partnerships, and viewing whole 

neighborhoods, not just HCVP participants, as your customers. 

� Be Part of the Solution 

In most cases, you won’t be able to turn the problem around on your own, but 

responding quickly to community concerns and being willing to partner with 

others to address the issues can take you a long way toward an effective solution. 

� Broaden Your Perspective 

As HCVP becomes a visible presence in a growing number of neighborhoods, you 

may need to take on a broader, nontraditional role in the community. 

involved in neighborhood revitalization activities and taking leadership positions 

in community-building initiatives will help improve the image and acceptance of 

the HCVP. 

In fact, it almost 

Understanding the root cause of community concerns will help you to 

This will likely involve making practical 

Getting 

12
Chapter Two

Understanding Your Community

Most of the housing authorities in this study were taken by surprise when they 

found themselves embroiled in controversy over the HCVP. As a result, in many 

cases they were not able to head the controversy off or plan for an appropriate 

response. 

One of the reasons that the controversy generally came as such a surprise is that 

the agencies were accustomed to thinking about their program and jurisdiction in 

a particular way. They believed that households make their own choices about 

where to live and that those decisions are not the program administrator’s 

concern. They therefore did not make it a priority to understand which 

neighborhoods were becoming more accessible to the program and what that 

might mean for changing patterns of HCVP use. As a result, they often found 

themselves “in the dark” when community members voiced concerns about the 

effect of HCVP on particular housing markets and neighborhoods. 

Although each community is unique and each housing agency’s relationship with 

the community is different, it is possible to anticipate where controversies about 

HCVP might arise and prepare to respond to them. In order to do so, housing 

agencies need to: (1) understand the circumstances that can fuel community 

concerns about HCVP; and (2) determine which neighborhoods within their 

jurisdiction may be vulnerable to HCVP conflict. 

Based on the eight study sites, it appears that concerns about HCVP often 

develop in the presence of larger economic trends and certain specific market 

dynamics. In particular, neighborhoods may be vulnerable to HCVP controversy 

if they are experiencing or have recently experienced the following kinds of 

changes: 

� Changes in Economic Conditions and Prospects. Controversies tend to 

develop in communities where residents are feeling economically vulnerable. 

For example, residents of Syracuse’s Westcott neighborhood felt their 

property values were threatened when enrollment fell at Syracuse University 

and the student rental market shrank. During an economic downturn, 

residents may attribute falling house values and an increase in rental 

properties to the presence of families receiving subsidies or the presence of 

assisted housing. 

13 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

� Changes in Neighborhood Demographics. This may include both 

upward and downward trends. For example, a rapid increase in 

population can create one kind of strain for a neighborhood such as 

intense competition for housing or school overcrowding. Rapid 

population decreases may create other problems such as a decline in 

property values or an increase in vacant units. Changes in the racial and 

ethnic composition of a neighborhood can further increase the sense of 

uncertainty and focus attention on the HCVP. In Baltimore’s Patterson 

Park neighborhood, for example, many residents attributed racial 

transition and a growth in the rental market, both of which reflected 

long-term economic and demographic changes, to the HCVP. 

� Changes in Concentrations of HCVP Tenant-Based Housing. When 

subsidized housing begins to dominate a neighborhood, it is often a sign 

of other market dynamics at work. In San Antonio’s “Creek” 

neighborhood, for example, the downsizing of a nearby Air Force base 

led to a growth in absentee owners, many of whom rented their 

properties through the HCVP. Despite the presence of underlying 

causes, however, if the community perceives the concentration of HCVP 

participants to be excessive or rapidly growing, controversy is likely to 

ensue. In Lynn, for example, residents complained that Lynn had done 

“more than its share” in assisting the region’s low-income households, 

and some charged that HCVP participants were being steered to Lynn. 

When Lynn Housing Authority investigated the issue, they were 

surprised to learn that the concentration of HCVP housing in Lynn was 

in part the result of a Boston-based mobility program administered by a 

separate entity. 

� Real or Perceived Changes in Neighborhood “Quality of Life.” 

Communities that perceive a decline in quality of life issues such as 

public safety, education, and the physical appearance of the 

neighborhood may attribute these changes to the HCVP. In the Route 1 

Corridor of Fairfax County, for example, some residents believed that a 

new immigrant population, presumed to be living in the County because 

of HCVP assistance, was creating a burden on the local school system by 

increasing the number of children with special needs. The HCVP (and 

the perceived concentration of HCVP in the Route 1 corridor) thus 

became the focus of the community’s concerns about declining school 

scores. 

14 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

� Relative Differences among Neighborhoods. In addition to changes 

within a neighborhood that may be perceived as negative, controversies 

often develop when residents perceive marked differences in the 

circumstances of their neighborhood relative to surrounding areas. This 

is especially true of issues related to financial status and quality of life. 

For example, when a neighborhood includes a greater share of HCVP 

participants than surrounding neighborhoods, concerns about “dumping” 

or steering tend to arise. This was the case in Montgomery County, 

where residents of Norristown Borough were upset that their community, 

which is significantly poorer than the County as a whole, was housing 

almost half of the County’s HCVP households. 

The above examples suggest some of the ways that communities can become 

vulnerable to HCVP controversy. A common theme in all of the examples is that 

change, even when positive, creates some level of anxiety for people. When 

change involves one’s home or financial prospects, the anxiety can be 

particularly intense. Furthermore, misinformation or the absence of information 

can play a role in creating a climate of confusion and mistrust, in which 

perceptions may become reality. 

Given that there are ways to anticipate and prepare for HCVP controversy and 

that ignoring the warning signs almost always makes the situation worse, it 

makes sense for PHAs to invest some time and resources in understanding the 

community contexts in which their HCVPs operate. Getting started can be a 

challenge – there is so much information, so many ways to look at it, and so little 

time! However, there are a number of rich data sources and analytical tools that 

HCVP administrators can draw upon to improve their understanding of 

community dynamics, and some simple guidelines to follow in packaging the 

information. 

The remainder of this chapter focuses on the three elements of community 

dynamics that are most important for anticipating HCVP controversy. These are: 

� Understanding demographic, economic, and housing market trends in the 

jurisdiction as a whole and particularly in neighborhoods with a significant 

number of HCVP participants; 

� Understanding the whole picture of subsidized housing in the jurisdiction 

and particular neighborhoods—including programs other than tenant-based 

HCVP, and other PHAs that may be administering subsidized housing in the 

jurisdiction; and 

15 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

� Understanding other trends that may be affecting particular neighborhoods— 

such as crime rates, school scores, political conflicts—and that may be 

attributed to the HCVP. 

The first step that a PHA can take toward better understanding each of these areas is to

develop a community profile. The goal of the community profile is to develop and

maintain information that can shed light on program operations, market dynamics, and

community relationships, without creating an overwhelming workload or an

intimidating collection of statistics that

confuse rather than clarify. Community

profiles typically build upon a set of core

components—basic demographic, economic,

and housing market data—to provide a

picture of the community at a given point in

time or to track changes over time.

Depending on local circumstances, PHAs

may also want to add other dimensions to

their profiles—such as school scores or

crime statistics. Furthermore, PHAs may

develop community profiles to cover a range

of geographic areas—the PHA’s entire

jurisdiction, a particular neighborhood, or an

individual census tract. Finally, the

community profile can be presented as

tables, charts, maps, or, usually most

effectively, some combination of all of these.

What Can A Community Profile 

Do For My PHA? 

A community profile enables people 

inside and outside the PHA to... 

¤ Gain a better understanding of 

community conditions and the role 

that HCVP plays in the community 

¤ Identify trends that may call for 

program or strategy adjustments 

¤ Evaluate community concerns in the 

light of “hard data” about local trends 

¤ Anticipate issues over which 

controversy might occur and plan for 

an appropriate response 

The following discussions provide an introduction to some of the key elements of

the community profile, as well as the sources of data available to create its

various components. In addition, Appendix B to this Guidebook provides a

detailed description of how to prepare a community profile using readily

available data sources and analytical tools.

16 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

Analyzing Demographic, Economic, and Housing 

Market Trends 

In most of the HCVP controversies studied, community residents voiced 

concerns about the effect of the HCVP on the local economy, housing market, or 

racial/ethnic composition of the neighborhood. Although the PHAs in question 

usually felt strongly that HCVP was not to blame for all the changes in the 

neighborhood, they usually did not have a clear sense of what the neighborhood’s 

problems were, nor how the HCVP might have played a role in those problems. 

Using Tables to Analyze Trends and Relative Differences 

Creating a community profile that tracks basic demographic and economic 

information such as: population; percent of population below the poverty line; 

percent of households receiving public assistance; and racial/ethnic composition 

is a first step that PHAs can take toward identifying neighborhoods under stress 

and anticipating community concerns. The table below provides an example of 

what this kind of analysis revealed about Fairfax County’s Route 1 Corridor, 

which was the site of HCVP controversy in the mid 1990s. 

Trends in Fairfax County and the Route 1 Corridor, 1970-1990 

1970 1980 1990 

Population 

Fairfax County 

Route 1 Corridor 

454,275 

59,196 

596,901 

64,213 

818,584 

69,928 

Percent of Population below Poverty Line 

Fairfax County 

Route 1 Corridor 

3.5% 

4.8% 

3.9% 

9.2% 

3.5% 

5.8% 

Percent of Households on Public Assistance 

Fairfax County 

Route 1 Corridor 

0.1% 

1.0% 

2.4% 

4.6% 

2.1% 

3.5% 

1970 1980 1990 

Race/Ethnicity Fairfax Rte. 1 Fairfax Rte. 1 Fairfax Rte. 1 

White 

Black 

Amer. Ind./ Eskimo/Aleut. 

Asian/ Pacific Islander 

Other Race 

Hispanic origin 

96% 

4% 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

95% 

4% 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

89% 

6% 

0.2% 

4% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

81% 

15% 

0.2% 

3% 

1% 

3% 

81% 

8% 

0.3% 

8% 

2% 

6% 

69% 

21% 

0.4% 

6% 

3% 

7% 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 1980, 1970 Census. 

17 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

At the start of the HCVP controversy, community leaders in Fairfax County’s

Route 1 Corridor expressed concern about the concentration of lower-income

families living there. Looking at the table above, we might conclude that poverty

rates in Fairfax County—as indicated by the

percentage of families under the poverty line

and the percentage of receiving public 

assistance—are quite low relative to many 

urban areas. However, the table also shows 

that the percentage of families living in 

poverty in 1990 was almost two thirds higher 

in the Route 1 Corridor (5.8 percent) than it 

was in the County as a whole (3.5 percent). 

Moreover, while overall population growth in 

the Route 1 Corridor was slower between 

Key Sources of Economic, 

Demographic, and Housing Data 

• U.S. Census Data – available 

online for 1990, in libraries 

for 1970 and 1980 

• American Housing Survey Data – 

available on line through U.S. 

Census web site 

• Local Planning Data 

1970 and 1990 than it was for the County as a whole, the percentage of lowerincome families and minority populations increased at a faster rate. 

These observations highlight two of the points made above about the circumstances 

that can make a community vulnerable to HCVP conflict. First, community concern 

is often triggered by change. Many urban communities would be well pleased with 

a poverty rate below 10 percent, but for the Route 1 Corridor a twenty percent 

increase in the percentage of families in poverty created a concern. Second, 

perceptions of differences may trigger concern. Again, although the incidence of 

poverty in absolute numbers could be considered low, the rate is higher than for the 

rest of the county. This fact, combined with (1) the development of large numbers of 

project-based assisted housing units in the area, and (2) a perceived lack of 

investment to improve the area economically, helped strengthen concerns that Route 

1 was being neglected (at best) and perhaps deliberately targeted as a low-income 

area. 

Racial and ethnic changes are also evident. Over the period from 1970 to 1990, 

African American households increased from 4 percent to 8 percent for the 

county as a whole and from 4 percent to 21 percent for the Route 1 Corridor. 

Data for Hispanic households were not available in 1970, but from 1980 to 1990 

Hispanic households moved into the county in significant numbers. In this case, 

the percentage increase in Hispanic households was greater for the county as a 

whole (from 0.9 percent to 6 percent) than for the Route 1 Corridor (from 3 

percent to 7 percent). 

18 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

Adding a Spatial Perspective through Mapping 

Creating a table like the one for Fairfax County is the first step in developing a 

community profile. In addition to the demographic and economic data shown on 

that table, we might have included housing market indicators available from the 

U.S. Census and American Housing Survey such as homeownership and rental 

rates, average home prices, and the average length of tenure among homeowners. 

Although creating the table is a necessary starting point, it is often more effective 

to map the data rather than present them in numerical form. Maps can enhance a 

PHA’s understanding of community dynamics by adding the perspective of 

location. Generating maps based on census tract level data allows the PHA to 

understand trends and patterns that are taking place within the neighborhood. 

This kind of analysis is especially useful for understanding community dynamics 

in neighborhoods such as Baltimore’s Patterson Park, which vary almost on a 

block by block basis and certain parts of which have experienced much more 

rapid change than others. 

The map below shows rental rates in 1970, 1980, and 1990 for the ten census 

tracts that make up the Patterson Park neighborhood. 

Rental Rates in the Patterson Park Neighborhood, 1970-1990 

Park Park Park 

19 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Contrary to the claims of many residents, mapping rental rates in Patterson Park 

over time reveals only modest growth in the proportion of units occupied by 

renters versus homeowners. This growth is indicated by the spread of the areas 

shaded in dark or medium blue. More striking is the changing distribution of 

rental units across the neighborhood. The census tracts in the northwest part of 

the neighborhood have long had a high proportion of rental properties relative to 

other census tracts. However, it appears that between 1980 and 1990, the rental 

market became more concentrated in this area. Comparing these maps to maps 

of poverty rates and concentrations of assisted housing by census tract provides a 

richer understanding of economic trends within the neighborhood and a stronger 

basis from which to evaluate community concerns. 

An increase in rental rates can reflect a decline in homeownership, a decrease in 

vacancy rates, or some combination of the two. Having used the map to identify 

parts of the neighborhood that are becoming increasingly renter-occupied, look at 

the Census data on homeownership and vacancy rates to understand where the 

additional rental units are coming from. If homeownership rates are stable and 

vacancy rates are dropping, the increase in rentals may be a sign of neighborhood 

revitalization. If the rental market is growing at the expense of homeownership, 

this may be a cause of community concern. If this is the case, it may also be 

helpful to track the growth of the HCVP in these areas. 

Food for Thought 

� How would these tables and maps look if they were produced for your 

jurisdiction? Are you aware of demographic trends in your locality? Are 

there significant differences in the trends by sub-area? How has the 

utilization of HCVP been affected by these trends? Do community residents 

perceive that HCVP participation is affecting these trends? 

� What else would you like to see? Would it be helpful for your community 

to have a map that shows where within the jurisdiction lower-income and 

minority families live—and the distribution of HCVP families? 

� Creating the map. The data needed for creating maps like the one above are 

available from the Census and can be incorporated into HUD’s Community 

2020 mapping software. This software is discussed in more detail in 

Appendix B. 

20 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

Analyzing Subsidized Housing in the 

Community 

Many of the PHAs that experienced HCVP conflict were charged with allowing, 

or, in some cases, encouraging, an “excessive” concentration of HCVP housing 

to develop in some neighborhoods versus others. PHAs have little control over 

the basic market forces that drive neighborhood transitions and cannot interfere 

with participant choice. However, they can 

assure that their program administration does 

not exacerbate a concentration problem—for 

example, by payment standard policies that 

severely limit neighborhood access. As a first 

step, PHAs should map the location of HCVP 

tenant-based households in their jurisdictions 

and neighborhoods. The data and tools 

needed to create this kind of map are available 

through HUD’s Community 2020 software, 

discussed in detail in Appendix B. 

Key Sources of Data on Subsidized 

Housing 

• MTCS Data – available online 

through HUD’s web site and in 

HUD’s Community 2020 

software. 

• HUD’s A Picture of Subsidized 

Households Database – available 

online through HUD’s web site. 

• PHA Records/Databases 

Mapping the Distribution of HCVP Tenant-Based Housing within a 

Jurisdiction or Neighborhood 

Creating a map that shows the distribution of HCVP tenant-based housing within 

a jurisdiction or compares that distribution with the surrounding jurisdictions can 

illustrate significant market conditions at a glance. The map below shows the 

concentration of HCVP tenant-based assistance in Lynn, Massachusetts, the 

jurisdiction of the Lynn Housing Authority (LHA), and compares it to other 

communities in the county. 

21 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Note: 

represents LHA’s jurisdiction; 

Boston is approximately 15 miles 

south of Lynn. 

• HCVP tenant-based 

households 

The pink shaded area 

A picture can focus attention on an issue in a very graphic way. Creating a map 

similar to this one gave LHA a framework from which to evaluate the various 

concerns that they were hearing from the community, such as: 

� The concern that Lynn had done “more than its share” in assisting the 

region’s low-income households; 

� The concern that HCVP participants were being steered to Lynn; and 

� The assumption by police that when they got a call from Lynn’s urban core, 

an HCVP family was involved. 

22 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

A map of subsidized housing can also suggest areas for further study or research. 

Such a map raised a range of questions for LHA staff and local elected officials 

related to: 

� The proportions of owners to renters in the region and the distribution of 

affordable rental housing; 

� The relationship between Fair Market Rents and PHA payment standards to 

housing costs in the unsubsidized market; 

� Landlord outreach efforts and mobility initiatives to encourage program 

participation in areas of less concentration; 

� The income, racial, and ethnic distributions of the population as related to the 

distribution of subsidized housing; and 

� Employment opportunities and public transportation available to lowerincome households in the region. 

In order to address these issues and other questions raised by the map, the City of 

Lynn commissioned a more extensive market survey that has since been used as the 

starting point for the development of a new housing and economic development 

strategy. 

Adding Perspective to a Map of HCVP Housing 

The HCVP doesn’t operate in a vacuum. In many cases, PHAs can benefit from

creating a map that incorporates the full range of subsidized housing programs—not

just tenant-based HCVP—and takes into account programs administered by other

PHAs or state agencies. At several of the sites studied for this

Guidebook, what the community (and PHA) originally

believed to be a conflict over HCVP, in fact turned out to be a 

broader issue about the concentration of subsidized housing 

overall. HUD’s Community 2020 software, described in 

Appendix B, gives PHAs the ability to create maps that show 

concentrations of subsidized housing overall and by housing 

program and administering agency. PHAs may also choose to partner with their 

K Not a High Tech Person? 

You can take a simpler route by 

charting 

subsidized housing locations using 

a detailed city map and pushpins. 

HCVP and other 

local planning agencies to develop mapping expertise. The data needed to create 

maps of subsidized housing are available through the Community 2020 software or 

through HUD’s “A Picture of Subsidized Households” database, which can be 

downloaded from HUD’s web site. 

23 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Tracking Changes in Subsidized Housing over Time 

Sometimes an HCVP controversy arises because community members perceive that 

there has been a rapid increase in the number of HCVP families. Maps showing the 

locations of HCVP families over a several year period can demonstrate whether this 

perception is in fact true. If the question is a relatively simple one—how has the 

HCVP grown in one part of the PHA’s jurisdiction versus another—the information 

can often be easily presented as a table or chart. 

As an illustration, the table below provides a simple summary of the growth in 

HCVP participants living in the south suburbs of Cook County, as compared to the 

suburban County as a whole. 

Concentration of HCVP Participants in South Suburban Cook County, 1980-2000 

1980 1995 1998 2000 

Active Contracts in South Suburbs 969 4,405 4,949 5,637 

40% 57% 55% 56% 

Active Contracts in Remainder of 

Suburban Cook County 

1,442 

60% 

3,353 

43% 

4,054 

45% 

4,374 

44% 

All Active HACC Active Contracts 2,411 

100% 

7,758 

100% 

9,003 

100% 

10,001 

100% 

Sources: Housing Authority of Cook County. 

This table could help to address one of the ongoing concerns in the HCVP 

controversy in Cook County, Illinois, which is the concentration of HCVP 

participants in the southern part of the suburban County. The table was created 

based on data that the Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC) had collected 

over the past two decades. However, the aggregated data shown in the table mask 

significant variation in the growth of HCVP among the towns that make up the 

south suburbs. Looking at these same data for individual towns, we would find 

that some towns with substantial numbers of HCVP participants prior to 1995 

grew substantially between 1995 and 2000. In other towns—where relatively 

few HCVP participants had previously located—the program grew in smaller, 

but nonetheless significant, increments during this period. This more detailed 

analysis might better be captured on a map than a table. 

24 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

Food for Thought 

� Exercise caution in interpreting pictures and maps. Pictures—both maps 

and statistical analyses—can be valuable tools, but they are only a piece of 

the puzzle. It is important not to jump to conclusions on the basis of a single 

illustration. For example, an aggressive mobility program might be one 

answer to the concentration of HCVP units in Lynn. But there is more to the 

story. At least some of the assisted housing concentration in Lynn has been 

attributed to an aggressive mobility program that resulted in many families 

moving from Boston, just 15 miles to the south, to Lynn! A single “snap 

shot” can often tell what is happening, but understanding why and what 

actions should be taken will generally take additional work. 

25 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Analyzing Other Trends that Contribute to HCVP 

Community Conflict 

Community perceptions about the HCVP are often linked to other indicators of 

community well being. Two that are frequently mentioned are school scores and 

crime rates. Becoming knowledgeable about community issues that are linked to 

the HCVP will help PHAs prepare to respond to program criticism, identify and 

clarify misconceptions about the program, and garner resources for addressing 

community problems. 

Tracking School Test Scores 

In Fairfax County, Virginia, critics of the HCVP charged that school test scores in 

the Route 1 corridor, an area with a high concentration of assisted housing, were 

lower than those of the county as a whole. Moreover, many homeowners in the 

Route 1 Corridor believed that lower test scores translated directly into lower sales 

prices for their homes and reflected a high number of special needs children who 

lived in the school district, assumed to be receiving HCVP. 

The table below compares SAT scores for Fairfax County as a whole, the high 

school servicing the Route 1 corridor (Mt. Vernon High School), and the state 

and nation. The table reveals that although the scores for Mt. Vernon High 

School are lower than for the rest of the county, they remain near and sometimes 

above the state and national norms. While the table provides objective statistics, 

different conclusions were drawn by various segments of the community—some 

saw a picture of strong performance while others saw a serious vulnerability that 

threatened neighborhood viability. 

Average SAT Scores for Fairfax County Public Schools, 

Mt. Vernon High School, Virginia and the Nation 

Verbal Math 

Fairfax 

All HS 

Mt. Vernon 

HS 

Virginia 

All HS 

Nation 

All HS 

Fairfax 

All HS 

Mt. Vernon 

HS 

Virginia 

All HS 

Nation 

All HS 

1997 538 499 506 505 550 501 497 511 

1998 540 505 507 505 555 522 499 512 

1999 541 489 508 505 553 498 499 511 

Source: Fairfax County Public School System 

26 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

Tracking Crime Rates by Neighborhood and HCVP Status 

In addition to school test scores, people often look to crime rates as a measure of 

community well being. In many people’s minds, crime and assisted housing are 

inextricably linked, and the HCVP is no exception. 

For example, at the start of the HCVP conflict in Montgomery County, there was a 

strong perception among residents of Norristown Borough, where most of the 

county’s HCVP recipients live, that assisted households were responsible for much 

of the crime in the community. Some claimed that HCVP participants accounted for 

50 to 60 percent of all police calls. In order to respond to these claims, the 

Montgomery County Housing Authority (MCHA) worked with the local police 

department to generate crime statistics for Norristown that break out the police calls 

generated from addresses where HCVP families live. Using these data, MCHA was 

able to prepare a table, similar to the one below, that challenged the community’s 

perceptions. 

Public Safety Dispatched Fire and Police Calls for the 

Borough of Norristown, 1996-1999 

1996 1997 1998 1999 

Total Dispatched Police and Fire Calls 42,250 57,434 56,151 63,045 

Total Calls Related to HCVP Units 5,791 6,744 6,424 5,869 

Percent of Calls Related to HCVP Units 14% 12% 11% 9% 

Breakdown of HCVP-Related Calls (%) 

Drug related 3% 3% 4% 3% 

Disturbances 5% 6% 9% 6% 

Domestic disturbances 9% 8% 8% 9% 

Fights/Assaults 5% 4% 4% 4% 

Medical emergencies 13% 13% 15% 16% 

Psychiatric emergencies 1% 1% 1% 1% 

Armed subjects/shots fired 1% 2% 2% 2% 

911 Hang-ups 4% 5% 4% 5% 

Miscellaneous 59% 59% 54% 55% 

Sources: Montgomery County Housing Authority (Montgomery County, PA). 

The table shows that in reality, between 1996 and 1999, HCVP households were 

responsible for somewhere between 9 and 14 percent of all police calls, and that this 

figure has been steadily decreasing. Moreover, the percentage of calls related to 

drugs (a common attribution about HCVP households) is relatively small and has not 

been increasing. For a number of reasons, there may be a correlation between 

27 
Key Sources of Data on 

“Quality of Life” Issues 

• School Test Scores – available from 

your local area school district, 

often available on line. 

• Crime Data – work with your local 

police department to obtain data 

for particular neighborhoods and 

broken down by HCVP status 

• HCVP is Often Part of a Broader 

Political Conflict – pay attention to 

ongoing debates on issues related 

to neighborhood health. 

HCVP and Neighborhoods 

neighborhoods with high crime rates and 

neighborhoods with large numbers of HCVPassisted households, but it is a large and unfounded 

leap to conclude that HCVP households are the 

perpetrators, rather than potential victims of those 

crimes. 

The Montgomery County Housing Authority was 

able to obtain the above data by developing a 

working relationship with the local police 

department. PHAs should contact their local 

police department to determine if crime data for 

specific neighborhoods are available. Some police 

departments may have developed their own 

mapping systems, or may have information that 

can be downloaded into Community 2020 software to enable the PHA to overlay 

crime data and concentrations of HCVP assistance. 

Food For Thought 

� Besides school scores and crime, other “quality of life” issues can shape 

the community’s perspective of the HCVP. In several of the study sites, 

for example, the HCVP became part of a larger debate about the 

concentration of social services in the community, and the impact that this 

had on local taxes and property values. In a community where residents have 

recently opposed a major public welfare project, such as the opening of a 

homeless shelter or free health clinic, controversy over HCVP may more 

accurately reflect concerns about the provision of social services to lowincome families in general rather than problems with the program itself. 

28 
Chapter 2: Understanding Your Community 

Checklist 2: Understanding Your Community 

Determining Which Communities in Your Jurisdiction May Be Vulnerable To HCVP 

Controversy 

� Are there areas that have undergone recent economic, demographic, or housing market 

changes and where residents may feel economically vulnerable? 

� Are there notable differences between one part of the jurisdiction and other parts? 

� Are there areas where the concentration of HCVP participants appears high relative to 

other parts of the jurisdiction, or is rapidly growing? 

� Are you listening and trying to understand the concerns and perspectives of 

community representatives whether or not 

Creating an Informative and Effective Community Profile 

� Identify what information to present: Economic, demographic, and housing market 

data? 

school scores, and other indicators of neighborhood “quality of life”? 

� Decide how to present the information: A current “snapshot” or change over time? 

The whole jurisdiction, specific neighborhoods, or individual census tracts? 

charts, tables, or some combination of all three? Think about the “audience” for such 

information in your community—PHA staff, community organizations and advocates, 

elected officials, and the press. 

communicating with each? 

� Practice your analytic skills: Put yourself in the position of another stakeholder in the 

community. 

What concerns would you expect to be raised by the public? 

about sharing the information. 

charts for your community appear on the front page of the local newspaper? 

why would that be so? What actions might that suggest? 

you see the situation in the same light? 

Distribution of HCVP tenant-based and other subsidized housing? Crime rates, 

Maps, 

What format(s) do you think would be most effective in 

How might an HCVP participant or landlord react to the information? 

Identify your concerns 

Would you be concerned to have any of these maps or 

If yes, 

29
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

30
Chapter Three

Quality Program Administration

Makes a Difference!

Ultimately, the success of an HCVP will be judged not only by its SEMAP 

score, but also by how well it works in, and for, the local community. 

At virtually every study site, one aspect of the community’s concern was the 

perception that the program was poorly run�that inappropriate rents were paid, 

that housing quality was poor, and that there were no consequences for 

inappropriate behavior by tenants or landlords. Although the current culture 

makes distrust of government a common phenomenon, PHAs that have stepped 

back to look at how they are doing business have realized that it is possible to 

make changes that will both improve compliance with HUD requirements and 

better respond to community interests. 

High quality program management won’t necessarily protect a PHA from 

controversy, but it can help to establish (or restore) the community’s confidence 

in the PHA. Over time, a mindset that supports continuous improvement will 

increase community confidence and cause the residents to give the agency the 

“benefit of the doubt” as new issues arise. 

The most frequently cited community concerns about PHA administration of the 

HCVP include: 

� Faulty screening practices by landlords and the PHA; 

� Inappropriate application of payment standards and rent reasonableness 

procedures; 

� Poor quality housing and lax enforcement of housing quality standards; 

� PHA unwillingness or inability to take action against program applicants, 

participants, and landlords who fail to meet program requirements or to 

behave as responsible members of the community; and 

� PHA practices that create concentrations of assisted tenants in some 

neighborhoods and send other assisted families to new neighborhoods 

without adequate orientation and support. 

31 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

This chapter looks at each of these areas as they relate to the larger issue of 

community acceptance. The chapter makes recommendations about how a PHA 

can fine-tune its program and bring it in line with community standards�abide 

by the rules and be responsive to community residents. 

3.1 Focusing on Prevention�PHA and Landlord Screening 

Although community residents are often only marginally involved in the PHA’s 

broader policy discussions regarding who should receive HCVP assistance, they 

are generally quite articulate and sometimes passionate about who should not 

receive assistance. For example, the presence of HCVP participants who engage 

in�or are believed to be engaging in�criminal activity is one of the major 

causes of complaints about the program. Many times complaints about the 

behavior of HCVP tenants are unfounded, or the problem families turn out not to 

be HCVP families at all. But in other instances, community leaders have been 

justifiably concerned about the HCVP “revolving door,” in which a family 

evicted from one HCVP unit for inappropriate behavior moves down the street, 

merely to create a problem in another HCVP unit. 

Rightly or wrongly, neighbors, 

Do you screen applicants for community groups, and ultimately

each of the following? 

� Violating family obligations under the 

program 

� Eviction from public housing or prior 

termination from the HCVP 

� Participating in violent or drug-related 

criminal activity 

� Commission of fraud, bribery, or other 

corrupt or criminal act in connection with 

a federal housing program 

� Owing rent or other reimbursement to a 

PHA 

� Breaching an agreement to pay amounts 

owed to a PHA 

elected officials will hold the PHA 

responsible for the negative behavior of 

HCVP families. Until recently, HUD 

rules limited a PHA’s ability to take 

preemptive action by screening out 

families with known behavioral 

problems. Traditionally, the PHA role 

has been to determine applicant 

families’ eligibility for participation in 

the HCVP, while landlords were 

responsible for determining the 

families’ suitability as tenants. More 

recently, and particularly with the 

passage of the Public Housing Reform 

Act (PHRA) in 1998, PHAs have the 

right not only to determine which 

families are eligible for assistance, but 

also to screen out otherwise eligible 

32 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

applicants on the basis of prior criminal activity and prior behavior in assisted 

housing. Exercising this authority to the fullest, in addition to educating 

landlords about how they can select good tenants, can help PHAs avoid problems 

before they begin. 

PHAs are required to develop their own policies and procedures for applicant 

screening. The goal of these policies should be the exclusion of known “bad 

actors” from the program before they become a liability to the PHA and the 

community. 

Screening for Past Behavior in Assisted Housing is Worth the Effort 

Each PHA must determine what level of effort is appropriate and what screening 

measures are most effective for the locality. At a minimum, PHAs should 

crosscheck applicant names with their own records of public housing evictions, 

HCVP terminations for cause, and public housing and HCVP tenant accounts 

receivable. Although this seems obvious, a surprising number of PHAs have so 

far failed to implement systems for checking their own records or enforcing their 

own policies. 

A PHA’s application form can request information about the applicants’ prior 

experience with assisted housing in other localities. Even though it is difficult for 

the PHA to uncover information about evictions, terminations, and debts if the 

applicant does not provide accurate information, requesting the information is 

still a good idea. Should such information come to light later, the PHA would 

have grounds for terminating the participant for failing to provide the 

information. In addition, PHAs should consider establishing cooperative 

agreements with nearby PHAs for the exchange of information about past tenant 

behavior. 

Criminal Background Checks Provide Multiple Benefits 

PHAs can deny assistance to applicants as a result of past criminal history. 

Using criminal history checks to screen applicants can be effective in reducing 

the likelihood that seriously disruptive families will be admitted to the program. 

In addition, PHAs that have worked with local and state police to access 

information and develop screening procedures have established productive 

relationships with far-reaching effects. As the public�and particularly current 

and prospective HCVP participants�learn that families have been denied 

assistance based upon past criminal history, PHA policies and expectations about 

appropriate behavior are reinforced. 

33 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Many Landlords Need Training and Encouragement to Screen 

Effectively 

Owners should thoroughly screen applicant families with respect to their prior 

history as tenants, but the actual practices of landlords vary widely. In soft 

housing markets, some landlords do not screen 

at all, on the theory that a unit occupied by What Can You Tell the Owner About a 

Prospective Tenant? 

PHAs must provide the owner with: 

¤ Current and prior addresses as shown 

in PHA records 

¤ The name and address of the family’s 

current and prior landlord 

anyone is better than a vacancy. Even 

landlords who may be interested in screening 

tenants may be confused about what they can 

and should ask, as well as what the PHA may 

already have done in the way of screening. 

This is especially true in the case of smaller, 

less experienced owners. An essential job of 

the PHA is to encourage responsible behavior among participating owners 

through training and technical assistance. 

PHAs can also serve as a source of screening information for prospective 

landlords. The PHA must give all applicant and participant families a statement 

of its policies on providing tenant information to owners of rental housing and 

must include the statement in its HCVP administrative plan. The policy must 

indicate that the same types of information will be provided to all owners. 

In the interest of encouraging owners to screen prospective tenants properly, 

PHAs should provide owners with as much information on prospective tenants as 

they can, consistent with their own policies and with the tenants’ right to privacy. 

PHAs should not, however, allow themselves to slip into the practice of 

substituting poor tenant references (or innuendo) for direct actions the agency 

should take to terminate the participation of non-compliant families. 

Let the Community Know about Your Screening Procedures 

Implementing effective screening policies and procedures is step one. Equally 

important is making sure that these PHA policies are widely known. PHAs have 

found that informing the public about both screening and termination policies 

helps to counteract the perception that the PHA sees its role only as an advocate 

for HCVP families and is not concerned with enforcing community laws and 

standards. 

34 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

3.2 Improving Program Compliance 

Problem behavior by particular tenants and the housing authority’s failure to take 

action related to this behavior have been at the center of numerous HCVP 

conflicts. Following right behind this concern is the perception that no penalties 

are imposed when HCVP landlords charge premium rents for mediocre quality 

housing and substandard service. Community acceptance of the HCVP depends 

heavily on the PHA’s reputation for fair program administration. 

Consider Developing a Tenant Integrity Program 

In response to community concerns about these issues, an increasing number of 

PHAs have implemented “tenant integrity” strategies in some form. The goals of 

these programs generally are to: 

� reduce the likelihood that ineligible families are admitted to the program; 

� improve reporting of family composition, income, and assets; 

� eliminate landlord fraud and program abuse; and 

� address a variety of complaints about specific units or households. 

Typical elements of tenant integrity programs include: 

Improving the intake and reexamination process. The intake process is the 

PHA’s opportunity to start off on the right foot with applicant families, to get full 

and accurate information from the family, and to explain program rules in an 

unambiguous way. PHAs have enhanced the effectiveness of their intake 

process�and their process for annual participant recertifications�by improving 

employees’ interviewing skills, developing effective forms, and conducting 

thorough verifications. 

Improving scrutiny of participant information. A key element of any tenant 

integrity program is formalizing the PHA’s procedures for handling complaints 

and tips. Some PHAs have opened complaint hot lines that enable community 

members to pass on information about suspected program violations. Others 

have hired investigative staff to follow up on complaints. PHAs have found it 

helpful to develop forms to document complaints and obtain as much specific 

35 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

information as possible. Many PHAs also train staff on how to spot 

inconsistencies and questionable answers from tenants. 

Focusing on owner as well as participant compliance. PHAs should train 

owners as carefully as they train program participants, to ensure that they do not 

unintentionally violate program rules. Leasing and inspection staff should also 

be trained to recognize signs that there may be intentional fraudulent activity by 

owners. Pay particular attention to the potential for “side payments,” owners’ 

failure to pay for utilities for which they are responsible, presence of 

unauthorized tenants, and owner failure to report tenant move-outs. 

Expanding fact-finding capabilities. PHAs that have implemented tenant 

integrity programs have found that it is unwise to take action against tenants 

unless they have fully documented evidence of wrongdoing. Familiarize yourself 

with the laws in your state defining public information, and find out where public 

records are kept. Some examples of potentially useful public records are: 

marriage and divorce records; birth and death records; adoption and foster child 

records; judgments and bankruptcies; Uniform Commercial Code records of 

secured loans; voter registration records; and real estate and tax rolls. With a 

signed release, information can also be obtained from some private sources, such 

as financial institutions, utility companies, and educational institutions. Detailed 

information about information sources in the community is available in the HUD 

Tenant Integrity Program training guide (OIG (6) 3/92). 

Developing procedures for administrative action. When the PHA has 

compelling evidence that an applicant or participant family has given incomplete 

or inaccurate information, it has several remedies available under program 

regulations. These include counseling the family, issuing a written warning, 

denying or terminating housing assistance, arranging for voluntary repayment of 

overpayments made on behalf of the family, and taking the family to court. The 

PHA’s administrative plan should state unambiguously its policies regarding a 

family’s obligation to provide complete and accurate information, the penalties 

for non-compliance, and the process by which an applicant or participant can 

appeal the PHA’s decision to impose sanctions. 

Pursuing prosecutions. Local prosecutions for housing fraud are not common, 

but even one or two successful prosecutions can serve as a deterrent to other 

participants who can see that violators are being caught and punished. PHAs that 

uncover clear-cut instances of intentional fraud should discuss the procedures for 

obtaining local prosecutions with the local prosecutor, District Attorney, or 

36 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

State’s Attorney. PHAs are entitled to retain 50 percent of any repayment 

resulting from prosecutions and/or repayment agreements. 

The Privacy Dilemma 

One of the harder issues facing PHAs is how to respond to community 

complaints without violating the confidentiality of program applicants and 

participants. This problem arises when community residents or organizations 

identify problem properties in the community and request relief from the PHA. 

If the issue is the behavior of a particular family, the PHA may be asked to 

disclose whether the family is receiving HCVP, as well as other information 

about the family. When concentration is the issue, the PHA may be asked to 

provide the names or addresses of all HCVP recipients or landlords in a 

particular development or neighborhood. 

At many of the study sites, a common complaint was that PHA staff seemed 

uninterested in addressing the problems that were raised (and in fact, some 

PHAs admitted that they “hid behind” the privacy issue to avoid dealing with 

community concerns). At first glance, the competing interests of the community 

and the individual HCVP participant seem irreconcilable. However, many PHAs 

have discovered that this may not be the case. It is important to remember that 

the fundamental interest of the complaining party is to get the problem solved, 

not to find out personal details about a particular individual. This means that by 

demonstrating a genuine concern about a problem and taking action to correct 

problem situations, the PHA may well be able to diffuse community concerns 

and maintain privacy. 

State law may limit a PHA’s ability to respond to public inquiries. In many 

circumstances it is possible to provide the critical information needed to restore 

community confidence. However, PHAs must decide on a case-by-case basis 

what level of disclosure is appropriate, taking care to consider the recipient of the 

information. For example, sharing information about HCVP recipients with the 

police department or other service organizations is different from making the 

names of HCVP recipients generally known. Some PHAs have elected to 

identify HCVP units by address (though not family name) to homeowners’ 

associations or community groups. The New Jersey Department of Community 

Affairs took this step, after consulting with the State’s Attorney, and felt that it 

was effective in addressing community complaints about particular housing units 

and encouraging communication between neighbors and landlords. Other PHAs 

have attempted to be responsive by noting when the inquiries are about units that 

are not assisted under the HCVP. 

37 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Public Inquiries and Privacy Concerns: 

One PHA’s Approach 

A PHA receives a call complaining about the behavior of a family at a particular 

address. The PHA is asked: (1) whether the family receives HCVP assistance and 

(2) who is permitted to be living in the apartment. The PHA responds: “We’re 

sorry, but for privacy reasons we are not allowed to provide that kind of 

information.” 

This response, though technically accurate, neither acknowledges the 

complainant’s concerns nor suggests any possible hope of remedy. It certainly 

does nothing to help the community believe that the PHA is concerned about the 

community. 

A Better Response... 

Acknowledge the concern. Take down the address of the unit involved. Ask the 

caller to explain in detail what the problem is (e.g., noise or other nuisance 

behavior, housing condition). If inappropriate behavior appears to be a problem, 

acknowledge the caller’s frustration. Explain the relevant tenant and landlord 

obligations and the actions the PHA will take if those obligations are violated. 

Further explain that, although the PHA may not disclose information about a 

family to individual members of the public, the PHA will investigate the problem, 

and take the appropriate action. If there is an obvious next step that the caller 

should take (such as calling the police in the case of suspected drug activity) 

recommend it to the caller, but don’t use referrals as a way to “pass the buck.” 

38
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

What To Do After the Phone Call 

¤ Investigate the issue. 

should refer such calls to staff assigned to that activity. 

investigation can be time consuming, make a judgment call about how much 

investigation is appropriate. 

that suggest systemic problems. 

¤ Follow up with the caller. 

individual callers. When a significant volume of calls comes from a 

particular area or source, use meetings with community organizations to 

provide feedback on problem solving activities. 

publish statistics on the number of complaints received, how they were 

resolved, how many families or landlords have been terminated. 

where the object of the complaint is not an HCVP participant, the PHA may 

offer information and referrals on how to pursue the problem. Yes, these 

steps are time consuming, but PHAs who have invested time and energy to 

interact with the community have enhanced their credibility. 

¤ Develop systemic ways of dealing with the most common problems. 

Keep track of the nature of complaints and determine which are appropriate 

for a systemic solution. are frequent complaints about 

tenant behavior, training for landlords on their responsibilities and local 

eviction procedures would be appropriate. 

drug activity persist in a particular development or neighborhood, work with 

the local police department and community groups to address the problem. 

PHAs that have an active tenant integrity program 

Because 

Spend more time on serious issues and those 

Initially, it may be helpful to follow up with 

For example, the PHA can 

In cases 

For example, if there 

Similarly, if complaints about 

3.3 Assuring that HCVP Reflects Rather than Drives the 

Market 

One key challenge for PHAs is managing the HCVP so that program participants 

are able to compete for housing without negatively affecting the housing market. 

The major tools available to address these challenges are the rent reasonableness 

procedures and payment standard policies. 

39 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Reconsidering Rent Reasonableness 

Approving rents that are too high or too low can create problems. If approved 

rents are too high, HCVP participants may “outbid” unassisted renters, inflating 

area rents and contributing to an 

increase in the concentration of HCVP

RENT REASONABLENESS CHECK-UP 

U Have community residents expressed concerns 

about the rents paid for HCVP units? 

U Are you having difficulty convincing owners to 

upgrade their properties to meet local quality 

standards? 

U Are success rates for the program declining? 

U Have mobility efforts met with limited success? 

If so, it may be time to take a fresh look at the process 

you are using to determine rent reasonableness. 

participants. Also, when PHA rents are 

higher than market conditions warrant, 

there is no financial incentive for 

owners to improve properties beyond 

HQS. Conversely, if rents approved by 

the PHA are too low, owners may not 

be interested in participating in the 

program, or the range of units and 

neighborhoods to which families will 

have access may be severely limited. 

In several of the areas where 

community resistance surfaced, PHAs 

found it helpful to, or were required to, 

improve the processes by which they determined the reasonableness of proposed 

rents. A high-quality rent reasonableness process requires that the PHA: 

� Obtain timely and accurate data on a wide range of unassisted rents in 

the community. The PHA’s database should provide information on rents 

for standard units of various sizes, types, locations, age, and condition, and 

on the utilities, maintenance, services and amenities provided by the owners. 

Sources for the data required include classified advertisements and apartment 

rental newsletters, owner and manager surveys, licensing and rent control 

agencies, and professional market survey firms. 

� Get the geography right, using nearby units in the same neighborhood as 

comparables. The collected data should be organized by market areas, 

consistent with the variation in housing costs among identifiable sub-areas 

within the jurisdiction. The PHA should make sure to gather enough data to 

allow good coverage of different neighborhoods. 

� Organize the data into a system that is usable and used by program staff 

to reliably determine reasonable rents for proposed units. The system 

should allow staff to compare units of the same size and type, and provide 

enough information about the comparison units that staff can make 

40 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

reasonable adjustments for unit quality and amenities�supporting the

payment of higher rents for units in above-average condition and lower rents

for units in marginal condition. Comparison should be made between gross

rents�the total cost of the housing “package,”

including utilities. For comparison units with one

or more tenant-paid utilities, the PHA must 

determine the type of utilities the tenant must pay 

and calculate the utility cost using its utility 

allowance schedule. PHA staff should be trained 

to handle the subjective aspects of rent 

determinations, such as making adjustments for 

relative condition and differences in amenities. 

� Communicate effectively with the public about rent determination 

KHistorically, rent reasonableness 

has been a weakness for many 

PHAs. 

procedures need improvement and 

whether an investment in training for 

your staff, landlords, and perhaps 

key community leaders would reduce 

controversy in this area. 

Consider whether your 

requirements and methodology. Despite the best efforts of PHAs to 

determine and approve reasonable rents, homeowners in many areas still 

complain that program rents in their neighborhoods are excessive. In many 

instances, they are found to be comparing today’s rents with their payments 

on housing purchased years earlier. If the PHA can provide good 

information about current rents in a variety of neighborhoods, and discuss 

similarities and differences between neighborhoods and building types that 

affect rents, residents are more likely to accept the PHA’s valuation of rental 

units in their neighborhoods. 

Setting Payment Standards that Work 

The levels at which PHA payment standards are set also exert a powerful 

influence on where program participants choose to live. If you are facing 

community concerns about concentrations of assisted housing, consider whether 

you are making the best use of your authority to set payment standards. This 

would be a good time to map the current use of HCVP in your community and to 

evaluate how many additional neighborhoods could be made accessible to 

program participants by increasing payment standards to the highest level 

permitted under the PHA’s authority. Then consider whether additional 

neighborhoods could be accessed through the use of HUD Field Office and 

Headquarters discretionary authority for permitting “exception rents.” Let 

voucher holders know that their vouchers are worth more in some neighborhoods 

than others. 

Some PHAs resist implementing higher payment standards because they fear this 

will encourage owners to charge higher rents. That concern should be addressed 

41 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

through the rent reasonableness process, not by keeping payment standards 

artificially low. If rents vary widely by neighborhood, consider the use of 

separate payment standards within the basic range for designated parts of your 

jurisdiction. 

Remember also that skimping on payment standards no longer enables a housing 

authority to assist more families, because renewal funding now is based solely on 

the number of units originally allocated and on actual per-unit costs for housing 

assistance payments in the preceding year. 

3.4 Enforcing Housing Quality Standards 

A PHA’s failure to ensure that program units are maintained in compliance with 

neighborhood standards is probably the biggest single complaint that 

communities have about the HCVP. A number of common weaknesses in HQS 

enforcement procedures have been identified, including failure to follow up when 

complaints are received and excessively liberal policies regarding extensions for 

the correction of HQS deficiencies. 

Before considering changes to PHA standards or inspection procedures, it would 

be wise to confirm the nature of the community’s concern. Complaints that units 

are in poor and unsafe condition are the most serious, but these seem less likely 

to be the focus of community (as opposed to tenant) complaints. More often, the 

need for improvement rests with performance�the time lapsed between 

inspection and re-inspection of deficient properties, the number of extensions 

approved, the number of units on abate status (and how long they remain before 

the repairs are made or the unit is terminated), and sanctions imposed on owners 

and tenants who have failed to comply. 

It is important to develop clear guidelines for addressing community complaints 

related to HQS that can be circulated among PHA staff and the broader public. 

In San Antonio, for example, where HQS-related complaints played a major role 

in the HCVP controversy, the housing authority restructured its inspection 

procedures to emphasize follow-through and closure. Typically, when the 

agency receives a complaint about the condition of an HCVP unit, the inspector 

assigned to that neighborhood inspects the unit the next day. If the complaint is 

valid, the inspector follows up immediately with a written notice to the landlord 

and, if appropriate, to the tenant. 

42 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

One of the more challenging community concerns to address is the perception 

that agency standards do not meet community expectations and norms. A 

number of strategies may be employed when the bare-bones HUD housing quality 

standards fall short of the local community’s desires. The PHA can consider 

expanding HQS to include items of particular concern to the community, if this step 

does not have the effect of seriously limiting the availability of housing for voucher 

holders. For example, the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority 

adopted the maintenance section of the Building Officials and Code 

Administrators (BOCA) code as the housing quality standard for its HCVP. 

Alternatively, some PHAs incorporate localized standards informally, by way of 

recommendations to the owner through “Pass with Comment” remarks, or by 

coupling the discussion of desirable upgrades with the discussion of allowable rents. 

A PHA that has adopted adequate payment standards and a rigorous rent 

reasonableness process will be able to back up appeals for conscientious property 

management with financial incentives to owners who agree to make 

desirable�albeit voluntary�improvements. 

Terminating a HAP contract for a violation of HQS may force the family to 

locate other housing. However, most PHAs agree that the costs of poor property 

management in a vulnerable neighborhood outweigh the benefit of keeping the 

unit under contract. 

A number of PHAs have enlisted the support of their tenants in maintaining 

program units in good condition. These PHAs have upgraded the portion of their 

applicant briefing that deals with housing quality standards so that families with 

vouchers will know what to look for initially and will also be aware of their 

responsibility to report maintenance needs to the owner and, if necessary, to the 

PHA. They stress the families’ responsibility for housekeeping and maintenance 

of exterior areas and warn families that they will lose their assistance if their 

HAP contract is terminated for a breach of HQS caused by family members or 

guests. A few agencies have also developed formal training programs that focus 

on being a good tenant and neighbor. 

3.5 The Double-Edged Sword: Concerns about 

Concentrations of Assisted Housing and Mobility 

Initiatives 

Ironically, the existence of concentrations of assisted housing and PHA mobility 

initiatives to reduce those concentrations often generate controversies in the same 

43 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

locality. The solution to a problem in neighborhood “A” is perceived as the 

beginning of a problem in neighborhood “B.” In Chapter 2, we discussed the 

process by which a PHA can track community trends and anticipate where 

concentrations of assisted families are likely to develop. The same analyses can 

assist a PHA to identify neighborhoods that represent better opportunities for 

families receiving HCVP assistance to live outside areas of concentration. But 

what should a PHA do then? 

Since the inception of the HCVP, the notion of “finders keepers”�the right of 

program participants to use their assistance anywhere they can find a willing 

landlord�has been a distinguishing feature of the program and one that is 

popular among families seeking assisted housing. But, if families in the program 

make their own decisions about where they will live, how can the PHA avoid the 

voluntary concentration of families in certain areas? How can it respond to 

communities that have experienced a concentration of assisted families? And, 

how can it encourage families to seek potentially better housing opportunities in 

less familiar neighborhoods? 

Addressing Concerns about Concentrations of Assisted Housing. 

Many PHAs believe that concentrations of assisted housing “just happen.” After 

all, families are free to choose where to live, and PHAs have little control over 

the outcomes of a family’s search. But voucher holders report that their choices 

are often significantly constrained by forces beyond their control and that their 

decisions are driven less by choice than by necessity. Community groups often 

attribute concentrations of assisted housing to formal PHA policy or to less 

formal “steering” by the agency. 

The HCVP Community Relations study suggests a three-part strategy for dealing 

with community concerns about concentrations of assisted housing. 

First, acknowledge and assess the validity of community concerns. In many 

of the study sites, community residents expressed support for the goals of 

affordable housing programs even while expressing concerns about the 

concentrations of assisted housing in their neighborhoods. It would be easy (and 

undoubtedly accurate in some localities) to attribute this disparity between 

general support and specific opposition to the NIMBY (not in my back yard) 

syndrome or to racial bias. However, it would be irresponsible to dismiss the 

concerns without taking a deeper look. Concentrations of assisted housing do 

have the potential to affect the character of a neighborhood, especially in the 

absence of a strong PHA compliance focus. Concentrations in declining 

44 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

neighborhoods may also be a sign that participants have not had meaningful 

opportunities in other neighborhoods. 

Start by researching thoroughly the amount and 

type of assisted housing that exists in the area. 

The myriad federal and state housing programs 

that sometimes overwhelm even those 

individuals who work with them on a daily basis 

can be mind-boggling to the ordinary citizen. 

The community profile described in Chapter 2, 

completed on a neighborhood basis, would be 

an effective tool for starting the dialogue with 

community representatives�and it might 

provide some surprising information. For 

example, it is not unusual to discover that 

K When the Fairfax County housing 

authority first encountered resistance to 

HCVP, 

intensity of the concern, given that 

vouchers and certificates represented a 

relatively low proportion of the units in 

the 

developed an inventory of all of their 

programs, 

housing 

percentage of the rental units in several 

key census tracts. 

they were surprised at the 

neighborhood. But when they 

they found that assisted 

represented a very high 

“voucher units” that are the focus of concern are actually public housing or 

privately owned project-based developments. 

Acknowledging concentrations where they do exist, as well as the stress that such 

concentrations may place on the community, is important. PHAs that have done 

so have discovered that this step can enhance the PHA’s credibility�and perhaps 

make it possible to engage the community’s energies in problem-solving 

activities rather than resistance. 

Second, look for and address the problems that made concentration an issue.

Looking for the issues “behind” the complaint can enable a PHA to take action to 

relieve tensions in the short term while economic development and long-term 

mobility initiatives work to lessen the concentrations. For example, if HCVP units 

are poorly maintained, even a few HCVP families in a neighborhood may feel like 

too many. In such a situation, reducing the number of assisted units in the area is 

probably less of a concern than improving the PHA’s enforcement of HQS. 

Similarly, if the concern is families whose behavior is inconsistent with 

neighborhood norms, explain the actions the owner and PHA can take (and more 

importantly are taking) to resolve non-compliance and behavioral problems. 

Frequently, the behavioral issues that are raised may not reach the level of lease 

non-compliance. Many fall in a lesser “nuisance” category, such as loud music 

at night, people hanging out in the street, or children cutting through others’ 

yards. For these circumstances, consider working with a community or 

homeowners’ association to provide positive guidance to neighborhood 

newcomers. 

45 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

If a large number of new families, particularly families that differ visibly from 

the area’s long-term residents, are moving into an area with HCVP assistance, 

residents may conclude that the program is precipitating changes in the 

neighborhood, whether the families are causing problems or not. Some 

neighborhoods have developed elaborate formulations of the community’s “fair 

share” of low-income or HCVP families and argue that there are too many HCVP 

families if that number is exceeded. An appropriate response may be to increase 

ongoing communication with community representatives, including a discussion 

of the notion of housing choice, coupled with some good information on actions 

the PHA is taking to expand the choices available to program participants. 

Third, make a commitment to providing mobility opportunities for HCVP

participants. Families admitted to the HCVP are, for the most part, the families 

with the lowest incomes in the community. Left to their own devices, most of 

these families will use their assistance to lease units in neighborhoods that are 

familiar to them�generally neighborhoods with high concentrations of families 

like themselves. A PHA can help families to consider other neighborhoods if it 

is willing to: 

� Provide families with information about various neighborhoods�particularly 

“opportunity” neighborhoods with low concentrations of poor and minority 

families in and near the PHA’s jurisdiction. For example, the Fairfax County 

Redevelopment and Housing Authority has produced a brochure for new 

program participants that highlights the employment opportunities, 

transportation services, housing, and community amenities that are available 

in five distinct areas of the county. 

� Conduct outreach to ensure a sufficient pool of landlords in “opportunity” 

neighborhoods. Make sure that these landlords know that the PHA will be 

available if there is a problem. 

� Set payment standards at levels that help families to afford housing in 

neighborhoods throughout the jurisdiction. 

� Approve higher rents for units in better neighborhoods. 

� Help families make connections with agencies and organizations that will 

provide short- and long-term assistance in unfamiliar neighborhoods. Be 

prepared to provide staff support to families making mobility moves. 

46 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

� Work continuously to educate all HCVP participants about housing, 

employment, and educational opportunities in non-traditional areas. 

Implementing Mobility Initiatives 

As more HCVP families are successful in moving to non-traditional 

neighborhoods, the potential for controversy grows. Strategies for preventing 

and resolving controversies related to mobility moves are similar to those dealing 

with concentration because the underlying fears and prejudices are the same. 

Here are some strategies for implementing a successful mobility program: 

Acknowledge the valid concerns of landlords, prospective movers, and

neighborhood residents. Fear of the unknown is a common reaction. 

Encouraging families to consider new areas and attracting new landlords into the 

program are two very challenging tasks. Providing support and assurance to the 

community is another basic element of a success mobility strategy. While racial 

and ethnic prejudices should not and cannot be tolerated, the stress caused by 

contrasts in expectations and cultural norms can be acknowledged and addressed. 

For example, community representatives at several study sites explained that 

people who—under other circumstances�would have tried to deal personally 

with a problem, such as the behavior of a neighbor’s child, felt at a loss about 

how to do so when the neighbor spoke a different language or was of a different 

race. Miscommunications related to cultural norms were also identified. 

Acknowledging these tensions can make it possible to take constructive action. 

In Lynn, Massachusetts, for example, neighborhood fairs, diversity training, and 

tenant/landlord and tenant/tenant mediation services all work to enhance the 

success of the very diverse neighborhoods in that city. 

Work toward long-term mobility solutions. It is important to recognize that 

mobility for most families is a long-term process. It doesn’t happen overnight. 

Several housing authorities have observed that families relocating from public 

housing (and presumably other families as well) often achieve mobility in stages. 

By tracking the moves of families over time, PHAs have found that each move 

tends to take the families to progressively better neighborhoods, with lower 

concentrations of low-income families. This observation suggests that providing 

mobility information to participant families on an ongoing basis may be as 

important, if not more important, than providing the same information to families 

being admitted to HCVP for the first time. 

47 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

The scarcity of affordable units in more affluent urban and suburban communities is 

one of the most obvious reasons for the concentration of HCVP families in areas 

with higher concentrations of poor families. Despite the best efforts of the PHA to 

set payment standards that will allow participant families access to all parts of their 

jurisdiction, some areas remain out of reach because of a shortage of rental housing 

or because the existing rental housing is simply too expensive. It makes sense, then, 

for PHAs that are serious about reducing concentrations of assisted families to work 

with other agencies and organizations around the expansion of affordable and 

assisted housing in these areas. 

The most obvious means of increasing housing opportunities is the use of projectbased voucher assistance to support the development of affordable units in areas 

with low concentrations of poor families. The commitment of project-based rents 

alone is not generally adequate to support new construction or substantial 

rehabilitation of units in these areas. Nevertheless, project-based vouchers in 

combination with funding from other sources (tax credit units, HOME units, and 

others) can provide a deep subsidy�based on the family’s income�for the 

lowest-income families, allowing them to occupy newly built or rehabilitated 

below-market rental housing in significantly better neighborhoods. PHAs may 

also wish to consider the use of their bond-issuing capacity to generate revenue for 

the development of affordable housing in non-concentrated areas. 

PHAs should also take advantage of every opportunity to work with other PHAs 

in surrounding areas to identify and inform program participants about housing 

opportunities across, and beyond, metropolitan areas. PHAs should also ensure 

that procedures are in place to make the transition from one jurisdiction to 

another as simple as possible. 

48 
Chapter 3: Quality Program Administration Makes a Difference! 

Checklist 3: Promoting Quality Program Administration 

Focusing on Prevention 

� Screen tenants for past behavior. 

� Criminal background checks provide multiple benefits. 

� Encourage and train landlords to screen prospective tenants effectively. 

Improving Program Compliance 

� Consider developing a Tenant Integrity Program . 

� Sharpen your rent reasonableness procedures and set payment standards that work. 

� Enforce Housing Quality Standards. 

Address Concerns about Concentrations of Assisted Housing 

� Acknowledge and assess the validity of community concerns. 

� Look for and address the problems that made concentration an issue. 

� Make a commitment to providing mobility opportunities for HCVP participants. 

49
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

50
Chapter Four

Engaging Productively with Your

Community

While an awareness of community dynamics and careful program administration 

may have a major bearing on community acceptance of the HCVP, they may not be 

enough to ensure good community relations. This is true both for PHAs who are 

facing outright community opposition and for those who have identified a potential 

conflict and wish to head off problems before they escalate. In order to restore or 

simply to maintain the community’s trust, PHAs must also be prepared to increase 

both the quality and quantity of communication with program participants and 

stakeholders and to take on non-traditional, problem-solving roles in the 

community. 

The amount of time needed to deal with community concerns can be burdensome 

for PHA staff. However, avoiding dealing with conflicts does not appear to be an 

alternative. The Community Relations study found that: 

� Controversy around the HCVP rarely improves (and often deteriorates) 

when nothing is done. PHAs adopting an “ignore it and it will go away” 

strategy will not succeed in the long run. 

� Denying the legitimacy of community concerns—with facts or 

otherwise—rarely makes them disappear. The PHAs in the study found 

that the problems did not go away by telling community residents that it 

wasn’t true or wasn’t as bad as the residents thought. Instead, PHAs that 

were committed to resolving community conflict generally had to 

acknowledge local concerns and try to address them. 

� If a PHA does not “take ownership” of an issue, someone else will. In 

most instances, concerns about the HCVP come first to housing authority 

officials. If they are unwilling or unable to respond, the community will take 

their concerns elsewhere—often to elected officials and, in some cases, to the 

courts. When this happens, the PHA may lose control of the issue�and 

ultimately its program. 

Taking ownership means several things. First and foremost, taking ownership 

means holding on to the proverbial “hot potato” and seeking the best possible 

result for all parties, rather than an expedient ending to the conflict. It requires 

PHA staff to maintain a perspective that is community- rather than agency-based 

51 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

and a proactive, rather than reactive, approach. This chapter offers a number of 

strategies for improving problem solving skills and illustrates the practices of 

PHAs that have taken ownership and successfully resolved community 

controversies. 

4.1 From Talk to Effective Communication 

PHAs who have successfully addressed community resistance to the HCVP have 

discovered the necessity of improving the nature and the quality of their 

communications with key community stakeholders as well as the general public. 

Although some of these agencies were forced into the spotlight, once there they 

have recognized the necessity and value of increased communications with the 

public. 

An updated communications strategy for the HCVP in these new times requires 

that HCVP administrators: 

� Accept that the workings of the HCVP are a legitimate area of community 

interest and concern. 

� Avoid assuming that the relationship between the HCVP and the 

community will always be adversarial. 

� Reject the notion that the privacy rights of program participants prevent 

the PHA from talking candidly and productively with the community about 

problems. 

In the long run, a PHA doesn’t have to choose between protecting the interests of 

the HCVP and program participants and the well being of the community 

because the goals of each are quite similar—good quality housing, located in 

viable neighborhoods, occupied by good neighbors. PHAs that have taken 

community objections seriously have found room for improvement in their 

programs. When these weaknesses were addressed, not only was resistance to 

HCVP significantly reduced, but service to the program’s clients and customers 

were enhanced as well. 

Identify the Issues Behind the Issues 

The first step to understanding why community engagement makes sense—despite 

the hard work it entails—is understanding that most HCVP community conflicts are 

52 
Chapter Four: Engaging Productively with Your Community 

not simply about people being unwilling to tolerate newcomers to the neighborhood 

or those who resist the concept of housing subsidies. Rather, they reflect much 

deeper anxieties about control over resources and community values. Recognizing 

the “issues behind the issues” helps to put community concerns in perspective and to 

suggest the most effective strategies for resolving them. 

Most community conflicts over the HCVP are, at heart, conflicts over the 

control of resources. Opposition to HCVP often arises in places that are perceived 

to be in decline. When the danger of loss seems immediate or there is a 

perception that a true shortage of resources exists, conflicts may become 

particularly intense and difficult to resolve. For example, in Fairfax County 

(VA), the perception that a relative decline in school test scores in certain 

districts was hurting property values made it seem to people in those districts that 

the county could not afford to provide housing assistance to additional lowincome families. This view prevailed temporarily when the Board of Supervisors 

rejected the housing authority’s request to apply for additional family HCVP 

units. But this denial spurred additional controversy, initiated by low-income 

housing advocates who objected to action by the county to limit the amount of 

HCVP assistance when there was a clear need for affordable housing. 

Many HCVP conflicts are also about conflicting values. Values conflicts 

relate to ideas of fairness and equity�what “should” be. When a “live and let 

live” approach is possible, people or institutions with differing values can coexist without conflict. However, if the value-holders or circumstances operate to 

force one set of views or values on others who do not hold them, conflict is the 

result. Conflicts that involve values may be particularly difficult to resolve, 

because the parties to the conflict often see the situation in terms of “right and 

wrong,” “good and bad,” or “should or should not.” 

A value held by some communities is that HCVP households should be 

distributed equally across the PHA’s jurisdiction, with each part of the 

jurisdiction housing its “fair share.” This idea flies directly in the face of the 

PHAs’ strongly held value—that HCVP participants should be free to look for 

housing wherever they choose. This philosophical conflict can make HCVP 

controversy especially difficult to resolve, particularly in places where the PHA 

has a difficult time encouraging tenant mobility or where the PHA’s view of 

“over-concentration” differs significantly from that of the community. 

53 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Accept the Need to Deal with Perceptions as well as Facts 

At each of the study sites, claims such as “HCVP is responsible for the increase 

in crime” and “the influx of HCVP tenants is ruining our neighborhoods” were 

made on the basis of strongly held beliefs, but on sometimes limited hard data. 

In the absence of facts (and sometimes despite the availability of facts), 

perceptions take on the weight of reality during a conflict situation. 

It might be expected that sharing accurate information could easily clear up these 

kinds of conflicts. Sometimes this is true. In Montgomery County (PA), at the 

start of the HCVP controversy there was a strong perception that HCVP-assisted 

households generated a significant number of police calls. When the true figure 

was found to be much lower, and roughly in line with the proportion of the 

population receiving HCVP assistance, crime was no longer an issue in the 

conflict. 

At the same time, despite the old saying “seeing is believing,” parties often “see 

what they believe” in spite of the facts presented. This is particularly true in 

cases where disagreement Strategies for Addressing False Perceptions 

¤ Bring the facts to the table. 

¤ Investigate the bigger issues underlying the 

perceptions. 

¤ Think creatively about how underlying issues 

can be addressed. 

over “the facts” is a 

symptom of a deeper conflict 

over values. In Cook County 

(IL), for example, the PHA 

shared information with the 

community about the 

growing concentration of 

HCVP households in some 

localities, but attempted to ease their concerns by pointing out that most families 

were already living in the area when they received an HCVP voucher. The 

opponents of HCVP, however, were really concerned with limiting the 

concentration of HCVP households overall, and did not find the housing 

authority’s explanation compelling. 

Modifying perceptions can be a tedious, but necessary process. Two strategies appear 

to be effective in dealing with issues of perception. First, the PHA can provide the 

important service of bringing facts to the table. This means of course that a 

significant amount of “homework” may be necessary both to collect the needed 

information and to provide it in a meaningful way to all parties. A number of 

PHAs in the study acknowledged a resistance to sharing information�for fear of 

violating privacy rules or of further fueling the controversy. In the long run, 

sharing information is likely to be an essential ingredient to the resolution 

54 
Chapter Four: Engaging Productively with Your Community 

process. The exhibit on the following page uses a fictitious example to illustrate 

a technique used by some PHAs to put the basic facts on the table. 

A second strategy that is helpful (especially when fact-finding has reached its 

limit or has been reduced to a process of “dueling statistics”), is to engage in an 

investigation of why it is so important to the parties to hold on to their 

perceptions and determine whether the concern can be addressed from another 

angle. The answer may be a simple one. For example, a homeowners’ 

association, concerned with diminishing property values, might suggest limiting 

the influx of HCVP families. However, there may be other solutions to the root 

problem that offer a better answer than attempting immediately to change 

perceptions. For example, low interest loans may be available to assist 

homeowners to upgrade properties that are now undervalued in the market place. 

55 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

An Example of How Factual Responses 

Can Be Used to Change Perceptions 

All people receiving 

housing assistance 

are on welfare! 

Perception 

Only 54 percent of our community’s 

subsidized families receive public 

assistance. 

families assisted by our HCVP have 

employment income and 20 percent 

are enrolled in job training or selfsufficiency programs. 

PHA Response 

More than 80 percent of the 

families participating in the HCVP 

have lived in the community for at 

least three years. 

PHA Response 

HCVP recipients pay at least 30 

percent of their adjusted income 

for rent and utilities. 

families in our program are 

currently paying 34 percent of 

adjusted income for housing costs. 

PHA Response 

The HCVP is 

bringing large 

numbers of 

outsiders to our 

community! 

Perception 

HCVP families live 

free while the rest of 

us pay for our 

housing! 

Perception 

Over 40 percent of the 

On average, 

56
Chapter Four: Engaging Productively with Your Community 

4.2 Moving from Effective Communication to Collaboration 

and Problem Solving 

Address Nuisance Concerns to Facilitate Consensus on the Big 

Picture 

Most HCVP conflicts begin with complaints about HCVP landlords or tenants 

disturbing the peace or not keeping their homes up to neighborhood standards. 

These kinds of “nuisance” concerns are often prominent at the start of the 

conflict, galvanizing neighborhoods against HCVP. As the conflict escalates, 

however, nuisance issues tend to give way to more fundamental conflicts over 

values and resources. The first step to managing the conflict should include 

addressing the nuisance concerns. Even small improvements can enhance the 

credibility of the housing authority as a problem solver and, at a minimum, “buy 

time” for dealing with the larger issues. 

Why the Big Picture is Important 

Ultimately, in order to reach a long-term solution, PHAs must also work to obtain 

consensus with the community on “big picture” issues of resource allocation and 

community goals. Issues of concern to the community are rarely one-dimensional 

and the solutions to those problems seldom rest within the power of a single 

individual or agency. Most PHAs are well aware of the steps that must be taken to 

assure program compliance and take prompt action to resolve problems at that level. 

However, increasingly PHA staff are beginning to understand the difference between 

program compliance and true problem solving. 

For example, a neighbor may complain that an HCVP unit is an eyesore. Upon 

investigation, some improvements need to be made by a landlord with limited 

resources who is reluctant to make additional investments in the property given 

the condition of other properties in the neighborhood. Other aspects of the 

problem are the result of poor housekeeping practices of the family or the 

behavior of family visitors, and still others the result of vandalism or littering 

caused by passersby. The short-range obligation of the housing authority is clear. 

If the unit fails HQS, either the tenant or the owner (or both) can be cited and the 

HAP contract terminated if the unit does not quickly come into compliance. 

In another common situation, a family faces eviction from the unit and 

termination from the program because of drug abuse by a family member. Once 

again, the obligations of each party are clear. The family, if it wishes to maintain 

57 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

HCVP, must remove the offending family member from the household. If this 

does not happen, the owner and the PHA are not only well within their rights, but 

obliged to take corrective action. 

Assuring program compliance outside a larger problem-solving context can lead 

to a churning of problem families and landlords within the program and the 

community without any actual improvement being made. A landlord without 

sufficient resources or incentive to improve a property may sell the unit to 

another owner who becomes a non-compliant HCVP landlord or, at worst, may 

“walk away” from the building, creating a hazardous vacant unit in the 

neighborhood. Similarly, a drug abusing family member banished from one unit 

may become an unauthorized tenant in another unit. 

In yet another situation, a community group complains about conditions at a 

particular HCVP address. Upon investigation, the PHA determines that the unit 

is not subsidized under their HCVP. Perhaps the occupants receive subsidy under 

another HCVP or a rental subsidy administered through the HOME program. 

The PHA reports back to the community group that the unit is not an HCVP unit. 

Compliance achieved? Yes. Problem solved? No! The community’s opinion of 

or confidence in the housing authority enhanced? Probably not. 

In the course of the HCVP Community Relations study, we identified a number of 

situations similar to those described here. In every case, the housing authority first 

responded by treating the initial complaint as a program compliance issue. In most 

cases, this response could not completely solve the community’s concern. The more 

effective agencies recognized the need to reach out to other agencies in order to 

address the problems comprehensively. Some examples are noted below. 

Harness local resources. In Lynn, Massachusetts, the housing authority became 

the recipient of numerous complaints about conditions of properties that were 

presumed to be occupied by HCVP households. At one point the executive 

director invited city council representatives to take an evening tour and to point 

out the ten most troublesome addresses in the city. As it turned out, none of the 

properties identified were HCVP units. Although this was a moment of 

education for the city council and relief for the housing authority, it was not the 

end of the discussion. The community continued to look to the housing authority 

for answers. 

Part of the housing authority’s response was to provide leadership for and participate 

in a citywide Neighborhood Intervention Program to focus community attention and 

resources on the most blighted buildings and problem neighborhoods. Under this 

58 
Chapter Four: Engaging Productively with Your Community 

initiative, when a problem property is identified, a task force consisting of 

representatives of the city police, fire, inspections, codes and health departments as 

well as the housing authority descends on the property as a team to work with the 

property owner. The resulting intervention need not be punitive. Resources might 

be identified to assist a property owner to correct physical deficiencies or to improve 

property management. Community services could be offered to occupants with 

problems. Whenever possible, ongoing revitalization activities are coordinated with 

these interventions. For example, if the owner of a problem property receives funds 

to improve the property, similar funding may be offered to other property owners in 

the same block to reinforce the impact of the investments. However, if the party is 

unwilling to take corrective action, the full force of the city’s enforcement powers 

can be brought to the problem. 

Improve Relationships with the Police Department. The housing authority in 

Montgomery County (PA) was successful in developing a positive relationship 

with local police following complaints that HCVP residents were largely 

responsible for an increase in crime in the borough of Norristown. The housing 

authority first implemented a process for cross-referencing HCVP addresses with 

police department records to identify instances of criminal behavior or 

unauthorized occupants. This has sometimes led to terminations of assistance. 

In other cases, it has led to a warning. 

The housing authority in Fairfax County implemented a similar process. In addition, 

during the course of the controversy around the Route 1 corridor, the police 

department converted to a community policing model that was viewed by many as 

helping to relieve tensions. Community policing brought bicycle patrols to the Route 

1 Corridor and a designated police contact for each homeowners’ association. 

Complaints about crime and HCVP tenant behaviors diminished considerably. 

In Syracuse, the HCVP conflict dragged on for several years as neighbors tried 

unsuccessfully to have HCVP residents removed for disruptive, sometimes 

criminal behavior. Countless police incidents and several arrests over a three 

year period ultimately led the police to declare one duplex a nuisance property 

and subject to confiscation by the City. This step effectively ended the 

controversy and potentially could have done so sooner had the residents and 

housing authority been able to engage the police in problem-solving early on. 

59 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Partnerships that Focus on and Garner Resources for Community 

Problems. 

No single agency or organization alone can address the myriad problems that exist in 

urban communities today. But, it is clear that progress can be made on seemingly 

intractable issues when priorities are established and resources are focused. 

Collaborative efforts are the key to making progress on those issues that so directly 

affect a community’s acceptance of HCVP, yet remain so much larger than can be 

dealt with by the resources a housing agency can provide on its own. 

An example of this kind of collaboration is illustrated by the City of Lynn’s 

Reclaim Our City (ROC) initiative. This initiative began with a grant that 

focused specifically on substance abuse prevention. The three-part strategy for 

this grant (neighborhood organizing, coordination of agencies to enhance service 

delivery, and public education) set in motion a partnership that brought 

government and community agencies to a new level of cooperation. 

The grant generated resources for a wide variety of new activities that reached into 

virtually every neighborhood. Services included a variety of programs for youth 

such as: recreation, tutoring, and multicultural awareness programs; neighborhood 

anti-crime initiatives to support community policing activities; community 

development projects such as neighborhood clean-ups, safety programs, and 

tenant-landlord relations training; and outreach activities that included citizenship 

classes and diversity training. More important than any of these individual 

initiatives or events, ROC provided a model for collaboration that soon became a 

way of doing business in Lynn. Organizations became more knowledgeable about 

each other’s programs and ultimately more adept at combining resources to solve 

community problems. Lynn Housing Authority has been instrumental in assisting 

other city departments and organizations to obtain funding. 

4.3 A Changing Role for Changing Times 

The successful practices identified in this Guidebook suggest a new role for 

HCVP administrators, one that is unquestionably challenging and filled with both 

uncertainty and opportunity. The overall lesson from the HCVP Community 

Relations study is that although there is no “magic bullet” strategy that will 

quickly resolve citizen concerns, there is much that PHAs can do. As this 

Guidebook has suggested, improving the image and acceptance of HCVP in your 

community requires a long term effort that involves developing a greater 

understanding of local housing markets, reassessing current administrative 

60 
Chapter Four: Engaging Productively with Your Community 

practices, and collaborating with other stakeholders to resolve community-wide 

problems. Most importantly, the leadership and creativity already displayed by 

many PHAs demonstrate that success is possible. 

61 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Checklist 4: Engaging Productively with Your Community 

Communicating Effectively 

� Identify the Issues behind the Issues. Do you understand the underlying 

community concerns that may have prompted opposition to the HCVP? 

� Deal with Perceptions as well as Facts. Have you done your homework and 

brought all of the facts to the table? 

prepared to suggest solutions to address community concerns? 

Collaborating and Problem Solving 

� Address Nuisance Concerns. Are you prepared to make program improvements 

to address nuisance concerns? 

credibility as a problem solver in the community. 

� Improve Relationships with Local Police. What is your relationship with the 

local police department? 

HCVP tenants? 

improve HCVP administration and improve community relations? 

� Develop Partnerships and Garner Resources. Are you working with other 

organizations to address community-wide problems? 

agency bring to the table? 

If presenting the facts isn’t enough, are you 

Even small improvements can enhance your 

Do you currently share information about problem 

How can you increase coordination with local police in order to 

What resources can your 

62
Appendix A

Study Site Summaries

Presented below is a brief description of each of the eight communities studied 

and the conflict that they experienced over the HCVP. Information on the 

research methodology used to study these communities, as well as on the 

communities themselves, is presented in the 2001 Final Report of the original 

HUD study, entitled Strategies That Enhance Community Relations in TenantBased Section 8 Programs, copies of which are available from HUD USER (see 

www.huduser.org). 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Patterson Park is an historic neighborhood in southeast Baltimore. Over the past

thirty years, the profile of Patterson Park residents has experienced dramatic

shifts in race, age, income, and homeownership. Once a thriving immigrant

community, Patterson Park lost population through the 1970s and 1980s as

elderly residents died and the

younger generation opted to � HABC administers approx. 11,000 

HCVP vouchers in Baltimore City. 

� The controversy centered on the 

Patterson Park neighborhood, pop. 

32,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were poor 

upkeep of rental units, unresponsive 

landlords, and disruptive tenant 

behavior. 

leave the neighborhood. In the 

late 1980s, absentee landlords 

and investment companies 

moved aggressively into 

Patterson Park’s rental market 

to provide cheap rentals to a 

new generation of low-income 

residents, many of them HCVP 

participants. In the 1990s, vacancy rates, drug trafficking, and crime worsened, 

and community leaders attributed these problems, in part, to the HCVP. 

Patterson Park’s neighborhood associations began to raise complaints about 

negative tenant behavior, unresponsive landlords, and poor HCVP administration 

in the early 1990s. Neighborhood leaders met with the Housing Authority of 

Baltimore City (HABC) to discuss their concerns, and ultimately engaged a 

citywide effort to address the problems they attributed to the HCVP. HUD was 

alerted to the situation and conducted a review of HABC’s administration of the 

HCVP in 1996. While some changes resulted from this review, community 

groups remain concerned about an over-concentration of HCVP residents in 

Patterson Park. 

63 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Camden County, New Jersey 

Camden County is a largely urban county in southern New Jersey. The focus of 

the HCVP conflict was a suburban community of housing developments first 

developed in the 1970s. The community is similar to the rest of the suburban 

county in terms of wealth and income growth, but is racially more diverse. 

The HCVP controversy arose in 1999 in an � New Jersey DCA administers approx. 

18,000 HCVP vouchers statewide. 

� The controversy centered on the 

Avandale community, pop. 19,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were the 

poor curb appeal of rental properties 

believed to be HCVP, as well as 

disruptive tenant behavior. 

older development made up of a mix of 

single-family homes and rented duplexes. 

Many of the duplexes were owned by 

absentee landlords and were in worse shape 

than the single-family homes. The 

homeowners’ association complained about 

the condition of the duplexes and their impact 

on property values. They believed that the landlords and tenants participating in 

the program were those responsible for the problem properties. At the time of 

the conflict, 17 families in the development were receiving HCVP assistance 

through the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Division of Housing 

and Community Resources (DCA), the agency that administers the HCVP 

statewide. 

South Suburban Cook County, Illinois 

Forty municipalities make up the southern suburbs of Chicago, also known as

south suburban Cook County. These municipalities vary greatly in income,

educational attainment, homeownership, and racial composition. Racial

transformations evident in many localities between 1970 and 1990 reflect the

ongoing movement of white middle-class

families out of the areas closest to Chicago. � HACC administers approx. 10,000 

HCVP vouchers in suburban Cook 

County. 

� The controversy centered on the 

south suburban localities, pop. 

32,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were 

the concentration of HCVP 

recipients in the south suburban 

area and its effect on the racial 

and income mix of individual 

communities. 

South suburban Cook County reflects a 

nationwide pattern of increased diversity and 

expanding poverty in suburban areas. 

Local leaders began raising concerns about the 

proportion of HCVP participants living in the 

south suburban Cook County municipalities in 

the late 1970s, when the tenant-based subsidy 

program was quite new. They alleged that the 

64 
Appendix A: Study Site Summaries 

concentrations of HCVP families brought with them increasing needs and 

demands for public services and would contribute to accelerated racial change 

and re-segregation of the area. In the early 1990s, the south suburban localities 

threatened litigation against HUD and the Housing Authority of Cook County 

(HACC) for raising discriminatory barriers to HCVP in the remainder of the 

County. They commissioned a study that furthered their cause by confirming a 

pattern of high concentration living in the south suburbs relative to the proportion 

of affordable rental units located there. In the late 1990s, the controversy 

resurfaced over a Chicago relocation plan that had the potential to increase 

HCVP concentrations in south suburban localities. The south suburban 

communities sought a HUD moratorium on HCVP lease-ups in south suburban 

Cook County. 

Fairfax County, Virginia 

Fairfax County is Virginia’s most populous and wealthiest county and is located

close to Washington DC. The county as a whole has experienced growth in the

1990s, but an area in the southeast section of the

county, known as the Route 1 Corridor, has not fared

as well. The Route 1 Corridor has experienced slower 

growth than the rest of the county and has higher rates 

of poverty. In addition, two census tracts within the 

Route 1 corridor have particularly high concentrations 

of subsidized housing. 

In the early 1990s, vacancies and lower rents in the 

Route 1 corridor attracted low-income and immigrant 

families to the area. Some residents believed that this 

new population, presumed to be living in Fairfax 

� FCRHA administers approx. 2,500 

HCVP vouchers in Fairfax County. 

� The controversy in Fairfax County 

focused on the “Route 1 Corridor” 

area, pop. 70,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were 

declining property values and 

school scores and a perceived 

concentration of HCVP families in 

the Route 1 Corridor. 

County because of HCVP assistance, was creating a burden on the local school 

system by increasing the number of children with special needs. The HCVP (and the 

perceived concentration of HCVP in the Route 1 corridor) became the focus of the 

community’s concerns about school scores and property values. At the height of the 

controversy, the Board of Supervisors rejected a request by the Fairfax County 

Redevelopment and Housing Authority (FCRHA) to apply for 50 additional units of 

HCVP assistance. 

65 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Lynn, Massachusetts 

A small New England city located 15 miles north of Boston, Lynn was once a 

thriving center for shoe manufacturing and a popular landing ground for waves of 

immigrants seeking affordable housing. Between 1970 and 1980, the population 

declined and the percentage of persons living below the poverty line increased. 

There has been some improvement since 1980, 

but still today more than half of Lynn’s 

households is eligible for assisted housing and 

over one third of its rental housing is 

subsidized through a federal or state programs. 

� LHA administers approx. 2,000 

HCVP vouchers in Lynn City. 

� The controversy centered on the 

urban core of Lynn City, pop. 

80,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were 

rising rents, declining property 

values, and disruptive tenant 

behavior. 

In the mid-1980s, the lack of affordable rental 

housing in the surrounding areas brought new 

families to Lynn’s HCVP. Residents 

complained that the growth in HCVP had led to 

an increase in private-market rents, and that the concentration of subsidized units 

made the city vulnerable to a downward spiral in which more and more lowincome families would be attracted there. During the same period that increased 

numbers of “outsiders” came in search of affordable housing, Lynn experienced 

increases in crime, drug trafficking, and general neighborhood nuisances. Many 

blamed the HCVP and the Lynn Housing Authority (LHA) for these problems. 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

Montgomery County is a prosperous county northwest of Philadelphia. The 

borough of Norristown, the focus of the HCVP controversy, is the county seat 

and home to most of the county’s social service 

agencies. Norristown is significantly poorer 

and more racially diverse than other parts of 

the county. The current demographics 

represent a significant shift from years past 

when Norristown, once a prosperous 

transportation crossroads, was primarily a 

small middle-class city. 

� MCHA administers approx. 

1,700 HCVP vouchers in 

Montgomery County. 

� The controversy centered on the 

borough of Norristown, pop. 

30,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were 

rising special education costs, 

declining property values, poor 

curb appeal of rental units, and 

HCVP tenant and landlord 

behavior. 

The conflict over the HCVP began in 1998 

when the school superintendent attributed the 

district’s high special education costs to the 

HCVP. This report and the press coverage that 

66 
Appendix A: Study Site Summaries 

it received fueled complaints from homeowners’ associations to the Montgomery 

County Housing Authority (MCHA) about the concentration of HCVP recipients 

in Norristown and the perceived effect that this was having on property values, 

the rental market, crime, and overall quality of life. 

San Antonio, Texas 

HCVP controversies took place in the 1990s in two San Antonio neighborhoods. 

The first neighborhood, “The Creek,” developed in the 1970s to support a local 

Air Force base, fell on hard times in the mid-1980s due to a flat housing market. 

In the midst of this slump, vacant homes began to be purchased by investors and 

leased through the HCVP. However, a large number of vacant homes that 

remained and the neighborhood suffered significant drug and gang problems. 

The second neighborhood, Montgomery, also went through a number of changes 

in the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in its transformation from a middle-class 

community of homeowners to a lower-income community with high numbers of 

rental properties. 

The HCVP controversy in The Creek 

received widespread press coverage and 

centered on neighborhood crime� 

attributed largely to HCVP recipients� 

and community frustration with the lack of 

response from local agencies, including 

the San Antonio Housing Authority 

(SAHA). In Montgomery, complaints 

about property conditions and crime led to 

� SAHA administers approx. 12,000 HCVP 

vouchers in San Antonio and Bexar 

County. 

� The controversy centered on two 

neighborhoods, with a combined 

population of 33,000. 

� Major issues in the conflict were 

neighborhood crime and disruptive 

behavior associated with HCVP recipients. 

a high-profile police intervention in 1993 and large-scale community policing effort. 

Residents saw improvements, but continued to press SAHA to enforce tenant and 

landlord compliance with HCVP regulations. 

Syracuse, New York 

The HCVP controversy in Syracuse, New 

York, took place in a residential 

neighborhood located near Syracuse 

University, the city’s largest employer. 

Between 1985 and 1998, when the 

University downsized, the student 

population in the neighborhood decreased 

� SHA administers approx. 3,000 HCVP 

vouchers in the City of Syracuse. 

� The controversy centered on a particular 

landlord who rented three units through the 

HCVP on a particular street. 

� Major issues in the conflict were tenant 

behavior and landlord lease enforcement. 

67 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

and a number of new families moved into the area with HCVP assistance. 

During this period, local property values declined and the demographic makeup 

of the neighborhood changed. 

The HCVP controversy began in 1996 and centered on one landlord who owned 

three HCVP-assisted units on a particular block. Residents on the block 

complained about the behavior of the HCVP tenants and the failure of that 

landlord to take action against them. When the Syracuse Housing Authority 

attempted to suspend the landlord, a protracted lawsuit ensued that included 

charges of Fair Housing violations on the part of SHA. The problem tenants 

were eventually evicted in 1999, but in 2000 one of the lawsuits remained on 

appeal. 

68 
Appendix B

Developing a Community Profile

As discussed in Chapter 2, there are three steps to building an effective 

community profile: 

Step 1: Develop a set of core issues to track over time and sources for the data. 

Step 2: Decide what information is needed for specific sub-areas within the 

jurisdiction, for regional areas larger than the jurisdiction, and for 

specific time periods. 

Step 3: Decide which formats (maps, charts, graphs) most effectively display and 

communicate the information you want to track. 

This appendix describes each of these steps in detail and provides an introduction 

to two key tools available to PHAs seeking a better understanding of the social 

and economic dynamics of their communities: HUD’s Community 2020 mapping 

software and the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS). 

Step 1: Develop a Set of Core Issues and Sources for Data 

The issues that a community will want to track over time will differ depending 

upon local circumstances. However, most communities share a set of core issues 

that are useful to track. These include: 

� Basic demographic data: population size, income and income source data; 

employment and poverty rates; race and ethnicity data; 

� Housing market data: ownership and renter rates, vacancy rates, and the 

amount and type of subsidized housing; and 

� Crime statistics. 

Exhibit 1 presents a sample community profile generated using these core data. 

69 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Exhibit 1 

The Basic Community Profile 

Demographic Profile Subsidized Housing Profile 

Population HCVP Tenant-Based 

Number of Households Home Tenant-Based 

Subtotal Tenant-Based 

Median Household Income Public Housing Rental 

% below Poverty Line Elderly 

% with Wages Family 

% with Public Assistance Other PHA-owned Rental 

Elderly 

Race/Ethnicity Family 

% White Private Subsidized Rental* 

% African American Elderly 

% Asian/Pacific Islander Family 

% Native American Subtotal Project-Based 

% Hispanic Total Subsidized Rental* 

Housing Profile Waiting List Size 

Total Rental Units Public Housing 

% of Total Units HCVP 

% Subsidized Other 

Median Monthly Rent 

Total Owner-Occupied Units Subsidized Homeownership 

% of Total Units 

% Subsidized Crime Statistics** 

Median House Value Part I Crimes 

Total Vacant Units Part II Crimes 

% of Total Units 

* If the community includes a significant amount of many types of subsidized housing, your analysis may be 

expanded to show separately the various HUD multifamily housing programs; special needs housing; or 

housing by program administrator (e.g., State, Rural Housing Service, HUD, etc.). 

** If crime is a serious issue, you may wish to expand here to include specific types of crimes included as 

Part I and Part II crimes. Part I crimes include murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, 

burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson. Part II crimes include drug offenses, gun offenses, and a broad 

range of misdemeanors. 

70
Appendix B: Developing a Community Profile 

Depending upon local circumstances, you may choose to add to the core profile 

by expanding the detail on specific items of concern or gathering additional 

information about other issues such as: 

� Indicators of school success including test scores, truancy rates, dropout rates; 

and 

� Social indicators such as information about special needs populations. 

Fortunately, once the baseline data are collected, much of the information 

remains stable for long periods—for example, Census data is collected every ten 

years. Other data may need to be updated quarterly, while most PHAs look at 

program-level data on a monthly basis. 

Before developing a community profile, look for existing data sources. Much of 

the information that you are likely to want may already be assembled in the 

jurisdiction’s consolidated plan, market studies, or other reports. The next 

section of this Guidebook discusses the two key data sources and analysis tools 

noted earlier: HUD’s Community 2020 mapping software and the Multifamily 

Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS). 

Step 2: Decide What Information Is Needed 

The next step to creating a community profile is deciding what information you 

need for specific sub-areas within the jurisdiction and for areas larger than the 

jurisdiction. At this time, you may also decide to track selected data over time. 

Exhibits 2a and 2b break down the demographic profile by year and by 

geographic area. 

71 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Exhibit 2a 

Excerpt from Community Profile 

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 1980 1990 1997 2002 

Population 

Number of Households 

Median Income 

% Below Poverty Line 

% Employed 

% Receiving Public Assistance 

% Female-headed Household 

% Elderly 

Profiles over time enable the PHA to 

identify trends that may suggest the need 

for program or strategy adjustments. 

1990 Census data, 1997 updates, and 

projections for 2002 and 2007 are in 

HUD’s Community 2020 software. 

wish to include 1980 data, a trip to the 

library may be needed. 

Showing Time Analyses 

If you 

Exhibit 2b 

Excerpt from Community Profile Showing Geographic Area Analyses 

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Central 

City 

East 

Side 

West 

Side 

South 

Side 

Population 

Number of Households 

Median Income 

% Below Poverty Line 

% Employed 

% Receiving Public Assistance 

% Female-headed Household 

% Elderly 

Geographic breakdowns may be 

shown by census tract, 

neighborhood (by combining census 

tracts), or political jurisdictions. 

Note: 

follow census tract boundaries, so 

you may have to approximate. 

Neighborhoods do not always 

72
Appendix B: Developing a Community Profile 

Step 3: Decide Which Formats (Maps, Charts, Graphs) Most 

Effectively Display and Communicate the Information 

We live in a time when more information than we can easily use is readily 

available. The challenge comes in selecting the appropriate information and in 

presenting it in a way that works for the intended audience. You may decide to 

display information one way for in-house purposes and the same information in a 

somewhat different format for public consumption. Consider the following ways 

of graphically showing the demographic information used in the table on page 

20. Poverty rates over time in Fairfax County (VA) and the Route 1 corridor are 

presented as a bar chart below. These data may also be shown on a map to 

illustrate the spatial dimensions of changes, as in the map of rental rates in 

Patterson Park. 

Percent of Population Below Poverty Line, 

Fairfax County and Route 1 Corridor, 1970-1990 

10% 

9% 

8% 

7% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

Route 1 

Corridor 

Fairfax 

County 

0% 

1970 1980 1990 

73 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

The following section highlights the capabilities of HUD’s Community 2020 

mapping software and the reporting tools available in the Multifamily Tenant 

Characteristics System (MTCS). These two resources offer a wealth of 

information about population characteristics and housing programs in your 

community. Although learning to work with any new system presents some 

challenges, the investment in developing staff expertise with these resources is 

well worth the effort. 

Community 2020—Mapping and Data Made Easy 

What is Community 2020? 

Community 2020 mapping software can help PHAs to develop community 

profiles and to present demographic and HUD program information in a clear and 

easy-to-follow format. Using Community 2020 you can: 

� Examine maps that show the distribution of the population in your 

community by race, gender, income, and more. 

� See the distribution of housing locations and conditions in your 

neighborhood, town, city, or region. 

� Map HUD program activities, and access and browse detailed program 

descriptions. 

� Map the locations of households assisted by HUD’s major rental assistance 

programs: public housing, the housing choice voucher program, and the 

HCVP project-based program. 

� Understand the relationship between HUD-supported programs and the 

physical and demographic characteristics of your neighborhood. 

Community 2020 can be used to produce a variety of maps to address specific 

issues or to answer questions about your community. For example, in some 

communities there have been misperceptions about the number of HCVP units in 

certain neighborhoods. Using Community 2020 software, you can map the 

actual location and concentration of HCVP units. 

74 
Appendix B: Developing a Community Profile 

What Information is Available in Community 2020? 

Community 2020 contains over 600 data elements derived from the U.S. Census. 

This includes 1990 Census data, 1997 estimates, and demographic projections for 

2002 and 2007. Users of the software have the ability to refresh data on a regular 

basis through the Community 2020 home page on the HUD web site 

(www.hud.gov/cio/c2020). Exhibit 3 below summarizes the Census information 

that is available from Community 2020. 

Exhibit 3 

U.S. Census Data Available in Community 2020 

About Households 

¤ Population (totals, density) 

¤ Household Size/Composition 

¤ Age 

¤ Marital Status 

¤ Race/Ethnicity 

¤ Education 

¤ Employment Status 

¤ Occupation/Industry 

¤ Income Ranges 

¤ Disability Status 

¤ Sources of Income 

¤ Receive Welfare/TANF 

About Housing Stock 

¤ Units Occupied by Owners, 

Renters 

¤ Units Vacant, Occupied 

¤ Type of Housing (e.g., SF, MF) 

¤ Utilities (phone, water source, 

sewage, plumbing, heating fuel) 

¤ Rent/Mortgage (median, percent 

of household income) 

¤ Housing Unit Density 

Community 2020 also contains extensive HUD program data for funding years back 

to 1992 (although some program data does not go back that far). The software gives 

you several ways to define a search area and ask for information about HUD 

program activities in that area. You can view information about those activities and 

see the locations of activities on a map. You can choose to query a single year, a 

range of years, or all years. The program information available in Community 2020 

from various HUD databases is described in Exhibit 4. 

75 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

Exhibit 4 

HUD Program Data Available in Community 2020 

PHA Programs 

¤ Household-level data for HCVP 

Certificates, Vouchers, Moderate 

Rehabilitation, and Public 

Housing 

¤ Information on public housing 

development characteristics and 

funding 

¤ HOPE VI grantees and funding 

Office of Housing 

¤ Household-level data for 

Multifamily Housing Programs 

¤ Information on development 

characteristics and funding 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity 

¤ Fair Housing Initiative Program 

(FHIP) grant information 

¤ Fair Housing Assistance Program 

(FHAP) grant information 

Community Planning and 

Development Programs 

¤ Project activities, locations, and 

funding levels for: 

� CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and 

ESG programs 

� States/Small Cities Program 

� Section 108/Economic 

Development Initiative (EDI) 

� Empowerment 

Zones/Enterprise 

Communities (EZ/EC) 

activities 

� SNAPS (homeless programs) 

� Youthbuild 

� Home Ownership Zones 

Community 2020 is available in four regional editions—Eastern, Southern, 

Central, or Western. Each regional edition has a separate CD-ROM disc, and 

contains everything you need to work with HUD and Census data in that region. 

In addition, a deluxe edition of Community 2020 contains all four regional CDROM discs. 

Can I Use My Own Data in Community 2020? 

Yes, but doing so requires more expertise from the user than accessing the 

standard reports and maps. Community 2020 can open most tables stored in data 

files created with a spreadsheet or database manager. 

76 
Appendix B: Developing a Community Profile 

How Do I Obtain Community 2020? 

The Community 2020 software is available to PHAs from HUD Headquarters. 

The basic software package for one region costs about $250. Further details and 

ordering information can be found on the Community 2020 web site at 

www.hud.gov/cio/c2020. In addition, HUD’s Office of Policy, Development, 

and Research plans to release a new, upgraded version of Community 2020 in 

Spring 2001. While the new version may have slightly different commands, the 

principles behind it will remain the same. 

How Do I Get Started? 

You don’t need to be an expert in computer mapping to begin using Community 

2020. First, it is easy to install. All you have to do is answer a few questions about 

where program and data files should be installed, and where the “default markers” 

are located. These default markers define locations you will use regularly as you 

create your maps (e.g., local neighborhood, towns, cities, counties). Once you have 

installed the program, you are ready to begin exploring the capabilities of 

Community 2020. 

This guidebook only highlights the potential of Community 2020. For more 

information on its capabilities and more detailed mapping instructions see the 

Community 2020 HUD Community Planning User’s Guide or visit the 

Community 2020 web site at www.hud.gov/cio/c2020. 

MTCS—More than a Report to HUD 

What is MTCS? 

Many housing agencies tend to think of MTCS only in terms of its burden on the 

PHA—a monthly reporting requirement that primarily serves HUD needs. 

Although this was true of the system initially, in recent years the system has 

become much more. MTCS now provides valuable information to PHAs as well 

as to HUD and can be a valuable tool in developing a community profile and in 

describing PHA programs to the public. 

The MTCS system collects, stores, and generates reports on families who 

participate in public housing or HCVP rental subsidy programs. This 

information is collected from public housing agencies nationwide through Form 

HUD-50058 and is used for HCVP and public housing program management. 

The information gathered through MTCS is also used to generate a range of 

77 
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

reports that PHAs can access to learn more about the characteristics of the 

housing programs that they administer. These reports, available through the 

MTCS web site (www.hud.gov/pih/systems/mtcs/pihmtcs.html) fall into three 

categories: summary reports, historical reports, and ad hoc reports. 

The summary reports, which are the easiest to access, can be created for 

individual programs or for all programs combined, and can be aggregated up 

from the PHA-level to a statewide or national level. The exhibit on the following 

page provides an overview of the key reports that the MTCS generates and 

makes accessible to PHAs. One of these reports, the Resident Characteristics 

Report, is also available to the general public. 

Information Sharing and Problem Solving Using MTCS 

MTCS can be an important fact finding tool that helps to clarify issues and 

suggest avenues for problem solving. For example, if community concerns 

center around the perception of overcrowding in HCVP units, the Resident 

Characteristics Report can quickly provide a factual basis for discussion. The 

report provides information about household size and bedroom size for the units 

being rented that can determine whether the existing rental stock is meeting the 

needs of program participants. Similarly, PHAs can use the Rent and Rent 

Burden Report to address the common claims that HCVP subsidy inflates rents 

in the housing market or that rent reasonableness determinations are not being 

done correctly. 

Each of the standard reports identified above support problem solving and the 

development of a community profile. The Resident Characteristic Report is the 

only MTCS report that is available to the general public through HUD’s web site. 

For this reason, if for no other, PHA staff should familiarize themselves with this 

report and be able to answer questions about the information that it provides. 

78 
Appendix B: Developing a Community Profile 

An Overview of Key MTCS Reports 

Standard Reports 

� Resident Characteristics Report: provides basic demographic information about 

participating households including income amounts and sources; race and ethnicity; 

family size and characteristics; total tenant payment amounts; and length of time on the 

program. 

� New Admissions: provides the same demographic data for those families who have 

moved in within the last 12 months. 

� Families Ending Participation: provides the same demographic information for families 

who have stopped receiving assistance in the last 12 months. 

� Rent and Rent Burden: summarizes information about unit rents in relation to Fair Market 

Rents and each family’s rent in relation to their income. 

� Budget Related Averages: provides averages by unit size for gross rents, total tenant 

payment, and assistance payments. 

� HCVP Deconcentration Analysis: shows the number of current and new families 

moving into each area and the distribution of these families by poverty rate. 

Historical Reports 

MTCS now includes the ability to view five standard reports on a quarterly basis from 

September 1998 to the present. This capability permits PHAs to track tenant characteristics 

and other program indicators over time. The reports for which historical data are available 

include: 

� Resident Characteristics 

� Key Management Indicators 

� New Admissions 

� Budget Related Averages 

� Rent and Rent Burden 

Ad Hoc Reports 

PHAs can download any of the data that have been entered into MTCS and create special 

ad hoc reports, but this requires more expertise from the user than accessing the standard 

reports. Ultimately, most PHAs will want to develop the expertise to download and 

manipulate MTCS data. However, the standard reports alone can provide a great deal of 

useful information about tenant and program characteristics. 

79
HCVP and Neighborhoods 

80