U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–770 PDF 2013

EVALUATING HOW HUD’S 

MOVING-TO-WORK PROGRAM 

BENEFITS PUBLIC AND 

ASSISTED HOUSING RESIDENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 26, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 113–35 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice Chairman 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

Emeritus 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, Chairman 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Vice 

Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 26, 2013 .................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 26, 2013 .................................................................................................... 31 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013 

Nackerman, Daniel J., President and CEO, San Bernardino County Housing 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 8 

Reed, Gene, Executive Director, Abilene Housing Authority ............................... 9 

Russ, Gregory P., Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority ................ 14 

Scire, Mathew J., Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 11 

Woods, Larry C., CEO/Executive Director, Winston-Salem Housing Authority 12 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy ................................................................................. 32 

Nackerman, Daniel J. ...................................................................................... 35 

Reed, Gene ........................................................................................................ 45 

Russ, Gregory P. ............................................................................................... 53 

Scire, Mathew J. ............................................................................................... 64 

Woods, Larry C. ................................................................................................ 80 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine: 

Written statement of Douglas Guthrie, President and CEO, Los Angeles 

Housing Authority ........................................................................................ 88 

Written statement of John B. Rhea, Chairman, New York City Housing 

Authority ....................................................................................................... 91 

Written statement of the New York State Public Housing Authority Directors Association ........................................................................................ 93 

Written statement of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors ............... 95 

(1) 

EVALUATING HOW HUD’S 

MOVING-TO-WORK PROGRAM 

BENEFITS PUBLIC AND 

ASSISTED HOUSING RESIDENTS 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer 

[vice chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Royce, Miller, 

Capito, Garrett, Westmoreland, Duffy, Stivers; Capuano, Clay, 

Himes, Sinema, and Beatty. 

Ex officio present: Representative Hensarling. 

Also present: Representative Green. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER [presiding]. This hearing will come to order. 

As previously agreed to, each side is going to have 10 minutes 

to present opening statements. 

And we also would like to recognize any Members who are not 

on the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee if they are in attendance. I ask for unanimous consent that any members of the Financial Services Committee present today who are not members of the 

Housing Subcommittee be permitted to participate in the hearing. 

With that, the Chair will begin his opening statement, and I 

yield myself 2 minutes. 

Thank you to our panel for appearing today. This hearing will 

allow the subcommittee the opportunity to hear from folks on the 

front lines of housing assistance, those who participate in the Moving to Work Program, and those who don’t but see the potential of 

the program. 

Millions of Americans are in need of housing assistance. However, according to a May 7th Wall Street Journal article, the average New York City resident in public housing stays there for more 

than 20 years. That article goes on to quote the executive director 

of the housing authority in Milwaukee who says that in some cases 

you practically get through a generation before you get a shot at 

a unit. 

The average wait for a housing voucher in the Tacoma Housing 

Authority is nearly 8 years. The director of that housing authority 

told the Wall Street Journal that the organization ‘‘gives very valuVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:42 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 081770 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\81770.TXT TERRI
2 

able housing vouchers to a group of very fortunate families but 

then is left with thousands of people in desperate need of housing 

but getting no assistance.’’ 

Families shouldn’t be penalized because the Federal Government 

refuses to grant flexibility to their local public housing authority. 

HUD’s Moving to Work Program is an important tool that allows 

flexibility in administering housing programs on a local, individualized basis. 

The Obama Administration has recognized the successes of the 

program and has publicly called for a substantial expansion. HUD 

has indicated that the program has seen a reduction in costs and 

yet an increase in the number of families served. Nevertheless, 

there are many more that are still waiting for assistance. 

It is my hope that with the help of today’s testimony, Congress 

can begin to recognize the need and desire for expansion of this 

program. We should allow more families in need to access public 

housing programs, but we must do so in a manner that allows for 

flexibility and efficiency. An expanded Moving to Work Program 

may be just the solution. 

Again, I thank the members of the panel. 

And just one housekeeping note that I probably forgot to mention 

is that I am the vice chairman of the subcommittee, and Chairman 

Neugebauer will not be here today. He has a family situation he 

is addressing at home. And I appreciate your indulgence. 

With that, I yield to Ranking Member Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to publicly express my support and condolences to 

Representative Neugebauer for his family situation. 

First of all, I would like to welcome the panel. I look forward to 

the testimony. 

This is an important issue and one that I actually hope and 

think presents itself for a great opportunity for compromise. This 

particular legislation was on the verge of being marked up just 2 

years ago, and it got pulled at the last minute for some unknown 

reasons; we are not sure why. But it seemed at the time that almost everybody who was involved in this was, if not on the same 

page, at least in the same chapter of the book, and we were moving 

forward on it. I hope that this year we will be able to go forward. 

I think many of us see a value in expanding this program and 

making sure that it works. 

I particularly would like to find ways to make it more reportable. 

All the stories we hear are pretty good. The one that I am particularly familiar with in Cambridge is a very good program. But, at 

the same time, I know it is a national program. There will be some 

that are better, some that are worse, and some things we can learn 

from. And I don’t think we have done a very good job yet of really 

seeing how this can be expanded in a real way. I want it to be, but 

I want to make sure that it is done thoughtfully and properly as 

opposed to just done haphazardly because it has a good title. 

I look forward to this hearing, and I look forward to actually, 

hopefully, drafting a bill later on this year. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. 

3 

With that, I yield 3 minutes to Chairman Hensarling, the chairman of the full Financial Services Committee. 

Chairman Hensarling? 

Chairman HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The topic of today’s hearing is how HUD’s Moving to Work Program benefits public and assisted housing residents. 

When Congress passed the Program in 1996, it was to give public 

housing authorities the flexibility to innovate and design local 

strategies to meet local needs, as well as encourage greater housing 

choice and self-sufficiency for low-income families. And while the 

Program has shown great success in places like Atlanta and Chicago, after 17 years, Moving to Work shamefully remains only a 

demonstration program at HUD, with a meager 35 participating 

PHAs out of 3,100 nationwide. So I hope we can use this hearing 

to learn more about how to increase the number and successes of 

MTW participants. 

But we need to do more than simply talk about the benefit of the 

program. Fundamentally, we need to rethink public housing. Let’s 

not lose sight of the most important fact: Our system of public 

housing is failing, and by refusing to reform and innovate, we elected officials are failing the very people who are in most need of our 

assistance. 

Many share the blame. Too many have turned a blind eye to the 

very real human tragedy of generational cycles of poverty that we 

see in so many communities. Too many others share the blame for 

thinking that simply spending more and more money on failed programs is an acceptable form of compassion. Particularly, it is not 

when it interferes with the downtrodden’s unalienable right to the 

pursuit of happiness, which cannot be separated from earned success. 

Consider this: The Fiscal Year 2012 gross discretionary budget authority for HUD was $43.26 billion, and yet advocates for a 

greater role in housing are just as dissatisfied with the results we 

get for those dollars as are critics of HUD. How can it be that year 

after year we can spend so much money to achieve so little and fail 

so many? 

The fault, I would argue, is not with good intentions but rather 

our inability to recognize that more of the same will not change the 

fundamental equation. We need new ideas, bold new ways of approaching the problems of poverty and housing affordability, new 

strategies that are premised on choice and self-sufficiency. 

For too long, we have defined success in housing by how many 

vouchers we give out. In the 21st Century, we need to define success by how many people we help graduate from Federal assistance 

to lives of dignity, self-sufficiency, and happiness. Every day that 

we fail to hold ourselves to that high standard is another day that 

we have failed the very people we claim we want to help. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would be remiss if I didn’t offer you the opportunity to 

make an introduction of a very special guest with you today. 

Chairman HENSARLING. On a point of personal privilege, this is 

my 11-year-old daughter, Claire, from Dallas. This is ‘‘daughter 

goes to work with daddy day.’’ 

4 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Very good. Claire, welcome to the hearing. 

With that, Mr. Royce is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. ROYCE. I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here 

today. In particular, I would like to welcome Dan Nackerman, who 

is the executive director for the Housing Authority of San 

Bernardino County, which serves part of Mr. Miller’s district and 

part of my district. 

And in San Bernardino we have a success story, not just for the 

housing authority and its leadership but, more importantly, for the 

residents that it serves. The Moving to Work Program has provided 

local flexibility, it has promoted creative housing solutions, and it 

has moved the local residents there to self-sufficiency. 

And so, one of the things we look at is, with the large deficits, 

it is important to note that Moving to Work allows agencies to 

lower their costs while at the same time serving far more people. 

So, during this hearing today, I hope we tackle some of the obstacles to making this a permanent program and answer any questions about how best to expand it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

With that, we will go to Mr. Miller of California for 2 minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning my bill that 

we had before us in the previous term. We got it out of subcommittee, but we could not get it to final passage. But this is an 

issue that is very important to me. I helped San Bernardino come 

into Moving to Work in 2008, and they are an amazingly great success story. 

And it is good to see Mr. Woods with us today. I remember having all the national associations, and I asked the question, who 

would like to become a Move to Work, and every member of the audience raised their hands. And I recall Mr. Woods saying something that was very germane to this hearing. He said, ‘‘Trust me, 

and hold me accountable.’’ 

The problem we have in government is we go before the voters 

every 2 years and we say, ‘‘Trust us, elect us.’’ And then when 

those same people who are doing a good job come back to us and 

say, ‘‘Give me a chance, trust me,’’ we don’t trust the same people 

we reach out to very often for trust. And these are the people who 

provide help to the people at the local level. They know the people. 

They understand the needs of the local people. This one-size-fitsall approach we have had for years just does not work. 

My housing agency in San Bernardino County has helped more 

people get through the system. We have brought more people in 

who need help, and we have done it with far less funds. And in the 

last bill I introduced, we put in very stringent oversight that made 

sure that you were held accountable. You had to work within a 

framework that was reasonable. And everybody has done it. 

The problem is that 1 percent of all our housing agencies in this 

country whom we trust to be Move to Work; that is 39 PHAs out 

of 3,000. And the problem I have, when you have all these PHAs 

coming to Washington saying, you give us less money, we are willing to make it work with less money, but give us flexibility to look 

5 

the people in the eye that we know need help and help them the 

way we know that will help them and get them through the system 

to self-sufficiency to bring those who have been on the waiting list 

for 8 or 10 years into the system to help them. 

It is time for Congress to trust the people who trust us. But yet, 

at the same time, we are going to hold you accountable. But I am 

looking forward to having this become law and letting you do your 

job. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Mrs. Capito from West Virginia for 2 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today to discuss this very important topic. 

On May 6, 2013, the Wall Street Journal published an article, 

quoting, ‘‘Public housing agencies push to impose time limits and 

work requirements for aid recipients.’’ This piece highlighted the 

value of Moving to Work as a successful alternative to the traditional structure of public assistance under the 1937 Housing Act. 

Today, there are rules and restrictions in place for many public 

housing authorities that simply do not allow tailored solutions to 

circumstances that are unique in every community. I live in rural 

West Virginia. Solutions in rural West Virginia are not going to be 

the same as Massachusetts or Connecticut or Texas. I am not sure 

anything is the same as Texas, is it? 

But anyway, local agencies are restricted in how they design and 

utilize their funds, and thus cannot benefit from the most effective 

and cost-effective approaches to assist individuals and families. In 

Moving to Work, they are able to blend their funding sources, experiment with policies like work requirements and time limits, leverage existing resources, and develop partnerships. It sounds like 

a winning formula. The Moving to Work Program offers flexibility 

and discretion to develop and implement strategies to best serve 

needs in your jurisdiction. 

According to the Journal article, an average person in New York 

City stays in public housing for almost 21 years. Meanwhile, as has 

been stated before, waiting lists for families seeking assistance are 

growing longer and longer. These waiting lists are a serious problem, and I anticipate we will hear in the testimony today from our 

witnesses who are experiencing this. 

As the subcommittee has heard before, the alternative methods 

of providing housing assistance offer insight into a more efficient 

housing assistance configuration. I look forward to the unique experiences I am sure our witnesses are eager to share. 

And I thank the chairman for his time. Thank you. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

With that, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, is 

recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I personally want to thank Mr. Nackerman, Mr. Reed, Mr. 

Woods, and Mr. Russ for what you do, because we have gone and 

met with our public housing authorities and talked to them and 

seen the sincerity that they have for what they do. And so I want 

to thank you for working in your cities and your communities. 

6 

It is my fundamental belief that we have local solutions to local 

problems, and that is one of the reasons I am such a big supporter 

of expanding the Moving to Work Program. 

Unfortunately, some of those housing authorities who want to 

pursue the innovation to help solve some generational poverty are 

handcuffed by outdated HUD rules and regulations. I want to encourage and motivate people to better themselves, to become selfsufficient so they no longer rely on the government for the roof over 

their heads or possibly the food in their stomachs. And that is why 

I have visited so many of these housing authorities and gone 

through them and talked to the individuals who live there and I 

have seen their desire to move and to grow in society. 

Moving to Work gives local communities the flexibility that they 

need to address these concerns. In turn, those who once relied on 

the government reach the American dream and live life to its fullest potential. 

Moving these Americans through this innovative Moving to Work 

Program subsequently will allow more public housing authorities to 

serve the needs of others. Public housing authorities are clamoring, 

at least in my district, for the access to move to this Moving to 

Work Program because they know more Americans can be helped 

through this Program than under the traditional HUD programs. 

Without an overhaul, this Congress could be condemning Americans to a cycle of poverty from which they cannot escape. Mr. 

Chairman, let us not leave these Americans behind. Let us empower local communities and give all Americans the tools that they 

need to be self-sufficient. Moving to Work must be expanded to 

allow high-performing public housing authorities to give a hand to 

Americans to reach their potential. I urge this committee to move 

quickly on a bill to accomplish this goal. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the 

ranking member for allowing me to be a part of this hearing. 

I also thank the witnesses for appearing. I have had an opportunity to peruse all of your statements, and I want you to know 

that I think very much of each statement, but I want to single out 

Mr. Reed, if I may, because he said a couple of things in his statement that I would like to call to your attention. 

Perhaps you will say them, as well, Mr. Reed. Some things bear 

repeating, so if you say them, as well, I think it will bode well for 

us. 

One statement you make that I find favor with is the notion that 

we can recertify persons on a basis other than doing it annually. 

And you have indicated that every 2 years or possibly every 3 years 

for elderly and disabled families with fixed incomes may be of benefit and that this helps us with our operating costs, in terms of 

helping us to reduce the cost. 

Now, what I really want to focus on is this next part of your 

statement over on page 7. And I would like to just read from page 

7, if I may. You indicate one specific perceived notion that many 

Americans have about assisted housing programs is that low-inVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:42 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 081770 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\81770.TXT TERRI
7 

come families are getting rich off of their tax dollars, and you go 

on to say that this could not be further from the truth. 

If you follow the money in our programs, you will see that these 

Federal funds benefit the local economy much more than they benefit the participants on the program. I think this is good for us to 

let the public know, that their dollars benefit more than the actual 

participants in the program. 

You go on to indicate that the reinvestment happens in the following ways. You indicate that bank accounts are set up, which is 

a good thing, to have persons engaging in commerce, to take up the 

notion that they should have bank accounts and that, in so doing, 

the bank benefits. You indicate that landlords who receive payments pay property taxes. You indicate that area contractors secure contracts. You go on to talk about how vendors secure contracts to maintain the housing authority IT system, the vehicle 

fleets. You mentioned that the PHAs are able to create jobs in the 

community. 

And I want to just say this: While we are helping persons who 

are indeed in need of help with these programs, the community 

benefits as well. And we should never forget that these dollars turn 

over in the community and that jobs are created in these communities. We should see the persons who are benefiting from the programs not as a liability but also as an asset to the community. 

They are also human beings who need a hand up. Many of you 

have addressed the notion of these programs being a hand-up as 

opposed to a handout. 

So I thank you for the testimony. I have had a chance to peruse 

it, and I look forward to hearing more details about what you plan 

to do. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

I will now introduce today’s panel: Mr. Daniel Nackerman, President and CEO, San Bernardino County Housing Authority; Mr. 

Gene Reed, Executive Director, Abilene Housing Authority; Mr. 

Matthew Scire, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Mr. Larry 

Woods, CEO/Executive Director, Housing Authority of the City of 

Winston-Salem. 

And Mr. Capuano will introduce our last guest today. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to introduce Mr. Gregory Russ, who is the Executive 

Director of the Cambridge Housing Authority, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

And I want to introduce him with a warning, especially to my 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Be warned, you might find 

some things you agree with him on. And I know it won’t be good 

to tell people at home you agree with anybody in Cambridge on 

anything, so find a way to couch those terms so you can protect 

yourself at home. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you for the warning there, Ranking 

Member Capuano. We will take that to heart. 

8 

Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And without objection, each of your 

written statements will be made a part of the record. 

Just a quick primer on the lights. If you have been watching: 

green means go; yellow means you have a minute to start wrapping 

up; and red means time is up. We have the same set of lights up 

here. Members are allowed 5 minutes to ask you questions, and we 

will try and keep it within that framework. 

Mr. Nackerman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. NACKERMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Thank you, Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, 

Ranking Member Capuano, and honorable members of the subcommittee. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. It took me 2 days to memorize 

the last name of the chairperson, so thank you for throwing me off 

to start the day. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. You did very well. 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Okay. 

It is an honor for me to appear here today to discuss how we can 

move forward in expanding the great work beaconed by the existing MTW demonstration sites. 

In San Bernardino, California, we know firsthand how MTW can 

eliminate waste, serve more families, improve customer service for 

our residents, and more effectively invest taxpayer dollars to serve 

lower-income families and seniors who are in great need throughout this country. 

As president and CEO of the Housing Authority of the County 

of San Bernardino, I have assisted local residents for 23 years at 

5 different California housing authorities, including executive director and deputy director at the Marin County Housing Authority, 

Contra Costa Housing Authority, City of Richmond Housing Authority, and as senior manager at the Oakland Housing Authority. 

Our jurisdiction—Mr. Miller and Mr. Royce are our leaders 

there—is located east of Los Angeles, containing 24 cities and covering the largest county in the contiguous USA. That portion of the 

county actually has a greater population than 15 of the country’s 

States. This region likely contains every aspect of your own represented communities, such as rural areas, cities of both wealth 

and poverty, urban treasures and ills, and, of course, ongoing needs 

for every type of housing. 

This backdrop of our region creates an even greater need for the 

hub in the wheel, the launchpad for all: stable, safe, affordable 

housing. Our waiting lists at our agency have reached over 45,000 

at times. 

As you have heard or will hear today, this demonstration program—which is really not a program but a broad waiver of regulations kind of redesigned at a local level—which also has tremendous HUD oversight by an excellent HUD staff which has allowed 

housing authorities to operate much more efficiently and effectively. 

Our housing authority currently has 22 approved MTW activities. We are here to testify that Moving to Work works. It can 

9 

make rents much more simple and fair. For an example, we are 

about to start a streamlined assisting program where rents will 

start at 21 percent of gross income, go up by 2 percent every year 

for a couple of years, and then stabilize. That means if families 

make more money, they get to keep their money instead of have 

their rent go up—not a disincentive to employment. 

Moving to Work works locally such as abolishing the HUD fair 

market rent system and having a market-like study to pay rents. 

Everybody here, at HUD and the housing authorities, will testify 

that HUD fair market rent is not fair and it is not the market. 

That allows deconcentration of residents, residents to move into 

better neighborhoods with better schools and that kind of thing. 

We are also one of the few agencies in the country—and I want 

to emphasize that, that we are one of the few MTW agencies instituting trial time limits for new families pulled from the housing 

choice voucher waiting list, or Section 8 waiting list. This 5-year 

strategy, applicable to non-senior and non-disabled adults only, is 

a bold initiative that changes the premise that once a person is in 

the program, they get to stay forever. It makes space on our waiting lists. It has kind of a life coach and counselor for each resident 

entering the program. And it really is helping to advance the quality of life of the persons we serve. 

I mentioned the waiting lists. Some of our agency neighbors have 

waiting lists which have more than 100,000 families waiting to get 

in. Many will never get in. Those families are affected by the policies of HUD and the policies locally, yet those waiting-list families 

really don’t have a voice and are not heard. 

We have an increase in the total number of families served due 

to MTW. We have an increase for non-housing services related to 

school, mental health counseling, transportation. We have an increase in the number of effective initiatives that we can now fund. 

We have a tremendous decrease in the number of staff hours utilized for some of these old-fashioned, out-of-date regulations. 

In conclusion, Moving to Work works. We urge your committee 

to help make it permanent and to help other public housing authorities move forward with creative, timely, life-changing advancements, even in this time of program budget cuts. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about our local 

strategies, reduced costs, permanent and expanded Moving to 

Work, and the same levels of people served. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nackerman can be found on page 

35 of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Nackerman. 

Next, Mr. Reed for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GENE REED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ABILENE 

HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. REED. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member 

Capuano, and members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Gene Reed. I am the executive director of the Abilene Housing Authority in Abilene, Texas. I have 19 years of combined leadership experience between the affordable housing industry and the gas and electric utility industry. 

10 

During my time in the affordable housing industry, I have 

worked 4 years at the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, 

which is the 17th largest in the country, and 5 years for the Abilene Housing Authority. My housing authority is authorized to 

serve 1,536 vouchers in a 20-county area, 213 public housing units, 

and a 170-unit affordable/market complex in Abilene, Texas. 

Over the past 3 years, public housing authorities have experienced unprecedented funding cuts in our programs. Unfortunately, 

the cuts come at a time when unemployment rates are still extremely high. Hardworking American middle-income families who 

never thought about utilizing affordable housing programs now 

qualify. It is my hope that funding for our programs will stabilize. 

Our programs only represent 2 to 3 percent of the overall Federal 

budget. 

In addition to the challenges that hardworking Americans are 

facing in the current economy, PHAs are also faced with the challenge to meet the same regulatory requirements that we were required to meet when we were receiving higher funding amounts. 

Today, I am speaking from the perspective of housing authorities 

wanting access to MTW. There are four points that I would like to 

make in support of expanding MTW to housing authorities nationwide. 

First, MTW can assist housing authorities by allowing them to 

have the flexibility to change, alter, and remove costly practices required under the housing choice voucher and public housing programs. 

Due to deep budgets cuts over the past 3 years, regulatory reform that the MTW Program allows is increasingly needed by 

PHAs nationwide. Again, given our current and projected funding 

situation, MTW provides PHAs with the ability to determine what 

is important in their programs and communities and provides them 

with the ability to manage those processes in a way that are in the 

best interests of the housing authority participants and the community in which we serve. 

I would like to be clear on this point. My intent for allowing more 

regulatory reform is to allow better management of operational 

funds and to continue to abide by the rules. It is not my intent to 

lose the focus on our mission of housing low-income families. 

Second, MTW has a component which allows PHAs to properly 

manage the full range of funding that they receive. Presently, 

PHAs receive funding from the government in four areas: two in 

the HCV Program; and two on the public housing program. Each 

pot of money is designated for specific activities. The ultimate goal 

is to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low-income families while they live in units provided by the PHA. Why should it 

matter if PHAs want to move money from one program to another 

to accomplish this goal? 

Third, I am a big advocate of assisting families to become selfsufficient. During my time at AHA, we have grown our family selfsufficiency program from 5 participants to 50 participants. Over 

the past 18 months, we have had 2 families complete the FSS program early and purchase a home. While our efforts have been substantial for a program of our size, having access to MTW would 

11 

provide AHA with more tools to assist more families to move toward self-sufficiency. 

Fourth, public housing funding has been, again, on the decline 

for years. In the past 3 years, I have seen AHA’s capital funds absorb a 22 percent cut. AHA typically received anywhere between 

$400,000 to $600,000 in operating subsidy annually. In 2012, we 

didn’t receive any subsidy at all. 

Looking for new ways to increase funding streams outside of Federal funding is paramount. MTW gives PHAs the ability to combine 

funding to meet the PHAs’ strategic plans, one of which includes 

leveraging resources to drive new development and rehab. 

AHA is currently looking for ways to generate revenue outside of 

the traditional government-provided funding streams. Development 

activities such as low-income housing tax credit programs, et 

cetera, will allow PHAs the opportunity to move away from dependence on traditional government funding. This, in turn, will assist 

the government in reducing the Federal budget. 

In summary, I would like to once again thank the members of 

the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee for allowing me to share 

my views on how MTW can better assist PHAs during these budget-cut times. It is my hope that in the near future, PHAs across 

the country will be given the necessary flexibility to best use the 

resources we have at our disposal. Programs with MTW-like features are needed to provide PHAs the flexibility needed to continue 

to service the housing needs of low-income families nationwide. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed can be found on page 45 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

Next, Mr. Scire. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Mr. SCIRE. It is ‘‘Scire.’’ 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. ‘‘Scire.’’ Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MATHEW J. SCIRE, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL 

MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SCIRE. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member 

Capuano, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss our work on HUD’s Moving 

to Work Program. 

We conducted our study at the request of this subcommittee and 

focused on program results, agency monitoring, and potential expansion. Overall, our report raised serious questions about HUD’s 

evaluation of program results, identification of lessons learned, and 

establishment of monitoring standards. We made a number of recommendations, and HUD has recently taken action in response to 

several of them. 

With regard to program results, we found that HUD had not required that annual performance information reported by MTW 

agencies be quantifiable and outcome-oriented. Thus, the results of 

like activities could not be readily evaluated. Also, HUD had not 

identified performance measures that might be used in assessing 

the effectiveness of the program as a whole. Such performance 

measurement weaknesses limit efforts to comprehensively evaluate 

12 

program results. HUD also lacked a systematic process for identifying lessons learned or for promoting practices more broadly. 

We made a number of recommendations, including that performance information be quantifiable and focus on outcomes, that HUD 

develop a strategy for quantitatively assessing effectiveness of similar activities and the program as a whole, and that HUD create a 

systematic process for identifying lessons learned. 

With regard to program oversight and monitoring, we found that 

HUD had not defined key terms needed for ensuring that program 

purposes are addressed and requirements are met. For example, 

the purpose of increasing housing choice had not been defined. 

Also, the requirement of serving a comparable mix of families had 

not been defined, and HUD had not assessed compliance with that 

particular requirement. 

Finally, HUD had not performed required annual risk assessments of the program and was not verifying reported performance 

information. Here, we recommend that HUD do much more to define key program terms, assess compliance with statutory requirements, and verify the accuracy of agency-reported information. 

HUD has taken some important steps in addressing these recommendations. Most notably, it has revised its reporting form to 

collect standard, quantifiable information on program activities. 

This revised form was just approved by OMB last month. 

Ultimately, the weaknesses we observed in performance measurement and evaluation make it difficult to assess the results of 

the program and the potential benefits of expansion. Likewise, the 

lack of a systematic process for identifying lessons learned and 

bringing them more widely to the remaining housing agencies limits the potential for the MTW Program to serve as a test platform 

for innovation. 

Looking ahead, the demand for most efficiently using limited 

budgetary resources and the continuing demand for affordable 

rental housing for households with limited income make it more 

pressing that HUD, working with Congress, work to improve the 

efficiency of housing assistance programs. Improving the capacity 

of the MTW Program to serve as a testbed has the potential to help 

in this effort, but only if it clearly demonstrates the impact that 

flexibilities have on reducing costs, helping households become selfsufficient, and increasing housing choice. 

This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. I would be glad to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scire can be found on page 64 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

Mr. Woods, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY C. WOODS, CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WINSTON-SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. WOODS. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member 

Capuano, and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

I am Larry C. Woods, chief executive officer for the Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I have over 

13 

27 years of experience in the field of community and economic development. The authority I represent has approximately 1,300 public housing units. We administer 4,600 housing choice vouchers. We 

manage market-rate units and two office buildings. 

In 2010, we opened our housing choice voucher waiting list for 

only 5 days and received over 6,000 applications. It would take approximately 10 years to realize enough voucher turnover to address 

these applications. Our public housing waiting lists are currently 

at 130 percent of our total units. 

These difficult days in our economy, given the current pressures 

on the Federal budget, it is now more important than ever to empower local housing authorities to do all they can with the available funding. Moving to Work, with this program and funding flexibility is the most effective means to address the needs with a positive and long-lasting effect for both families and our community. 

I testified before this subcommittee in October 2011. I asked at 

that time to be an MTW agency, and I asked that you hold me accountable. I am here today to renew my request and my commitment for you to hold me accountable. 

In preparation to becoming an MTW agency, we designed and 

implemented a program, the PATH Program, that will reduce families’ dependency on Federal support, break generational poverty, 

and provide a controlled transition for families to move back into 

the mainstream, thereby opening up new opportunities to help others. 

The PATH Program is a hands-up assistance approach to families. All program activities are based on a unique, permanent, and 

positive exit strategy for the family. The personal skills portion of 

the program has several components, such as full educational services, job training, people skills training, employment placement, retention, services, and financial literacy. These services are available at no cost to all tenants. 

Another component of the PATH Program is STEP-UP housing. 

These units mimic traditional market rate communities and serve 

to ease the families’ transitions back into mainstream housing. 

Each family’s needs for housing and assistance to reach self-sufficiency are clearly unique. So are the issues and solutions for each 

city. No single standard or federally prescribed solution will work 

since the issues in Winston-Salem are not the same as in other cities across America. 

MTW contracts need to be for an indefinite term. This would 

allow housing authorities to undertake long-term planning and continue to develop programs as local circumstances and their economy changes. 

MTW is the solution for Winston-Salem, and the PATH and 

STEP-UP housing are some of our tools. We have gone as far as 

we can, as a traditional housing authority can under existing rules 

and regulations. We are at a huge risk of losing the momentum 

that has been built amongst our community partners. I need full 

flexibility in funding the programs with the greatest impact and 

designing programs that will work in my City. Without MTW, I 

cannot fully execute the PATH Program, and thereby I cannot 

achieve the above goals and objectives. 

14 

I invite you to come to Winston-Salem and see what we are 

doing, meet with our partners, my board of directors, staff, and city 

officials. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer and members of this subcommittee, again, I ask you to give me full, flexible MTW and hold 

me accountable. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity. I 

am happy to answer any questions you may have, and provide 

greater detail about our PATH Program and our immediate need 

for MTW authorization now. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woods can be found on page 80 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Woods. 

And finally, Mr. Russ for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. RUSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. RUSS. Thank you. 

I would like to thank Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking 

Member Capuano, and the other members of the subcommittee for 

allowing me to speak here today. 

My name is Gregory Russ, and I am the executive director of the 

Cambridge Housing Authority. And I have been involved with the 

public housing program for over 40 years, in fact, even before there 

was a voucher program. So that is a long time ago now. I have 

worked in small, medium, and large housing authorities, including 

Chicago and Philadelphia. And I also served at HUD in the Troubled Agency Recovery Program in the mid-1990s. 

In my testimony today, there are a couple of things, some ideas, 

some snapshots of Cambridge, things that I would like the committee to be aware of. 

Why is MTW so important to us, and why do we believe that its 

expansion is critical to the public housing and related programs? 

In our community, we have to balance four things. I have to balance the mission that the 1937 Housing Act has given us. I have 

to balance the market demands that the real estate market in 

Cambridge dictates. I have to look at our family profile and their 

needs, which is different from some other housing authorities and 

different even from other communities in Massachusetts. And now, 

because of the capital funding, I have to make sure that we preserve hard units. 

That I can do that, that our organization is capable of walking 

across those four things, is a revolutionary statement. And I can 

make it because we have Moving to Work. It is a unique business 

model in terms of how you can have a national housing act and respect local decisions and local issues. It is a very unique model that 

I believe could benefit my colleagues here at the table and many, 

many others. 

What is Cambridge like? We are a city of about 105,000 population compressed into 61⁄2 square miles, home to Harvard and 

MIT, thousands of students, lots of biotech and high-tech, and a 

high demand for housing. Our housing prices are stratospheric. We 

have a two-bedroom unit range right now of between $1,450 and 

$3,500 in the community. In addition, the average sale price of a 

15 

condo, which accounts for most of the market, is up over $570,000. 

In that kind of real estate market, there is pressure to even keep 

the hard units that we have in place in Cambridge. 

And how have we responded to that? Through MTW, we have 

project-based 852 vouchers to keep those properties available for 

low-income families. And, in probably one of the most unique alliances I have ever had the privilege to participate in, we have been 

able to preserve expiring-use multifamily properties for low-income 

by project-basing vouchers into those buildings using our MTW authority. And that was an activity we never even dreamed of when 

we started the program. It has been very successful, and we did 

130 units of that just last year alone. 

We currently assist about 4,500 families in Cambridge: 74 percent are extremely low-income; and 45 percent are senior-disabled. 

The families pay a healthy rent, on average around $390 a month. 

And we are unusual in that we have about 46 percent of our families with earned income. And when we saw that, we said, well, 

what is a package that we can put together to use MTW to assist 

those families? The first thing we did was simplify the rent rules 

to allow families to keep more of the income they earn and to encourage asset-building. If you look at the regulations that come out 

around public housing, there is very little in there that encourages 

people to save and build assets and encourages them to work, with 

a few exceptions. 

We also use public housing subsidies that are modified to support 

the mentoring and coaching programs that we are involved with 

with our nonprofit partners. And, in doing that, we modify the size 

of the subsidy, how long the duration, and we change that subsidy 

to tie into the economic mobility advancement of the family. It is 

very flexible and very helpful in terms of dealing with families who 

are on the path to self-sufficiency. 

Our process is very public. We have public meetings on all of 

these items. I had a resident leader tell me just last week that she 

felt she could influence policy more with MTW than in any other 

public context she has had the opportunity to participate in—a 

very powerful statement that I wanted to share with the committee. 

My last comments are around evaluation and monitoring. We 

think there is more that can be done, and the MTW agencies are 

already working amongst ourselves and with HUD to do this. We 

can make better use of the existing plans and reports. 

This is the report I will be turning in to HUD in a few weeks. 

It tells you everything we did in the last fiscal year; it documents 

it. And we think that access to this information, in cooperation 

with HUD, would be very beneficial to the program and address 

some of the concerns that the GAO has noted. 

With that, I want to conclude my testimony and thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russ can be found on page 53 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

And, with that, I will begin the questions. I will yield myself 5 

minutes. 

16 

Mr. Woods, thank you very much for your very passionate and 

very thorough testimony today. 

We are highlighting the need to reform public housing, the 

model. You state an expectation of lifetime entitlement by the nonelderly, non-disabled has been created, and this expectation is 

passed from one generation to the next. As a result, there is an inability to assist those families who have been on the waiting lists. 

What would the MTW Program mean for the housing authority 

in Winston-Salem to address that problem and others? 

Mr. WOODS. We think that if we were an MTW agency, we could 

help families who are highly motivated to move forward, to increase their family income. We would require all able-bodied eligible adults in that household to be involved in the PATH Program. 

The PATH Program is not just for adults, though. It runs from 

cradle through college. We have both the Forsyth Community College involved, the Forsyth community school system involved. We 

have foundations involved. We have a lot of resources available to 

residents. 

Our biggest problem right now is we have no way to require residents to participate at all. Residents can live in public housing 

right now without having any responsibility of becoming self-sufficient. As a result, our waiting lists are being backed up, and we 

cannot help as many families as we choose. 

We believe that by being an MTW Program, we could put in 

rules and regulations and still protect the most vulnerable families 

in our communities, help them to become self-sufficient, help them 

move through a public housing assistance program, and ease them 

slowly back into mainstream housing, thereby reducing their dependency on the Federal Government, and breaking the cycle of 

poverty. 

Everybody agrees that the way you break the cycle of poverty is 

both through education and employment. Volunteerism, watching 

someone’s children does not bring income into someone’s family. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. You mentioned a number of agencies that 

you work with. Do they come to you, or do you go to them? 

Mr. WOODS. What we did in Winston-Salem after the last testimony here, I looked within my own community to see exactly what 

is the best way of mobilizing agencies. We identified our local workforce development agency, which is already funded by the State. 

They have 30 separate agencies under their umbrella, agencies 

that provide GED assistance, job training assistance, after-school 

programs for adults, ex-offender programs, substance abuse programs. We have groups like the Urban League. We have groups 

like Goodwill, Best Choice Center, Head Start, day care. 

We went into an intergovernmental agreement with them at no 

cost, that they are already funded. What they agreed to do is to 

provide these services to our residents. We identified 729 households that would be eligible for these programs. I went out personally to three developments twice, had community meetings. I sent 

staff out, knocked on everyone’s door. I would tell you today, right 

now, we have 15 participants, period. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. MTW would not stymie what you are 

trying to do here either, right? 

Mr. WOODS. Actually, it would help us. 

17 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. It would enhance it? 

Mr. WOODS. It would enhance it because we would have certain 

requirements. Right now, there are no requirements for participation. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. In your testimony, you gave a nice list of 

about 12 different things that really, you believe, would help you 

with the implementation of all these things. It is a very extensive 

list, and we appreciate your thought there. 

Mr. Nackerman, I have a quick question for you. You are in the 

program. Can you give me an example of the flexibility and/or the 

cost savings of some things that you are able to do because of this? 

The word ‘‘flexibility’’ is thrown around, but I never heard a concrete example of what you actually can do with that flexibility. 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would start by mentioning that we are in the third worst foreclosure spot in the 

United States, and we have had $21.4 million cut from our HUD 

budgets over the past 5 calendar years. Yet we are serving more 

people with less money, just like everybody talks about doing. 

But some of the specific things that we are doing: We are eliminating very dated programs. We are, on a trial basis, doing time 

limits for some adults. We only do income examinations on people 

with fixed incomes. I emphasize the term ‘‘fixed.’’ Why would you 

have to take a senior in and practically do their—it is like doing 

your income taxes just to calculate their income once a year. We 

do that every 2 or 3 years now. That is saving money. 

So we have saved at least $300,000 a year in staff time. We very 

carefully measure the hours in the very report that my colleague 

just mentioned that we give to HUD every year. And we have 

many, many other examples. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Very good. 

I want to set a good example here. I am out of my time, and, 

with that, we will go to Ranking Member Capuano—oh, I yield to 

Mr. Clay. Excuse me. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the panel for participating in this hearing 

today. Let me start with Mr. Woods. 

And welcome back, Mr. Woods. A recent Wall Street Journal article stated that the average length of stay for non-disabled, non-elderly voucher recipients at the housing authority was nearly 8 

years. Recent HUD studies have shown that this number is 51⁄2

years for voucher holders. 

Is this number consistent with the median length of stay in your 

agency? 

Mr. WOODS. In Winston-Salem, ours today is approximately, for 

the housing choice voucher, about 8 to 10 years. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Now, under an MTW Program that you envision, how long do you predict the stay would be? Could you actually 

transition these recipients? 

Mr. WOODS. Our MTW Program will allow for a 7-year transition. Our goal is to develop alternative housing through a goal 

through diminished support over a 7-year period while bringing up 

families’ income and their educational level to a point where they 

can move either into market rate units or into other affordable 

18 

units that are below market rate that we would develop or partner 

with other agencies on. 

And I want to be very clear. I am not here to blame the victim. 

Mr. CLAY. Yes. 

Mr. WOODS. I believe they are following the existing rules and 

regulations. They are in full compliance with the law. These rules 

and regulations are just outdated. 

Mr. CLAY. What about the other program that requires that any 

construction going on, that a percentage of those construction jobs 

be given to housing authority tenants? Have you experienced that 

program? 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, we have. We have a project going on right now, 

which is our first STEP-UP development unit. We partnered with 

our workforce development agency who had underneath our construction site anyone in the community, particularly public housing 

residents, who were interested in a construction job to contact 

them, to get assessed, so that when the general contractor was hiring local labor, they would pull from that pool. 

We got zero participation from public housing residents. And the 

reason why, once again, the comment we received the most was 

that they were not required to participate. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Thank you for your response. 

Mr. Reed, how has your experience been? Are the Wall Street 

Journal numbers close to what your authority has experienced? 

Mr. REED. Yes, when you look at the Abilene Housing Authority, 

I think there is a dynamic that is a little different than some of 

the other housing authorities that are here. Some of these guys are 

from larger housing authorities. I am from a large housing authority but at the very lower end of a large housing authority. 

So, in our community, we are looking at about 3 years as the average stay for a person on the program. Our rates in terms of employment are typically a little bit higher than the State’s and also 

for the entire country. We have about 56 percent of the families on 

our public housing program who are employed currently, and about 

32 percent of the folks on our voucher program have earned income, as well. 

So we are a little different dynamic than what you are going to 

find at some of your larger housing authorities and whatnot, so— 

yes? 

Mr. CLAY. You also cover a 20-county region; is that what you 

said? 

Mr. REED. Correct. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Now, do they transition out and go on to their 

own housing? 

Mr. REED. Yes. The 3-year time frame is for everyone, the entire 

20 counties that we service. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. 

Mr. Nackerman, what has been your experience? How long is the 

length of stay of your tenants? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Because we are in an MTW Program, we carefully measure everything with our partner, Loma Linda University. 

And that is the same for all of the newer MTWs, for sure. Our average stay in the Section 8 Program is 7.4 years. 

19 

And I will mention that this is a great example of the reason to 

have MTW, that those numbers will vary so much from housing 

authority to housing authority. There are cities, like Santa Monica 

in California, where nobody ever moves, I think. They have rent 

control. 

But if we move that 7.4 years to 4.4, we conceptually house approximately 1,500 more people over that 5-year or 4.4-year period. 

If you had to build new units to house those 1,500 more people, 

that would be over $110 million just to build more units to house 

that many people—upfront costs, by the way, not subsidy costs. 

Mr. CLAY. Sure. 

Mr. NACKERMAN. So, the stereotypes of people staying for generations are sometimes true, sometimes not. But the economics of 

moving people through programs, as opposed to stagnation, and 

having incentives to move through the programs have a real great 

economic bottom line. 

Mr. CLAY. And I thank you all for your responses. My time is up. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are many, many stories of families with heartbreak, with 

job loss and homelessness. We need more positive stories of recovery and return to self-sufficiency. And with the Moving to Work 

Program, Section 8 does have the potential now to be viewed not 

as another entitlement program but as an empowerment program. 

And I think that is what is interesting about these stories. 

And, Mr. Nackerman, your staff has related the story of Yvette 

from Chino, a mother of three providing for her family by driving 

a bus for the local school district there. Yvette had been living in 

an affordable housing complex since July of 2000, but she cherished the dream of owning her own home. And through the help 

of your agency and, in particular, the family self-sufficiency program made possible through Move to Work, Yvette this year was 

able to realize that dream and purchase her own home free of any 

rental subsidy. 

And so I was going to ask you a couple of questions, but the first 

is, what obstacles were removed by Move to Work that made 

Yvette’s story possible? 

The second I was going to ask you is, have you seen more success 

stories like this one? Because when you relay that type of a story, 

it helps us to better understand exactly why the program works. 

And, also, specifically, what has been the reaction to your time 

limits, to the focus on helping residents get up and out? 

Those were the three questions I was going to ask you. 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Thank you, Representative Royce. Let me start 

with Yvette and our homeownership program. 

MTW, it gets a little technical, but it allowed us to do some 

things like take this traditional family self-sufficiency program, 

where you put money in an escrow account over years instead of 

having your rent raised, we used MTW to actually make that account much more flexible. You can actually draw the money over 

those 5 years if you have some kind of emergency. And we also 

20 

have incentives that go beyond 5 years. So we took a traditional 

HUD program and made it better. 

We are one of the biggest homeownership housing authorities 

west of the Rockies. We sell between one and two houses a month 

to public housing and Section 8 residents. 

People don’t give these residents enough credit. There are many 

residents who work and many residents who need a helping hand. 

So people like Yvette are happening one to two a times a month. 

To answer your—another kind of interesting element of MTW on 

the homeownership side is we are able to, once a year, kind of ask 

HUD to modify regulations that customize them towards our homeownership program. And HUD sometimes says no. The idea that 

HUD doesn’t monitor this is—that GAO account I would encourage 

you to read. It is over a year old now. HUD agreed with every finding but one at the time. They are now running with it. So the idea 

that it is not monitored is a little bit of a stretch. 

How our residents are reacting to the 5-year lease assistance program, which is what we call it—I am really surprised myself how 

the residents are embracing the fact that they have a life coach 

when they come in the door, that they have somebody who cares 

about their life and is going to help them over the next 5 years, 

that we have a bigger and bigger quiver of resources in order to 

help that family. So the residents are very positive about this. 

We are a year-and-a-half into it, I should caution you. Tulare 

County near us has been in it for many years. But the residents’ 

reaction is overwhelmingly positive that the housing authority is 

going to be a part of their lives for that 5 years and that we have 

an individual case plan for each resident for improvement over that 

5 years. And, most importantly, at the end of the 5 years, we will 

have all kinds of ways to continue if you haven’t been successful 

versus just ending the process cold. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Nackerman. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

With that, we will recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. 

Beatty, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member. 

Let me say to all the gentlemen present, thank you for your testimony and for allowing us the opportunity to hear your stories, especially those in public housing authorities. 

Let me also disclose that for about 20 years, I was a consultant 

to public housing authorities in Ohio. So I have had an opportunity, whether it was Section 8, whether it was one of the training 

and work programs, to see firsthand your work. 

And, oftentimes, those lessons learned are not documented in an 

analytical way that can be presented. Thus, in reading about Move 

to Work, I have two basic questions. For me, it was always difficult 

to discern when you talk about self-sufficiency, what that really 

means to a person who is not in the system, someone who is not 

in leadership at a public housing authority. 

And so I guess my question is, I have looked through the documents and I have listened today, and I have heard a double-digit 

21 

number of times, ‘‘We have moved people to self-sufficiency.’’ I 

guess I would like to know if you have a definitive definition. 

I can remember working with the public housing authorities and 

using ‘‘self-reliant,’’ when the person could become more self-reliant 

was easier to be defined. So I want you to think about that. 

Also, you see that a lot when you talk about Move to Work. And 

I am a big proponent of Move to Work. I think it makes a difference. I think it is creative. And it is moving us from what we 

were doing 20 and 30 years ago when I was there. 

But, with that, my second question is, when I look at the Move 

to Work Program and I look at the fact that the public housing authorities have to have 5,000 units or less—I am from Ohio. So in 

Ohio, we have—in Columbus, Ohio, we have more than 5,000 units, 

just a little more, but we are not allowed to participate in the program. 

I like the word ‘‘flexibility,’’ so you know where the question is 

going. Do you think, or can you help me figure out so I can make 

my public housing authority folks happy with me, if there would 

be any consideration to having a waiver or allowing those housing 

authorities with 5,000 or more to participate? 

Because one of the critical things is that you don’t have a sophisticated system to document in an analytical way the lessons 

learned. So now to have to create this only for about 1 or 2 percent 

of the public housing populations would be, for me, a good argument to have some type of guidelines to let public housing authorities with more units be engaged. 

And we can start with any one of you. 

Mr. Woods? 

Mr. WOODS. Thank you. 

I like your definition, or your comment about ‘‘self-reliant’’ versus 

‘‘self-sufficiency.’’ I think that makes a lot of sense. Our PATH Program, in thinking about it, is geared toward helping reduce family 

dependency on government support. That is how we say we are trying to help someone become more self-reliant or self-sufficient. 

Your experience in Ohio has been our experience in WinstonSalem. I started in 2006. I received a phone call from my local 

Greensboro office that said, guess what, there is a NOFA out concerning Moving to Work applications. We wanted to apply. Back 

then, we found out we were too small. Two years later, we got the 

call once again, and now we were too big. So I share the frustration 

that you share. 

We believe that MTW—and we have contacted many MTW agencies around the country. It is amazing that residents respond extremely well under a structured program to trying to improve their 

lives when it becomes a requirement. Though I complain about lack 

of participation, I received that same comment in many MTW 

agencies in the past prior to becoming MTW. They become MTW; 

you then interview their residents. They are a complete turnaround. I am a full proponent of MTW. 

Mr. REED. Under the definition of ‘‘self-sufficiency,’’ I would really define it as a person being able to leave the program. 

We had one individual lady who joined the program who was divorced, had several kids, and utilized the housing choice voucher 

program because of a low subsidy. She joined our FFS program to 

22 

redevelop her job skills, volunteered at a department store, and 

then actually was hired on as a manager making over $50,000. 

She didn’t have to move off the program right at that particular 

point, but she wanted to give another family an opportunity to be 

able to utilize that spot who may need that spot, and she actually 

moved off of the program. 

So when I look at self-sufficiency, I am really looking at a family 

who is able to do it financially, on their own, and to really make 

it happen. And, kudos to her. She really made it happen. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

Next, we will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This kind of reminds me of the song, ‘‘Now the Times, They Are 

A-Changin’.’’ Because when I remember when I first started this— 

you do, Mr. Woods, where none of my friends on that side of the 

aisle would support it. They thought I was a demon trying to throw 

people out in the street. You remember this. And I am so glad to 

hear the testimony, because we need to focus on how we can really 

help people. 

And this is probably the most bipartisan issue I have ever seen. 

There are three major housing authorities, CLPHA, PHADA, and 

NAHRO, and all three of their organizations support Move to 

Work. And I don’t think I have ever seen anything like this, which 

is really, really a good thing. 

And another thing we have been fighting for is, we want to help 

people become self-sufficient. And another argument I have had for 

years, that we do everything wrong to make sure that can’t happen. 

For an example, if you want to build an apartment complex 

today or a townhome, condo, or apartment today, you have to get 

an FHA-insured construction loan, because nobody will lend money 

if you are not insured by FHA. Yet, FHA reads the law wrong. 

They require every FHA loan to be Davis-Bacon. Now, I am not 

anti-union. I am just saying that the law says that if government 

dollars are expended, they need to be expended through DavisBacon. But FHA is not spending any money; FHA is merely guaranteeing a loan. 

And so we are saying we want to help you get people into selfsufficiency. Yet, by requiring this Davis-Bacon mandate, we are 

beating up the price of apartments and condos and townhomes by 

20 to 25 percent, relegating people to where they are today and the 

exact opposite of what we are trying to do. 

And time limits has been the biggest argument I have heard people make against Move to Work. Mr. Nackerman, you testified that 

San Bernardino County implemented a new time limits program. 

How did you design it to ensure that it is useful and does not unintentionally harm the participants? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Thank you, Congressman Miller. 

We are one of the few agencies in the country trying this. I want 

to emphasize that again. Sometimes, all MTWs are painted with 

this time-limit issue. 

23 

This 5-year lease assistance strategy, again, is applicable only to 

non-senior and non-disabled households, are helping to change that 

premise, that you can really stay as long as you want. You know 

going in up front that you are going to have 5 years. You know that 

there are some escapes from that 5 years at the end, with reason. 

But, as I mentioned, each household is given kind of a counselor 

or a life coach. And our university partner is creating a baseline 

for these residents. We found, as an example, Loma Linda University found that even some of these residents who are on disability 

want to be employed. We are advancing the quality of lives kind 

of on a case-by-case basis. Each resident signs and helps develop 

an improvement plan over time. 

And we have already had some great success stories. Renee 

Calloway allowed us to use her name. Her plan went into 

superdrive, and she already has a security job. She has already reconnected with the university. She will probably leave the program 

in less than a year because of Moving to Work. 

And then, again, the protections will be, if somebody doesn’t try 

at all, that is not okay. We are looking for people who try, and to— 

and try to help. And if you think about it, the only way to really 

move through housing is to have higher economic income in that 

household, again, for the non-disabled, non-seniors. 

Mr. MILLER. And one problem I have always had is that we have 

a system that people are involved in, yet other people who need the 

same assistance are kept outside the system for years and years 

because we are unable to move people to self-sufficiency. And I believe time limits, where you have support services and proper hardship exemptions, can be a useful tool for motivating people. 

But, Mr. Woods, you talked about the situation you have been 

put in. If you were able to require participation in the PATH Program, with exemptions for the elderly and disabled, what would 

that mean for participants currently and the ones you would like 

to help? 

Mr. WOODS. We are in a unique position in Winston-Salem. Currently, we have a new medical research park that is under construction. It is targeted to employ 27,000 to 30,000 new employees 

within our City. The bus transportation that runs through that research park actually stops at three of our larger public housing developments. The closest one is actually a 5-minute bicycle ride; the 

furthest is no more than a 15-minute bus ride. 

We have Winston-Salem State and Forsyth Community College 

that has guaranteed to put a small campus, train, assist the lab 

technicians, get janitors. Anyone who finishes that program will be 

guaranteed a job. 

So we have an opportunity here. With MTW, we could require 

participation. It would open up a world of career opportunities, employment opportunities, raise family income levels— 

Mr. MILLER. And those people who are unserved out there, 

how— 

Mr. WOODS. That is my biggest issue. 

Mr. MILLER. That is mine. 

Mr. WOODS. And I have a waiting list. Again, we opened up in 

2010. I am only around about 4,200 that I still haven’t even processed yet. 

24 

Mr. MILLER. My time has expired, but these are good men, Mr. 

Chairman, who want to be trusted to help the people who need 

help in this country. And I think we as a committee and as a Congress need to do everything we can to support them. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

With that, we will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the panel for being here. 

I am a former mayor of my city. We used to get CDBG money 

and other Federal funds. I empathize very strongly with the idea 

of getting a little more flexibility and getting the Federal Government off your back a little bit. 

At the same time, I also know that there were other cities that 

got Federal money where people went to jail for misuse of that 

money. So that is the balance of reporting and keeping some kind 

of a thing. Which I know you know that, because all public housing 

authorities have to do that. 

I also—it is my understanding that HUD joins all of us in wanting to expand the MTW Program. I am not aware of them being 

opposed to it at all, with one caveat: They want the resources to 

be able to do it. And it is my understanding they have three people 

currently on staff dedicated to MTW. There is no way they can expand the program unless they get the proper resources, as none of 

you could expand any program you ever wanted unless you have 

the resources. 

So I think we are all on the same page, as far as that goes. But 

let’s be honest. If we are going to expand this program, we have 

to understand that we have to empower HUD to actually do a reasonable and decent job doing it. 

Mr. Nackerman, you have had the MTW for several years now. 

Do you still have a waiting list? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Oh, yes. We have 32,600 people on our waiting 

list. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Russ, do you have a waiting list? 

Mr. RUSS. I do, Congressman, about 10,000 people. 

Mr. CAPUANO. All right. 

So I ask that question because, though, again, I am a supporter 

of MTW, let’s not pretend that it is the panacea and answer to 

every issue that faces people with housing problems. We will still 

have a waiting list. It will be a shorter one. We will be able to 

serve more people, and I think that is a good thing. But you are 

still going to have waiting lists. There is still going to be more that 

we can do. 

Mr. Nackerman, I believe you said you have lost $24 million of 

Federal money in the last few years? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Yes, sir, $21.4 million. 

Mr. CAPUANO. $21.4 million. 

Mr. Reed, have you lost Federal money in the last few years? 

Mr. REED. Yes, we have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Several million dollars? A million dollars? 

Mr. REED. About a million dollars. 

25 

Mr. CAPUANO. Okay. 

Mr. Woods, have you lost Federal funds? 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, we have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Russ, have you lost Federal funds? 

Mr. RUSS. Yes, we have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So what if I told you that I would bring you back 

to the level that you were 3, 4, 5 years ago, whatever it was, could 

you do more with that money? Or would it just be wasted money? 

Would you not be able to service more people on the list? 

And I know the answer. We all know the answer. The answer is, 

yes, of course you could. And, again, I say for the same reason. 

MTW is a good program. I don’t know why we couldn’t pass an 

expansion 2 years ago. I don’t know what the holdup is now. I don’t 

know why we have to reinvent the wheel. 

Mr. Russ, are you familiar with the stakeholder compromise that 

was on the table in 2011? 

Mr. RUSS. I am, Congressman. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Woods, are you familiar with it? 

Mr. WOODS. I am familiar with it. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Reed, are you familiar with it? 

Mr. REED. Yes, somewhat. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Nackerman, are you familiar with it? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Yes, I am, and I would love to comment on it. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If we could pass that tomorrow, as is, not that you 

get everything you want, would you suggest I vote yes or no, Mr. 

Nackerman? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. I would suggest you vote no. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Why? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. The stakeholder agreement did not include 

many stakeholders, for one thing. We have many resident organizations in California, as you might expect. None of those resident organizations were involved in any kind of stakeholder agreement. 

There are some items in the stakeholder agreement, we think it 

may add bureaucracy to a program that is attempting to streamline. Also, there are some really dangerous things in the stakeholder agreement where it doesn’t really mirror the MTW Program 

that we have now, so you are, in essence, creating a brand-new 

complicated program. 

So I don’t want to dismiss it completely. I think there are some 

great core pieces that we can work with there. But I think that is— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Do you think it is a place we should start with or 

a place we should just throw it out and start from scratch? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. I think we should take one step back to some 

of the earlier iterations of that bill and then move from there. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Okay. 

Mr. Russ, how do you feel about it? 

Mr. RUSS. I will give you an honest answer. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I would like an honest answer. 

Mr. RUSS. Yes. I have mixed emotions about the stakeholder 

agreement. I like the agreement because it brings more agencies 

into the portfolio. I think that is very, very important. And for me, 

or for our organization, that trumps what I would echo that Dan 

said, that there are elements of that agreement that I think are 

26 

very, very complicated and would, in fact, really radically change 

the program. 

I am not opposed to that if it advances the opportunity for more 

agencies to get Moving to Work, and in the end that is why I decided to support it. But there are things in the agreement that I 

think deserve further attention. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes. 

Mr. Woods, how would you feel about it? My time is actually up, 

but— 

Mr. WOODS. I would also have mixed emotions about it. I think 

that the basic MTW portion of it does provide the flexibility, but 

it doesn’t give you the ability to make the necessary policy changes 

that are really key, a key factor in changing the lives of individuals, to helping families move through the system. That is a big 

problem for me. That is a huge problem for me. 

Mr. CAPUANO. My time is up, but, Mr. Reed, I would like to hear 

your opinion, as well. 

Mr. REED. Okay. I have mixed emotions, as well. I think some 

of those pieces and share some of the sentiments of my colleagues, 

that there is some flexibility allowed, but there are some things 

that would hold housing authorities back. I think more housing authorities should have the opportunity to have the full expanse, ability to utilize MTW at its best. So, mixed emotions right now. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Great. Thank you all very much. 

I thank the chairman for indulging me. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. My pleasure. 

Next, we will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Duffy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the panel being here today and I thank you all for 

your testimony. We are doing a fantastic job of shattering the reputation of this committee and of Congress to actually have such a 

beautiful ‘‘Kumbaya’’ moment, all agreeing that we should support 

MTW. And to have a panel who is in agreement, as well, is actually 

fantastic. 

I have to tell you, I would agree with the Assistant Secretary of 

HUD when she was talking about rental assistance, talking about 

moving in, moving up, and moving out. And I appreciate the reality 

that you all deal with in shrinking budgets as we sit in difficult 

times. I realize how much more strain that puts on all of you to 

do your jobs and do them well and serve folks in your community 

who are in need. 

We are faced continuously with trillion-dollar deficits, a $17 trillion debt. And we have to look around our agencies and ask, how 

can we ask everyone to do more with less, how can we ask everyone to be more efficient and still not let people fall through the 

cracks, still have a system that helps people who fall on hard 

times, have a safety net for them and, frankly, hopefully, have a 

trampoline for them where they can hit and bounce back up into 

a lifestyle that they can support. 

And it sounds like, as we are talking about MTW, that it is not 

necessarily, as the gentleman from Massachusetts was discussing, 

spending more money, which is always helpful. How can we find 

a program and ideas that will allow you to spend money more effiVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:42 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 081770 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\81770.TXT TERRI
27 

ciently, to help more people be more effective in these very difficult 

budgetary times? 

And I appreciate everyone coming in and sharing your points of 

view. But is it fair to say that you all would agree that we should 

expand the MTW? To all of you. Yes? 

Mr. NACKERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. DUFFY. I am not misreading the panel, am I? 

Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. Yes. 

Mr. SCIRE. So the point that I would make here is that the MTW 

Program and how it might offer the opportunity to serve as a platform for demonstrating the efficiencies from these practices, these 

flexibilities, is not being optimized right now. 

So if you were to expand MTW, I think it would be important 

to build into it an evaluation component so that you can then take 

these practices that are working at one or more agencies and possibly apply them more broadly. And that is the opportunity for 

greater efficiency for those agencies that are not now MTW agencies. 

Mr. WOODS. I would totally agree with the expansion of MTW, 

but my caveat is that there needs to be full flexibility within MTW 

and not limited flexibility. 

Mr. DUFFY. Are you telling me, Mr. Woods, that you know how 

to better spend your budget than bureaucrats in Washington? 

Mr. WOODS. Not to pat myself on the back, but the answer is yes. 

Mr. DUFFY. You can pat yourself, that is fine. 

Mr. RUSS. I would definitely support the expansion. 

And I do believe that there are two questions in the evaluation 

part of this that deserve some thought. The first is, and I would 

make sure that we all understand that the kinds of evaluations we 

are talking about are very difficult to do. If you are talking about 

sort of the gold standard social policy study, you are looking at 

probably a 5- to 7-year commitment and you are looking at funding 

someone, potentially the housing authority or HUD or some other 

group, to do that. And we must be cognizant that these studies will 

take time. 

I do think that the program as it currently exists has really demonstrated that it is a workable solution in the communities in 

which it is operating. And we could do more with the reporting 

structures we have now. The MTW agencies recognize that, and we 

are collaborating amongst ourselves and hope to continue collaborating with HUD to do that. 

And our long view, if I may offer that, is that part of what should 

come out of this, we feel, is an accreditation program. And the accreditation program would get to some of the fundamental issues 

that deal with not only evaluation but also things like the governance of the organizations that we all run. And we feel that the 

MTW platform is an ideal platform to help launch that idea. 

Mr. DUFFY. And, Mr. Russ, I think that is good advice. 

I only have 25 seconds left. But, to the panel—we have a wealth 

of knowledge here—any downside risk to us if we make this move 

on a bipartisan level? Or any advice you have for us, as we have 

you all together, on how we could effectively make these changes? 

That is an open-ended question to anyone who wants to take it. 

28 

Mr. RUSS. I think you should go ahead and do it. 

Mr. NACKERMAN. I would just say, make sure that almost all 

agencies can get in, I think. There is a very few—this term ‘‘troubled’’ or ‘‘high performer,’’ I would stay away from. I think all agencies can do this, except the very, very few that are completely mismanaged that would ruin our program if they got in. 

Mr. REED. I know we are out of time, but I would like to bring 

up one point that I haven’t heard. 

A lot of times, you have large housing authorities and then you 

also have smaller housing authorities. And the dynamic between 

the two is pretty significant. So if you talk about implementing a 

Moving to Work Program with all of the requirements and reporting requirements that are involved, some of your smaller housing 

authorities are going to struggle to be able to provide that type of 

information and continue to service the needs of the families that 

they have. So larger organizations have many more resources, but, 

again, the small guys don’t have as much. 

Mr. DUFFY. Good point. 

And my time has expired, but I want to thank you all for the 

good work you do and for coming in today and testifying. Thank 

you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

Mr. Stivers from Ohio? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

And thank you to the witnesses for being here. 

I want to follow up on something Mr. Reed just talked about, and 

it follows up on a question that my colleague from Ohio, Mrs. 

Beatty, asked earlier. 

But you just talked about some of these small agencies. And, as 

you know, the Moving to Work Program was recently expanded but 

limited to smaller agencies. And I am just curious how these smaller agencies are doing at utilizing the opportunities that are created 

by the program. And why shouldn’t—and you guys have all kind 

of spoken to this already—there be more of a competitive opportunity and allow basically everyone into these opportunities of 

Moving to Work? 

I guess I will direct that one to Mr. Reed. 

Mr. REED. Yes, I definitely agree that all housing authorities 

should have the opportunity to have full access to MTW. Again, my 

one caveat is that the smaller guys will struggle somewhat with 

some of the reporting requirements. So, as more definitive studies 

come out of the program and they look at different size agencies 

and how they are doing, that would be really good information to 

bring back to the housing authority and maybe make adjustments 

on the fly. 

But right now we are really experiencing a lot of funding shortages. And, really, one of the reasons that I would like to have access, with the size agency that I have, is because when we have 

full fungibility, if we are short from one pot of money, we can actually subsidize that with another pot of money without going 

through the reporting requirements that we do right now. 

29 

So I don’t have a lot of information on how the small guys have 

implemented the program. But those are a couple of things that we 

would be interested in. 

Mr. STIVERS. And that gets me into, sir, my second question, 

which follows up on something that my colleague from Massachusetts talked about. And his point was, would you like to have all 

the money you had 8 years ago? I guess I would ask the converse 

of that. Which program is the best for you to utilize every single 

dollar you get, the standard program or the Moving to Work Program, for housing? 

And you can just go down through the list and let each of you 

say whether you think that the current program or Moving to 

Work would be a better way for you to utilize every single dollar 

you get in the best way possible to help your residents get positive 

outcomes and serve your mission. 

Mr. NACKERMAN. That is a fantastic question, because it really, 

again, hits the nail on the head as to each local housing authority 

has different issues. The housing authority I just came from was 

Marin County Housing Authority, really low on public housing 

budget. Now we have enough. 

So the site-by-site, place-by-place elements of Moving to Work 

allow us to balance those groups of HUD funds and survive things 

like sequestration. It is a huge—it is probably the first thing an 

MTW agency would do is combine their funding so they can weather the storm. 

Mr. REED. Yes, I would echo those sentiments. Yes, we would 

definitely like to have the flexibility of MTW with the funding that 

we have had in the past. All the programs and some of the things 

that we have talked about already, it would give us more funding 

and financing available to assist families, create new developments, 

and a multitude of other things in terms of assisting families to become more self-sufficient. 

So there are a few programs, a transportation program, that I 

would love to get into. We had one individual lady on our program 

who was going to quit her job because she didn’t have reliable 

transportation. So, we would definitely create programs like that. 

Mr. SCIRE. There have been several attempts to try to assess the 

impact of this program overall. None have been successful in doing 

that. So I think the verdict is really out right now as to whether 

or not, on net, the MTW Program agencies are doing more than 

they would have without the MTW flexibilities. I think that remains to be demonstrated. 

Mr. WOODS. I totally agree with my colleagues. I believe that 

MTW is the solution at this present time. 

I believe that the income that is generated from there, for us in 

Winston-Salem, our goal is to plow those dollars back into our program to make our PATH Program self-sustaining, give us the ability to develop new housing opportunities so that we can serve more 

people. We cannot do that under existing rules and regulations. It 

is very prohibitive. 

Mr. RUSS. I have two thoughts. The first is, it is money, honey, 

if you want to get along with me. And that is a—that is true. You 

would long for those days because there was more. But I have to 

30 

be a realist. And, realistically, where we are now, it is a much more 

difficult position. 

I would say this. I would say with the additional money, or our 

current situation, we are managing to figure out how to do more 

things. The Preservation Program for the multifamily that I told 

you about, that is an activity that we would never have imagined. 

And it has a spillover effect that is very positive for the community. 

We are doing more. We are assisting families in very difficult circumstances that we normally couldn’t assist. We have sponsorbased vouchers to assist the nonprofits in our community. There is 

a long list that my colleagues who have MTW share. 

And I would say there is a combination here, and it is pretty 

powerful. And, yes, would I use additional money? Sure. But where 

we are now, I believe we are doing more and we are using the resources to the best of our ability. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is gone. I yield 

back what I don’t have. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

With that, I would ask unanimous consent to introduce into the 

record the following: a letter from the New York State Public Housing Authority Directors Association dated June 26, 2013. 

Mr. Capuano, do you have a letter also? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, from New York City. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Without objection, we would like to also introduce a letter of 

June 26, 2013, from the New York City Housing Authority, also to 

the chairman and ranking member. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

With that, I would like to thank each of the witnesses who appeared here today for your testimony. It has been excellent and enjoyable and informative. And I appreciate each of you taking the 

time to come to us with your ideas and concern and passion. I certainly appreciate it and certainly note it. 

Is there another letter? 

We have another letter to be submitted for the record, without 

objection. And it is a letter from Doug Guthrie, president and CEO 

of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, dated June 26, 

2013. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 26, 2013 

32 


81770.001

Written Statement of Randy Neugebauer 

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

"Evaluating How BUD's Moving-to-Work Program Benefits Public and Assisted 

Housing Residents" 

June 26, 2013 

Thank you all for attending this important hearing examining the 

effectiveness ofHUD's Moving-to-Work Program. The hearing today will help us 

determine whether the MTW program should be expanded and whether a more 

robust MTW program can better serve low and moderate income families in 

achieving self-sufficiency when the terms of federal housing assistance are 

determined locally. 

Before I move forward I would like to take some time to thank the 

Gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, for his hard work on this issue last 

Congress. While we may have fell a bit short of our goals in expanding MTW last 

Congress, I think we have a strong foundation to build upon. I look forward to 

working with Mr. Miller and the rest of my colleagues to achieve our goals this 

Congress. 

BUD's Section 8 program has increased dramatically both in terms of the 

number of people it assists and its overall portion of the BUD budget - which is 

currently roughly 60%. Without proper reforms, these costs will continue to grow 

on their unsustainable path. That is where the MTW program comes into the 

picture. 
33 


81770.002

The MTW program was created as a demonstration program in 1996 and 

gave a select number of local public housing authorities the discretion to test 

alternative policies for providing housing assistance. The MTW program has three 

underlying goals: to reduce costs in federal expenditures; increase housing choice 

for low-income families; and, more importantly to lend a hand to assisted housing 

residents so they can become economically self-sufficient. 

Given the problems associated with HUl)'s section 8 program - both fiscal 

and socioeconomic - the MTW program appears to be a perfect solution to right 

the ship. 

The flexibility allowed under the program is an appropriate alternative for 

Congress to consider in this time of record deficits -when all Americans, including 

HUD and PHAs - will have to tighten their belts and think creatively about ways to 

make Federal taxpayer funds work in ways not considered in the past. And the 

reforms to help move our fellow citizens to economic independence will not only 

help improve the lives of those residents, but it will also allow us to deliver 

housing assistance to the thousands of people who have been waiting in line for 

section 8 vouchers for years. 

The Administration recently highlighted some of the successes of the MTW 

program, which included a reduction in costs and an increase in the number of 

families served - a rare feat in today's Washington, DC. It is my hope to build off 

that success by expanding the program to more PHAs. Obviously, I hear the 
34 


81770.003

concerns that there needs to be more robust evaluation and monitoring. I think this 

Committee can achieve that balance between appropriate oversight and expansion. 

I look forward to hearing from our panelists on how we can responsibly 

achieve that goal. Doing so would not only benefit u.s. taxpayers, but it would 

also provide great opportunities to our feIlow citizens in their time of need -which 

is a true reflection of the compassion that is so much a part ofthis Country's makeup. 

### 
35 


81770.004

Written Testimony 

Daniel J. Nackerman 

President, CEO 

Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino 

San Bernardino, California 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Financial Services 

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

"Evaluating How HUD's Moving-to-Work Program Benefits Public and Assisted Housing 

Residents" 

June 26, 2013 

Chairman Neugebauer, Ranking Member Capuano, and honorable Members, it is an honor to 

appear here today to discuss how we can move forward in expanding the great work of 

Moving-to-Work (MTW) demonstration sites. In San Bernardino CA, we know first hand how 

MTW can eliminate waste, serve more families, improve customer service for our residents, 

and more effectively invest taxpayer dollars to serve lower income families, and seniors in great 

need. 

I am Daniel Nackerman, President and CEO of the Housing Authority of the County of San 

Bernardino (HACSB) in Southern California. I have been assisting local residents for 23-years at 

five different California housing authorities including leading as Executive Director or Deputy 

Director at the Marin County Housing Authority, Contra Costa County Housing Authority, City of 

Richmond Housing Authority and as a senior manager at the Oakland Housing Authority. 

The Inland Empire and MTW Background 

Our agency jurisdiction, located east of Los Angeles, contains 24 cities and covers the largest 

county in the contiguous U.S., containing a population greater than 15 of the country's states. 1 

San Bernardino County is part of a vibrant region including Riverside County and parts of 

Orange County that is known as the Inland Empire. This region likely contains every aspect of 

your own represented community with rural areas, cities of both wealth and poverty, urban 

treasures and ills, and of course on-going needs for housing of every type. 

Our agency is dead center in the third worst foreclosure spot in the U.S. with 43.7% of homes 

still "underwater" as of the beginning of the year. 2 Our headquarters is located in an officially 

bankrupt city and we also have some of the highest rates of poverty within the Golden State. 

Paradoxically, our region booms with job growth, population growth, and quality of life 

1 Census Population Estimates Program, (2011). Estimates by County. 

'Economics & Politics, Inc. (www.johnhusing.com) 

1 
36 


81770.005

advancement when economic conditions are right such as they were from 2000-2008 - and as 

these conditions appear to be in place again. 

This backdrop of our region creates an even greater need for the hub in the wheel - the launch 

pad for all - stable affordable housing. Our waiting lists have reached over 45,000 families at 

times. 

Our housing authority, one of the larger agencies amongst approximately 3,200 nationwide, 

was already deeply involved in real estate development, demonstrating a private-like corporate 

culture, and in a focus on resident lives before we became a Moving- to- Work site in 2008. 

As you have heard or will hear today, this demonstration "program" - which really is not a 

program but a broad waiver of national regulations combined with HUD oversight - has allowed 

housing authorities to operate much more efficiently and effectively. 

We have used our designation to streamline processes and eliminate redundant, outdated 

program work tasks. With housing programs designed during the World War II era and 

redesigned in the 1960's, there are many policies and procedures that need updating to ensure 

efficiency is achieved. For example, housing authorities are required to check the fixed income 

on seniors every single year through a process more complicated than doing your income tax. 

What is the effect of these old regulations on the approximately 3,160 non-MTW agencies? 

Too many distinct programs with exclusive funding albeit all with HUD funding. When 

hard work and efficiency in one program saves funding in that program it cannot be 

utilized for another where cuts might be occurring. 

Wasteful, illogical work required due to antiquated regulations. 

Complex and unfriendly service forced on residents due again to dated regulations or 

national regulations that do not fit at the local level. 

Higher staff levels required to do the increasingly complex work at a time when funding 

sources are reduced each year. 

As a non-traditional housing authority, our agency's success is a result of our business approach 

to strategic planning and delivery of services. Assistant Secretary Sandra Henriquez stated that 

the success of the Boston Housing Authority during her tenure was a result of "operating as a 

private business with a social mission." This resonates at our agency. As a business entity that 

serves as good stewards of taxpayer's dollars, we cannot properly serve our families unless we 

operate an effective and productive business. This approach has become even more crucial 

during these times of austere budgets and long-term economic challenges. 

Our effective business operations helps us achieve our primary goal, which is to provide our 

families with the resources, skills, and motivation to transition out of government assisted 

programs into economic independence. As a reflection of our mission and service philosophy, 

2 
37 


81770.006

we have increased our resident services and coupled them with new initiatives such as five year 

term limits, "work" requirements, tiered lease assistance and minimum rent increases, among 

others. These new initiatives also ensure accountability by combining our assistance in helping 

residents find jobs with their commitment to transition out of government assistance. As 

catalysts, in collaboration with our partners, we provide and leverage services that will help our 

families build a foundation for economic independence. 

Prior to our MTW designation, HACSB embarked on a 30-year strategic planning process and in 

early 2008 solidified our agency's long-term goals that guide us in our annual strategic planning. 

Our proactive planning and strategy efforts have helped us face budget reductions of $21.4 

million within the past five calendar years, yet we had been able to increase the services we 

provide to our families. Our long-term goals are aligned with statutory MTW goals and they 

enhance our efforts to implement an array of innovative business practices and program 

services. The flexibility granted by our MTW designation coupled with our 30 year strategic plan 

will help us realize these goals and objectives. 

HACSB 30 Year StrategiC Goals: 

No eligible family waits longer than 10 days for housing 

• Clients have achieved their own personal level of stability and economic independence 

For those whom a transition is appropriate, the maximum stay in assisted living is 5-

years 

HACSB leaders and supporters are innovative policy makers and influencers of 

legislation 

HACSB has secured the resources needed for accomplishing its Mission 

HACSB is a leading developer and provider of affordable housing in the County of San 

Bernardino 

HACSB is adequately staffed with well trained and fully developed employees 

HACSB communication is open, honest and consistent 

HACSB employees have a high level of morale 

HACSB clients, programs and properties are embraced by all communities 

HACSB clients live in safe and desirable homes and communities where they can 

develop and prosper 

We design our programs as a stepping-stone providing additional assistance to our families on 

the path to economic independence. In conjunction with an extensive list of community 

partners, government agencies, employment service providers, and institutions of higher 

education we work to: provide family/individual case management and counseling, assist with 

career training and job placement; and ensure program integrity. These efforts are building 

blocks to achieve our mission and vision of upholding our core values of respect, safety, 

integrity and service. 

The three MTW statutory objectives are the core filters for what we strive for in MTW, which 

are as follows: 

3 
38 


81770.007

Operational efficiency through innovation Moximizing HACSB's economic viability and 

sustainability and being gaod stewards of taxpayers' dollars. 

Develop economic independent clients - Facilitating opportunities for families and 

individuols to become self-sufficient and financially independent. 

Ensure freedom of housing choice - Providing quality affordable housing opportunities 

in mixed income communities with access to excellent quality of life services. 

HACSB currently has 22 approved MTW activities. Twelve of these address the objective of 

operational efficiency, seven assist families with economic independence efforts and three help 

expand housing opportunities. These MTW activities help advance our global strategic goals 

outlined above, which unlike many other plans at other businesses serve as a daily guide to 

what we do. 

REASONS FOR MOVING TO WORK 

Moving -to-Work works. It can make rents much more simple and fair. As an example, we are 

in the process of developing a streamlined lease assistance program, which we anticipate to 

implement in 2014. This program sets households on a tiered rent system where a household's 

rent will start at 21% of gross income - and then raised by 3% every two years and no 

deductions or allowances are included. For the elderly and disabled in that program the rent 

will simply be 24% of gross income. In another major program, we subsidize 50% of the fair 

market rents and the residents pay the rest, giving them the power to select a home that meets 

their needs. This approach replaces HUD's 30% income rent rules, which provides financial 

disincentives for employment and higher income for residents. 

Moving-to-Work focuses the non-senior, non-disabled adult on gaining job readiness, or gaining 

employment, or gaining better employment, all with our help. We have channeled many 

resources towards this. We do understand that pre-employment barriers to this such as 

educational shortcomings, transportation, or even more serious elements such as substance 

abuse are also a part of the now single minded mission of better economic Situation within the 

household. Therefore, our help comes on several levels. If you think about it, the only way to 

move through housing programs into the private market is through advancing economics 

reSUlting in a higher household income. 

Moving-to-Work works locally such as our abolishing the HUD Fair Market Rent system and 

utilizing third party market studies in establishing a local system of nine different rents, thereby 

paying lower rent in some of our 24 cities and higher in others. This has accomplished the 

following to date: 

Residents are 'deconcentrating' from low-income regions and moving towards healthier 

communities with better schools, etc. 

Overall, we have related savings in landlord payments thereby helping house 500+ more 

families this year than last - with that trend expected to continue. 

4 
39 


81770.008

INNOVATIVE SPECIFIC MTW A<;:TIVITIES 

The Five Year lease Assistance Program is a five-year term limit activity for all new 

individuals/families (except seniors and disabled individuals) pulled from the voucher program 

waiting list. HACSB's staff works with each adult to develop a personalized education and/or 

professional plan, which serves as a gUide for self-sufficiency goals. After a year of 

implementation, 567 households are being assisted under this program and 767 adults have 

developed their plans. A flat subsidy is provided, which is equal to the lessor of the contract 

rent or 50% of the payment standard for the given submarket. As we backfill through attrition 

and limit the years families can receive housing assistance, we hope to promptly serve the 

applicants on our waiting lists. 

We work in partnership with loma linda University (LLU) as they are conducting a longitudinal 

study to analyze the impact of this activity on families, what types of services were leveraged, 

specific outcomes, etc. Since the activity has only been in place since January 2012, lLU is 

currently analyzing year 1 data. 

We are one of the few agencies in the country instituting these trial 'time limits' for new 

families pulled from the Housing Choice Voucher Program wait list. This five-year lease 

assistance strategy, applicable only to non-senior and non- disabled adults, is a bold initiative 

changing the premise that once a person is in the program they can stay indefinitely. After 16 

months into the start of this initiative, this has so far proven to: 

Give each household a counselor or life coach. Not surprising to us but likely to many 

these moms and dads want a better life; want help in gaining education and jobs; want 

to move into private housing or homeownership someday. Our university partner, loma 

linda University, found that even disabled residents on 551 are seeking jobs3

• 

Make space for those mentioned on our waiting list. If we move our average use of the 

subsidy from 7.4 years to 4.4 we conceptually house approximately 1,500 more people 

over that period, at little or no additional cost. To build new housing to accomplishment 

the same would be an upfront cost of approximately $110,000,000. 

Help advance the quality of lives with the home as the stable start and all else kinetic. 

This helps as a powerful part of neighborhood reVitalization, educational reform, 

healthier living and movement vs. stagnation. 

We are also one of the only agencies in the U.S. advancing the concept of required effort -

misleadingly labeled a "work requirement". This pilot project at one site encourages adults (not 

seniors and not those with disabilities) to try training, school, volunteer time, and related 

advancement not unlike a small scale Welfare to Work program. Again, we are helping face 

obstacles such as violence in the household, mental health, lack of transportation, and other 

challenges in order to advance our omnipresent cause - moving customers through our 

programs. With this pilot we also utilize our university partner loma Linda University on a 

weekly basis to track, advise and perform direct service on site. 

3 Distelberg, B. (2010). Needs assessment study. Housing Authority County of Son Bernardino 

5 
40 


81770.009

A quick list of the major change components underway at HACSB due to MTW is as follows: 

Elimination of dated program requirements and related reporting in order to save 

resources and deliver services simply. 

Program time limits for some adults. Appeal process available. 

Income examinations every 2-3 years instead of annually. 

Simple, fair, customer-friendly rent systems. Systems that don't punish residents by 

raising rent when employment is gained. 

Incentives for economic advancement instead of rent raises. 

Blending of program funds in order to sustain consistent budget cuts and to target 

highest goals. 

Eliminate calculation of assets towards rent. 

Establish a higher minimum rent (pending). 

• Test a pilot program for required efforts towards employment. 

Change tenant/landlord systems to reflect the private sector and prepare residents for 

such. 

Simplify utility allowance systems. 

Higher level inspection systems although with less frequency. 

EQUITABLY ALLOCATING OUR LIMITED HOUSING RESOURCES 

Most importantly, Moving-to-Work works to recognize the desperate needs of the millions of 

people in the U.S. who critically and desperately need a place to live. As mentioned, our waiting 

list once exceeded 45, 000. Our neighboring agencies have lists longer than 100,000. No one is 

representing these families. They are affected by policies but have no voice in gUiding them. 

HACSB WAITING LIST TOTAL JUNE 2013 

Total Extremely Low Income Applicants := 25,758 

Total Very Low Income Applicants = 5,487 

Total Low Income Applicants = 1,404 

Total Applicants** = 32,649 

**Includes people that do not meet the defined criteria due to income or family size 

Note that these wait list residents are not demonstrative of the total of those who need 

housing in the U.S. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center only 25% of those desperately 

needing housing get it.4 MTW policies and practices such as time limits, shifting of funds 

towards more housing, and employment incentives can help solve the wait list dilemma. 

4 Bipartisan Policy Center (2013). (www.bipartisonpolicy.org) 

6 
41 


81770.010

jiACS1LEFFECTIVENESS UTILIZING MTW 

It is important to supply metrics to show the impacts of MTW. HACSB metrics to date include 

the following highlights: 

An increase in the total number of families served. Due to cost efficiencies resulting 

from MTW directly, approximately S08 more families were housed in 2012 than 2011. 

An increase in help for non-housing needs such as school, mental health counseling, 

transportation, computer training and other supportive services. HACSB spent over 

$850,000 in 2012 on such services and as importantly shifted regional services towards 

HACSB residents at little or no cost to HACSB or to the residents. 

A steady decrease in the number of hours needed to perform our work thereby saving 

significant resources. HACSB spent approximately 6,000 fewer hours annually since 2009 

(averaged since 2009) performing basic program work.s This savings was due directly to 

MTW. 

An increase in the number of effective initiatives due to efficiency funding being shifted 

to new, creative efforts such as homeless housing and veterans housing. 

An increase in flexible funding, some gained from efficiencies, now targeted to new 

resident support or new local initiatives. 

MEASURING MTW ACTIVITIES AND METRICS 

One of the only setbacks to expansion of the MTW designation is a constant drum beat from all 

directions that HUD and for that matter Congress may not really know what is happening at 

MTW sites. We understand but reject this notion. While the HUD system for monitoring may be 

different than for most other programs we offer the following: 

1. The very nature of each local MTW program is different on purpose - these HUD 

programs are redesigned locally to be more effective locally and HUD can't really 

measure all - they can only measure each. As such the traditional program metrics and 

assessments don't work, especially for 39 agencies of 3,200. Annually, we provide HUD 

with an Annual MTW Plan and Annual MTW Report that describes all new initiatives and 

provides metrics on our specific activities. HUD is aware of each and every local 

initiative and the results of such - it is just difficult to report that out in summary. We 

work very closely with exceptional HUD staff and they firmly guide our activities and 

occasionally deny portions of our plans. 

2. HACSB is pleased to be taking a major role, in conjunction with other MTW agencies and 

HUD, in designing metrics to assess tangible achievements of MTW agencies. Started as 

a swift solution to unknowns, 34 of 39 MTW sites are directly involved in establishing 

measurement systems for HUD final approval. This is critical to address concerns that 

federal tax dollars are spent wisely on Housing Authorities, and in particular MTW 

agencies. Development of effective metrics allows relaxation of bureaucratic rules so 

5 MTW Annual Reports HACSB (2010-2012). 

7 
42 


81770.011

that PHAs are judged not on degree of compliance with those rules, but with actual real 

world results. 

3. Throughout the years, there has been an ongoing negative sentiment about 

participating MTW agencies; however, we have found most are based on outdated 

information, or lack of better information and studies, which we are currently 

providing. Some of the expressed concerns include: MTW agencies serve fewer families; 

self-sufficiency activities are forcing low-income families out of affordable housing; and 

lack of reporting. We cannot speak for other MTW agencies, but we have had a great 

deal of success with most of our activities and the misconceptions to date do not apply 

at our agency. In terms of reporting, we currently provide HUD with both an Annual 

Report and Annual Plan that follow the guidelines and requirements set by HUD (known 

as Attachment B). We are not opposed to any additional reporting if necessary. We are 

a demonstration site, and we willing to do what is necessary to ensure lessons learned 

are leveraged and documented accordingly. 

4. One idea to solve the reporting and monitoring concern is to have a third party provide 

such under HUn's direction and paid specifically through MTW agencies. The initial 

metrics could be gleaned from the 'Chicago' study. Agencies such as Standard & Poors 

are already entrenched in similar work at some agencies on the financial side. 

BUDGET PROPOSALS MAY UNDERMINE MTW AGENCIES 

Early FY 2014 budget proposals to apply Section 8 reserve recaptures to MTW agencies are not 

fair and would undermine MTW effectiveness. Reserve recapture may make sense for nonMTW agencies that can only use Section 8 for voucher assistance and admin costs, since high 

reserves indicate the funds are not needed. But reserves can be used for other activities for 

MTW agencies, and are commonly built up to implement long-term strategies and plans as well 

as direct services to residents. Draft FY 2014 budget proposals to allow funding reductions on 

MTW agencies if new expansion bills are enacted are counterintuitive as well. Cuts are not 

appropriate, as MTW agencies would achieve no cost savings because they are not subject to 

the PHA rules they provide relief from. 

CONTRACT EXPIRATION COULD UNDERMINE MTW AGENCIES 

There is a lack of clarity for what MTW agencies can do when their current contracts run out in 

2018. This is a threat to the planning, continuity, and effectiveness of existing MTW agencies. 

Congress and/or HUD should provide clarity on two major points: 

1. HUD should not be allowed to consolidate the programs and authorities of the existing 

MTWs and the new MTW agencies that might be created by authorizing legislation -

which HUD may be tempted to do to reduce their costs of administering MTW. This 

would likely result in a significant rollback of the authorities of existing MTWs and 

frankly ruin much progress. 

8 
43 


81770.012

2. Specific types of activities currently being employed by MTWs should be grandfathered 

in. HACSB is implementing time limits - it would fatally undermine initiatives like this if 

HUO could cut them off when the existing MTW contract expires 

MTW EXPANSION IS NEEDED 

On the expansion of MTW let us offer the following: 

HUO has been heroic on a national programmatic level in initiating this pilot project and 

in guiding and administering such. The lessons learned will no doubt shape HUO housing 

history but more importantly change lives for the better throughout the u.S. 

You may hear from many Housing Authorities how overdue the streamlining of 

programs are - particularly the Housing Choice Voucher Program- and how futile past 

efforts to do so have proven to be. 

There are some near-finished proposed bills that could advance this soon - but cautions 

that the original MTW structure remains in place are paramount. The last thing needed 

is a new round of complicated regulations differing from MTW but named MTW. 

If a new bill is presented it must reflect the existing work and flexibility of existing sites 

almost verbatim or it will only be a fig leaf on the powerful work that is underway - and 

may then be another new program with the opposite effect of streamlining. 

It is time to make this Moving -to- Work that works long term or permanent. 17 years as 

a demonstration? With no additional funding needed? In fact significant savings often in 

place? 

We are not only protecting our residents we are injecting hope, thankfulness, and 

progress ... lets expand that to most agencies. 

The common hymn of why not expand has to do with 'monitoring' and 'metrics' as you 

will hear from a witness today. We welcome and demand scrutiny. In fact we are swiftly 

helping HUO to complete new measurement tools based on an informal term 'Chicago 

study' that will no doubt be in place before expansion is fully approved. 

Only well run agencies should be allowed to jump in. What is a well-run agency? Not 

necessarily a labeled HUD high performer (over half of U.S. Housing Authorities now 

have that label). We think a combination of fiscal audit reviews, metrics from the 

Bipartisan Policy Center6 and initial benchmark metrics from the Chicago could help 

HUD determine entry - which would be almost every Housing Authority in the U.S. 

FUTURE LEGISLATION 

Since we received our MTW designation in 2008, we have transformed our agency by setting 

ourselves to these high standards. Building upon our practices, we have executed 22 innovative 

initiatives with the three MTW statutory objectives in mind: save taxpayer dollars through 

6 BPC, Housing America's Future (2013). Executive Summary 

9 
44 


81770.013

efficient work; help our families achieve economic independence; and ensure a family's 

freedom of housing choice. 

For any future legislation that proposes the expansion of MTW, existing sites would like to have 

current contracts that expire in 2018 made permanent if any future bill does not reflect the 

current MTW program we operate today- or at least have protections to allow them to 

continue existing activities .. Comments on previous legislative proposals: 

Previous proposals were not an expansion of MTW, but rather a new program. Based on 

the new program requirements we would not be able to continue many of our ongoing 

activities, therefore existing MTW agencies should be made permanent or have exiting 

activities protected under their current contractual agreements. 

Bill language suggested that agencies would not be able to apply rent reform activities 

to families which would prohibit the continuation of some of our existing initiatives such 

as: five year lease assistance, pilot "work" requirement, increase minimum rent, and 

streamlined leased assistance. 

We would not support any language that would give HUD the flexibility to alter our 

MTW agreements at any time without cause. 

We would also see a possible loss of current flexibility and efficiency if bill language was 

included that would require that HUD also consult with an evaluation advisory group 

before an activity is approved and/or continued annually by an MTW agency. 

In conclusion, Moving to Work works. We urge your Committee to help make it permanent and 

help other Public Housing Authorities move forward with creative, timely, life-changing 

advancements even in this time of domestic program budget cuts. Thank you for this 

opportunity to testify regarding our experience and the tangible results achieved. 

10 
45 


81770.014

534 

~!~ Cypress Street, Suite #200 

Abilene. TX 79601 

Written Statement 

Gene Reed 

Executive Director 

Abilene Housing Authority 

Abilene, TX 

Before the Sub-Committee on Housing & Insurance 

United State House of Representatives 

June 26, 2013 

Hearing: "Evaluating How HUD's Moving-to-Work Program Benefits Public & Assisted 

Housing Residents" 

Phone. 325-676-6385 Fax 325-676-6375 Relay Services: 711 OR I-SOO-ReJayTX Website: \vww.abileneha.org 

Equal Opportumty Employer I Equal Housing Opportunities 
46 


81770.015

Testimony of Gene Reed 

Executive Director 

Abilene Housing Authority 

Abilene, TX 

Before the Sub-Committee on Housing & Insurance 

June 26, 2013 

Chainnan Neugebauer, members of the Sub-Committee on Housing & Insurance, I thank you for 

the opportunity to testify; my name is Gene Reed and I am the Executive Director of the Abilene 

Housing Authority in Abilene, TX, I have 19 years of combined leadership experience between 

the Affordable Housing industry (approximately nine years) and the Gas & Electric Utility 

industry (approximately 10 years), In each industry I have had the opportunity to analyze 

business needs, rebuild an organization, restructure organizations/departments, develop new 

programs and build teams in an effort to meet the goals of each organization. 

The Abilene Housing Authority (AHA) is at the lower end of what is considered to be a large 

Public Housing Authority (PHA). AHA manages 1536 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) 

consisting of 145 HUD-VASH (Veteran's Affairs Supportive Housing) vouchers, throughout 20 

counties in West Central Texas, as well as 213 Low Rent Public Housing (LRPH) units and 170 

affordable and market-rate units in the City of Abilene. 

During my career in the affordable housing industry I have had the fortunate opportunity to have 

worked for the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (the 17'h largest PHA in the country), 

as the HCV Manager from 2004 to 2008, in a very politically charged environment. Since 

October 2008, I have been employed as the Executive Director of AHA. During this time AHA 

has been able to successfully separate from the City of Abilene, acquire the HCV programs of 

three small PHAs, acquire a Project-Based Section 8 "Opt-Out" complex, developed a ProjectBased Voucher program, successfully apply for and receive the Ike/Gustav Hurricane Disaster 

Housing Assistance Progmm (DHAP) and HUD-VASH vouchers and, receive Family SelfSufficiency (FSS) Coordinator Grant. AHA also increased participation in the FSS program 

from five participants in 2008 to 50 participants in 2012. AI·IA's HCV Program has been 

recognized as a "High Perfonner" program for the past five years and the LRPH program has 

been recognized as a "High Perfonner" program for the past two years. The AHA itself has been 

recognized as a "High PerfOlmer" agency for the past two years. AHA is currently in the process 

of preparing to apply for a Tax Credit development in 2014. 

Over the past three years Public Housing Authorities have experienced unprecedented funding 

cuts in our programs. Unfortunately, the cuts have come at a time when unemployment rates arc 

still extremely high (over 7 percent). Families have lost their homes and jobs have continued to 

be sent overseas. Hard working, American, middle-income families that never thought about 

utilizing affordable housing programs now qualify. For years their tax payer dollars have paid 

for programs like ours and now when they need affordable housing programs, due to continued 

deep budget cuts, PHAs across the country are serving fewer families and unable to assist these 

families as needed. It is my hope that funding for our programs be stabilized in order for PHAs 

to adequately assist elderly and disabled families (approximately 46 percent of the families AHA 

Phone' 325-676-6385 Fa'. 325·676·6375 Relay Services: 711 OR l-SOO-ReJayTX Webslte wwvv.ablieneha Of£ 

Equal Opportunity Employer I Equal Housing Opportunities 
47 


81770.016

assists), struggling, hard-working and well-educated Americans that need assistance due to 

situations beyond their controL Let's help American families recover. Our affordable housing 

programs only represent 2 to 3 percent of the overall federal budget. 

In addition to the challenges that hard-working Americans are facing in the current economy, 

PHAs are also faced with the challenge to meet regulatory rcquirements that we were required to 

meet when we were receiving higher funding amounts, Higher funding amounts provided 

adequate staffing levels to administer the programs in a way that allowed PHAs to meet HUD's 

regulatory requirements and to meet the special needs of the communities that we serve, For the 

past two years J have personally been asking Congress & HUD to provide regulatory relief to 

PHAs that will enable the AHA and other housing authorities nationwide to still meet their 

mission of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing to low-income families in this budgetcutting environment. 

As [ mentioned before, [ truly appreciate the opportunity to address the Sub-Committee on the 

potential benefits of expanding the Moving-To-Work (MTW) program, MTW presents PHAs 

with what I would consider a "fighting chance" during these budget-cutting times, The merits of 

the MTW Program, for AHA are: 

Meeting the Community Needs: 

MTW allows PHAs to analyze the local communities that it services and allow the PHA to tailor 

programs and services to specifically address the housing needs of their communities, For 

example, in Abilene, TX we have a large population of homeless veterans, due to the fact that 

Dyess Air Force Base is our largest employer. Through MTW my PHA would be able to 

develop programs in collaboration with numerous other social service agencies and the local 

Military Partnership of West Central Texas that service the various needs of veterans, We could 

use public-private dollars to develop a more robust program, 

Fostering Self-Sufficiency: 

Assisting fami lies to become self-sufficient is a part of the AHA mission statement. Throughout 

my career in affordable housing [ have always said that, a "self-sufficiency" program should be a 

"flag ship program for Housing Authorities," Not only is it a life-changing program for 

participants, it is also a program that shows the community that their tax payer dollars are being 

spent for a "hand-up and not a hand-out." Many participants on our programs began from a 

disadvantaged starting point. Many others have fallen upon "hard times" in their lives and need 

assistance and guidance to get back to self-sufficiency, 

One married young lady on our program found out that her husband was molesting one of her 

children, The divorce left her with a single income and two kids, The Housing Choice Voucher 

Program was a saving grace for this family, which was devastated and in need of assistance to 

recover from this traumatizing experience, She was approved to participate in the HCV 

program, saved money while living in a govemment subsidized home, decided to pursue her 

degree, graduated Summa Cum Laude and, got a good-paying job, On her own, she decided to 

graduate two years early from the HCV FSS Program to provide another family the opportunity 

to benefit from the Program, received her FSS Escrow check and purchased her own home, This 

is why I decided to stay in the affordable housing industry, because these programs are positively 

Phone. 325-676-6385 Fax 325-676-6375 Relay Services. 711 OR l-S00-RelayTX WebSIte: ,,"\v\N.abileneha org 

Equal Opportunity Employer i Equal Housing Opportunities 
48 


81770.017

changing the lives of American families. What better investment can government make than to 

assist families to become self-sufficient? 

These stories, in our programs, are endless. The design ofMTW allows agencies to build and 

grow self-sufficiency programs by having the capacity to move funds into developing larger 

more robust programs. MTW will allow agencies to add more staff into the self-sufficiency 

programs and to use the FSS Coordinator to supplement the workload of other departments as 

needed. Currently, a FSS Coordinator obtained under the FSS Grant can only work on FSS 

work. 

Regulatory Relief: 

As funding continues to decrease, the ability of a PHA to adequately meet the regulatory 

requirements set forth by Congress/HUD greatly decreases. Given the regulatory requirements 

PHAs have to meet and the fact that our industry may continue to see more budget cuts, the 

funding formula simply does not work. 

MTW allows PHAs the ability to change or remove certain regulatory requirements. The 

program is designed to allow innovation and also to allow PHAs to manage their program in a 

way that meets the needs of their communities and not from a one-size fits all regulatory model. 

4 

For example, many PHAs have removed the requirement to conduct recertifications on an annual 

basis. Many have moved to conducting them every two years or even every three years for 

elderly and disabled families on fixed incomes. This can dramatically reduce the operating 

expense of administering PHA programs during these budget-cutting times. 

Development Activity: 

AHA is currently looking for ways to generate revenue outside of the traditional government 

provided funding streams. Development activities such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

(LIHTC) programs, and affordable housing programs, will allow PHAs the opportunity to move 

away from dependence on traditional government funding. This in turn will assist the 

government in reducing the federal budget. Through MTW PHAs are allowed to use current 

government funding to leverage non-federal development activity. Over a period oftime this 

will allow PHAs to migrate away from full dependence on government funding to minimal 

dependence on government funding while still meeting their mission, which is to serve the 

housing needs of low-income families across America. 

Full Management of Funds Provided to PHA's: 

Presently, PHAs receive four pots of money (HCY is provided Admin Fees and HAP Fees, and 

LRPH are provided Operating Subsidy & Capital Funds). These four pots of money have very 

specific and designated uses. Currently, PHAs at times can move money from pot to pot, 

although, the approval process is arduous and time consuming. If you have ever experienced 

working in private sector business, which I have, you know that making things happen quickly 

and having the flexibility to make key decisions is critical to the success of a business. 

Phone. 325·676·6385 Relay Services: 711 OR.~1: .. :8:0(:):'R~el::a~y.TX'.: ... ~ ......... ~ _~W::e:~b:si,.t'.:e."='=""='.a=b:'Je:"e:h=a o:r~g .. 

Equal Opportunity Employer / Equal Housing Opportun1t!es 
49 


81770.018

Under MTW, PHAs have the ability, to make key business decisions, whether through process 

and regulatory requirement changes or through having the ability to move funds in a way the 

PHA sees fit, in order to expeditiously and efficiently run its business. 

Recommendation: 

Overall, MTW can provide PHAs with the ability to remove policies and practices that are 

mundane, outdated, and in need of reform given our current funding situation. MTW provides 

PHAs with a more business-like model that enables PHAs to address the current local needs. 

My recommendation to Congress is to expand the MTW program and allow more PHA access to 

the program in order to better manage their limited resources. 

Response to SUb-Committee Questions: 

1. HUD should continue to base MTW eligibility on a PHA having an overall "High 

Perfonner" rating. These agencies have shown that they have the ability to manage their 

agencies in a way that meets or exceeds the current assessment requirements. There are 

many "Standard Performer" agencies that have the ability to be successful under MTW as 

well. For "Standard Performers," HUD should review progress made in assessment areas 

over the past few years then get a recommendation from the PHAs HUD Field Office. 

The make-up and qualifications of staff may also be taken into account in determining 

whether to give the PHA access to the MTW program. 

2. The future of public and assisted housing is "bleak" ifMTW or some other progressive 

program is not instituted. Currently, funding is being reduced at an alarming rate while 

regulatory requirements are not being removed in any substantial or meaningful way. 

Reductions in funding are contributing to a higher national unemployment rate, due to 

PHAs having to lay-off and/or not replace staff after natural attrition. This reduces PHAs 

ability to meet the regulatory requirements, which can and will cause sub-par 

performance ratings under the current assessments. These sub-par ratings will later 

manifest in lower funding for PHAs (budget cuts plus nOll-perfonnance funding cuts will 

equal catastrophic damage to PHAs). I always say, "You can't squeeze orange juice from 

an apple." 

3. MTW allows PHAs to effectively meet the needs of their local communities by 

redirecting funds to the PHAs' mission. One of the big problems many of our 

participants have is reliable transportation. AHA had one lady that had a decent job in 

which she had held for a substantial amount of time that was ready to quit because she 

didn't have reliable transportation. My FSS Coordinator addressed this issue with his 

Public Coordinating Committee (PCC) and they came up with a plan to address this 

issue. Fortunately, in this situation the community was able to pull it off for us. But the 

massive budget cuts we are experiencing at every level of government are affecting the 

ability of communities to support or assist other agencies. If AHA were a MTW agency, 

we would be allowed to redirect funds to address this issue of reliable transportation so 

families do not have to quit their jobs, but have a reliable program to get them to work 

even when their transportation options were lacking. Under MTW we would have more 

Phone. 325-676-6385 Fax 325-676-6375 Rctay Services. 711 OR 1-800-RefayTX Website" W\Vw abileneha org 

Equal Opportunity Employer I Equal Housing OpportunitIes 
50 


81770.019

6 

ability to collaborate with other community programs and to develop programs that could 

better assist our participants to be self-sufficient. 

4. It is my understanding that, HUD has provided Congress with one report on the status of 

MTW and the Congressional Research Service provided a second study. The first one 

was released in August 20 I 0: "Interim Policy Applications & the Future of the 

Demonstration." The second was released in June 2012: "Housing Assistance 

Demonstration Program:' Presently, assisted housing industry groups, the National 

Association for Housing & Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), Public Housing 

Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), Council of Large Public Housing 

Authorities (CLPHA) and the Housing Authority Insurance Group (HAl Group) are 

conducting a comprehensive study of the MTW demonstration. 

HUD's 2010 Report stated that, "MTW was designed as a temporary response to the 

ongoing need for a sustainable public housing platform. While the nation's public 

housing system faced a number of challenges, more information was needed before 

making sweeping changes. MTW was predicated on the belief that giving public housing 

authorities more flexibility would allow them to make more efficient use of federal funds, 

better incentivize self-sufficiency in residents, and provide more housing choices for lowincome families. The experiences of MTW agencies have supported this theory. At the 

same time, the need for comprehensive reform has only grown. While MTW can 

continue to inform the housing industry about the outcomes of various approaches, a 

more extensive overhaul of the public housing laws would allow all public housing 

authorities to experience the benefits available to MTW agencies." 

The Congressional Research Service wrote, "While the data available are insufficient to 

know if the discretion afforded to MTW agencies allows for a more cost-effective 

administration of assisted housing programs, the belief that the program has been a 

success on this front is generally held by supporters of the program, including PHA 

industry groups, some assisted housing practitioners, and some Members of Congress. 

The fact that most participating PHAs have chosen to renew their participation and more 

PBAs wish to participate than there are advertised slots is evidence of the popularity of 

the program among assisted housing practitioners. Congress has exhibited some support 

for the program by taking action to expand the number of agencies participating. Further, 

HUD officials have suggested that they believe MTW agencies are more cost-effective in 

their administration of assisted housing." 

5. To my understanding, there are presently three individuals on BUD's staff who oversee 

the MTW program. lfthe program is to expand, obviously, there would need to be more 

staff. Currently there are consultants and CPA finns that monitor/audit PI-IA firms who 

may be able to assist with oversight of an expanding MTW program, in the event 

Congress does not want to add additional government employees. Currently, the concept 

has already been established in the way that HUD administers REAC inspections across 

the country (they hire contractors to do the audits and report the results back to BUD 

staff). 

6. As long as adequate funding is provided to administer the MTW Program, and MTW is 

not being instituted as a means to continue to cut funding for Affordable Housing, MTW 

Phone" 325-676-6385 fax: 325-676-6375 Relay Services: 711 OR 1-800-Re!ayTX Wehsite: Vi'V\\, abilencha org 

Equal Opportunity Employer / Equailiousing Opportunitlcs 
51 


81770.020

would assist residents in developing life-skills, provide participants with more quality 

affordable housing options, services and employment opportunities. Although, I will 

caution that this statement is only a microcosm view of possible improvement 

opportunities from a low-income housing prospective. Until the U.S. economy rebounds 

in a way that not only benefit major investors, these items will not be fully executable by 

low-income families under any program. 

Currently, there are legislative proposals circulating that would encourage defunding Pel! 

Grants and other financial resources that assist middle and low-income families obtain 

higher education. Higher education typically equates to higher incomes that allow 

families to move off of government assisted programs. I ask that we all take 

responsibility, at all levels, to further self-sufficiency of American families. PHAs 

cannot work miracles to assist in increasing self-sufficiency among its participants, if anti 

self-sufficiency legislation is allowed to pass. This works in direct opposition to what 

self-sufficiency programs are set-up to accomplish. In addition, United States falls 

further and further behind many other countries in education, how can defunding 

educational opportunities be a tool for promoting self-sufficiency? 

7. MTW has currently provided current MTW PHAs with the ability to leverage new 

housing developments, rehab existing developments, merge supportive services with 

housing and (0 create more self-sufficiency programs. If MTW is expanded, I would 

expect to see more of the items mentioned above. 

8. To my knowledge, affordable housing programs were designed to house low-income 

families. As a part of the running the business of affordable housing, it is in the best 

interest of the PHA to help our residents stay for the full amount of time that they need to 

transition off the program and/or to gain and maintain employment. This way, PItAs can 

assist more families while controlling the cost of the program for our tax payers. 

In summary, t would like to once again thank Chairman Neugebauer and the members of the 

Housing and Insurance Sub-Committee for allowing me to share my views on how MTW can 

better assist PI-IAs during these budget cut times. It is my hope that funding for affordable 

housing programs will be revived so that we can assist the growing need of American families 

that need assistance in these trying economic times. Our programs have taken significant 

funding cuts over the past three years and can-not afford to continue to endure additional cuts. In 

a program that only represents 2 to 3 percent of the overall federal budget I think we have done 

our share to assist in reducing the federal deficit. 

As Members of Congress leave this meeting and journey back to their home districts I encourage 

you to challenge your political base on the benefits of assisted housing and the importance of 

adequately funding programs like these for American families. One specific preconceived 

notion that many Americans have about assisted housing programs is that low-income families 

are getting rich off of their tax payer dollars. This could not befurther from the truth. If you 

follow the money in our programs you will see that these federal funds benefit the local economy 

much more than they benefit participants on the program. Funding received by PHAs is truly a 

reinvestment into the local communities that we serve. The reinvestment happens in the 

following ways: 

Equal Opportumty Employer / Equal Housing OpportunitIes 
52 


81770.021

I. Banking accounts are set-up with local banking institutions that then reinvest the billions 

of dollars that Housing Authorities receive back in the local communities; 

2. Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) are made to landlords (in AHA's program we 

typically pay landlords approximately $6.5 million annually), who then reinvest these 

funds into the up-keep of units and thus contribute to maintaining or increasing 

community property values. Landlords also pay property tax on Hey program units with 

the profits received from the Hey program; 

3. Area contractors secure contracts with PHAs to maintain, rehab and develop quality lowincome housing units in our communities (AHA's program pays in the range of$300K to 

$1 million annually); 

4. Local vendors also secure contracts to maintain housing authority IT systems, vehicle 

fleets, provide legal services, accounting services, etc.; 

5. PHAs are able to create jobs in the community; 

6. Employees earn a living and patronize local business establishments that assist the local 

economy. Many of these employees own homes and also use these federal funds to pay 

property tax. 

Approximately 99 percent of the tax payer dollars used to fund assisted housing programs, 

!!.2..!!.Q! go directly into the pockets of low-income participants on the AHA program. The 

I percent that does is paid to graduates of the FSS program as a down payment on their move to 

self-sufficiency. The remaining 99 percent go toward community investment activities that 

assist the local economy. The only benefits that participants receive from the assisted housing 

programs are non-monetary in nature. The participants benefit by having a decent, safe and 

sanitary housing in which to raise their families at an affordable price; they have the opportunity 

to move their families to areas of town that they may not have been able to afford without a 

government subsidy; they have more access to better school districts through the "portability" 

component that the Hey program provides; and they have an opportunity to save money. 

As things progress from this meeting, if I or my agency can assist in advancing the position on 

expanding the MTW program, please let me know. Thank you. 

Phone; 325-676-6385 Fax 325-676-6375 Relay ServIces: 711 OR 1-800-RelayTX Website, VI'\-vwabileneha.org 

Equal Opportunity Employer i Equal Housing Opportunities 
53 


81770.022

CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORllY 

362 Green Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. P 617 864 3020 / TDD 800545 1833 

x112 • F 6178685372 • www.cambridge-housing.org 

Written Testimony of 

Gregory P. Russ, Executive Director of the Cambridge Housing Authority 

Submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee 

on Financial Services, 

Subcommittee for Housing and Insurance 

June 26, 2013 

I would like to thank Chairman Neugebauer and Ranking Member Capuano, and the 

rest of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before the committee. 

The CHA was one of the original Moving to Work agencies, becoming part of the 

program in 1999. Since that time, the CHA has been able to pursue many innovative 

policies and programs that have increased the efficiency of the agency, promoted 

economic betterment for our tenants, simplified the burdens placed on tenant 

families who participate in the public housing and leased housing programs, and 

served unique and underserved populations. CHA's designation as a Moving to Work 

Agency has permitted it to develop innovative economic mobility programs for lowincome families including the restructuring of the housing subsidy to encompass 

housing and other necessary financial and educational tools. 

Demonstration no Longer 

MTW as a demonstration has established its merits, and provides the framework for 

re-structuring affordable housing programs for the future. Given the myriad of 

examples from MTW agencies across the country, it is time to remove the program 

from its "demonstration" status and to recognize that not only has it been successful 

and deserves the long-term stability that comes with being a program, but it offers a 

template that other agencies can follow and benefit from. 

1 
54 


81770.023

Elements and ideas originally developed in the MTW program are already making 

their way into legislative proposals such as last year's AHSSIA. MTW has become 

the nation's housing policy lab, it is the testing and proving ground for a way 

forward as the traditional programs struggle with reduced resources. But beyond 

funding is the growing realization that Federal Housing programs work better when 

they easily align with the local market and the demographics of families served. 

With MTW, an agency can: 

> 0 Flexibly create "local programs" with solutions and approaches that 

reflect the market conditions in the locality; 

o Permit creative use of resources to provide a broader and more 

effective tool to encourage family economic independence; 

o Respond more quickly to changes in appropriations; 

o Leverage private capital funds through ability to provide guarantees, 

seed money for projects and working capital; 

o Partner more easily and more deeply with other organizations and 

service providers; 

o Increase local transparency and accountability through the Annual 

Plan and Report process; 

o Allow programs to evolve over time based on need and experience. 

The Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) 

CHA is over 75 years old. As of March this year we assisted about 4,512 households 

through a variety of Federal and State programs. We are a "medium large" housing 

authority and we also operate four nonprofit affiliates. We are an organization of 

177 employees, 21 resident coordinators, and 5 board members operating in 

market and budget conditions that demand all our skill and innovation to succeed. 

Our overall budget, excluding funding for capital. is around $70Mjannually from all 

funding sources. Our capital program greatly expanded in the past three fiscal years 

as we administered Federal, State and Local grants, tax credit capital investment, 

and ARRA funds totaling $100M. We do our own development and redevelopment 

and with a few exceptions we manage what we own or what is owned by our 

affiliates. We act as owner, real estate developer, property manager, and as a service 

leader and connector for our families; a set of demanding, and increasingly complex, 

roles that require private sector business approaches in pursuit of our public 

mission. 

Our Housing Market 

Cambridge is a city of about 105,000 in population, compressed into 6.5 square 

miles. We are home to Harvard and MIT and the comings and goings of thousands of 

students plus we are also experiencing a hi-techjbio-tech development boom. The 

result is high demand with limited supply. Rents for even average, non-luxury, units 

are staggering. We recently used a well-known rental market application to sample 

the cost and found market rent ranges as follows: 

2 
55 


81770.024

1 Bedroom units: $1200 to $2600 

2 Bedroom units: $1450 to $3500 

3 Bedroom units: $2,000 to $4100 

The average sale price of a condo in Cambridge in 2013 (condos are around 70% of 

the sales market) is $571,884 a 12% increase over 2012. 

To help preserve existing units or create new units for low-income families in the 

City we have used MTW to create our own local project-based voucher program and 

now have 852 such units in the City. We have also acted, again using our MTW 

authority, to preserve housing for low-income families by project-basing tenant 

protection vouchers into expiring use multi-family properties. We retained 130 such 

units for low-income families in past year alone. 

The Families 

Combined, public housing and voucher programs assist about 4,512 households 

(10,900 individuals), 63% ofthose occupy 1 and 2 bedroom units. Across the two 

programs, 3,338 families or 74%, are extremely low-income: that is, below 30% of 

the Area Median Income. In the public housing program 45% of the families are 

seniors or persons with disabilities. In the voucher program, over 30% of the 

families are seniors or persons with disabilities. 

Our families pay a healthy monthly rent to the housing authority, on average 

$393/month, which exceeds the sequestered subsidy we currently receive by 

$41/month. And the vast majority of families are good rent payers, CHA typically 

collect 97% of rent we bill over the course of the fiscal year. CHA also has a 

significant number of households with earned income: 983 families have earned 

income in public housing and 1076 have earned income in the voucher program. 

Combined, about 46% of all families served have earned income. 

MTW has allowed a package of initiatives that greatly enhance the ability of families 

to advance economically. Here is short list of some of our efforts: 

• Greatly Simplified rent rules that allow families to keep more of the income 

they earn and encourage asset building. 

• Tiered approach to minimum rents. 

• Expanded opportunities for adult education. 

• Strong youth development programs that will include college savings 

accounts (and services provided in collaboration with the high school). 

• Expanded opportunities for financial counseling and budgeting. 

• Mentoring and coaching programs with modest financial incentives 

combined with strong goals and requirements, coupled with a housing 

subsidy that is modified to support the program. 

3 
56 


81770.025

These programs follow from the MTW statutory requirement to provide incentives 

for employment and education for our families. 

Many of these economic mobility options are recent efforts but here are some 

numbers through March of this year: since 2011 we have added 194 families with 

wage income; in the past year 177 high school kids enrolled in our Work Force 

program (a program that graduates 93% of its participants from high school); and 

92 individuals enrolled in our ramp up of economic mobility programs. 

CHA believes that we should invest in our families - we do not advocate for program 

or subsidy limitations that come at the expense of the families losing housing. 

Rather any such limitations applied to the family must be balanced against a varied 

platform of support and education options. Additionally, all of our MTW economic 

mobility initiatives are vetted publicly through the Annual Plan process (with public 

meetings and comment), further these initiatives come with hardship provisions. 

Policy Questions 

(1) PHA's capacity to manage co-mingled funds. commit to the development of selfsufficiency programs with community non-profit partners. respond with realtime data to HUD and researchers. utilize technology to decrease operational 

cost and increase services to residents. 

All of the above are important qualifications to consider in awarding MTW status. 

High performer status may be a good proxy for capacity to manage funds and to 

respond to data requests. All recent MTW entrants have been high performers (as 

required by their statutory authorizations). 

The Stakeholder Agreement on MTW emerged as part of the discussions around 

advancing AHSSIA. The Agreement requires applicants to have 

occupancy/utilization rates of at least 95 percent and either to be high performers 

(in both PH and HeV, as applicable) or "taking into account its relative score under 

PHAS and SEMAP, [to be] an agency with other characteristics, achievements, 

capabilities, or experience ... that demonstrate the agency has the capacity to 

successfully exercise the discretion and undertake the responsibilities made 

available by this section." 

Evidence of the capacity to commit to develop self-sufficiency programs with 

community non-profit partners can be found by looking at what kinds of 

partnerships the agency already has in place. Many housing authorities currently 

operate partnership programs with community non-profits in order to better the 

life outcomes of their residents, including increasing their self-sufficiency, even 

without MTW authority. 

4 
57 


81770.026

(2) Future implications if MTW is not extended or is discontinued 

The entire basis of the MTW program is to design and test innovative strategies for 

affordable housing and serving the needs of tenants and their local communities. 

The MTW program has served as a laboratory of innovation, shaping much-needed 

reforms to the public housing and Section 8 programs. They are pioneering new 

operating models that are more streamlined, efficient, and responsive to local needs. 

Without the MTW program, innovations such as the sponsor-based housing 

program (e.g., Cambridge and King County), subsidized low-income homeownership 

programs (DCHA), and successful youth mentorship programs (e.g., the DREAM 

program from Cambridge) would either be much more difficult to develop, or 

simply would not be possible. 

MTW agencies are better positioned to help individuals and families achieve greater 

self-sufficiency. Unlike non-MTW agencies, they can fully incentivize residents to 

participate in job training. educational programs, or other programs that assist 

people to obtain employment in an effort to promote self-sufficiency. Helping 

residents achieve better life outcomes will be much more difficult without the tools 

that MTW agencies have to create incentives. The current system is too focused on 

regulation and compliance rather than innovation and solution-finding, which 

makes focusing on finding ways to help residents achieve self-sufficiency nearly 

impossible. 

MTW agencies are more agile in addressing funding issues, reducing costs, and 

achieving greater cost effectiveness. Given the poor state of appropriations, MTW 

allows agencies to make necessary adjustments to preserve the fundamental 

operational services that are most critical on a local and efficient basis. 

(3) MTW Effectively Addresses the Needs of Low and Moderate Income Families and 

Communities 

MTW is a program that changes the business relationship among HUD, local housing 

agencies, low-income households, and the administrators of non-public housing 

subsidies. Within the context of the MTW program's three Congressional goals, 

there is broad authority for an agency to approach every aspect of its mission and its 

business processes with a singular focus on improving and increasing affordable 

housing opportunities for low-income families. 

MTW provides a much needed re-balancing of the mission of the 1937 Housing Act 

by allowing the PHA the flexibility to meet the local capital and market realities of 

2013. 

Some examples of how Cambridge has managed to use this flexibility are: 

5 
58 


81770.027

• Providing a shallow subsidy on top of a state subsidies that would not 

work in the Cambridge market; 

• Buying condominiums to preserve rental opportunities for our 

voucher participants at a time when the rental market has priced 

tenants out of Cambridge; 

• Recent development of a domestic violence initiative with a non-profit 

partner than provides a mix of public housing, voucher assistance, and 

funding for a domestic violence liaison; 

• Revisions to the Family Self-sufficiency program that permit 

additional incentives for economic advancement; 

In Keene, NH, MTW completely transformed the relationship between housing 

subsidy and socio-economic empowerment. In Keene all work able families 

receive several years of intense supportive services and deep subsidy 

followed by a ratcheting down of support as they become more self 

sufficient in later years. Not only does Keene Housing use MTW to 

increase families' economic outcomes, they are reducing program expenses, 

thereby freeing up funds for even greater commitments to substantive 

resident self-reliance efforts. 

MTW opens the door to continued innovation in programmatic design, as well as 

preserving physical assets and provides a better basis for the expansion of housing 

choice. MTW provides the ability to "restructure" subsidy to address specific types 

of needs, e.g.: homeless, education or training need, elderly, domestic violence, 

sponsor-based, shallow subsidy, lifetime subsidy budgets and other ideas can be 

tested - the MTW program is the nation's housing policy lab. 

(4) Data is Available to Document MTW's Effectiveness 

MTW agencies have submitted Annual Plans and Reports to HUD that document the 

numerous successes that they have achieved. However this data is not in a form that 

can be readily shared and distributed. The MTW agencies recognized this as they 

discussed metric and outcome measures in the MTW Chicago Summit that occurred 

last fall. We believe it is possible to better mine the data in the Annual Plan and 

Reports by "automating" portions of the those documents, conforming data to an 

agreed upon format, and proViding access to HUD and others through a cloud-based 

system. 

Cambridge adopted rent simplification in our FY 2006. We later hired an outside 

firm to take a look at the administrative effects, our study noted that we saved about 

10 minutes per recertification, the rate of interim de-certifications declined, overall 

transaction counts dropped significantly. The Study estimated that we saved about 

770 hours of staff with FTE dollar savings of $26,500 per year. This was all reported 

in our FY 2007 Annual Report but because we lack the ability to easily lift electronic 

6 
59 


81770.028

data from these documents few knew about this encouraging early results or our 

continued annual savings. 

In considering the data question it is also important to remember that MTW 

encompasses a variety of local initiatives, and it is more appropriate to evaluate 

these specific initiatives or similar sets of initiatives than it is to complete a program 

evaluation of the collective activities of all MTW agencies. Other types of research 

are more appropriate for summarizing the activities of MTW agencies and 

understanding how these activities have affected the communities served (both 

those assisted and those waiting for assistance) and the ability of MTW agencies to 

operate. 

HUD's 2010 Report to Congress (Report to Congress: Moving to Work Interim Policy 

Applications and the Future of the Demonstration), while generally qualitative in 

nature, found that MTW agencies serve more families than they would have without 

MTW flexibility. The report also described the innovative and effective approaches 

MTW agencies have developed to better provide housing assistance and supportive 

services to vulnerable households. 

There is other independent research that documents the outcomes of the MTW 

Demonstration program. There are approximately 17 single-site overviews 

evaluating the efforts and outcomes of MTW agencies either completed or 

underway, some of which have been directed by universities such as UNC-Chapel 

Hill and Kansas State University. Similar to most research, these studies do not come 

to hard-and-fast conclusions, but provide evidence. Thus far, the evidence supports 

the continuation and expansion of the MTW program. 

The growing body of MTW research can be made available to the committee, but 

one example of robust research on MTW initiatives is a study on King County's 

Housing First Program, a program designed to reduce homelessness in a suburban 

context using multiple supportive services and sponsor-based housing. The study 

showed that the health and housing outcomes for participants greatly increased and 

that clients made progress towards housing stability and a decrease in the use of 

costlier systems (e.g., emergency visits) in year one. The study also provides 

benchmark data and an outline of metrics used to measure success (e.g., reduction 

in emergency room visits, counseling, addiction outcomes and other health 

outcomes, etc.). Source: "The South King County Housing First Pilot: Innovations and 

Lessons Learned" prepared by Building Changes-End Homelessness Together. 

It should also be noted that MTW agencies are engaged in research projects with 

both MDRC and Urban Institute. These projects are examining how traditional 

housing assistance programs can be modified to improve the life outcomes of 

assisted households, but these studies would not be possible without MTW agencies 

to serve as the site of study. Importantly, these gold-standard studies derive from 

the initiatives of MTW agencies. In other words, MTW allows those on the ground to 

develop and propose initiatives and program changes that can be evaluated and 

7 
60 


81770.029

adopted more widely. In addition, another group of MTW agencies are involved with 

MDRC and the Urban Institute on a study of rent reform and its affect family 

economic opportunities. The study itself would not be possible without the policy 

flexibility provided by MTW. 

(5) HUD Capacity to mange the program/accreditation 

HUD's approach to monitoring and oversight is evolving over time. The Department 

has taken seriously the conclusions and recommendations of the GAO report. They 

have since issued a notice specifying their baseline methodology for determining 

compliance with the "substantially the same number of households" statutory 

requirement and have just released a significantly revised Form 50900 (Attachment 

B). 

After the GAO report came out, the current MTW agencies organized themselves 

into working groups tasked with helping HUD improve its capacity to manage the 

program by creating a model Reporting and Assessment tool. The MTW Working 

Groups want to be able to report on all of their activities and want to help HUD 

devise a system that can capture the data completely. (See prior comments on better 

use of the Annual Plans and Reports). 

The group developed an initial Reporting and Assessment tool at a meeting in 

Chicago in October 2012. They have presented it to HUD and received feedback and 

are now reconstituting the working groups to complete their proposed tool. This is a 

voluntary effort to report data more effectively and help HUD do a better job of 

oversight. Adoption of the model Reporting and Assessment tool would help HUD 

manage and supervise the MTW program. 

At the same time, there is a broader effort in the field to develop more effective 

monitoring through third-party accreditation for housing authorities. Members of 

the MTW Working Groups have been engaged in that effort. Such an accreditation 

system would allow greater focus on outcomes and performance instead of on 

processes, and would benefit from the input of practitioners in its development. 

The recent Bipartisan Policy Center Housing Commission report recommended 

"establishment of a performance management system that measures resident 

outcomes .. .focused on creating incentives for greater efficiency and improved 

housing quality, as well as ensuring that rental assistance meets its full potential to 

serve as a platform for the achievement of other social outcomes." Accreditation 

would be such a performance management system. 

Accreditation has the potential to shift many compliance functions from HUD to a 

new leadership group: an accreditation board, where HUD is a participant in 

establishing standards but not the sole arbitrator of the rules. 

8 
61 


81770.030

Accreditation is an improvement on the current monitoring system in three ways: 

(1) accreditation is industry driven, it dramatically changes HUD's role and is likely 

to result in a much needed resetting of the relationship between HUD and PHAs; 

(2) the process of accreditation typically includes much deeper consideration and 

evaluation of board relationships and the governance processes, including how the 

board and executive director interact, something that recent events require us to 

address; and (3) accreditation also has a heaver focus on community and outside 

partnerships, something PHAs do now but get very little credit for. 

Elements of accreditation might include indicators and on-site evaluation (not 

necessarily a numerical score) of: property management, asset management and 

capital, financial, governance process/internal (board profiles, public record of 

board activity, actions and relationship to the Executive Director) and governance 

process/external (relationship to the community, partnerships and programs). 

(6) MTW Helps Participants and Does no Harm 

Despite many who have predicted that MTW would hurt participants, there have 

been no examples of harm since the first agreements were signed in 1999. The 

"potential harm" mantra has been attached to the program but has no objective 

support. MTW affects the use of funds, so that the traditional program resources 

(units and vouchers) can be targeted differently by the MTW PHA. But this is the 

very point of the program's Single-fund budget. The refocus of the funding stream is 

for beneficial purposes that are designed, and have in fact, promoted the interests of 

the low-income tenants who are affected by it. While term limits and work 

requirements are often feared, they have been adopted on a very limited basis, and 

are often part of larger supportive initiatives. 

Housing authorities are simply not in the business of harming assisted households. 

Housing authorities want MTW flexibility because they want to better serve their 

communities. High-capacity agencies, with forward-thinking leadership, are able to 

improve upon existing housing assistance models and create better life outcomes 

for assisted households when given MTW flexibility. Rather than thinking about how 

to satisfy each and every program rule, MTW agencies are able to think about how 

to help assisted households overcome the challenges they face in gaining economic 

stability and mobility. 

(7) Impact of merging capital and operating and ability to preserve affordable 

housing and provide economic opportunity to residents 

Merging public housing operating and capital funds (as HUD is doing with RAD) 

provides some needed flexibility- an important step but in our view one that does 

not go far enough. The added components of combining Section 8 voucher funds as 

well as the ability to implement rent simplification and reform initiatives and other 

administrative streamlining measures more completely enables housing authorities 

9 
62 


81770.031

to do more with their limited funds. These flexibilities, coupled with the MTW 

single fund budget, are critical to helping residents achieve pathways out of poverty 

as well as preserving housing already in the ground. 

MTW is changing Housing Authorities' DNA. In Keene, NH the Agency is able to find 

non-punitive ways to drastically reduce Administrative costs so that they 

can make substantial investments into designing, implementing and studying 

new ways of helping make sure that the children growing up in their 

properties won't need Keene Housing's helps when they are adults, with 

families of their own. 

(8) Changing role of the PHAs 

Partnering with social service agencies and non-profits is a key way that housing 

authorities help assisted households improve their life outcomes. To meet the 

statutory objectives of improving self-sufficiency and housing choice, many MTW 

agencies choose to draw upon the expertise and resources of other organizations to 

serve households as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

There are different types of households receiving assistance, with their own unique 

challenges, and through partnerships MTW agencies are able to tailor service 

models to address these challenges; for most agencies, addressing the varying needs 

of seniors, persons with disabilities, the chronically homeless, and families 

disconnected from the employment and education systems would be difficult 

without partners. 

MTW flexibility allows housing authorities to partner with organizations that are 

able to provide supportive services, but that do not have the expertise in developing 

and managing property. Together, they have designed new supportive housing 

models for the homeless, seniors and people with disabilities, and vulnerable 

families. 

While many housing authorities form partnerships with social service agencies and 

non-profits to make more services and resources available, MTW flexibility allows 

housing authorities to go a step further by allowing a deeper aligning of local 

resources to best meet the needs of assisted households. MTW agencies are able to 

offer housing resources that can be tailored to specific needs and projects, and allow 

some use of funds in support of the service portions or self-sufficiency goals if these 

are part of the project. 

For example, Home Forward in Portland, Oregon was instrumental in consolidating 

mUltiple short-term rental assistance programs operated by local governments and 

non-profits into a countywide program that effectively assists families experiencing 

or at the risk of experiencing homelessness. In this program, families can receive up 

to two years of assistance which can include rent or mortgage payment, deposits 

10 
63 


81770.032

and application fees, move-in costs, and support services. These services are 

provided through 19 public and non-profit agencies that are selected based on 

demonstrated expertise and results. The consolidated program would not have 

happened without MTW flexibility because absent the flexibility Home Forward. 

could not use resources for short-term rental assistance, an element vital in bringing 

partners from across the county to the table in shaping this program. 

*** 

In sum, the CHA considers security and stability in one's home as a fundamental 

prerequisite to fulfilling personal potential and reducing reliance on government 

assistance. In a time of serious budget cutbacks, public and subsidized housing 

programs, always underfunded, are now faced with hard challenges to their 

continued survival - MTW is the only program that allows for innovative 

approaches to preserve these valuable affordable housing assets while encouraging 

the economic advancement of the families who live there. 

11 
64 


81770.033

GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2,00 p.m. EDT 

Wednesday, Jlll1e 26, 2013 

GAO-13-724T 

United States Government Acconntability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Housing 

and Insurance, Committee on Financial 

Services, House of Representatives 

MOVING TO WORK 

DEMONSTRATION 

Improved Information 

and Monitoring Could 

Enhance Program 

Assessment 
65 


81770.034

,Mff,fNF 

MOVING TO WORK DEMONSTRATION 

Improved Information and Monitoring Could 

Enhance Program Assessment 

What GAO Found 

Opportunities existed to improve how the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) evaluated the Moving to Work (MTW) program, which is 

intended to give participating public housing agencies (PHA) flexibility to design 

and test innovative strategies for providing housing assistance, GAO reported in 

April 2012 that HUD had not (1) developed guidance specifying that performance 

information collected from MTW agencies be outcome-oriented, (2) identified the 

performance data needed to assess results, or (3) established performance 

indicators for the program. The shortage of such standard performance data and 

indicators had hindered comprehensive evaluation efforts; such evaluations are 

key to determining the success of any demonstration program. In addition, HUD 

had not developed a systematic process for identifying lessons learned from the 

program, which limited HUO's abillty to promote useful practices for broader 

implementation. Since the GAO report, HUD has revised reporting requirements 

for MTW agencies. These requirements were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget in May 2013, GAO is reviewing this new guidance. 

In 2012, GAO also reported that HUD had not taken key monitoring steps set out 

in internal control standards, such as issuing guidance that defines program 

terms or assessing compliance with all the program's statutory requirements. As 

a result, HUD lacked assurance that MTW agencies were complying with 

statutory requirements. Additionally, HUO had not done an annual assessment of 

program risks, although it had a requirement to do so, and had not developed 

risk-based monitoring procedures. Without taking these steps, HUD lacked 

assurance that it had identified all risks to the program. Finally, HUD did not have 

policies or procedures in place to verify the accuracy of key information that 

MTW agencies self-report For example, HUD staff did not verify self-reported 

performance information during their reviews of annual reports or annual site 

visits. Without verifying at least a sample of information, HUO could not be sure 

that self-reported information was accurate. According to HUD, the recently 

approved reporting requirements will result in more standardized data that HUD 

can verify either through audits or during site visits 

Finally, GAO noted in 2012 that expanding the MTW program might offer benefits 

but also raised questions, According to HUD, affordable housing advocates, and 

MTWagencies, expanding MTW to additional PHAs would allow agencies to 

develop more activities tailored to local conditions and produce more lessons 

learned. However, data limitations and monitoring weaknesses raised questions 

about expansion. HUD had reported in 2010 that expansion should occur only if 

newly admitted PHAs structured their programs to permit high-quality evaluations 

and ensure that lessons !earned could be generalized. Since the GAO report was 

issued, four additional agencies were admitted into the program. HUD required 

these agencies to implement and study rent reform activities through 

partnerships with loca! universities and a research organization, Until more 

complete information on the program's effectiveness and the extent to which 

agencies adhered to program requirements is available, it will be difficult for 

Congress to know whether an expanded MTW would benefit additional agencies 

and the residents they serve. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
66 


81770.035

GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

441 G St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chairman Neugebauer, Ranking Member Capuano, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Moving to Work (MTW) 

demonstration program. The MTW program has three statutory purposes: 

to reduce costs and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in federal housing 

expenditures, to give families with children incentives to obtain 

employment and become self-sufficient, and to increase housing choices 

for low-income families. MTW was conceived to help test new ideas for 

providing and administering housing assistance that could be replicated 

on a broader scale. However, HUD only recently has begun to put in 

place policies and practices that could help realize that potential. 

My statement today is based on an April 2012 report on the MTW 

program.' Specifically, I will discuss (1) what was known at that time 

about the extent to which the program had addressed statutory purposes, 

(2) HUD's monitoring of the way MTW agencies addressed statutory 

purposes and met program requirements, and (3) potential benefits of 

and concerns about expanding the number of public housing agencies in 

the program. I also will provide information on actions that HUD has taken 

in response to the report's recommendations. 

For our April 2012 report, we reviewed the annual reports (as of January 

2012) for 30 MTW agencies and compared HUD's guidance on the type 

of performance information participating agencies should report with the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). 2 We reviewed HUD's 

monitoring policies and procedures and documentation of the steps HUD 

had taken to help ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. We 

compared HUD's monitoring policies and procedures to internal control 

standards for federal agencies as well as HUD's guidance on internal 

controls. We also reviewed studies, reports, and testimonies by 

researchers and affordable housing advocates, and interviewed HUD 

1 See GAO, Moving to Work Demonstration: Opportunities Exist to Improve Information 

and Monitoring, GAO-12-490 (Washington, D.C: Apr. 19.2012) 

2According to HUO data, as of January 2012,35 agencies were In the MTW program, Of 

these, 30 had submitted an annual report to HUD and the other 5 had not been in the 

program long enough to report on their accomplishments 

Page 1 
67 


81770.036

Background 

officials, officials from a sample of seven MTW agencies, and 

organizations that advocate on behalf of residents, among others. Our 

prior report includes a detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

For this testimony, we reviewed some recent changes to the program. 

We performed the work on which this statement was primarily based from 

July 2011 to April 2012 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

HUD implemented the MTW demonstration program in 1999. 3 As of June 

2013, 35 public housing agencies (PHA) were participating through the 

end of their fiscal year 20184 To put in place the innovations intended 

under the program's authorizing legislation, agencies may request 

waivers of certain provisions in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 

arnended5 For example, housing agencies may combine the funding they 

are awarded annually from different programs-such as public housing 

capital funds, public housing operating funds, and voucher funds-into a 

single, authoritywide funding source. 

In addition to addressing the program's three statutory purposes-reduce 

costs and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in federal housing 

expenditures, give families with children incentives to obtain employment 

and become self-sufficient, and increase housing choices for low-income 

families-MTW agencies must meet five requirements. The agencies 

must (1) serve substantially the same total number of eligible low-income 

families that they would have served had funding amounts not been 

combined; (2) maintain a mix of families (by family size) comparable to 

those they would have served without the demonstration; (3) ensure that 

was authorized by the Omnibus ConsoUdated Rescissions and 

Ap!)fo!lriationlsA,ct 1996. Pub. L No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-281. 

4Whi1e 39 are authorized to participate in the program, 35 have signed contracts with HUn 

and are actively particlpating. 

542 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. 

Page 2 
68 


81770.037

HUD Lacked Standard 

Data and Indicators 

That Would Aid 

Program Evaluation 

at least 75 percent of households served are very low-income;' (4) 

establish a reasonable rent policy to encourage employment and selfsufficiency; and (5) assure that the housing provided meets HUO's 

housing quality standards. 

A standard agreement (between HUO and each MTW agency) governs 

the conditions of participation in the program. The agreement includes an 

attachment that sets out reporting requirements, as well as the 

information that MTW agencies must include in annual reports. For 

example, these reports must include detailed information on the impact of 

each activity. 

MTW agencies also must self-certify that they are in compliance with 

three of the five statutory requirements: assisting substantially the same 

total number of eligible low-income families that they would have served 

had funding amounts not been combined; maintaining a mix (by family 

size) comparable to those they would have served had funding amounts 

not been combined under the demonstration; and ensuring that at least 

75 percent of households served are very low-income. 

In our 2012 report, we identified a number of weaknesses related to MTW 

data, performance indicators, and identification of lessons learned-all of 

which resulted in a limited ability to determine program outcomes as they 

related to statutory purposes. Although MTW agencies reported annually 

on their activities, which included efforts to reduce administrative costs 

and encourage residents to work, the usefulness of this information was 

limited because it was not consistently outcome-oriented. For example, 

for similar activities designed to promote family self-sufficiency, one MTW 

agency reported only the number of participants, which is generally 

considered an output, and another did not provide any performance 

information. In contrast, a third agency reported on the average income of 

program graduates, which we consider an outcome. To be consistent with 

GPRAMA, HUO's guidance on reporting performance information should 

indicate the importance of outcome-oriented information.' Without more 

specific guidance on the reporting of performance information-for 

3 of the 1937 Housing Act, as amended, defines very low-income families as 

those whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area. 

'Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866(2011). 

Page 3 GAO-13-724T 
69 


81770.038

example, to report quantifiable and outcome-oriented information-HUD 

could not be assured of collecting information that reflected the outcomes 

of individual activities. 

As we reported in 2012, HUD had not identified the performance data 

needed to assess the results of similar MTW activities or of the program 

as a whole.' Obtaining performance information from demonstration 

programs is critical-because the purpose of a demonstration is to test 

which approach obtains positive results9 Although HUD started collecting 

additional data from MTW agencies (including household size, income, 

and educational attainment) in its MTW database, it had not analyzed the 

data. And since 2009, HUD had required agencies to provide information 

on the impact of activities, including benchmarks and metrics, in their 

annual MTW reports. While these reports were informative, they did not 

lend themselves to quantrtative analysis because the reporting 

requirements did not call for standardized data, such as the number of 

residents who found employment. Whether these data would be sufficient 

to assess similar activities and the program as a whole was not clear, and 

as of April 2012 HUD had not identified the data it would need for such an 

assessment. 

HUD also had not established performance indicators for MTW. 

According to GPRAMA, federal agencies should establish efficiency, 

output, and outcome indicators for each program activity as appropriate, 

Federal internal control standards also require the establishment of 

performance indicators.'o As we noted in 2012, specific performance 

indicators for the MTW program could be based on the three statutory 

purposes of the program. For example, agencies could report on the 

savings achieved (reducing costs). However, without performance 

indicators HUD could not demonstrate the results of the program. 

The shortage of standard performance data and performance indicators 

had hindered comprehensive evaluation efforts, which are key to 

determining the success of any demonstration program. We 

9GAO, Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress, 

GAO/PEMD-95-1 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30,1995). 

10GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAOfA1MO-OO-21,3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 4 
70 


81770.039

recommended in 2012 that HUD (1) improve its guidance to MTW 

agencies on providing performance information in their annual reports by 

requiring that such information be quantifiable and outcome-oriented, (2) 

develop and implement a plan for quantitatively assessing the 

effectiveness of similar activities and for the program, and (3) establish 

performance indicators for the program. HUD partially agreed with these 

recommendations. Since our report, HUD has revised the performance 

reporting requirements for MTW agencies. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OM B) approved these revisions on May 31, 2013. The new 

requirements state that MTW agencies are to report standard metrics and 

report outcome information on the effects of MTW policy changes on 

residents. HUD also provided a standard format to allow analysis and 

aggregation across agencies for similar activities. We are currently 

assessing the extent to which these new requirements address our 

recommendations. 

Furthermore, as we indicated in our 2012 report, while HUD had identified 

some lessons learned on an ad hoc basis, it did not have a systematic 

process in place for identifying such lessons. As previously noted, 

obtaining impact information from demonstration programs is critical." 

Since 2000, HUD had identified some activities that could be replicated 

by other housing agencies. For example, a HUD-sponsored contractor 

developed five case studies to describe issues and challenges involved in 

implementing MTW. However, these and subsequent efforts had 

shortcomings. In most cases, the choice of lessons learned was based on 

the opinions of HUD or contracted staff and largely involved anecdotal (or 

qualitative) data rather than quantitative data. Because HUD had not 

developed criteria and a systematic process for identifying lessons 

learned, we reported in 2012 that it was limited in its ability to promote 

useful practices for broader implementation. Thus, we recommended that 

HUD create a process to systematically identify lessons learned. HUD 

agreed and in response, stated that once its revised reporting 

requirements were implemented, the resulting data would inform an effort 

to establish lessons learned. Consistent with this, HUD noted that one 

purpose of the revised reporting requirements that OMB approved in May 

2013 was to identify promising practices learned through the MTW 

demonstration. 

"GAOIPEMD-95-1. 

Page 5 
71 


81770.040

HUDCould 

Strengthen Some 

Monitoring Policies 

and Procedures 

HUD had policies and procedures in place to monitor MTW agencies but 

could have done more to ensure that MTW agencies demonstrated 

compliance with statutory requirements and to identify possible risks 

relating to each agency's activities. For example, as noted in our 2012 

report, HUD had not issued guidance to MTW agencies clarifying key 

program terms, including definitions of the purposes and statutory 

requirements of the MTW program. Federal internal control standards 

require the establishment of clear, consistent goals and objectives.'2 

Agencies also must link each of their activities to one of the three 

program purposes cited in the MTW authorizing legislation. However, at 

that time H UD had not clearly defined what some of the statutory 

language meant, such as "increasing housing choices for low-income 

families." HUD officials acknowledged that the guidance could be 

strengthened. At the time, they told us that they planned to update the 

guidance to more completely collect information related to the program's 

statutory purposes and requirements. As discussed later, HUD has since 

updated its guidance. 

Additionally, we reported in 2012 that HUD had only recently assessed 

agencies' compliance with two (self-certified) requirements-to serve 

substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families that 

they would have served had funding amounts not been combined and 

ensure that at least 75 percent of households served were very lowincome. Also, HUD had not assessed compliance with the third (also selfcertified) requirement-to maintain a comparable mix of families. Federal 

internal control standards require control activities to be in place to 

address program risks." In addressing these risks, management should 

formulate an approach for asseSSing compliance with program 

requirements. 14 Without a process for systematically assessing 

compliance with statutory requirements, HUD lacked assurance that 

agencies were complying with them. 

Furthermore, we reported that HUD had not annually assessed program 

risks, although it had a requirement to do so, and had not developed riskbased monitoring procedures. HUD's internal control standards require 

13GAO/AIMD-OO-21.3.1. 

14GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Toof, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, 

D.C .. August 2001). 

Page 6 GAO-13~724T 
72 


81770.041

program offices to perform an annual risk assessment of their programs 

or administrative functions using a HUD risk-assessment worksheet 15 By 

not performing annual risk assessments or tailoring its monitoring efforts 

to reflect the perceived risk of each MTW agency, HUD lacked assurance 

that it had properly identified and addressed risks that may prevent 

agencies from addressing program purposes and meeting statutory 

requirements. HUD also lacked assurance that it had been using its 

limited monitoring resources efficiently. 

Finally, we reported that HUD did not have policies or procedures in place 

to verify the accuracy of key information that agencies self-report, such as 

the number of program participants and the average income of residents 

"graduating" from MTW programs. Internal control standards and 

guidance emphasize the need for federal agencies to have control 

activities in place to help ensure that program participants report 

information accurately.'6 For example, HUD staff did not verify selfreported performance information during their reviews of annual reports 

or annual site visits. GAO guidance on data reliability recommends 

tracing a sample of data records to source documents to determine 

whether the data accurately and completely reflect the source 

documents.17 Because HUD had not verified the accuracy of any reported 

performance information, it lacked assurance that this information was 

accurate. To the extent that HUD relied on this information to assess 

program compliance with statutory purposes and requirements, its 

analyses were limited. 

To improve HUD's oversight over the MTW program discussed 

previously, we recommended in April 2012 that HUD (1) issue guidance 

that clarifies key program terms, such as the statutory purposes and 

requirements MTW agencies must meet; (2) develop and implement a 

systematic process for assessing compliance with statutory requirements; 

(3) conduct an annual risk assessment for MTWand implement riskbased monitoring policies and procedures; and (4) implement control 

activities to verify the accuracy of a sample of the performance 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Departmental Management Control Program, 

1840.1 Rev-3 (Washington, D.C.: 1999). 

16GAO/AIMD-00-2U.1 and GAO-01-1008G. 

17 GAO, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, GAO-09-680G 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2009). 

Page 7 
73 


81770.042

An MTW Expansion 

May Offer Benefits 

but Has Raised 

Questions 

information that MTW agencies self-report. HUD partially agreed with our 

recommendations, citing potential difficulties in verifying MTW 

performance data. HUD also described steps it was taking to improve its 

guidance to MTW agencies and implement risk-based monitoring 

procedures. In May 2013, OMS approved revised reporting guidance to 

MTW agencies. The guidance requires agencies to report information 

related to the program's statutory purposes and requirements. For 

example, it includes a template for data on compliance with the 

requirement to maintain a comparable mix of families. Additionally, 

according to a HUD official, the recently approved reporting requirements 

will result in more standardized data that HUD can verify either through 

audits or during site visits. As noted above, we are assessing this 

guidance. 

Legislation has been proposed to expand the number of PHAs that can 

participate in the MTW program, and a 2010 HUD report recommended 

expanding the program to up to twice its size.18 We reported in 2012 that 

HUD and some stakeholders believed that expansion could provide 

information on the effect of the MTW program and allow more PHAs to 

test innovative ideas, but questions remained about the lack of 

performance information on current MTW activities. Since our report was 

issued, four additional agencies were admitted into the program. HUD 

required these agencies to implement and study rent reform activities 

through partnerships with local universities and a research organization. 

According to HUD, some affordable housing advocates, and MTW 

agencies we interviewed for our 2012 report, expanding the MTW 

program could help demonstrate the program's effect and increase the 

number of lessons that could be learned from the program. HUD had 

reported that doubling the number of MTW agencies could help 

demonstrate the effects of MTW on a broader scale and enable the 

housing industry to learn even more from the demonstration." In addition, 

some affordable housing advocates that we met with emphasized the 

value of the changes, such as decreases in concentrated poverty, that 

18See S. 117 (112!h Cong.); and HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing and Office of 

Policy Research and Development, Moving to Work: Interim Policy ApplicaUons and the 

Future of the Demonstrat;on, a report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: 2010) 

"HUD, Moving to Work (2010) 

Page 8 
74 


81770.043

had occurred in some of the communities affected by the MTW program 

and indicated that expansion could enable more PHAs to address local 

needs and therefore benefit additional communities. Similarly, officials 

from MTW agencies that we contacted stated that expansion of the 

program would provide a broader testing ground for new approaches and 

best practices. Finally, information from a private research organization, 

affordable housing advocates, and MTW agencies suggested that 

allowing additional PHAs to participate in the program could result in 

additional opportunities to test innovative ideas and tailor housing 

programs and activities to local conditions. In 2004, the Urban Institute 

reported that the local flexibility and independence permitted under MTW 

appeared to allow strong, creative PHAs to experiment with innovative 

solutions to local challenges. 20 We have reported separately on cost 

savings that could be realized from allowing additional housing authorities 

to implement some of the reforms MTWagencies have tested." 

Some proponents of expansion that we interviewed also noted that 

expanding the MTW program could provide more PHAs with the ability to 

use funding from different sources more flexibly than possible without 

MTW status. As we have seen, MTW agencies may request waivers of 

certain provisions of the 1937 Housing Act in order to combine annual 

funding from separate sources into a single authoritywide funding source. 

HUD field office staff with responsibility for monitoring MTW agencies 

observed that the single-fund flexibility was beneficial because it enabled 

participating agencies to develop supportive service programs, such as 

job training or educational programs, which help move families toward 

self sufficiency. Further, officials from the MTW agencies we interviewed 

agreed that this flexibility was beneficial. For example, officials from one 

MTW agency stated it had been able to use the single fund to organize 

itself as a business organization, develop a strategic plan based on the 

housing needs of low-income families in the community, leverage public 

funds and public and private partnerships, and develop mixed-income 

communities. 

D. Abravanel, Robin E. Smith, et aI., Housing Agency Responses to Federal 

Deregulation: An Assessment of HUD's ffMoving to Work" Demonstration (Washington, 

D.C .. 2004). 

21GAO, Housing Choice Vouchers: Options Exist to Increase Program Efficiencies, 

GAO-12-300 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19,2012). 

Page 9 GAO·13·724T 
75 


81770.044

However, a lack of performance information (which creates a limited basis 

for judging what lessons could be taken from the program to date), limited 

HUD oversight, and concerns about the program's impact on residents 

raised questions about expanding the MTW program, In its 2010 report to 

Congress, HUD acknowledged that the conclusive impacts of many MTW 

activities, particularly as they relate to residents, were not yet known. 22 

For example, the report noted that the rent reforms implemented under 

MTW varied greatly and were not implemented using a controlled 

experimental methodology. As a result, it was not clear which aspects of 

rent reforms should be recommended for all PHAs, The report also noted 

the limitations relating to evaluating the outcomes of MTW-limitations 

that stemmed from the weak initial reporting requirements and lack of a 

research design. The report concluded that, given these limitations, 

expansion should occur only if newly admitted PHAs structured their 

programs for high-quality evaluations that permitted lessons learned to be 

generalized for other PHAs. Similarly, representatives of affordable 

housing advocates and legal aid organizations that we interviewed stated 

that because lessons had not been learned from MTW, there was no 

basis for expanding the program, 

In addition, our own work, some research organizations, and affordable 

housing advocates questioned HUD's ability to effectively manage an 

expanded MTW program, As previously noted, HUD's monitoring 

procedures had several key weaknesses, including the lack of a 

systematic process for assessing agencies' compliance with statutory 

requirements and an assessment of program risks, Some research 

organizations also had questioned HUD's capacity to oversee additional 

MTWagencies. For example, the Urban Institute reported that the 

approval process that HUD was using at the time of the institute's 2004 

review would not be feasible for an expanded program because of the 

administrative burden involved,23 At the time of the 2004 study as well as 

our review, HUD reviewed each individual request to waive specific 

provisions of the 1 937 Housing Act before approving annual plans. Also 

at the time of our review, HUD had four full-time MTW coordinators, who 

each managed from 6 to 10 MTW agencies. According to the Director of 

the MTW Office at the time of our review, it took more resources for HUD 

to oversee MTW agencies than non-MTW agencies, Thus, if additional 

Moving to Work (2010). 

23Abravanel and others, An Assessment of HUO's Moving to Work Demonstration (2004). 

Page 10 GAQ..13·724T 
76 


81770.045

agencies were added under the current program design, HUD might need 

additional resources. 

Researchers and representatives of several affordable housing advocates 

and legal aid agencies with whom we met also suggested that an 

expanded program could negatively affect residents. For example, two 

research organizations had stated that some voucher policies could 

reduce portability-that is, residents' ability to use their rental vouchers 

outside the area that the voucher-issuing PHA served. One of these 

organizations stated that differences in the way voucher programs were 

implemented across MTW agencies could reduce residents' ability to use 

vouchers outside of the area where they received assistance. Officials 

from the other organization noted that some MTW agencies prohibited 

vouchers from being used outside of the originating jurisdictions, thereby 

limiting housing choices. According to HUD officials, MTW agencies with 

policies that limit portability could make exceptions. For example, these 

agencies had made exceptions for residents seeking employment 

opportunities. 

Until more complete information on the program's effectiveness and the 

extent to which agencies adhered to program requirements is available. it 

will be difficult for Congress to know whether an expanded MTW would 

benefit additional agencies and the residents they serve. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capuano, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

Page 11 
77 


81770.046

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(250742} 

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-8678 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Paige Smith, Assistant Director; Emily Chalmers; John McGrail; 

Lisa Moore; Daniel Newman; lauren Nunnally; Barbara Roesmann; and 

Andrew Stavisky. 

Page 12 GAO·13-724T 
78 


81770.047

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States, The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
79 


81770.048

GAO.s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select .. E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, cheCk, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnetlfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

.... 

... ~ 

Please Print on Recycled Paper, 
80 


81770.049

HOUSING 

~s~ AUTHORITY 

of Winston-Salem 

Statement of 

Larry C. Woods 

Chief Executive Officer! Executive Director 

Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina 

Before the Housing Financial Services Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

June 26, 2013 

Hearing: "Evaluating How HUD's Moving-to-Work Benefits Public 

and Assisted Housing Residents" 

1 
81 


81770.050

Testimony of Larry C. Woods 

Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director 

Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina 

Before the House Financial Services Committee 

Subcommittee Housing and Insurance 

June 26,2013 

Chairman Neugebauer, Ranking Member Capuano, members of the Subcommittee on Housing 

and Insurance, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Larry C. 

Woods and I am the Chief Executive OfficerfExecutive Director of the Housing Authority of the 

City of Winston-Salem in North Carolina. I have over 27 years of leadership experience in the 

field of community and economic development and I have been involved in the development of a 

variety of affordable housing opportunities in a wide variety of economically challenging urban 

environments during my career. I have worked in the South Bronx and Harlem in New York 

City, North Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, in Wilmington, Delaware and now in Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina. In each of these communities, the economic and social environments are unique 

and complex. Each community requires customized solutions to its issues. 

The Housing Authority of Winston-Salem has approximately 1,300 public housing units, 

administers 4,600 housing choice vouchers, and manages market rate housing units and two 

office buildings. Over 90% of our current housing inventory is located in communities of high 

concentration of poverty, with poor public transportation and few employment opportunities. In 

2010, our housing choice voucher waiting list was opened for five (5) days and over 6,000 

applications were received. It will take approximately 10 years to realize enough voucher 

turnover to address those applications. Our public housing waiting lists are currently at 130% of 

our total units. The length oftime on tbe waiting list for public housing is 2 - 3 years. 

There is an economic stagnation of non-elderly, non-disabled families living in subsidized 

housing resulting in unnecessary lengthy stays, generational poverty and increased demands for 

governmental subsidies and lengthening of waiting lists. Current policies, rules and regulations 

provide for unconditional, open-ended housing subsidies that discourage self-sufficiency and 

nurture generational poverty. 

In surveys taken of non-elderly/non-disabled residents in Winston-Salem's public housing, 

residents stated that they liked living in public housing because they were on their own and 

taking care of themselves. They have reached their goal of independence. Many have no 

intention of furthering their education or of finding employment. When asked how long thcy 

plan to live in public housing, the answer is forever. There is no understanding by the residents 

that someone is supplementing their "independence". Often residents in public housing are 

simply waiting on a housing choice voucher which will provide them with more choice of where 

to live with even less requirements than public housing. 

2 
82 


81770.051

Housing Authorities are required to adhere to first-come, first-serve I open-ended policies while 

being asked to solve the problem of long-term use of the program by multiple generations of the 

same family, An expectation of lifetime entitlement by the non-elderly/non-disabled has been 

created, and this expectation is passed from one generation to the next. As a result, there is an 

inability to assist those families who have been on the waiting lists. 

These issues must be addressed, in addition to the provision of housing, in order to use taxpayer 

dollars most efficiently and effectively and to assist individuals to reach thcir highest potential. 

This is most effectively done with the Moving-to-Work (MTW) program flexibility. 

In order to advance the Housing Authority's mission in Winston-Salem, I began to implement 

strategies with the objective being to serve as many families as possible with the programs and 

resources available to us, while addressing generational poverty and the concentration of 

poverty. 

I assembled a staff of credentialed professionals from both the public and private sector in order 

to ensure the Authority would be well managed and had the capacity and creativity to enhance its 

rolc in our jurisdiction. 

Since I testified before the Subcommittee in October 2011, we have designed and implemented 

additional programs and strategies to reduce or eliminate a family's dependency on government 

support, and to assist these families in reaching their full potential. 

It is still my belief that as a housing authority, our core business is real estate and our focus is 

and needs to remain real estate management and community development. However, I recognize 

that the availability and accessibility of quality and performance-based resident services are vital 

for the advancement of the individuals and families which we serve. I also realize the problems 

facing each family arc extremely complex and uniquely challenging, requiring a multi-discipline 

and holistic approach. 

As real estate managers and development professionals, we need to do what we do best - real 

estate. We are not educators, law enforcement officers, healthcare providers, mental health 

professionals or workforce development experts. We have determined that within the City of 

Winston-Salem there are a wealth of agencies with experience, expertise, and an excellent track 

record that are more qualified to provide these services. Many of these agencies are currently 

funded through city, state and federal grants targeting families and individuals with the same or 

similar demographic profiles of those living in federally subsidized housing. Bottom line, our 

attempt to mimic their services and operations would only result in the duplication of services 

and that clearly would not be the best use of taxpayer dollars. 

As a result, we developed the PATH program to assist public housing residents to reach selfsufficiency. The focus of the PATH program is to provide a "HAND-UP" approach in assisting 

families to reduce or eliminate their dependency on government support and to transition into the 

economic mainstream of our City. The program is designed to provide a positive and permanent 

exit strategy so that families remain self-sufficient, based on the needs and economy in WinstonSalem. 

3 
83 


81770.052

The PATH program is a collaborative program whose lead agency is the local Workforce 

Development Board. The partnership of agencies involved include Goodwill Industries, Crosby 

Scholars, Consumer Credit Counseling, Family Services, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County 

Schools, Forsyth Technical Community College, Smart Start, Urban League and the YWCA. 

Services include early childhood education, college readiness, career counseling, vocational 

education, job skills training, people skills training, employment placement and retention 

services and financial literacy. The Authority plans to expand the program. One example of the 

capabilities of two of our partners, Workforce Development and Goodwill, was the placement of 

3,600 individuals into permanent employment. 

These services arc at no cost to public housing residents. Funding has been secured through the 

agencies themselves, charitable and private philanthropic organizations in Winston-Salem and 

competitive grants. The Authority has been able to bridge any gap so far. Without the funding 

flexibility ofMTW, we will not be able to continue to provide funds for this program. 

To encourage participation, funding from the Authority and private grants are used for 

transportation, books, equipment and computers that tenants may need to be successful. There 

are also monetary rewards for tenants that reach certain milestones in the completion of 

educational goals, employment goals or entering into military service. This program was 

primarily designed for non-elderly, non-disabled individuals to have the greatest possibility of 

personal success. The elderly and disabled are welcome to participate. With MTW, we can 

provide continual incentives for participation. 

In addition to services, the Authority has started a STEP-UP housing program. Two apartment 

communities are currently under development by the Authority. These are to provide an 

incentive and to move families toward a market rate, mainstream community environment to 

ease the transition of families into market rate and true mixed-income housing opportunities as 

the families reach self-sufficiency. The first community will be ready for occupancy by the end 

of this year. In future years with MTW, the Authority wants any new housing acquired or 

constructed to be mixed-income with a goal of 80% market rate (unsubsidized), 10% affordable 

(with no operating subsidy) and 10% subsidized. This mix will not only deconcentrate poverty, 

it would also provide mainstream housing without the stigma that currently exists in 100% 

subsidized housing developments. In a mixed-income enyironment, attitudes change, 

possibilities that the middle class take for granted are recognized and behaviors change. 

In 2012, when we introduced the PATH initiative at four of our public housing developments, 

only 60 public housing residents attended out of 729 households. Additional efforts were made 

to engage tenants with these services and the opportunity for them to improve their lives. Upon 

investigation and interviews with the tenants and former tenants who have had successful exits 

from public housing, the reasons for lack of interest in the program were basically the same -

there was not a requirement that the tenants participate in order to continue receiving housing 

assistance. It was expressed that until participation in a self-sufficiency program was a 

requirement, there was no intention to participate or work toward self-sufficiency. Under current 

rules and regulations, without MTW designation, participation in self-sufficiency cannot be 

4 
84 


81770.053

mandatory, although housing authorities are asked to encourage self-sufficiency. Selfsufficiency cannot happen without the means to earn a living. 

We asked ourselves, why would our tenants not jump at this no-cost opportunity? It has become 

apparent that we were looking at our tenants through our own criteria for making decisions, our 

own obstacles, our own motivators and our own support systems and willingness to change 

rather than our tenants. To better understand this phenomenon, we engaged Dr. Ruby Payne, 

whose extensive research and practice of working with families in poverty, and she opened our 

eyes as to how to best work with the families we serve. Her principles have helped us to 

understand the program elements that are needed and to incorporate those elements that must be 

in place in order for there to be success in working with our tenants on the issue of selfsufficiency. Many of these principles can only be employed with the flexibility of MTW. 

Although we are excited about the coming completion of our first STEP-UP apartment 

community, we are concerned how current rules and regulations will undermine our intent for 

this to be an incentive and transition to mixed-income and market rate housing. Current rules 

and regulations allow for an admission preference for working families. However, there is no 

work requirement for continued occupancy. Without a change, this progressive housing will 

quickly revert back to a traditional low income public housing development with high rates of 

unemployed tenants and another place that encourages generational poverty. 

Winston-Salem is a vibrant community with a multitude of opportunity for our tenants. An 

investment of $50 million has been made in a career center which serves over 2,200 students 

from across the county to prepare them for college or a career by offering courses with college 

credit and technical career classes. The downtown Innovation Quarter (associated with Wake 

Forest University's Medical Center) is a 200-acre bio-medical research park that has created 

almost 1,000 jobs in the last year and anticipates 4,000 by the end of next year. At build out, 

there is anticipated to be 27,000 to 30,000 new jobs from entry-Icvel to the PhD level. 

Caterpillar opened a plant in latc 2011 and anticipates having a workforce of at least 500 in 2014. 

Caterpillar partnered with Forsyth Tech to train its employees. The Wake Forest Baptist Medical 

Center is the largest employer in Winston-Salem with over 12,000 jobs at all levels. Job growth 

has been in the areas of health care, education, construction and manufacturing. The WinstonSalem Metro Area added the second most jobs of any Metro Area in North Carolina in 2011. 

Downtown is particularly experiencing tremendous growth in housing, hospitality and leisure 

due to amenities such as the new downtown baseball park and its concentration of galleries and 

performing arts centers. BB&T Financial Services is headquartered in Winston-Salem. The City 

is home to the North Carolina School of the Arts and was the home of the first local Arts Council 

in the United States. 

There are sufficient educational and employment opportunities to support our tenants in 

Winston-Salem. We not only want our tenants to access the opportunities in the City, but to 

thrive because of them. 

Although we have made great progress, there are issues in our City that cannot be solved with 

the inflexibility currently found in existing rules and regulations. There are policies, rules and 

regulations in place now that simply do not allow us to tailor solutions to more comprehensively 

5 
85 


81770.054

meet our needs in Winston-Salem. We have gone as far as a traditional housing authority can, 

and are at a huge risk of losing the momentum that has been built with our community partners. 

To address our situation in Winston-Salem, the Moving-to-Work model with full flexibility in 

the use of funding and in program design must be available to provide a comprehensive, 

effective and cost-efficient approach to assist individuals and families to obtain self-sufficiency 

and move into the mainstream with little or no need for continual governmental support. This 

will also enable my Housing Authority to increase the number of people that can be assisted, 

particularly those who have been struggling and waiting for so long. 

Current Moving-To-Work (MTW) demonstration objectives are to: 

I. Provide incentives to families who are seeking employment and economic selfsufficiency, 

2. Reduce costs and achieve cost effectiveness, and 

3. Increase housing choices for low-income individuals. 

MTW, with its flexibility to align resources with the needs that exist in local areas, is currently 

the only means to provide a lasting and perpetual impact. Local authorities, like mine, must be 

allowed to develop and implement strategies to best serve the needs in their jurisdiction. The 

ability to become a MTW agency should be a choice open to housing authorities meeting basic 

qualifications, such as capacity and a plan that meets the purpose of the MTW program, rather 

than through a competitive process. 

A MTW contract does not result in any increase in federal funding for the Authority. However, 

it provides the significant flexibility we need to use our available resources in more innovate and 

creative ways that are currently unavailable to us. As a MTW agency, our goal would be to 

achieve real results that will provide greater incentives for families to become less dependent on 

subsidy and to move away from outdated policies that perpetuate the warehousing of low-income 

individuals in functionally obsolete housing within severely distressed neighborhoods that 

provide no hope for a better life. The current public housing inventory in Winston-Salem has 

physical needs in excess of $40 million with many items being structural in nature. Housing 

authorities must evaluate whether it is prudent to invest more funds in developments with high 

needs and short remaining economic lives or use its funds to leverage private capital to build 

mixed-income communities with long economic lives and access to employment and better 

schools. We think the choice is simple. Therefore, all of our financial resources, operating 

subsidy, capital fund and housing choice voucher funds, must be employed to apply a holistic 

approach to the brick and mortar, as well as, the tenant self-sufficiency goals. 

As each individual's circumstances and needs for housing and assistance to reach selfsufficiency are unique to that individual, so are the issues and solutions unique for each city. No 

one standardized/cookie cutter solution will work since the issues in the City of Winston-Salem 

are not the same as St. Louis, San Diego or any other city across America. It is not reasonable to 

believe or expect that there is a one size fits all solution or a set of regulations that can solve all 

housing and self-sufficiency needs. A standard MTW contract would be just another one size 

fits all approach, which we already know does not work. The existing lO-year MTW contract 

6 
86 


81770.055

needs to be revised to allow for an indefinite term. This would allow housing authorities to 

undertake long-term planning without having to worry unnecessarily about winding down 

program improvements in the last several years of the contract. 

I do believe that a specifically-tailored, fully-flexible agreement between HUD and the housing 

authority to meet the unique challenges in its locality would provide the means for me to solve 

the issues r face in Winston-Salem and my colleagues face in their communities. HUD should 

have or should obtain the capacity to handle specifically designed MTW agreements. All 

businesses, including housing authorities, manage many types of contracts and manage the 

changes to their operating environments every day. It is not unreasonable for there to be the 

same expectation ofHUD. HUD should manage the MTW contract, act as an advisor as to what 

has worked in the past for other agencies with the same economic climates, and monitor the 

outcomes of the housing authority. With the proper reporting matrix designed using the three 

goals of the MTW program, housing authorities can document the outcomes of its MTW contract 

with HUD on a contemporary basis. 

There are additional issucs that also need serious review and the development of new solutions. 

Many of these issues are unintended outcomes of otherwise well-meaning rules and regulations. 

You may be surprised that under current rules and regulations, the elderly and disabled pay rent 

from the funds they receive each month, while these same rules and regulations, make it possible 

for the non-elderly, non-disabled, who choose not to work, to not pay rent. Sadly, in the housing 

arena, often what appears to be a progressive idea in theory, results in abuse of the system, 

exorbitant administrative burdens and unnecessary expenditures that reduce our ability to assist 

low-income families. MTW allows for the serious review of the issues and for the development 

of new solutions. 

As a MTW agency, the Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem would have, at the 

minimum, the opportunity to: 

I. Allocate funds to programs with the greatest impact using the flexibility of funding; 

and adjust programs and funding allocations as the local circumstances and economy 

changes. 

2. Develop and implement positive and lasting exit strategies with an appropriate safety 

net. This would be accomplished by designing programs to use subsidized housing as 

a stepping stone to self-sufficiency, rather than subsidized housing being a way of life 

generation after generation. 

3. Provide a means for individuals entering housing assistance to proceed through a 

series of services so that the individual can reach a point where housing assistance, 

and possibly other governmental support, is no longer needed or is significantly 

reduced. 

4. Crcate additional partnerships to develop individual life plans and goals for those 

receiving assistance since the needs of each individual are unique. For example, the 

needs are different for someone nceding temporary assistance due to a job loss versus 

someone who has a lack of skills or who is in a low paying, yet essential, job. 

5. Provide transitional support for program participants as they move to economic 

independence. 

7 
87 


81770.056

6. Require participation in self-sufficiency programs. 

7. Implement a work requirement for the non-elderly and non-disable in all programs as 

a foundation to build economic independence. 

8. Standardize program eligibility and operations to make programs more 

understandable by participants and to provide for efficiency of operations. This 

would create significant cost savings which would streamline operations and 

eliminate redundant paperwork. 

9. Utilize all the funding for the Housing Choice Voucher program to assist additional 

families, such as the chronic homeless, rather than capping the number of vouchers 

when the funding is available and the need is so great. 

10. Develop "step-up" housing in mixed-income communities to deconcentrate poverty 

and assist families in the transition to the private market. 

II. Develop affordable housing without the need for ongoing federal subsidy. 

12. Develop mixed-income communities throughout the City in order to promote true 

deconcentration of poverty by providing low-income families access to 

transportation, healthcare, educational and employment opportunities. A portion of 

the units, 10-20%, would be for low to moderate income families. This type of 

deconcentration will greatly assist with removing the stigma of living in subsidized 

housing. 

These are difficult days for our economy and there is a pressing need to get our fiscal house in 

order. Given the current pressures on the federal budget, it is now more important than ever to 

empower local housing agencies to do all that they can do for their communities with the funding 

available to them. MTW allows for greater opportunities for tenants to have access to services, 

to have more choices in housing types and locations, and to have a wider range of employment 

opportunities. Without MTW, housing authorities will continue to apply band-aids to its current 

housing inventory, make little advancement with its tenants toward self-sufficiency, grow 

waiting lists, and will not be able to sustain its own operations. 

The MTW Demonstration Program is now over 15 years old. MTW agencies with this 

designation have changed the lives of families by moving them into mainstream society with 

assistance with education, employment, transportation and housing options. It is time for this 

successful program to be made permanent. 

This Authority wants and needs MTW and must be able to determine the details of program 

design and solutions that are the best fit for the local needs in Winston-Salem. We want the 

responsibility and expect to be held accountable. I have families in Winston-Salem that are 

desperate for advancement, not only for themselves, but their children as well. However, I am 

not able to help them due to the lack of positive and lasting exits of our tenants from the housing 

programs. I am asking you here today to provide me with the flexibility to enable me to 

maximize the potential of my Authority to assist the citizens of Winston-Salem. 

This concludes my testimony. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to address public 

policy based upon our efforts in Winston-Salem. I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

8 
88 


81770.057

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by 

Douglas Guthrie, President and CEO 

Housing Authority City of los Angeles 

for the Hearing entitled 

"Evaluating How HUD's Moving to Work Program 

Benefits Public and Assisted Housing Residents" 

United States House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

Committee on Financial Services 

June 26, 2013 

The Housing Authority City of los Angeles appreciates the opportunity to submit this 

statement for the record for the hearing entitled "Evaluating How HUD's Moving to 

Work Program Benefits Public and Assisted Housing Residents". 

The Housing Authority City of Los Angeles (HACLA) owns and operates 6,921 public 

housing units and administers over 47,000 housing choice vouchers. HACLA is the 

largest public housing authority in California and is one of the largest public housing 

authorities in the nation. 

HACLA was one of the seven (7) original participants in MTW's Jobs Plus Initiative as part 

of a welfare-to-work demonstration project aimed at significantly increasing the 

employment and income of Public Housing residents in selected cities. With a stock 

consisting almost entirely of large family developments over 50 years old that need 

approximately $600 million in capital work, HACLA is particularly vulnerable to the HCV 

and PH budget crises. HACLA stands as a last defense against homelessness in the City of 

los Angeles (City), which ranks near the very top in the lack of afford ability in housinggreater than any city in the country. HACLA actively works as a very critical partner with 
89 


81770.058

the City, County, State, and local civic and nonprofit providers to combat these issues, 

yet an inability to have adequate flexibility in the administration of our programs will 

undermine these efforts significantly and will begin to reverse our success. 

HACLA has managed to achieve High Performer status over the past several years for 

both the HCV and PH programs. The magnitude ofthe budget cuts, however, will not 

allow HACLA to sustain this performance. HACLA has implemented cost-saving measures 

for both the HCV and PH programs, but needs to do more in view of the limited 

resources likely to be available. Now that we are at such a critical administrative stage 

for our programs, and vulnerable stage for our residents, expanding the MTW 

designation is critical to sustaining affordable housing in los Angeles. 

We thank the Committee for holding this hearing and appreciate the opportunity to add 

our comments to those calling for the expansion and permanency of Moving to Work 

(MTW), a critically important program to public housing authorities across the nation. 

While HACLA is not a MTW agency, we have long been interested in participating in the 

program. After observing other MTW agencies, we have been made well aware of how 

the program allows them to design and test innovative strategies to address the 

affordable housing and service needs of their tenants and their local communities. We 

are also aware of how MTW has served as a laboratory of innovation, shaping much 

needed reforms to the Public Housing and Section 8 program. MTW agencies are 

pioneering new operating models that are more streamlined, efficient and responsive to 

local needs. MTW has allowed housing authorities to operate with greater levels of 

administrative and funding flexibility along with local decision-making. 

For these reasons, a wide range of stakeholders, including industry groups, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tenant and civil rights 

organizations, came together to negotiate what has come to be called the "stakeholder 

agreement" in order to expand and make the program permanent. 

The agreement would allow housing authorities to participate in one of two ways: 1) a 

basic MTW program that provides housing agencies with the flexibility to combine 

voucher, capital and operating funds as well as implement rent simplification and other 

administrative streamlining measures; and, 2) an enhanced MTW program that would 

include the elements of the basic MTW program, but would also permit a limited 

number of agencies to undertake major rent reform initiatives, work reqUirements, and 

time limits, with a focus on rigorously evaluating the impacts of these activities. Both 

participation methods provide essential protections safeguarding low-income families' 

rights and ensuring that agencies maintain the number of families they assist. 

HACLA is supportive ofthe thoughtful approach to the stakeholder agreement, and 

believe it would serve as a solid starting point upon which to develop any future 

legislation by Congress to expand and make the MTW program permanent. 
90 


81770.059

We understand a great deal of concern with the MTW program centers around the 

question oftime limits on households receiving assistance. However, out ofthe 41 

agencies that have enjoyed MTW status over the years, the majority have not employed 

time limits in any manner. HACLA is not considering the use of time limits. According to 

a review of MTW agencies' plans and reports, the overwhelming use of time-limit 

authority has been limited and cautious with the term-limited housing assistance often 

tied to a specific initiative or special program, including pilot programs designed to help 

particularly vulnerable populations. 

Examples of these types of programs include a Family Economic Stability program where 

households receive a flexible subsidy for 3-5 years to be used for housing and services; a 

Youth Transition to Success program which provides youth aging out of foster care with 

3-year graduated rental subsidy, an escrow account, and a support services funding 

account; a Self-Sufficiency Program which provides participants a voucher for 6 years 

while services are provided by referring agencies (e.g., homeless shelter, local social 

services departments); and a program which provides rental assistance to 50 of the 

poorest families at an elementary school to families who are, or who are at risk of 

experiencing homelessness, for a period of 5 years so that these families have the 

housing stability necessary for their children's academic success. 

All of these programs are designed to benefit the families they serve and as most MTW 

agencies will tell you, they would be unable to provide this level of assistance without 

the flexibility and regulatory and administrative streamlining that MTW allows. 

HACLA believes that agencies that have demonstrated their capacity warrant additional 

flexibility so that they can develop innovative solutions to their local challenges and 

continue to serve the needs of their residents. Especially in this budget environment, 

agencies with capacity should have the opportunity to find ways to make their programs 

work more efficiently and effectively to serve those in need of decent, safe, affordable 

housing. MTW is a way to make that happen. 

After more than a decade of MTW operations, it is now time to permanently authorize 

MTW and significantly expand the number of agencies and localities that can benefit 

from this approach. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views, and we ask that you give them your 

full consideration. 
91 


81770.060

OUSING AUTHORITY \.....~~.,,;.;:~iM'!iIo.""'NEW YORK, NY 10007 

NtW '1'0 II J( CITY 

HOUSING 

AUTHORITY 

TEL: (212) 306-3000 • htlp:llnyc.govlnycha 

JOHNS. RHEA CHAIRMMI 

EMILY A. YOUS$OUF 

VICE-CHAIR 

MARGARITA LOPEZ 

MEMBER 

VICTOR Po. GONZALEZ 

MEMBER 

VILMA HUERTAS 

CORPORATE SECRETARY 

CECIL R. HOUSE 

GENERAL MANAGER 

Hon. Randy Neugebauer, 

Chair 

House Financial Services Subcommittee 

on Housing and Insurance 

1424 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

June 26. 2013 

Hon. Michael E. Capuano 

Ranking Member 

House Financial Services Subcommittee 

on Housing and Insurance 

1414 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 2051.5 

Dear Chairman Neugebauer and Ranking Member capuano: 

On behalf of the Board of the New York City Housing AuthOrity (NYCHA) and the nearly 

628,700 individuals provided with housing assistance through programs we administer. I 

write in support of efforts to provide public housing authorities (PHAs) the opportunity to 

design and test innovative and locally-designed housing and self-sufficiency strategies 

that would more effectively serve low-income famiJies, as well as those that are elderly. 

fragile or have special needs. I ask that my comments be submitted for the record of 

your Subcommittee's June 261h hearing titled "Evaluating How the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s Moving-Io-Work Program Benefits Public and 

Assisted Housing Residents." 

As the Subcommittee considers proposals to modify the successful Moving to Work 

(MTW) demonstration. NYCHA welcomes the opportunity to convey its strong support 

for making the MTW demonstration permanent and expanding the number of housing 

authorities that may participate. The basic concepts of increased administrative 

flexibility, relief from unfunded mandates and streamlined federal rules and regulations, 

and most importantly financial fungibility provided by MTW are essential to the 

preservation of public housing. 

Agencies that receive MTW designation do not receive additional appropriations. Rather. 

they receive greater administrative flexibility in using the funds they receive by permitting 

them to combine their operating. capital and tenant-based assistance into a single 

agency-wide funding source. There would be substantial savings realized through 

administrative efficiencies. In addition. agencies would be able to position their properties 

to leverage private dollars to meet capital needs. NYCHA believes that MTW provides 

participating PHAs with the critical management and. financial tools to preserve public 

housing at a time of severely reduced federal subsidies and painful sequestration cuts. 
92 


81770.061

While not an MTW agency, NYCHA has observed the benefits accrued by currently 

designated MTW agencies and their residents; greater numbers of residents are served, 

residents are better positioned to achieve self-sufficiency with attendant improved 

economic circumstances and educational achievement, and the surrounding 

communities have been both improved and strengthened. In several instances, MTW 

agencies have been able to update and transform their aging housing stock, achieve 

energy savings and create additional units of new affordable hO!.lsing. Indeed, HUO's 

2010 Report to Congress identifies promising successes including a reduction in overall 

operational costs, an increase in the number of families assisted and greater capacity to 

beUer leverage the assistance received. 

NYCHA's lack of MTW status has caused undue hardship on our families and limited our 

ability to address both public housing and Section 8 residents' needs. The inadequate 

levels of federal funding has resulted in terminations of voucher holders' subsidies, 

inability to repair apartments in a timely manner, insufficient ability to preserve capital 

investments, and reductions in critical staff. With MTW flexibility we could mute some of 

these draconian outcomes by prioritizing the most pressing need irrespective of 

underlying program funding source. 

NYCHA estimates that its total funding loss as a result of reduced governmental support 

over the past 12 years to be $2.3 billion. Additionally, we have. over $6 billion in 

unfunded capital needs and at current funding levels, that figure is estimated to increase 

to $13.4 billion over the nexl five years. Without sufficient funding we believe that MTW 

status would help NYCHA mitigate at least a portion of these losses. 

Further, this agency is committed to preserving the Brooke Amendment's leasing rates 

and has no intention to seek either term limits or to impose a work mandate. 

NYCHA believes that the MTW program is the best vehicle for assisting PHAs to apply 

scarce federal resources in ways that are better adapted to local needs and conditions. 

We urge your support for expanding the program. 
93 


81770.062

NYSPHADA 

President 

Mack 

White 

Authority 

Carter 

Plains Housing ~ NEW YORK STATIl 223 Martin Luther King B1vd. PUBUC HOUSING AUTHORITY White Plains NY 10601 

June 26, 2013 

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

Chailman 

Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and 

Community Opportunity 

2129 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 

The Honorable Michael Capuano 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and 

Community Opportunity 

B371-A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chainnan Neugebauer and Ranking Member Capuano: 

I am writing on behalf of the New York State Public Housing Authority Directors Association 

(NYSPHADA), to express our gratitude for your support for public and assisted housing across the 

Nation. We also have great appreciation for your very dedicated and extremely capable staffers. 

NYSPHADA represents 70 small, medium and large public housing authorities (PHAs) across the great 

state of New York, from Niagara Falls in the west to Glen Cove on Long Island in the east. Together, 

our member agencies administer over 21 0,000 public housing units and over 125,000 Section 8 housing 

choice vouchers. 

We thank you for holding today's very important hearing on the United States Department of Housing 

and Urban Development's Moving-to-Work (MTW) program. We strongly support a broad expansion 

of the MTW program. Such an expansion is absolutely critical to the successful future of public and 

assisted housing, and will hopefully allow New York State public housing authorities to gain their first 

of many Moving-to-Work designations. 

The funding flexibility and regnlatory relief provided by the MTW program are the only chance for 

PHAs to continue to perfonn effectively our missions in this time of severe budget austerity. We have 

learned of the positive transfonnations that have taken place at MTW -designated authorities. The selfsufficiency initiatives for recipients of housing provide significant new opportunities for education, job 

training, and employment that empower residents and significantly strengthen communities. In many 
94 


81770.063

cases, MTW -designated public housing authorities have used their new flexibilities to allow them to 

leverage funding and create additional housing units. Many have rehabilitated dilapidated buildings with 

an emphasis on energy savings. 

The MTW program is budget neutral, and is a success story. The Department of Housing and Urban 

Development has statistics verifying that MTW public housing authorities have served an increased 

number of vulnerable Americans at the same income levels. 

With the current budget constraints we are operating under now and expect in the future, we will not be 

able to continue our vital programs without the deregulation provided by the MTW program. We are in 

desperate need of your assistance, and urge you to once again develop legislation to significantly expand 

the MTW program. 

Thank you very much for your considemtion of our views. We look forward to further discussions with 

you and your staff on this crucial issue. 

Sincerely, 

11!~~ Mack Carter 

President 
95 


81770.066

The Honorable Randy Ncugcbauer, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

House Committee on Financial Services 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2129 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Board of Supervisors 

District 1 

District 2 

District 3 

District 4 

District 5 

Kevin Jeffries 

951·955·1010 

John F. Tavaglione 

951·955·1020 

Jeff Stone 

951·955·1030 

John Benoit 

951·955·1040 

Marion Ashley 

951·955·1050 

Juue 17,2013 

I am writing on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to express their snpport 

for the expansion of HUD's Moving to Work (MTW) program. The County's Public Housing 

Authority would greatly benefit tium receiving a MTW designation. 

The County Housing Authority is currently authorized to serve over 8,500 households through 

the Section 8 program and over 450 households through the Public Housing Program. In 

Riverside County, there are 14,877 households registered for the Section 8 waiting list and 

29.005 households registered for the Public Housing waiting list. The economic downturn has 

prompted even more households to seek affordable housing units. Given current funding levels 

and program capacity. the only way for the Housing Authority to serve additional households is 

through program policy changes. which prompt working families to quickly transition to 

market rate housing. The MTW designation will enable the Housing Authority to implement 

such policies, which prioritize self-sufficiency and cncourage short-term use of vouchers. For 

working families, affordable housing must be a stepping-stone not the end goal. Additionally, 

the MTW designation will align the Riverside County voucher program with local welfare-towork goals, which have been successfully implemented by the Riverside County Department of 

Social Services and the Riverside Workforce Investment Board. 

The County urges you to ensure that the Moving to Work program is cxpanded to allow local 

public housing agencies the flexibility 10 serve more households. 

TPW:sbm 

Sincerely yours, 

Thomas P. Walters 

Washington Rcprescntati ve 

25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 570, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 737·7523 

o