U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–434 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

HUD’S ROLE IN RENTAL ASSISTANCE: 

AN OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 

PROPOSALS ON RENT REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 25, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 115–88 

( 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee 

CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York 

TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

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 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

April 25, 2018 ................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

April 25, 2018 ................................................................................................... 27 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2018 

Fischer, Will, Senior Policy Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ... 7 

Gentry, Richard C., President and Chief Executive Officer, San Diego, California Housing Commission ................................................................................ 10 

Russell III, William O., President and Chief Executive Officer, Sarasota, 

Florida Housing Authority, on behalf of the Florida Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials ............................................................................... 5 

Todman, Adrianne, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials ............................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Fischer, Will ...................................................................................................... 43 

Gentry, Richard C. ........................................................................................... 28 

Russell III, William O. ..................................................................................... 81 

Todman, Adrianne ............................................................................................ 57 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel: 

Letter from the G7U Housing Organization led by the National Low 

Income Housing Coalition ............................................................................ 87 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(1) 

HUD’S ROLE IN RENTAL ASSISTANCE: 

AN OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS 

ON RENT REFORM 

Wednesday, April 25, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean Duffy [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Duffy, Ross, Posey, Luetkemeyer, Stivers, Hultgren, Rothfus, Zeldin, Trott, Cleaver, Beatty, and Kihuen. 

Also present: Representative Perlmutter. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

will come to order. Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘HUD’s Role in 

Rental Assistance: An Overview and Review of Legislative Proposals.’’ 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the subcommittee at any time. Without objection, the members will 

have 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. Without objection, 

members of the full committee who are not members of this subcommittee may participate in today’s hearing for the purpose of 

making an opening statement and questioning witnesses. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 3 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

I first want to thank our witnesses for their participation in this 

hearing today as we continue to look at how we can reform various 

programs at HUD that are intended to provide low-income families 

with taxpayer-assisted housing while incentivizing self-sufficiency 

and increasing the opportunities for employment. 

I will just note that we are starting a bit late because we did 

have votes on the floor and it has taken a while for everyone to 

get to the committee room, so I apologize for that. 

Now, if you watched last week’s hearing, you will know that we 

are participating in Speaker Ryan’s A Better Way agenda with the 

goal of fighting poverty. We received a number of good suggestions 

that we hope to address in the discussion drafts presented last 

week and I am looking forward to suggestions and takeaways from 

this hearing today as well. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

2 

While last week, we highlighted how we can reform HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher Program to further the goal of self-sufficiency, 

it also became clear that there are other issues in HUD’s housing 

assistance programs that require our attention. 

One consistent theme from last week’s hearing was how to 

incentivize public housing authorities to focus on the person they 

are helping through policies on setting appropriate rents. We 

should from time to time review our laws to see where improvements can be made. 

Today, it is incumbent upon us to make sure the system is helping those in need while ensuring taxpayers’ funds are effectively 

and efficiently used. We must also remember why these programs 

are here and do what we can to reduce the limitations holding back 

our PHAs’ (public housing agencies) ability to tailor solutions to 

families and individuals who come with different circumstances. 

I want to reiterate that I truly believe we don’t evaluate and 

measure the success of these programs by how much money we 

spend. Instead, we should measure success by how many people we 

move out of poverty and into self-sustainability. 

Today, we will be looking at a proposal from our Vice Chairman 

Mr. Ross, to help families and individuals that are negatively impacted by the current income-based rent setting formulas. The reforms in Mr. Ross’ proposal will provide options for PHAs through 

rent-setting policies to incentivize housing assistance recipients to 

earn higher wages. 

Allowing rent to be tailored to a family or individual’s own situation will help assist them to become self-sufficient with the ultimate goal of those families at some point not needing taxpayer assistance. Whether it is through the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, 

voucher mobility, or ensuring a path toward independence for our 

foster kids, I want to make sure that we are breaking down the 

walls that are keeping our families in a cycle of poverty from one 

generation to the next. 

I believe Mr. Ross’ legislation will help in that effort and I look 

forward to hearing from our panel, getting their feedback and insight on Mr. Ross’ bill and what we might do to improve it and 

make it better. 

With that, I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure I will 

need the entire 5 minutes, but let me also welcome those of you 

who are here in the role of providing us with testimony and information. We appreciate your presence. 

This hearing centers on housing rent reform legislative proposals 

offered by Congressman Ross titled, ‘‘Promoting Resident Opportunity Through Rent Reform.’’ And as always, I appreciate a conversation on suggestions to improve Federal housing programs. 

Having a stable home is a crucial component for children to succeed, for the elderly to thrive, and for our veterans and the disabled to have a place, a safe place to stay. And we have had study 

after study after study cite the importance of affordable housing for 

our communities and I have firsthand experience of the impact. 

The proposal we are considering today would allow public housing authorities to adopt new rent models for public housing and 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

3 

housing choice voucher programs. Specifically, the legislation would 

allow for tiered rent systems, stepped rent systems, rent based on 

gross income, shallow subsidy vouchers, or any other rent setting 

policy that is approved by HUD. 

I have a number of concerns that these models could lead to 

large rent increases for families as well as the elderly and disabled. 

I also believe that a program this varied would be very hard for 

HUD to oversee administratively. 

Additionally, just last week, we discussed the importance of enhancing voucher mobility to allow families to move from one area 

to another. This discussion draft would greatly increase, from my 

perspective, barriers for mobility as each PHA may be overseeing 

drastically different rent models. In my hometown, for example, 

there were and are three distinct public housing developments. 

Last, Congress then-Housing and Insurance Subcommittee 

Chairman Luetkemeyer and I co-sponsored the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act, HOTMA. This legislation made 

huge strides in improving and streamlining our public housing 

services. The bill passed unanimously in the House and was later 

signed into law. 

Currently, HUD is working on finalizing a number of HOTMA’s 

provisions and I look forward to seeing this process completed. But 

I have to tell you and I don’t think this has anything to do with 

partisan politics, maybe I am wrong, but there is some frustration 

on my part that HUD seems to be slow-walking the implementation of this program. It is like they are saying so much to do and 

so little desire to do it. 

And unless we as a committee, an oversight committee, demand 

that HUD carry through with legislation that we approved, I don’t 

think we are going to get any results from this or any other piece 

of legislation. So, it seems to me that we shouldn’t put any other 

legislative business before the full Congress until we have the implementation of what we have already approved. Or HUD needs to 

come in and explain something to us. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time 

and look forward to a discussion. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the Vice Chair of this subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross for 2 minutes. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for holding today’s hearing. Our proposal is to reform HUD’s method of calculating rent for beneficiaries of our rental assistance programs. 

And thank you to our outstanding panel for joining us to share 

your expertise and your thoughts related to my legislation, the Promoting Resident through Rent Reform Act or the PRO Rent Reform 

Act of 2018. 

As most of you know, under the current rent regime, once a family is selected to receive HUD assistance, the rent they pay is generally based on 30 percent of their adjusted income. This is the essence of our income-based rental assistance model. There are an estimated 4 million families served by HUD’s 5 main rental assistance programs and some 3,300 housing authorities embedded in 

communities across the Nation charged with administering these 

programs. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

4 

For years, we have forced our PHAs to administer a one-size-fitsall policy that zeros out what should be a strength of our system, 

the proximity and sensitivity PHAs have to meet the needs of their 

local community. In addition to one-size-fits-all policy we force 

PHAs to use itself, is deeply flawed. 

It is well-documented that income-based rents create an effective 

tax on success. Each time a tenant earns a raise or gets a new job, 

the cost of their housing chases after them. For most of us, a pay 

raise means more disposable income to save for the future or spend 

on household needs, but for the rent-assisted families, it just means 

higher rent for the same living space. 

Not only does this paradigm discourage work, it also limits a 

resident’s opportunity to practice managing their own budgets, 

makes rent calculations complex and burdensome, and punishes 

dual earning two-parent households. The discussion draft of the 

PRO Rent Reform Act that we will examine today aims to address 

many of these shortcomings. 

It does so by empowering PHAs in the local communities through 

the very public annual plan certification process to select from a 

menu of alternative rent options, one which is better suited to 

serve the needs of their residents. To be very clear, the draft also 

ensure that if a PHA and its community likes the current system, 

they can continue to use it. 

There are few additional important reforms in this bill including 

a shallow subsidy for families on a waiting list and a move to a 

bi-annual income recertification which I look forward to discussing 

with the panel. 

In closing, I want to emphasize that this is a discussion draft. 

It is not a final product. I am hopeful that today’s hearing will 

produce insights on how we may improve upon this legislation, and 

I am eager to work with my colleagues on this subcommittee to develop a bill that we can win bipartisan support. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

I do want to welcome our panel. Thank you, for being here today 

and for offering your insights and intelligence on Mr. Ross’ bill. 

With that, I am going to re-recognize Mr. Ross for the introduction 

of our first witness. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, again, Chairman. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. William Russell, President and 

CEO of the Sarasota Housing Authority in my home State of Florida. Mr. Russell joins us today representing the Florida Association 

of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, FAHRO, where he serves 

as a member of the board of directors and as chair of FAHRO’s advocacy committee. 

Mr. Russell began his tenure at Sarasota in 2005 following 3 

years working for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing and 

Voucher Programs. When he first came to Sarasota, William Russell took over a HUD-designated troubled agency at the beginning 

of a rare Federal receivership. 

In just a few short years, he was able to transform the agency 

into a consistent high-performer in all areas and he continues to 

push the envelope seeking innovative ways to serve his community. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

5 

We are fortunate to have Mr. Russell joining us today to share insights from his many years working alongside low-income families 

to help provide them with a place to live and an opportunity to 

thrive. 

I would like to thank him and all of the FAHRO members for 

partnering with me in an effort to fix our misguided rental assistance policies, the negative effects which they may experience firsthand almost every day. 

Mr. Russell, we are very much looking forward to hearing your 

testimony and thank you again for taking off from your important 

schedule to join us in this panel today. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. Mr. Russell, welcome. And I would just note 

that when you get introduced by a member from your home State, 

you get a very lengthy introduction. It’s probably not offered to everybody else, but it is nice to have you here. 

We next welcome our second witness, Mr. Fischer, the Senior 

Policy Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Welcome. 

Ms. Todman is our third witness, the CEO of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. Welcome, Ms. 

Todman. 

And finally but not least, Mr. Gentry is the President and CEO 

of the California Housing Commission. 

To all of you, welcome. In a moment you will all be recognized 

individually for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your written testimony. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ written statement will be made 

part of the record following their oral remarks. Once the witnesses 

have finished presenting their testimony, each member of this subcommittee will have 5 minutes within which to ask the panel questions. 

I would just note that on your table, there are three lights. It is 

pretty simple. The green light means go. The yellow light means 

that you have 1 minute left. And the red light means that your 

time is up, pretty straightforward. 

Your microphones are sensitive so if you don’t hear yourself 

speaking, the microphone is probably not on, so just make sure 

when you are speaking you do have the microphone activated. They 

are sensitive, so speak directly into them. 

With that, Mr. Russell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RUSSELL 

Mr. RUSSELL. Good afternoon, Chairman Duffy, Vice Chair Ross 

and Ranking Member Cleaver and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is William Russell, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify today on behalf of the Florida Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials, which represents 84 housing authorities. 

I am a FAHRO board member and chair its advocacy committee. 

Last summer, FAHRO developed a rent reform proposal which 

we shared with Congressional and HUD staff. We are very pleased 

that Vice Chair Ross has embraced our proposal and incorporated 

it into the discussion draft before you today. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

6 

Housing assistance should serve as a springboard of opportunity 

for the families we serve. However, current policy says to HUD-assisted families, the more you earn, the more you will pay in rent. 

There is little incentive to do better, only a promise of higher rent. 

Our families are not well-served by current policy. We must ask 

ourselves these questions. Why would we keep a rent policy that 

discourages our residents from increasing their earned income, that 

is so complicated to calculate income and exclusions and deductions 

that it causes hundreds of millions of dollars in errors. 

That says if you quit your job voluntarily, we will immediately 

drop your rent to the absolute minimum under the law, that taxes 

two-parent households by charging more rent for two incomes rather than encouraging it by allowing two working adults to share the 

rent. 

Current rent policy has the same economic cliff effect that 

plagues many Federal anti-poverty programs. When families are on 

the verge of earning more and doing better, they peer over the edge 

of an economic cliff and see the benefits they stand to lose, such 

as food stamps, child support, and housing assistance. It is not surprising that some hesitate to lose that assistance and take a precautionary step back. We must correct this if we want families to 

reach their full potential. 

My written testimony provides several real examples of families 

making decisions to avoid rent increases and perceived economic 

instability. But let me discuss one recent example of that. 

A resident of ours found a job earning $35,000 a year working 

for an insurance company. Once her case manager notified her of 

her new rent portion which is around $800, she decided to quit her 

job shortly thereafter. Her rent was then dropped to the statutory 

minimum rent of $50 and when the $75 utility allowance was applied for her unit, the housing authority paid her $25. 

Promoting resident opportunity through rent reform will improve 

things in three important categories. This reform will reduce barriers to economic advancement, provide reasonable options for local 

housing agencies to optimize economic opportunities in their community, and offer real simplification in how income and rents are 

calculated and the frequency of having to recertify income, thereby 

reducing subsidy errors and administrative burden on local agencies. 

The bill offers multiple rent options for housing providers and 

also allows them to develop other rent policies that HUD can approve. Several of these options offer a real improvement over current policy and will help families make economic gains without 

being penalized. 

I provide more comments on each option in my written testimony 

and believe there is something here for every agency to work with 

to meet the needs of their community and their families. 

The shallow subsidy voucher is an optional policy tool to address 

the need for housing assistance that far exceeds available vouchers 

and causes agencies to close their waitlists for years on end. The 

shallow subsidy option offers families the rent assistance they 

need, that is the difference between covering their rent and being 

severely rent-burned or even homeless. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

7 

In closing, I am grateful and honored to have the opportunity to 

appear before you today and provide testimony on the current HUD 

rent policy as well as the PRO Rent Reform discussion draft. As 

more families do better and graduate from assisted housing, more 

units become available to assist other families, and we will be able 

to serve more families over time. 

I ask that you give serious consideration to changing the current 

rent policy to encourage, not penalize, economic advancement and 

wellbeing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell can be found on page 81 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Russell. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fischer for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILL FISCHER 

Mr. FISCHER. Thank you, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member 

Cleaver, members of the subcommittee for the privilege to testify 

before you today. 

I want to start by emphasizing how much difference rental assistance programs make in the lives of low-income Americans 

today. They help more than 5 million low-income households keep 

a roof over their heads. A great majority of those are elderly, people with disabilities, and working families. 

Research shows that they are the most efficient and effective tool 

we have for reducing homelessness and housing instability. So, 

these are effective and important evidence-based programs under 

the current rules. 

That said, it is still important for policymakers to look for ways 

to strengthen them even further and the HOTMA legislation that 

this committee developed is a great example of that. That included 

a whole set of careful policy changes including substantial rent reforms that, once HUD implements them, will streamline administration, encourage work, and trim costs, while at the same time 

keeping in place the key program standards that have made rental 

assistance effective. 

Going forward, I think any changes beyond those in HOTMA 

should be done in an evidence-based manner. The Congress has directed HUD to conduct two major rent reform evaluations, which 

once they are completed will provide findings on a whole range of 

alternative rent policies including many of those in the bill that we 

are discussing today. I think it would be hard to justify enacting 

those proposals on a large-scale basis until those evaluations have 

been completed and you can assess what the impact of those policies is. 

I want to turn now in a little more detail to the bill. I think it 

would be a step in the wrong direction for a few reasons. It would 

radically alter the public housing and voucher programs in ways 

that would make them less effective. 

The first reason is that it would result in large rent increases for 

low-income people that would increase hardship, evictions, and 

homelessness. It would allow HUD to increase rents on elderly people and people with disabilities by an unlimited amount. It would 

also allow very large rent increases for non-elderly, not-disabled 

people, for example the tiered rent option in the bill would raise 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

8 

the minimum rent that housing agencies can charge to the lowest 

income families by more than $500 on average per month. 

The second big concern is that the bill is not well-designed to 

support work, I think increasing earnings and employment among 

rental assistance recipients is a really important goal, but there’s 

no evidence that these proposals would do that and a lot of them 

seem more likely to have the opposite effect. 

So, just for example, the bill would allow very large rent increases on working poor families who can’t afford rent, who can’t 

afford market rents on their own. That would place them at greater 

risk of eviction, which would just make it harder for them to keep 

a job and raise their earnings. 

I think if policymakers want to support work that it will be better to focus on initiatives like Jobs Plus or Family Self-sufficiency, 

which provide financial incentives and service coordination but 

don’t put families at risk of displacement and hardship. And the 

Family Self-Sufficiency Act, which the ranking member and the 

Chair sponsored and which the House passed overwhelmingly late 

last year would be a big step in that direction that would strengthen the Family Self-Sufficiency program. 

The third big concern is that this would make rental assistance 

much more complicated because this would allow the 3,800 State 

and local housing agencies that administer public housing and 

vouchers to each pick their own rent rules. Already having that 

many agencies is a complicated system that makes it much more 

difficult for voucher holders to move from one community to another including to higher opportunity neighborhoods with good 

schools that will have important benefits for kids. 

I know there has been bipartisan concern about this including 

the hearing that was held last week on legislation to promote regional cooperation to support voucher mobility. This bill would go 

in the opposite direction by creating much more fragmentation and 

complexity. A family that wanted to move would have to navigate 

a complex patchwork of local rent rules, frequently 10 or more in 

a single metropolitan area just to figure out where they could use 

their subsidy and have a reasonable rent burden. 

In addition, the complexity would make it much harder for HUD 

to provide oversight over how taxpayer funds are used, and that is 

important because HUD oversight has played a central role in reducing payment errors by local housing agencies in the past. 

In summary, I would urge the committee to set aside this bill. 

I think the most important concrete steps that can be taken in the 

near term to improve rent rules and support work are, first, for 

HUD to issue the regulations to implement HOTMA so that those 

reforms can begin to take effect and, second, for Congress to finish 

the job and enact the Family Self-Sufficiency Act so that program 

can help more families to earn and save and build a better future 

for themselves. 

So thank you again for the invitation to testify today and I will 

be happy to take any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer can be found on page 43 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. 

Ms. Todman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

9 

STATEMENT OF ADRIANNE TODMAN 

Ms. TODMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member 

Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. I am Adrianne 

Todman and I am the CEO of NAHRO and thank you for inviting 

me to testify today. 

This year, NAHRO celebrates its 85th anniversary as a membership organization for the affordable housing and community development industry. Our 20,000 members provide homes for more 

than 7.6 million people across the country in urban, rural, and suburban America. 

Rent reform is a concept that has been discussed and debated for 

decades. The current approach to rent was established in the 

1960’s when Congress capped public housing rent at 25 percent of 

residents’ income and then in 1981 raised the rental cap to 30 percent. 

While income-based rents are a well-intentioned measure, the 

unintended side effect is that this rent structure deprives housing 

authorities of the financial support needed to operate and maintain 

public housing. This is why the operating subsidy is such an important tool for housing agencies and more importantly the residents 

that they serve. 

While various important rent initiatives were authorized in 

HOTMA, they were not necessarily all-encompassing nor did they 

provide any alternative rent determination structures for housing 

agencies. 

We deeply appreciate Congress’ efforts in streamlining the current rent recertification process through HOTMA, but most PHAs 

are still extremely limited in how they are allowed to charge their 

tenants rent. 

Just this week, we had our Washington Conference and we 

walked around and talked to some of our members about their 

thoughts about rent reform. A director out of Michigan said all 

agencies, but particularly small ones, need flexibility and local control to meet the needs of their low-income families. 

Another senior housing official out of Texas focused on consistency and complexity. Real rent reform needs to address the two 

biggest issues with the current system, lack of transparency and 

consistency, and errors caused by this complexity. A sensible approach would simplify the calculation while ensuring that the subsidy is adequate for the local market. 

Currently, the only agencies allowed to shape and implement 

rent reform are Moving to Work agencies. And these agencies, it 

is important to note, have said they have done so gradually and 

cautiously. This includes many years of policy development, consensus building, and resident buy-in. As these rent reform proposals must be included within their Moving to Work plan, they 

must undergo a rigorous public comment before moving forward. 

This subcommittee has posed several questions to this panel. 

One question was around the error safeguards. Moving to Work 

agencies have provided many examples of how hardship exemptions can be created so that there is rent reform but also protecting 

the interest of the residents. 

In order to help residents achieve self-sufficiency and give them 

greater access to employment or career opportunities, many Movnshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

10 

ing to Work agencies have provided case management services, in 

fact, many of them rely on those case management services in 

order to have their rent reform initiatives be successful. 

Another question the committee has posed is whether or not 

rental assistance programs contribute to an overreliance on Government assistance. According to HUD’s Picture of Subsidized 

Housing database, the vast majority of public housing program participants and voucher recipients are either already working or are 

households headed by disabled or elderly individuals. But many 

critics of income-based rent believe it acts as a disincentive to work 

and adding family members to the list. 

Another question was whether or not there needs to be—policymakers should ease regulatory burdens on housing providers and 

I think that that is a resounding yes. I think that many housing 

authorities would say to you that given the amount of regulatory 

burdens that they have, they spend so much time on compliance 

and not enough time and energy in helping families in their homes. 

Although regulatory streamlining will help, no amount of regulatory streamlining will make up for the extremely deep cuts to 

programs that help support our Nation’s most vulnerable people 

and help to develop and revitalize communities. While NAHRO is 

deeply committed to regulatory reform, NAHRO notes that this reform does not replace the need for adequate funding for these essential programs. 

The final question was around flexibility to structure rent. Sadly, 

HUD has not yet implemented the components of HOTMA that 

speak to this, so I agree with our previous two panelists that we 

do look forward to HUD putting those regulations in place and we 

should really look at what has happened inside the Moving to 

Work agencies on how these different rent structures have been in 

place. 

Many of the proposed rent determination methods included here 

are already in effect across the country. But Moving to Work agencies have had the advantage of resources to really do the kind of 

case management and other initiatives that really help residents 

move out of or to live well inside their units. 

Thank you, Chairman Duffy, for inviting me to testify today and 

I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Todman can be found on page 57 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Todman. 

Mr. Gentry, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GENTRY 

Mr. GENTRY. Thank you, Chair Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, 

and the other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for having 

me here today. 

I will point out in starting my career in the affordable housing 

industry spans almost 46 years and I have had the privilege of 

working in a number of cities across the country during that time 

period. 

The agency that I have led for the last 10 years, the San Diego 

Housing Commission, provides Federal rental assistance to more 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

11 

than 15,000 low-income San Diego households on the voucher program and also operates 189 Federal public housing units. 

In addition, we operate a number of city and State finance programs as well in addition to the Federal. We also are one of the 

39 public housing agencies nationwide to have received a Moving 

to Work designation from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. The Moving to Work status, as Ms. Todman just indicated, gives those of us who are fortunate enough to have that 

designation, the flexibility that created innovative cost-effective approaches to provide housing assistance to the low-income families 

and customers whom we serve. 

Based on the breadth of my experience, and I will point out that 

I was a CEO both in Austin, Texas and in Richmond, Virginia in 

the past, as well as also spending some considerable time in the 

private sector, I would submit that there are two guiding principles 

that should guide our housing programs nationwide, one is achieving the greatest benefit for the low-income families, the customers 

whom we serve, and the second is maximizing efficiencies in the 

expenditure of taxpayer funds. If there is a third item, it is far 

down the list from those two. 

With these principles in mind, the right time to rent reforms, I 

believe, can enhance the effectiveness of both the Section 8 Voucher 

Program and also the Public Housing Program. I think there are 

two extremes, one currently in effect and one that has been proposed in the past that misses the mark. The current practice of utilizing income-based rents I think misses the mark by creating 

marked disincentives for productive behavior. In fact, in many 

cases, as Mr. Russell pointed out, they can be confiscatory and it 

can hinder, if not prohibit, gainful activities on the part of our customers. 

I think the other extreme is that of term limits, which I think 

can serve the purpose of penalizing families frequently for being 

poor and not giving those families the help that they need to hopefully move up and out of their current situation. 

In San Diego, I will point out that there are two efforts that we 

kicked off as part of our Moving to Work experience that made our 

rent reform work I think exceptionally well. The first is that in October 2010, we opened our Achievement Academy. The Achievement Academy is a learning and resource center, a computer lab 

with programs that emphasize career planning, job skills, and personal financial education. 

Achievement Academy staff known as Work Readiness Specialists are assigned to work with families on a customized plan for 

educational and employment objectives. Since 2011, more than 

4,000 individuals have received one-on-one assistance from the 

Achievement Academy. And we have helped some 1,053 participants to date get placed in jobs and some 590 to get better jobs in 

their future. 

We set the Achievement Academy up on purpose before we started altering rents in order to give the residents a leg up. About 8 

months after the Achievement Academy opened, HUD approved 

our Path to Success rent reform initiative on June 21, 2011. This 

Path to Success program was created to encourage Housing Choice 

Voucher families to become more financially self-reliant with help 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

12 

again from the Achievement Academy. This initiative was first 

started in 2011 with a 2-year initial process. The first rents were 

implemented on July 1, 2013. 

Under our Path to Success program, we identified families as 

work-able or elderly/disabled. A household that is work-able with 

at least one adult under 55 years old, not disabled and not a fulltime student between the ages of 18 and 23. I will point out that 

the average annual income of our approximately 6,200 work-able 

families in this time period has increased 25 percent from 2011 to 

2017, a 6-year time period. 

All other households who are considered elderly/disabled, they do 

not participate in this program and they are held harmless. I 

would also point out that in addition to a minimum rent, which is 

based on the minimum wages for California families, we also instituted tiered rents for families that do have earned incomes who are 

in that policy set and we have seen great success in this program. 

And that concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gentry can be found on page 28 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Gentry. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Maybe just first off, the panel agreed that outside of those who are 

elderly or disabled that it should be a goal that we should move 

folks through the assistance to self-sufficiency? Does anybody object 

to that concept? Do you all agree with that? OK. Good. 

Ms. TODMAN. Well, let me just—I don’t suggest that it is not 

something that I would disagree with, I just think that we need to 

be cautious on the practical application of that. 

Chairman DUFFY. Right. But as a goal, how we get there we 

could discuss and debate, but that would be a noble goal of those 

who can get out, we should try to encourage that. And is it fair to 

say that if we have someone in one of our programs that, again, 

is potentially going to get a raise, someone who might have the opportunity to work more hours or overtime or get a new job that 

pays them a little more might be a little tougher job but to get 

more money from it, if that benefit is taken from them because 

they pay higher rents, is it a fair human assessment that that is 

a disincentive? Does anybody disagree with that concept? 

Mr. Fischer? 

Mr. FISCHER. So I think an important clarification is that for the 

great majority of folks on rental assistance, the great majority of 

families on rental assistance because of the incentives that are provided by other programs like the earned income tax credit and the 

child tax credit, they are going to be better off working in a low 

wage job than they are not working. So I think it is important to 

recognize that those families are better off working than they are 

not working. 

Chairman DUFFY. But I am talking about this program, where 

you have a disincentive, some of that extra earned income is going 

to be taken away from you. At first blush, it will tell you it makes 

sense. If you make more money, you should pay more for your rent. 

At first blush, that makes a lot of sense until we look at human 

behavior and then we might say, well, oh, my gosh, if I work harder and earn more and I just have to give that away in increased 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

13 

rents, I am not going to work harder. It seems like that is common 

human nature. 

Mr. Russell, do you agree with that concept? 

Mr. RUSSELL. I do agree with that. And one of the examples that 

I talk about in my rent testimony is the dual income couple and 

they had a goal of becoming homeowners. So they decided they 

would actually both be willing to work a second job to get ahead 

and help save up to buy a home. And I would think that would be 

something we would want our housing policy to support. 

And as soon as they started working that second job and increasing their income, as you said, the rent jumped up, and was chasing 

after that increased income and they finally just said what is the 

point of working a second job if we can’t even get ahead? So they 

pulled back and they didn’t—they kept their current jobs, but that 

incentive to work harder and do better and save up and buy a 

home of their own, they felt like that whole effort was being defeated by the rent policy. 

Chairman DUFFY. And this may be shocking. Mr. Ross is a Republican who introduced this bill and Republicans are allegedly always trying to take money away from people and say—I think 

that—but a common sense policy this is, I think people are better 

off if we care about people’s lives and what gives them worth to 

make sure we give them a roadway to self-sufficiency and to let 

them keep a little more of their hard-earned money to get to that 

bridge point where they can make it on their own. In the end, 

aren’t we better off as a society, letting them keep a little more at 

the frontend, in the long run they are the ones that get to step out 

and get out of the programs and thrive and not just survive. 

Mr. Gentry, do you agree with that? 

Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir, I do. I point out that if you are a 

behavioralist which I am and you believe that people respond to 

sanctions as well as to incentives, that we want folks to engage in 

the American Dream of being able to be productive— 

Chairman DUFFY. Right. 

Mr. GENTRY. —and to be self-sufficient insofar as possible. Now, 

there may be some folks who are elderly/disabled or have other 

issues and need to be taken care of. 

Chairman DUFFY. That is right. 

Mr. GENTRY. And I think that to understand some of the objections to this, we need to make sure that if folks have a hardship 

situation or if they need some time to work their way into understanding how to work in a productive setting, that those kinds of 

opportunities can be made available to them. I think that is where 

the San Diego’s Achievement Academy has been greatly successful. 

And, again, I will point out that in the 4 years, 2013–2017, we 

showed an average income increase among our work-able families 

of 25 percent. 

Chairman DUFFY. Yes. My time is up, but I want to ask a quick 

question because this is meaningful the way I view the world and 

I think what evidence would show us is that it is not always possible. But if we can raise our kids in a two-family home, it is probably better for the kids. And the odds of poverty are diminished 

with a two-family home. Does this program, the way it is structured today, disincentivize marriage in a two-family home? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

14 

Mr. Russell? 

Mr. RUSSELL. We believe it does. When we look at the demographics of our families and we compare it to the surrounding community, it doesn’t match up in terms of the disproportionate number of single female head of households that occupy our units. I 

was raised by a single mom so it is— 

Chairman DUFFY. Kudos to single moms. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. But certainly, I think it would be positive for 

our community and our kids to have more two-parent households 

in our communities. And quite frankly, the policy just discourages 

that. 

Chairman DUFFY. And if it is a benefit, we should try to structure our policy to incentivize it instead of having a policy that may 

be a disincentive to marriage or a husband and wife. My time is 

way over. Thank you for answering my questions. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman 

from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first of all say to the gentleman from Florida. Well, even 

before I say that, when you started out you said FAHRO instead 

of FAHRO and in my district, FAHRO doesn’t poll well. So I was 

obviously a little nervous. But thank you. 

It is important I think for me to say, I agree 100 percent with 

the concept of your outline of legislation. And as you are thinking 

about it, I think it might be important for some of the things that 

I have said to at least be considered or maybe even more appropriately from what our distinguished panel says. 

And I am interested, Mr. Fischer, HUD right now is going 

through this rent reform demonstration to test the impact of higher 

rents and calculating rent based on gross income. 

And so, I think that the report is due out—2020, 2020 something 

like that. And so, what I was trying to say perhaps and articulate 

was that I am concerned about implementing proposals without the 

results of the programs we just put in place. Is that a legitimate 

concern? Just based on your information presented to us. 

Mr. FISCHER. Yes, I think that is absolutely a legitimate concern. 

These evaluations, the Rent Reform Demonstration they are doing 

now and some that they plan as part of Moving to Work expansion 

are going to test tiered rents, stepped rents, the whole range or a 

whole range of alternative policies. And we will know much more 

about what they do after those evaluations are completed. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. Ms. Todman, last week, weeks start 

running together if you are in this place, but we considered a proposal either last week or the week before about increased mobility, 

which I support completely. 

But will that proposal be a barrier to this—be a barrier to tenant 

mobility, given that neighboring PHAs could possibly have different 

rent models? 

Ms. TODMAN. So, I had the great honor of running a housing authority in my previous life. And one of the things that we do is 

when a resident is ready to, in this case port out into another agency, as the welcoming agency, we sit down with residents and guide 

them in terms of what the rules and regulations are inside of that 

housing authority. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

15 

So, I do think that—I don’t see that the bill—the bill does need 

some perfecting, but I don’t see in and of itself that it would be a 

disincentive for families to move from one place to another. In its 

current state, I think that families will move based upon the current state of their household and their housing needs. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Now, my final question. Mr. Gentry, as I stated earlier, I think 

this is a very good concept and hopefully it will develop into a very 

good piece of legislation. But I don’t know how HUD can possibly 

administer this program, adding some additional program management, when we have actually been cutting HUD’s budget year after 

year after year. 

So, I am wondering about the administrative burden that will 

fall on HUD and the additional dollars went to communities under 

grants, to my knowledge we are not expanding anything administratively. So, is that a legitimate concern, Mr. Gentry? 

Mr. GENTRY. Yes, sir. I think it is. However, I don’t think we 

should limit the application of a good idea based on the lack of ability of a group of folks to implement it. I think that the good idea 

should be implemented and then the administration should be required to keep up quite frankly to make sure it does work. 

I will point out, too that the way I look at it and I do believe 

in mobility, allowing people to make a choice in where they live, 

what they do, where they want to work, how much of that money 

they can keep for themselves as much as they can. 

But I think mobility should be economically up, should be a primary factor rather than looking for another place to move to. And 

already, if you move from one community to another, you are going 

to work—encounter differences and a lot of different factors where 

you move to. 

So the way I look at it is not using our organizations or our programs as the way to protect our people who are work-able from the 

larger economy. But to help those people fully engage it. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. I agree with you. All the studies show that 

if you move from a lower income area to a higher income area, that 

mobility does create a whole new world for the PHA resident. I 

yield back. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the author of the underlying bill, the 

Vice Chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Ross, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will remind the members that this is a working draft. And my 

good friend from Missouri raises some good points and I apologize 

on my initial pronunciation of the acronym. I think I was hooked 

on phonics at the time, so. 

But my concern and the reason I think this hearing is important 

is because I don’t believe nor do I ever think that the intended goal 

of public housing with very few exceptions was to create permanent 

housing. 

In fact, I think just the opposite. I think it is, has been in its initial conception as a starting point for those to do what many Americans have done throughout the history of this country and that is 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

16 

to be able to gain economic growth and go up in a mobile fashion 

throughout their community into a successful livelihood. 

In fact, work is actually synonymous with dignity. Dignity is a 

byproduct of work. And so, what we have here is not that one size 

is going to fit all. And I think we would all have to agree that 

whatever housing policies are in New York City aren’t going to 

work in Laramie in Wyoming or in Lakeland, Florida or in New 

Orleans, Louisiana. 

We have to have some sense of flexibility and those flexibilities, 

I think, are dependent upon the communities with which those 

public housing residents live. And so, what we have seen here and 

what we have today that I am very grateful for is some testimony 

from witnesses who have experienced the innovative programs, the 

Moving to Work program, Mr. Gentry has. 

Mr. Russell’s program in Sarasota, Florida. Ms. Todman’s efforts 

in Washington, D.C. All of these are based upon incentives to allow 

people to improve their social and economic situation. I think that 

is what the intended purpose of our public housing programs are. 

And so, what I would like to do, Mr. Russell, some stakeholders 

have expressed concerns that the PRO Rent Reform Act is too complicated for PHAs to implement and that it is unlikely that communities will ever take advantage of the flexibility to choose a new 

rent calculation method. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. RUSSELL. I don’t at all. I think, I know your bill includes an 

option to basically have a housing authority to say— 

Mr. ROSS. An option, correct. 

Mr. RUSSELL. An option to stay with the status quo. And I think 

that is a fine option to have in the bill, but I can’t imagine a housing authority deciding to stay with the status quo. Just, again, 

given the complexity, the errors, we get audited for compliance 

with these complex rules every year. 

Our auditors come in and audit our book, but they also audit our 

compliance. And it is really hard to have no findings on compliance 

because this rent policy is so complicated. 

Mr. ROSS. And why do you think it is important for alternative 

rent options to be included in the statute as opposed to having 

HUD promulgate a rule to bring about that reform? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, I think the options that are laid out in the 

bill are I think reasonable options. They are options that have been 

demonstrated in the Moving to Work program. Obviously, you included a provision where someone could be creative and propose a 

new option to HUD for their consideration. But I think giving HUD 

the full discretion to put out options. 

Mr. ROSS. That would adversely impact your current program 

today, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. 

Mr. ROSS. Yes, it would. And you have been pretty successful. It 

is impressive to see what you have done from a borderline agency. 

Mr. Gentry, the Moving to Work program, that is something that 

we are delighted that we have been able to see activated here even 

though it is on a pilot project. How long did it take you to put together your Path to Success program and how resource intensive 

was the project? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

17 

Mr. GENTRY. I moved to San Diego in late 2008 and the Moving 

to Work program had been suspended, believe it or not, prior to my 

arrival. We reactivated it in January 2009. And Moving to Work, 

oh, I am sorry, the Path to Success program we kicked off 2 years 

later. 

We wanted to institute the Achievement Academy first because 

we saw that before we started talking about improving, helping a 

resident improve their economic livelihood, we needed to have a 

mechanism to help them do that. 

So, it took us about 2 years to grow into that and then another 

2 years to get the program fully functioning and implemented, so 

that when we hit the ground running on the new rents, both the 

new minimum rents and the new rent tiers in July 2013, we needed to have a good program developed, which we did. 

We also needed to publicize and communicate it among our residents which we did—we spent 2 full years doing that. So it took 

about 4 years, sir, to make it ready in the way we wanted it to. 

But when we kicked it off, it started hitting on all cylinders all at 

once in 2013. 

Mr. ROSS. The tiered rent scheme has not been a problem at all, 

has it? 

Mr. GENTRY. No, Sir. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you. My time— 

Mr. GENTRY. And the tiered rent is not unlike—this is April, income taxes. It is not unlike tiered taxes, so that you get the benefit 

of the income within those tiers before your income picks up. We 

also re-examine our families every other year. 

So you get a full year’s benefit before an increase in price kicks 

in. And then what we have also done with the residents is make 

sure that—and again, we are heavily a Section 8 agency mainly because we transferred most of our public housing to vouchers also 

early during my tenure in San Diego. 

So, we have almost 16,000 vouchers, 189 public housing units. So 

in the voucher program, as people’s income rises, eventually they 

don’t need the program anymore. We are easy to transition. I will 

point out, however, and this is true nationally as well as in San 

Diego, well over half of our participating families or individuals are 

elderly or disabled and those are off the table and for those the old 

rents apply. 

Mr. ROSS. Absolutely. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. 

Kihuen for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KIHUEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Ranking Member. 

I thank you all for being here this afternoon. I just have a couple 

of quick questions. The first one to Mr. Fischer. During the recession as you well know, Nevada was ground zero for the housing crisis. Thousands of Nevadans lost their homes and many were 

pushed into the rental market. Nevada is now facing an affordability crisis, with a shortage of more than 81,000 affordable and 

available rental homes for extremely low-income renters despite 

many of them working full time. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

18 

In Nevada, to afford a two-bedroom rental home at HUD’s fair 

market rent, a person would need an annual income of $37,462. 

However, there is no State in the U.S. where a person working full 

time at the Federal minimum wage can afford a two-bedroom 

apartment at fair market rent. 

Wage inequality in this country continues to grow. The average 

minimum-wage worker in my State earns less than $18,000 a year. 

So my question is, what will be the impact of the Ross bill on individuals who are already working full time, but still cannot afford 

the cost of rent in the private market? 

Mr. FISCHER. Well, it would allow very large rent increases for 

those families. In some cases hundreds of dollars a month. Those 

would be increased, like you said the families are doing their best 

to make ends meet and make a living. They don’t have the ability 

to cover those costs. They would have to divert money away from 

other basic needs, things like clothing or school supplies. And ultimately, they face a much higher risk of eviction and being left 

without a home. 

And the impact of that is going to fall most heavily on the kids 

in those families who could lose their homes and have those other 

harmful effects. 

Mr. KIHUEN. Thank you. 

And a quick follow up, there are many who argue that the families who will receive this Federal rental assistance who are able to 

work are not working. What does the data tell us about this assumption? 

Mr. FISCHER. The overwhelming majority of people on rental assistance are elderly, have disabilities, or they are workers. So there 

are 85 percent that either are elderly, have a disability, work, or 

recently were among the people who are left. 

A lot of them are—have other health limitations that don’t qualify as a disability, but make it very difficult for them to work. 

There are others who are responsible for—who care for young children or for disabled adults and don’t have access to affordable care 

for those people. And so, the share of people who are readily able 

to work and don’t is very small. 

Mr. KIHUEN. Thank you. And just one more question, while there 

is virtually no evidence that the punitive rent increases actually 

encourage work-able individuals to work, there is substantial evidence supporting the effectiveness of the family self-sufficient program. 

Can you talk a little bit about why this is a better approach to 

encouraging self-sufficiency? 

Mr. FISCHER. Sure. The family self-sufficiency and the related 

thing is the Jobs Plus demonstration, and both of these are programs that provide financial carrots. They provide financial incentives for people to raise their earnings, but they don’t pull the rug 

out from under working families or other people and risk causing 

hardship in the way that the rent increases in this bill would. 

And so for both of those programs there have been encouraging 

research findings that show very large earnings increases and I 

think that they are both promising ways to go forward and help. 

I think we all agree the goal is which to help these families raise 

their earnings and succeed. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. KIHUEN. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. And then my last 

question to Ms. Todman. Thank you again for being here. The Ross 

discussion draft does not provide any additional resources for case 

management, job training, or other services that would help residents take steps to increase their earned wages. 

In your experience, how important are these kinds of supportive 

services in achieving success for families? 

Ms. TODMAN. They are certainly very, very important. And there 

is a distinction between what Moving to Work and non-Moving to 

Work has been able to do from my testimony. But I will say this 

much. Non-Moving to Work agencies are actually very, very wellequipped to partner and to create collaboration at the local level 

even without the additional resources. 

I think what allows the Moving to Work agencies to do is to create their own program in a way and be more intentional. But there 

are thousands of examples across the country where housing authorities have partnered with their local department of employment services or non-profits to be able to afford those kinds of case 

management for their residents. 

Mr. KIHUEN. All right. Thank you, Ms. Todman. And I yield the 

balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Hultgren for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, all. I appreciate your work and your testimony here 

today. 

Mr. Gentry, if I can address my first question to you, and listening to your testimony, it seems to me that you have some understanding of the affordable housing needs in Chicago and the rest 

of Illinois from your time with the National Equity Fund in Chicago. 

Despite inflation, the current minimum rent for non-Moving to 

Work agencies of $50 has not been increased since 1998. On page 

eight of your testimony you state that as of July 1, 2015, households with one work-able person, work-able person pays a minimum rent of $300. 

I have several questions if I could. I will give them to you all and 

then if you can touch on the ones that you feel able to discuss, that 

would be great. One, do you believe that a minimum rent standard 

is good public policy and if so why? 

How do we address the concerns that some residents have absolutely no income and how do they even survive? What would be the 

effect of a minimum rent increase across the board for all agencies? 

And then what types of hardship exemptions and processes 

should be in place to make sure the minimum rent policy doesn’t 

have unintended adverse consequences to those who truly are unable to afford at least $50 a month? 

Mr. GENTRY. Well, the short answer is it depends. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Next. 

Mr. GENTRY. The longer answer is that if you notice in my paper, 

San Diego has no minimum rent if you are not work-able. If you 

are elderly, disabled, hardship situations for a relatively short period of time, there is no minimum rent. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

20 

Our assumption in those cases is that we work with the family 

through our Achievement Academy and hook them up with nonearned income that would be appropriate to them—Social Security, 

SSI, welfare, food stamps, whatever will be appropriate to help 

that family, which we should be doing anyway. 

So, for a work-able family, if you remember the definition of that, 

there is at least one individual in that family who is under 55, who 

is not a full-time student under 23, and is not disabled. 

So that particular family, we will work with them and help them 

find a job, but rather than trying to make it more complicated perhaps than it should be, we figure that if we are offering help and 

they are work-able, they should be paying a minimum rent based 

on minimum wages. 

And it has been remarkable to me how few complications or 

problems we have had with this since we implemented it in 2013. 

I will point out with respect to the FSS (Family Self-Sufficiency) 

program, it is a wonderful program, but I think it only goes halfway. It basically says, we are still going to charge you an exorbitant, confiscatory rent based on your income, but we are going to 

give some of it back to you. 

So the family can look at it that way, then it makes sense, it is 

better than not having FSS. And I do support it. But it is only half 

way there. Better I think that we assume that a resident who, in 

my 46 years in this business, some of the low-income people I have 

worked with are some of the best financial managers I have ever 

met. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That is right. 

Mr. GENTRY. Who can get a lot—a long way on a minimum 

amount of money, we need to treat them with dignity and respect 

and basically say we will help you. We expect you to do it and we 

think you can carry it off. And so far at least in San Diego, it is 

working very well. 

Mr. HULTGREN. It is great. We go on with my last minute and 

a half here to, Mr. Russell, if I could. On page two of your testimony you referenced that the current rent policy and I quote, 

‘‘taxes two-parent households by charging more rent for two incomes rather than encouraging a cohesive family unit it by allowing two working adults to share the rent burden,’’ end quote. 

Wonder if you could provide some more context based on your experience of the connection between the current rent policies and 

quasi-punishment of the maintenance of two-parent households. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, in the non-HUD-assisted world, there is an 

economic benefit to having a two-parent household, with dual income or with a second parent, assisting with things that would otherwise cost money to do. 

So, and sharing the rent, splitting the rent, for example. Under 

our policy, they can’t share the rent. They can’t split the rent. 

There is no economic benefit to having a two-parent household. 

There is actually a penalty to do that because if the second parent or second adult has income, we have to charge them more rent 

accordingly. And it is so—it is kind of insidious because we have 

single female heads of households who have significant others that 

they want to have residing with them and, but because of the rent 

policy, and the discouragement of that, they literally have someone 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

21 

kind of sneaking in and out at night and hoping to not going to be 

discovered by the housing authority, and then if we find out it becomes like a fraud issue. 

And that is just—that is terrible climate that our policy is creating for people who just want to have a two-parent household. We 

should be encouraging that, not discouraging that. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, my time has expired. Thank you. I yield 

back, Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and thank the witnesses for appearing and for your testimony here 

today. I don’t think there is a single Member of Congress that likes 

the word homeless. And I—and I like to think that every Member 

of Congress would like to do whatever they could to effectively 

make sure we didn’t have anybody that was homeless. 

I am especially chagrined today to hear that we actually penalize 

married people or couples. I think the family model is probably the 

best thing we can do to help people advance forward and I always 

thought the goal of the public housing was to help people along 

until they can get into private housing, not to entrap them in public housing for their entire lives. 

Mr. Russell, and then I will ask the other panelists. What percentage of public housing residents annually, let us say, graduate 

to private housing? You can swag it, I am not going to hold any 

of you to this number, I am just really curious. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, I would say, sir, in my agency, I would say 

maybe about 5 percent. 

Mr. POSEY. OK. Mr. Fisher? 

Mr. FISCHER. Well, I just want to say, I—so I don’t have that figure off the top of my head, and it varies a lot from one agency to 

another. So, for example in high-rent neighborhoods, markets like 

New York City, it is a lower number, because it is really hard for 

a working family to afford housing on their own. 

But the number that I do have is that the average length of stay 

is about 3 years both in public housing and vouchers, that is what 

is typical. 

Mr. POSEY. OK. Ms. Todman? 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes, my—that was going to be the nature of my response too, which is the average tenure, and I don’t think that 

there is any data on how many individuals leave public housing or 

the voucher program and are going to the—into the commercial 

market. 

I will say my own experience, how that has happened is by having families graduate into homeownership programs that have been 

created by the housing authority, and also helping them going into 

tax credit units. But that is not a hard number that I can— 

Mr. POSEY. Thanks, Mr. Gentry? 

Mr. GENTRY. I can give you a specific number on a smaller cohort 

of the broader program based in San Diego. 

Mr. POSEY. OK. 

Mr. GENTRY. The San Diego Housing Commission owns and operates about 3,700 units of hard housing units. Only 189 of those are 

public housing, the others are all affordable, mainly based on our 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

22 

local models, some tax credits, some based on Section 8 rents that 

are purely locally developed. 

Five years ago, our turnover rate was 35 percent a year, that 

means in a 3-year time period it would all turn over, because as 

we came out of the great recession, because of the overbuilding that 

occurred that you heard about a while ago, whether in Las Vegas, 

or San Diego, or Florida, or where, there was a place to move up 

and out to. 

The turnover rate now has gone from 35 percent to 14 percent. 

Mr. POSEY. OK. 

Mr. GENTRY. Meaning it takes a 7-year time period. That has 

less to do with our programs though than it has to with the broader economic circumstances within San Diego. We have seen—and 

this is going on in every high-cost area in the country, and that 

probably—will be the subject of another hearing. 

Mr. POSEY. Right. 

Mr. GENTRY. But it—but the next tier to move up into has gotten 

much more difficult. And I think, the way that would translate to 

what we are talking about here is it makes it even more difficult 

when we are punishing families from increasing their own economic base for them to then access an ever-increasingly expensive 

market. 

Mr. POSEY. OK. Thank you. Do you—do any of you know where 

there are requirements for able-bodied people to seek education, job 

training, or such requirements, or is that a requirement anywhere? 

Ms. TODMAN. So, again, the—there are a number of Moving to 

Work agencies that have put into place some measure of time limits, and also some work requirements, and there is still lots of work 

being done in terms of the impact that that has had at the local 

level. 

We have been speaking to those agencies over the past several 

weeks about what has the impact on the ground really been, and 

their response to us is they take great lengths to not harm the family with the term limits and work requirements. What they do, is 

wrap case management around the household to ensure that they 

can be successful, but they are really heavy on the hardship exemptions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. Mr. Russell, on page two of your testimony, you reference that the current rent policy taxes two-parent 

households by charging them more rent for two incomes rather 

than encouraging a cohesive family unit by allowing two working 

adults to share the rent burden. Could you provide more context 

based on your experience of the connection between the current 

policies and the quasi-punishment of the maintenance of the twoparent households? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Well, as I mentioned that under the current 

rent policy, I have no flexibility in how I treat the second adult income in the—in the household. So, if a family—if a single head of 

household wants to have their partner or spouse move in and share 

in the economic burden of raising the family and supporting their 

rent, I have to increase their rent based on that income, I have no 

discretion to give them a break, where they would be able to share 

rent in unsubsidized housing. 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

23 

Mr. POSEY. And you think that this legislation will give you the 

latitude you need to make a two-parent household more practically 

applicable? 

Mr. RUSSELL. I do, and I think I may have noted in some of my 

written testimony that under a couple of the options, there probably could be a couple of tweaks to allow us to offer a steep discount on that second wage earner’s income and not charge the full 

rent on that second income. But, yes, I believe it does give us that 

option. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. Gentleman’s time has expired, the Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to keep 

going with Mr. Russell here. Talking about flexibility that you may 

or may not have, do you have any flexibility that is available in a 

non-Moving to Work situation? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Not much to speak of. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. How does that lack of flexibility affect your ability 

to help assist in a beneficiary’s transition out of public assistance? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, to be honest with you, it is discouraging, because we are doing a lot in my agency to help families provide services, complete their GED, get job training, we are very focused on 

early childhood literacy, to give our kids a bright opportunity. 

And, again, whether it is two-parent households or families who 

are trying to do better, and work harder, it is very discouraging to 

see some of the decisions that they are making, because of how our 

current rent policy penalizes them doing better. And we— 

Mr. ROTHFUS. But let me ask you a follow up to what Mr. Posey 

was talking about, because we talked—touched on the two-parent, 

two-income families, have you seen one or both parents quit their 

jobs or scale down their hours? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Wow. That is telling. 

Ms. Todman, in your testimony, you discussed how Moving to 

Work housing agencies are using their rent policy flexibilities, can 

you describe how these agencies have used these flexibilities? 

Ms. TODMAN. Certainly, they have instituted—some of them have 

instituted flat rents within income bands, similar to what Mr. Gentry referred to where you are—as you are—you earned income, it 

is not an automatic hit on the earned income, it doesn’t increase— 

it doesn’t increase in the rent until you get to the next income 

band, so a number of them have done that. 

Others have actually eliminated deductions in their calculation of 

rent, which is an adjusted rent, eliminated deductions, and gone to 

just a simple 28 percent or a 27 percent of gross income across the 

board. So, there have been a number of different models, but those 

two have been the most prevalent. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Many of us see facilitating portability and decreased dependency among the able-bodied as important goals that 

should be part of our public assistance programs. Do you view rent 

policy flexibility as an important component of the toolkit that 

should be provided? 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

24 

Ms. TODMAN. I think that rent reform is important for two reasons, one is just the simplification of the process as—you have 

heard Mr. Russell say, it is very, very complicated for housing 

agencies to do this often and sometimes do it very well. 

But the other is tied to some of the disincentives that are tied 

to adding a family member to the household, and also getting a job 

or a better job. And so I think for two those two reasons rent reform is something that we should pursue. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you. Mr. Gentry, I think we—we talked a 

little bit today about metrics of success, and some viewing full occupancy is one measure, it is a measure because there are people 

in need who we want to make sure are going to have a place to 

live. But beyond that, there needs to be stage two and in moving 

people up. What do you think a measure or a metric of success can 

or should be? 

Mr. GENTRY. I think certainly for the work-able, helping families 

to achieve economic independence, or at least greater degrees of it 

is an absolute essential. And I think also for the broader community, there is one group of people who are—do not have a natural 

group of advocates here. And those are the folks on our waiting 

list. In San Diego, we consistently have over 60,000 families on the 

waiting list for 15,000-plus vouchers with a turnover rate of 50 to 

75 per month. You can do the math. 

There is a—there is a growing need without a growing— 

Mr. ROTHFUS. They are—and there have been people on waiting 

lists for years? 

Mr. GENTRY. The typical wait is anywhere from 7 to 10 years, 

sir. And San Diego also has a huge homeless issue, which is there 

for a variety of reasons. So, I think that measures of success are 

not always clear, but I think they certainly should reflect values, 

and those values should be helping families insofar as possible to 

become economically self-sufficient, while providing a safety net for 

those like the elderly or disabled who are not in that category, and 

providing options too for our limited—from our limited resources, 

for those families who need the help but are currently not getting 

it. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 

recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Cleaver for some purpose. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter a letter from the G7U housing organization led by the 

National Low Income Housing Coalition into the record for today’s 

hearing. 

Chairman DUFFY. Without objection. And if I could ask the 

Ranking Member just to ask the panel one last question before we 

adjourn. And if I could just have everyone answer this, and I want 

some clarity from the panel. In regard to elderly and disabled, how 

will they be impacted by giving PHAs flexibility, if at all? If you 

could just go in a line, Mr. Russell? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, we—FAHRO’s goal is to hold them harmless. 

And I think the bill discusses giving HUD some discretion about 

setting a rent policy, that with the goal being we are not charging 

any additional rent for the elderly or disabled. And, hopefully, we 

can create a process that is a little more dignified, and simplified 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

25 

for them. Right now we have elderly people literally bringing in 

shoeboxes of medical receipts, and that is not dignified. And so, the 

goal would be to simplify it, but not at all increase their rent burden going forward. 

Chairman DUFFY. OK. Mr. Fischer? 

Mr. FISCHER. Well, that is not what this bill does, it allows HUD 

to impose unlimited rent increases on the elderly and people with 

disability, disabilities—that is what the language allows. They can 

set a percent of gross rent with no cap, this is a HUD that has repeatedly proposed to raise rents on the elderly and people with disabilities. They did it in last year’s budget. Just today, they released 

legislation that would do that, would propose to do that again. So, 

I think they would be harmed by the bill. 

Chairman DUFFY. But in—it is not mandatory, it is— 

Mr. FISCHER. It is not mandatory for HUD, but they said they 

want to do it. 

Chairman DUFFY. And for the—for the PHAs it is not mandatory 

either. 

Mr. FISCHER. No, it is mandatory for the PHAs, in this bill it is 

mandatory for the PHAs. 

Chairman DUFFY. Ms. Todman? 

Ms. TODMAN. As evidenced by those housing authorities that 

have access to this level of flexibility, they have tended to use rent 

reform to help to relieve administrative burdens from our seniors 

and our disabled population. 

On the flipside, where they have actually instituted work requirements or time limits, they have exempted the elderly and disabled from that through hardship exemptions. 

Chairman DUFFY. OK. Mr. Gentry? 

Mr. GENTRY. I would agree with Mr. Russell’s comments entirely, 

and that does reflect San Diego’s practice and policy. 

Chairman DUFFY. Very well. Listen, I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I appreciate your insight to this 

committee as we look forward with this discussion draft, to take 

your points of view and those of others and try to get a proposal 

of this bipartisan, but also works. 

Without objection, all members will have five legislative days 

within which to submit additional written questions to the Chair 

which will be forwarded into our witnesses, I ask the witnesses— 

if we get some of those, respond in a timely manner. Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

April 25, 2018 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

28 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

29 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

30 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

31 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

32 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

33 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

34 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

35 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

36 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

37 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

38 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

39 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

40 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

41 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

42 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

43 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

44 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

45 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

46 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

47 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

48 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

49 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

50 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

51 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

52 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

53 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

54 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

55 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

56 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

57 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

58 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

59 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

60 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

61 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

62 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

63 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

64 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

65 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

66 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

67 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

68 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

69 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

70 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

71 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

72 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

73 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

74 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

75 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

76 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

77 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

78 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

79 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

80 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

81 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

82 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

83 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

84 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

85 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

86 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

87 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

88 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

89 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

90 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

91 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

92 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

93 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

94 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

95 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

96 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

97 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

98 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

99 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

100 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

101 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

102 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

103 

Æ 

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER