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

72–615 PDF 2012

THE SECTION 8 SAVINGS ACT OF 2011: 

PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC 

INDEPENDENCE FOR ASSISTED FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INSURANCE, HOUSING AND 

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 13, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 112–74 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

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 

NAN A. S. HAYWORTH, New York 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

FRANCISCO ‘‘QUICO’’ CANSECO, Texas 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

LARRY C. LAVENDER, Chief of Staff 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chairman 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia, Vice Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

October 13, 2011 ............................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

October 13, 2011 ............................................................................................... 33 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011 

Boldon, Hope C., President and Chief Operating Officer, Human Development 

Division, The Integral Group LLC ...................................................................... 8 

Fischer, Will, Senior Policy Analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ... 13 

Russ, Gregory P., Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, Cambridge 

Housing Authority ................................................................................................ 15 

Warren, Kris, Chief Operating Officer, Chicago Housing Authority ................... 11 

Woods, Larry C., Chief Executive Officer, Housing Authority of WinstonSalem ..................................................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Boldon, Hope C. ................................................................................................ 34 

Fischer, Will ...................................................................................................... 72 

Russ, Gregory P. ............................................................................................... 86 

Warren, Kris ..................................................................................................... 90 

Woods, Larry C. ................................................................................................ 100 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Biggert, Hon. Judy: 

Written statement of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities 

(CLPHA) ........................................................................................................ 107 

Written statement of the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority 

(CMHA) .......................................................................................................... 117 

Letter from a coalition of housing industries ................................................. 123 

Letter from HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, dated October 11, 2011 ........ 124 

HUD Report to Congress entitled, ‘‘Moving to Work: Interim Policy Applications and the Future of the Demonstration,’’ dated August 2010 ......... 126 

Written statement of the National Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA) .......................................................................................... 199 

Written statement of the National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) and 

the National Apartment Association (NAA) ............................................... 207 

Written statement of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) ................................................................................................ 209 

Written statement of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors ............... 214 

Gutierrez, Hon. Luis: 

Written statement of the National Low Income Housing Coalition 

(NLIHC) ......................................................................................................... 215 

(1) 

THE SECTION 8 SAVINGS ACT OF 2011: 

PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC 

INDEPENDENCE FOR ASSISTED FAMILIES 

Thursday, October 13, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

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. Judy Biggert [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Biggert, Hurt, Miller of California, Capito, Westmoreland, Dold, Stivers; Gutierrez, Waters, 

Watt, Sherman, and Capuano. 

Also present: Representatives Chabot and Al Green of Texas. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

We will begin with our opening statements, and I will recognize 

myself for 4 minutes. 

Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s hearing, the second in a 

series to examine proposals to reform HUD’s Housing Choice 

Voucher Program, or Section 8. As I mentioned during our first 

hearing, over the last decade, the Section 8 Program’s costs have 

grown by almost 80 percent and consume over 61 percent of HUD’s 

budget. In 2002, Section 8 appropriations were $15.6 billion, and 

in Fiscal Year 2011, they amounted to $27.6 billion. This rate of 

growth is unsustainable. The draft legislation that we will examine 

today aims to address these escalating costs. 

In addition, for many years we have heard about the long waiting lists, hundreds of thousands of individuals and families simply 

having their name on a list and never receiving a dime of housing 

assistance. Thus by cutting red tape, enhancing the delivery of 

housing assistance, and promoting economic independence, today’s 

proposals aim to help public housing authorities and communities 

across the country to improve services to the people currently receiving assistance and ultimately serve more people. 

For too long, both HUD and Congress have allowed assisted 

housing to continue in a form deemed good enough, the results of 

which are clear to see in ever-impoverished neighborhoods across 

our country. The Section 8 Program has its results: never-ending, 

indeed, hopelessness and despair. 

2 

In my opinion, the Section 8 culture of ‘‘good enough’’ is not good 

enough. We can and we must do better. Today, we welcome a number of witnesses who will highlight creative solutions that their 

communities have implemented to achieve the goals of better serving people in need and maximizing the impact of taxpayer dollars 

dedicated to the Section 8 Program. They represent organizations 

that have cut red tape, improved services, and are willing to work 

to help people stand up on their own two feet so that others who 

are standing in line can also be served. 

One of today’s witnesses, Ms. Warren, will discuss many of the 

successes that have been achieved in Chicago, Ranking Member 

Gutierrez’s and my hometown. Families in Chicago are succeeding 

in breaking the cycle of generational poverty. We will hear about 

the positive citywide impact of Chicago’s redevelopment efforts. 

Gone are the days of Cabrini-Green. 

Our goal for Section 8 reform is to provide more than just a roof 

over the heads of struggling families. A modern, efficient, effective 

Section 8 Program should give local housing authorities the flexibility they need to help recipients get back on the path to self-sufficiency. By linking rental assistance with new opportunities for job 

training, employment, financial literacy, and education, we can 

help more families achieve economic independence. Today’s hearing 

will shed light on how Congress, HUD, local public housing authorities, and communities can improve the Section 8 Program to 

do a better job of helping individuals and families in need. 

I would also like to note for the members of the subcommittee 

from both sides of the aisle that similar to our effort earlier this 

year to shape reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program, as 

we continue to draft Section 8 reform measures, I welcome your 

concerns, your ideas, and your participation in this process. 

With that, I recognize Ranking Member Gutierrez for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Good afternoon. I want to thank the gentlelady 

from Illinois, my friend and my colleague, and of course, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing and for keeping housing voucher reform on the agenda. I would also like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here today as we discuss the newest draft of the Section 8 Savings Act, or SESA. 

SESA represents a lot of effort from both sides of the aisle. We 

all understand how important this issue is, and we continue to 

hear from public housing authorities, tenant groups, policy experts, 

and HUD, all of whom want us to enact commonsense improvements to Section 8 that will save money and help agencies be more 

efficient and effective in serving families in need. 

Like previous versions, the newest draft contains some important 

provisions on which we can all agree. These provisions streamline 

inspection requirements, simplify rent rules and economic calculations, and expand family self-sufficiency Programs. They give public housing authorities more needed flexibility to meet the needs of 

their communities in the face of funding cuts. 

I have concerns about some provisions in the new bill that I believe would undermine these vital reform efforts. The draft includes 

a higher minimum rent that could lead to increases in homelessness by pricing out the lowest-income families. The proposal also 

3 

ties many of the much-needed reforms to a new self-sufficiency 

demonstration that comes with a real cost to the agencies. I believe 

there are better ways to encourage voucher recipients to work and 

save. 

I also have to voice my serious concerns about the second bill for 

discussion, which proposes a massive expansion of Moving to Work 

demonstration Programs and makes it permanent. Although some 

public housing authorities, including a few represented here today, 

have been able to claim success under MTW, there is little evidence 

to justify a wholesale expansion. 

The design of MTW demands that we take a good look at this 

Program. As it currently exists, it does not require the necessary 

assessments and reviews to establish the Program’s impact. For example, in some cases it seems that fewer families are served and 

the allowed flexibility has made it harder for extremely low-income 

families to get housing assistance of any kind. This is exactly what 

effective reform should prevent. Furthermore, there is reason to 

doubt HUD’s capacity to manage a large-scale expansion of MTW, 

especially if no additional funds are authorized. The risks of this 

proposal far outweigh the potential rewards. Again, there is reason 

to doubt HUD’s capacity to manage large-scale expansion, especially with no additional funds authorized. 

The Section 8 Savings Act contains many provisions that we can 

agree on. I hope that we can focus on those points of agreement 

instead of dwelling on the issues that divide us. We have an opportunity here, and I hope we take it. Our constituents deserve no 

less. 

I want to thank my friend, Chairwoman Biggert, and I look forward to hearing all of the testimony today, and I would also like 

to enter into the record a statement from the National Low Income 

Housing Coalition. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentlelady. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. 

I ask unanimous consent that Representative Chabot of Ohio be 

allowed to be seated and to participate with the subcommittee at 

today’s hearing. So ordered. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Miller of California for 3 minutes. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. I would like to thank the 

chairwoman for convening this hearing today on the Section 8 Program. 

In addition to the Section 8 Savings Act discussion draft, the 

hearing includes consideration of a discussion draft of the bill I 

plan to sponsor on the Moving to Work Program. In general, this 

bill would make the Moving to Work Program permanent, remove 

the cap on the number of agencies that can participate, improve reporting requirements so HUD can effectively evaluate the PHA 

Program, and increase protective measures for assisted families. 

During the drafting process of this bill, I heard concerns regarding resident protection and incidents of management misconduct 

that have drawn some attention away from the great work so many 

of the MTW agencies have done. I acknowledge it is impossible to 

entirely prevent misconduct, or management or mistreatment of a 

resident at any PHA, whether an MTW agency or not. We must do 

4 

our best to prevent it on a systematic level. To address this valid 

concern, my bill includes provisions to protect residents and hold 

management accountable for their performance without losing the 

flexibility that allows MTW agencies to be at the forefront of innovation. 

For far too long, we have accepted the notion that compassion in 

housing assistance was defined by the amount of dollars spent and 

not by the manner in which assistance is provided. At this time of 

considerable budget constraints, it makes sense to give PHAs flexibility to help them improve the quality and effectiveness of their 

Programs without increasing costs. The MTW Program allows 

PHAs to have the flexibility they need to be innovative in serving 

residents and helping them become employed and economically 

independent. 

Last year, HUD released a report about the Program and found 

that the agencies with the MTW designation are encouraging economic independence through rent reforms and services, while reducing costs without negatively impacting the residents. Specifically, the report states that, ‘‘MTW agencies have actually served 

substantially more families than they would have been able to 

serve without MTW by streamlining operations and using accumulated funds to administer new assisted housing units.’’ 

There are currently 33 PHAs of the Moving to Work designation 

out of over 3,000 MTWs. That is over 1 percent of the housing authorities in the United States. It is time for Congress to remove the 

arbitrary cap on this successful Program. Any bill our subcommittee passes on Section 8 reform must include an expansion 

of the Moving to Work Program. 

I am grateful that the chairwoman included my discussion draft 

in today’s hearing, and I look forward to working with her to include it in the broader Section 8 reform bill, and I really look forward to hearing the panel today and the witnesses. You have expertise we are really looking forward to hearing, and I just support 

you in all you are doing. Whether you are a PHA or an MTW, it 

doesn’t matter, you all are doing a great job. Thank you, I yield 

back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Watt, is recognized for such time as he may consume. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for that generous 

recognition. As much time as I may consume, that is pretty generous. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Within 7 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Oh, up to 7 minutes, okay. I thought there had to be 

some catch to this. 

I appreciate the gentlelady yielding me time, and I appreciate 

the hearing. I am not going to comment on the bill itself, the proposal, but I did want to go out of my way to be here to welcome 

one of my outstanding housing authority directors, Mr. Larry 

Woods, who is one of the witnesses today. He is one of a number 

of very outstanding housing authority directors in my congressional 

district in Winston-Salem, in Greensboro, in Salisbury, in Charlotte, in High Point, and a couple of smaller ones in Davidson 

County, North Carolina, who have really done outstanding jobs trying to professionalize the housing authorities. Sometimes that has 

5 

worked very well, and sometimes it has worked to their disadvantage, because over the last few years, as the chairwoman knows, 

there has been a strong move to make housing authorities be more 

self-sufficient. And, in fact, the Winston-Salem Housing Authority 

is one of those housing authorities that has used that flexibility to 

become more self-sufficient, and built up substantial reserves only 

to have our institution now saying to them, we are going to take 

back those reserves that you have built up over time, using the 

business model that you all have been pushing over all this time. 

It does not provide the kind of incentive for these housing authorities to do what you all ask them to do, to be innovative and 

entrepreneurial, if as soon as they innovate and entrepreneur and 

build up reserves, following that process, the appropriators in our 

institutions say, we have a budget crisis, and therefore we are 

going to take your reserves that you have built up over time using 

this entrepreneurial approach and use them to balance the Federal 

Government’s budget. 

So I wanted to put that on the table. It is a concern that a number of my housing authorities have expressed, in particular the 

Winston-Salem authority. I am sure he is not here to testify about 

that today, but I am not as constricted as he is or might be in the 

things I can comment on, especially since you yielded as much time 

as I may consume. 

So in the area of innovation, with respect to moving people to 

work, our housing authorities have also been very innovative, but 

I would encourage the Chair and the members of the committee 

who invited Mr. Woods as a witness to be here to listen carefully 

to what he is saying in his testimony, because the notion that this 

bill would move us more toward a one-size-fits-all approach with a 

set of regulations that constrict local housing authorities to really 

innovate and partner with social services organizations in their 

communities—listen carefully to what his testimony is saying. If 

you constrict that, he is going to tell you pretty clearly, I am not 

a social worker, I am not—I am in the housing authority business, 

and you can’t expect the housing authorities to solve all of the 

problems and put everybody to work doing a bunch of things. 

So I don’t want you to miss the point that you invited the witnesses here to try to advance the cause of moving this bill, because 

while the concept of moving people to work is absolutely something 

that we support and not making them permanent public housing 

residents, the method by which that is done can vary from community to community, and to set up a bunch of rules in a piece of legislation that makes it impossible for communities to really take advantage of community partnerships or social services departments, 

the Urban League, some of the partners that Mr. Woods has 

partnered with in the community to accomplish that, I think you 

might be tempted to miss the point. 

So I appreciate the gentlelady yielding me a generous amount of 

time, and I appreciate the gentlelady having the hearing. Unfortunately, I have a Judiciary Committee markup that I have to be in, 

so I may miss the testimony, but I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to welcome Mr. Woods in particular, and all of the witnesses, and to make the points that you so generously gave me 

time to make. 

6 

I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And I might just say that on your first point, we really need to 

look to the appropriators, and that is really not this committee, because I would agree with you as far as what is happening. 

On the second point, I think if you look at the legislation, we 

really—the thing that we are trying to do is have more flexibility 

and to have more local partnerships and coalitions, so I think that 

you will be pleasantly surprised to see that really is in the legislation. 

Thank you for being here. 

With that, I recognize Mr. Westmoreland for 11⁄2 minutes. I can’t 

be as generous on this side. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the chairwoman for yielding and for holding this hearing. 

Every year, the Section 8 Program consumes a larger share of 

HUD’s annual budget. For 2011, Section 8 Programs consumed 61 

percent of HUD’s budget. This is unacceptable. The committee and 

HUD must get serious about structural reforms to both Section 8 

and HUD. 

I applaud the chairwoman and her staff for working diligently on 

the discussion draft. It is much improved from prior versions and 

focuses on moving public housing authorities in the Section 8 Program to do more with less by leveraging public/private partnerships to serve the community. 

I also want to thank Mrs. Hope Boldon for testifying today. Mrs. 

Boldon, I appreciate your drive and all your commitment to all 

Georgians in what you do. Your work with the Atlanta Housing 

Authority is a model for large metropolitan areas to integrate their 

services to the community, and I thank you for that. 

Importantly, the Section 8 bill being discussed today is only the 

first step in what must be a larger effort to reform HUD itself. 

HUD’s problems are systemic and cannot just be addressed on a 

Program-by-Program basis. For too long, HUD Programs have been 

poorly managed, and taxpayers’ hard-earned money has been wasted. It is time for HUD to wake up and realize that these lapses in 

public confidence cannot continue. 

I look forward to hearing all the witnesses today, and, Madam 

Chairwoman, I yield back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Dold of Illinois is recognized for 11⁄2 minutes. 

Mr. DOLD. I want to thank the Chair. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding the hearing and giving us an opportunity to 

talk about these important issues on housing. 

I think that most Democrats and most Republicans can agree on 

several fundamental housing principles: first, we must have a basic 

safety net to help provide housing for those who cannot provide for 

themselves; second, our ultimate overall objective is to move as 

many people as possible into self-sufficiency as quickly as possible; 

third, we must carefully consider the viewpoints of our public housing authorities who have the expertise, the experience, and we 

must provide them the adequate flexibility; and finally, as with all 

other government Programs, we must ensure that we have the adequate checks and balances, systems and controls to ensure that 

7 

transparency, accountability, cost-effectiveness, and ongoing improvements are made. We must ensure that the scarce taxpayer resources are used efficiently and wisely, while also minimizing and 

detecting fraud and waste. We must establish standards and 

benchmarks against which we can systematically measure the results and identify improvement areas for both beneficiaries and 

taxpayers. 

Failing to do these things will harm Program beneficiaries the 

most because their resources get wastefully diverted while taxpayers become less willing and less able to fund the necessary Programs. I think this discussion draft moves us a long way towards 

those fundamental common principles, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with my Democratic colleagues 

and Republican colleagues to make this positive difference for the 

housing beneficiaries, service providers, and our taxpayers. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia, our vice chairman Mr. Hurt, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am grateful for your commitment to reforming and strengthening the Section 8 Voucher Program. This Program consumes a 

growing portion of HUD’s annual budget, growing from $15 billion 

in 2002 up to $28.5 billion in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2012 

budget requests, and now accounting for over 60 percent of HUD’s 

budget. 

With our Nation over $14 trillion in debt, the citizens of my district, Virginia’s Fifth District, expect us in Congress to closely scrutinize Federal Programs, eliminate costly administrative inefficiencies, and enact reforms that yield results. The legislation our subcommittee is considering today will reform the Section 8 Program 

to better serve those who are in most need of assistance by promoting independence, self-sufficiency, and prosperity for the Program’s beneficiaries. 

It is my hope that the witnesses testifying before our subcommittee today will prove that when given sufficient flexibility, 

local housing authorities can innovate, develop solutions, and 

achieve those results. By removing bureaucratic red tape and burdensome regulations, we can empower these entities to better assist the populations that we all serve. 

Again, I want to thank the Chair for holding this hearing today, 

and I look forward to the testimony of each of you who have joined 

us today. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Mr. Green, do you have an opening statement? 

Okay, thank you. 

I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Chabot from Ohio have 

1 minute for an opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank you 

and the ranking member for allowing me to speak and be a part 

of this hearing. Like Mr. Watt, I also have a markup in the Judiciary Committee, and, in addition, I have a markup in the Foreign 

Affairs Committee as well, so I will be bouncing back and forth. 

8 

The Section 8 Program, in my view, is broken, and I applaud this 

committee for taking up this important reform legislation. Any reform legislation we pass in this Congress must include a path for 

people to achieve self-sufficiency. A part of that path is enforcing— 

setting enforceable time limits. A Section 8 voucher, for example, 

is not intended to be, and should not become, a permanent entitlement. Temporary assistance should be just that, temporary. 

We also need to ensure that this legislation protects our neighborhoods, holding both tenants and the owners of Section 8 and 

public housing responsible for the quality and the safety of the 

buildings, the residents, and the community. Convicted felons, sex 

offenders, and illegal aliens should not be allowed to participate. 

Those who violate our local laws and ordinances should also be 

barred from eligibility. 

Lastly, we need to support efforts to expand the Moving to Work 

Program, which has been mentioned here already this afternoon. 

Our goal should be to ensure that local public housing authorities 

are accountable not to the bureaucrats in Washington, but to the 

communities they serve. I look forward to working with this committee to come up with more sensible solutions to protect our communities, and I thank you again for allowing me to participate. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Without objection, all Members’ opening statements will be made 

a part of the record. 

Now, I would like to introduce the panel of witnesses. Thank you 

so much for being here. 

We have: Mrs. Hope Boldon, president and chief operating officer, Human Development Division of The Integral Group LLC; Mr. 

Larry Woods, chief executive officer, Housing Authority of WinstonSalem; Ms. Kris Warren, chief operating officer, Chicago Housing 

Authority; Mr. Will Fischer, senior policy analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Mr. Greg Russ, executive director and 

chief operating officer, Cambridge Housing Authority. 

Thank you all for being here. Without objection, your written 

statements will be made a part of the record, and you will each be 

recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. And we will 

start with Mrs. Boldon. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HOPE C. BOLDON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, THE 

INTEGRAL GROUP LLC 

Ms. BOLDON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Biggert, 

Ranking Member Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee. I 

am honored to appear before you to discuss with you the Human 

Services Management Program that we have evolved, developed, 

and implemented in Atlanta over the last 10 years. 

Knowing that I don’t have much time, I would like to start with 

a story that demonstrates exactly what we do. Early in HOPE VI— 

and this is an evolution from the HOPE VI model that we developed using that framework, and those funds, and the requirements—and early when we were working with the first HOPE VI 

communities, we had a family on our roster. This family had two 

disabled parents. One had a mental disability, and the mother had 

a physical disability and was wheelchair-bound. They had two ableVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:33 Apr 19, 2012 Jkt 072615 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72615.TXT TERRIE
9 

bodied children, very bright, very smart. The daughter, who was 12 

years old at the time when we started working with her—understand that these children became teenagers on our watch. The 

daughter was 12 years old. She was managing the family business, 

and she was handling the family’s financials at 12. 

We started to work with the family, and discovered that though 

she was doing a pretty decent job, she had begun to become disrespectful to her parents. There was no adult leadership in the 

house, and our staff took that place in the household. They became—they had the vision for the family, they engaged the family 

in positive thinking about their futures, they began to go to PTO 

meetings with the mother and then for the mother. They made 

sure they had summer Programs. We got them a tutor from one of 

the close colleges, and they started to pick up with their schoolwork. In the meantime, we made sure that the parents met their 

appointments, got their therapy, whatever they needed, and even 

had their wheelchairs repaired. 

When she was 17, she became pregnant. We supported her 

through the pregnancy, got her back in school, and she graduated 

a year later. 

When our contract ended—and this took about 5 years because 

this was HOPE VI funds—when the contract ended, we thought, at 

least we had given them some stability as young adults. Fast forward to August 2011. One of my staff, the one who had worked 

with that family for 5 years, came back from lunch all excited and 

said, ‘‘I just went to the Chase Bank to see about my money, and 

my teller was that young lady that I helped from the time she was 

12 to the time she was 18. She says she has left public housing, 

she is looking after her mother in her own condo, she is looking 

after her 5-year-old daughter, and she is back in college.’’ 

I tell you that story because the work that we do is so complicated, I could never tell you about it in 5 minutes, and I want 

to leave you with a PACT, P-A-C-T. This is what our Program is 

about. First of all, we designed it with principles of human development that have been proven; that is the ‘‘P.’’ We hold everybody accountable; there is your ‘‘A.’’ We hold the housing authority accountable, we hold all the agencies and other service providers that 

work with us accountable, and we hold our own staff accountable. 

‘‘C,’’ we counsel, coach, and connect our staff. We don’t give direct 

services, but we are the conductor of the symphony that is people’s 

lives, and we make sure that we pick the right agencies and hold 

everybody accountable to the outcome of the family’s goals for life. 

And then ‘‘T,’’ we recognize that this kind of work took a long time 

in the happening, and so it is going to take a long time in the solution, and so we realize that families don’t start to work with you 

unless they trust you. So there is our double ‘‘T,’’ time and trust. 

Now, on our way here from Atlanta, we were able to upload the 

boarding passes onto our BlackBerrys if they work and then 

scanned them in the airport, and I just thought what an enormous 

source of brain power allowed that to happen. Now, I know that 

source of brain power can be focused to solve the problems in public housing. 

Thank you. 

10 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boldon can be found on page 34 

of the appendix. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Woods, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY C. WOODS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WINSTON-SALEM 

Mr. WOODS. Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, 

and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Larry C. Woods, and I am the chief executive officer 

of the Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem in North 

Carolina. I have over 25 years of leadership experience in the field 

of housing and economic development. I also grew up in public 

housing. The authority I represent has approximately 1,300 public 

housing units. We administer 4,600 housing choice vouchers. We 

manage another 400 nonpublic housing units as well as two office 

buildings. 

I joined the housing authority in December of 2006, knowing that 

funding was shrinking. I realized that in order for the housing authority to survive and fulfill its mission, there had to be operational 

changes. Additional income streams needed to be created, and the 

creation of new private- and public-sector partnerships developed. 

It is clear to me our focus is and needs to remain housing management and community development. I also recognize that the 

availability and accessibility of performance-based residence services are vital to the advancement and well-being of the individuals 

and families we serve. Each family problem is extremely complex 

and uniquely challenging, requiring a multidisciplined and holistic 

approach. 

As real estate managers and development professionals, we need 

to do what we do best, and that is real estate. We are not educators, we are not health care providers, we are not mental health 

professionals, we are not workforce development experts. Our City 

of Winston-Salem has a wealth of agencies with the expertise and 

experience. They are more qualified to provide these services than 

we are. To mimic their operations would only result in the duplication of services, and that clearly is not the best use of taxpayer dollars. 

In order to provide these services, we developed partnerships 

with these local agencies through performance-based contracts. For 

example, we contracted with the Urban League to evaluate resident skills, prepare them for interviews, and make job placements. 

Forty-three individuals have been placed in jobs for a total 

annualized salary of $648,000 at a cost of only $29,000. 

Chairwoman Biggert, although we have made great strides and 

progress, we have needs that cannot be resolved with the inflexibility currently found in existing rules and regulations. To address 

this, I believe Moving to Work must be considered as you continue 

to work on housing reform legislation. With the flexibility of MTW, 

we are able to align resources with our needs, and it is currently 

the only means to provide a lasting impact. 

Local housing authorities like mine must be allowed to develop 

and implement strategies to best serve the needs of their jurisdicVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:33 Apr 19, 2012 Jkt 072615 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72615.TXT TERRIE
11 

tion. The ability to become an MTW agency should be a choice open 

to housing authorities meeting basic qualifications rather than 

through a competitive process, and contracts must be unique to 

each housing authority. 

MTW does not result in any increase in Federal funding to an 

authority. However, MTW does provide the significant flexibility to 

use our available resources in more innovative and creative ways 

that are currently unavailable to us. As an MTW agency, our goal 

would be to achieve real results that would provide greater incentives for families to become less dependent on subsidies and move 

away from outdated policies that perpetuate low-income individuals 

and families living within distressed neighborhoods that provide no 

hope for a better life. 

As an MTW agency, we would have at a minimum the opportunity to design Programs as a stepping stone for self-sufficiency, 

provide a means for individuals entering housing assistance to proceed to a series of services so that individuals can reach a point 

where housing assistance is either significantly reduced or no 

longer needed, create partnerships to develop individual plans and 

goals for those receiving assistance since the needs of each individual are unique. Given the current pressure on the Federal budget, it is now more important than ever to empower local housing 

authorities to do all that they can for their communities with the 

funds available to them. 

Madam Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, I am requesting that the Housing Authority of Winston-Salem be given the 

tools to do what we can do best, and I am requesting that you hold 

me responsible and hold me accountable. This concludes my testimony. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to address the 

public policies based upon our efforts in Winston-Salem, and I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woods can be found on page 100 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Woods. 

Ms. Warren, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KRIS WARREN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Biggert, 

Ranking Member Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee. My 

name is Kris Warren, and I am the chief operating officer at the 

Chicago Housing Authority. Thank you for the opportunity to give 

testimony on the importance of the Moving to Work demonstration 

Program and its impact on low-income families in Chicago. 

In 2000, Chicago became one of the fortunate agencies to be 

granted MTW status. I am here to share the lessons learned and 

provide concrete examples on the impact of the MTW Program. 

The landscape of Chicago and the life trajectory of thousands of 

low-income families would not be the same without the local flexibility the MTW Program provides. Congress, with its great foresight, created MTW in 1996 to allow cities and housing authorities 

to develop and implement localized plans, incorporating the intent 

of Congress and the accountability required by HUD, but also the 

local conditions, political realities, community dynamics, and range 

12 

of partnerships. MTW allows the relationship between HUD and 

the housing authority to be a partnership to solve issues, and not 

a cookie-cutter approach to compliance and regulations. Simply 

put, MTW allows PHAs to create specific housing models and services that are unique to their community needs. 

With this flexibility, Chicago has implemented the Plan for 

Transformation, one of the largest and most ambitious redevelopment efforts of public housing in the history of the United States. 

The goals of the Plan for Transformation are to ensure that all 

public housing is of the highest quality and contributes to the wellbeing of the renters and the neighborhood in which it is located. 

We develop the land on which former failed housing stood into 

mixed-income communities that are assets to their residents and 

surrounding neighborhoods, and build and strengthen residents 

and communities by encouraging economic independence and integrating the formerly isolated public housing and its leaseholders 

into the larger social, economic, and community fabric of Chicago. 

MTW allowed Chicago to demolish dilapidated high-rise housing 

that blighted the lives of residents and the surrounding community, while rebuilding, financing, and acquiring over 20,000 units 

so far. The developments that replaced the housing now reflect the 

housing patterns in the rest of the City, with low- and moderateincome families as well as market-rate families and mixed-income 

development. Home values around the surrounding communities 

have increased. Private investment in new businesses brings needed retail, services, and jobs, while City investments in infrastructure, schools, and parks have amplified the impact of CHA’s work. 

To make these new communities a reality, CHA worked with private, public, nonprofit, and investor partners to leverage $1.7 billion, including $1 billion of direct investment and infrastructure 

improvements by the City of Chicago. 

Perhaps most importantly, the Moving to Work demonstration 

Program has allowed us to serve substantially the same number of 

people as when CHA entered the MTW Program, but we are able 

to serve those families in safer and more dignified environments. 

In Chicago, those who rent through CHA are no longer warehoused 

in isolated islands of poverty. They are now integrated into the fabric of the City and part of the social structure of Chicago’s great 

neighborhoods. 

While the change to Chicago’s public housing buildings and communities is impressive, the plan’s impact on residents’ lives is perhaps most dramatic. People not only report feeling healthier and 

safer, but more people are working, and income from employment 

has risen from an average of $10,000 a year to $20,000 a year. 

Through the Plan for Transformation, CHA has learned the critical importance of linking housing assistance with supportive service Programs, including job training, financial literacy, and educational opportunities. Due to the MTW Program, CHA has been 

able to offer services that under statute could not otherwise be 

funded with Section 8 or public housing operating dollars. These 

services provide a multitude of opportunities that encourage resident accountability and progress toward economic independence. 

They are vital to the success of the Plan for Transformation and 

our goals of ending isolation, breaking the generational cycle of 

13 

poverty, and ultimately encouraging movement out of the Federally 

subsidized Program. 

To date, Chicago’s participation in the MTW Program has allowed us to help over 6,000 residents find employment, many for 

the first time in their life; increase the employment rate from 15 

percent in 1999 to 60 percent among work-eligible residents today; 

place nearly 2,000 residents in transitional jobs, connecting them 

to real work; assist over 300 families in buying their first home; 

and ensure thousands of youth have employment, academic enhancement, and summer opportunities every year. 

We are proud of these accomplishments, but the numbers don’t 

fully capture the human impact of the MTW Program. No one is 

more familiar with that impact than Crystal Palmer, who is here 

with us today. Crystal grew up in a CHA high-rise and returned 

as an adult, where she became a resident leader. Drawing on lessons learned in her own life, she has worked for CHA and our providers to help other residents connect to these services needed that 

will forever change residents’ lives. And with that I want to welcome Crystal and thank her for joining me and offer her to answer 

questions if you deem it appropriate. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Warren can be found on page 90 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

And for the purpose of receiving additional expertise and input 

from the Chicago Housing Authority, I ask unanimous consent that 

Ms. Crystal Palmer of the staff of Ms. Warren be allowed to assist 

her in answering questions. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. Fischer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILL FISCHER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Mr. FISCHER. Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member 

Gutierrez, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor and 

a privilege to testify before you today. I want to talk first about the 

proposal to expand Moving to Work and then turn to some of the 

self-sufficiency provisions in the Section 8 Savings Act. 

The proposal to expand Moving to Work would allow HUD to, 

and possibly require HUD to, admit an unlimited number of agencies to the demonstration. This would fundamentally change Federal housing assistance. MTW, despite its name, isn’t focused on 

promoting employment. It allows agencies to operate outside a wide 

range of Federal statutes and regulations and HUD to establish 

special funding formulas for participating agencies. 

MTW has commendable goals, such as testing innovative policies 

and providing streamlining and flexibility, and as you are hearing 

today, many MTW agencies have implemented promising initiatives. But despite that, MTW is not the best way to pursue those 

goals, and a major expansion of the demonstration isn’t the right 

way forward for housing assistance for several reasons. 

First, MTW has not been effective in determining what policies 

really work in promoting self-sufficiency. It has generated a lot of 

anecdotal and other results, but it has generated few concrete polVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:33 Apr 19, 2012 Jkt 072615 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72615.TXT TERRIE
14 

icy findings, and that is because the demonstration really isn’t 

structured in a way that lends itself to rigorous experimental evaluation. As a result, it is hard to know whether an outcome stems 

from a Moving to Work policy, or from changes in an agency’s caseload, or underlying economic circumstances or other factors. 

More broadly, we really don’t know very much about what kind 

of policies are effective in helping families with housing assistance 

to increase their earnings. It is a critical question, but if we really 

want to find answers to it, what is needed isn’t more MTW; what 

is needed is targeted rigorous evaluations that test policy alternatives in a range of circumstances and really find out what works. 

The rent policy demonstration in SESA is an example of something 

that moves in this more promising direction. 

MTW also isn’t the best way to provide streamlining and flexibility. On the one hand, MTW allows agencies to remove basic Federal standards that have been key to making housing assistance 

Programs effective. On the other hand, its flexibility only reaches 

participating agencies and not the remaining housing agencies. 

There are definitely areas where flexibility and streamlining are 

needed, but the best approach to that is for Congress to provide, 

to pass targeted legislation that applies to all housing agencies in 

those areas. 

The last point I want to make on Moving to Work is that a major 

expansion of Moving to Work would create a real risk that there 

would be a really large transfer of resources away from housing assistance for the lowest-income families to other purposes, and that 

is partly—already under Moving to Work, MTW agencies in 2010 

transferred about $400 million in housing voucher funds to a range 

of other purposes. 

In addition, MTW has income-targeting rules that are much 

weaker than those that apply especially in the existing voucher 

Program. There would be a risk, especially in a tight funding environment, that agencies would feel pressure to shift resources to assist somewhat higher-income families who require less subsidies, 

and the result of that would be that you would have a lot less assistance for the lowest-income families with disabilities, for families 

at risk of homelessness, and for others who need the help the most. 

I want to turn now to the Section 8 Savings Act, which overall 

is a well-crafted, important piece of legislation that would improve 

housing assistance Programs and generate large Federal savings. 

There are several new provisions in the current draft that haven’t 

been included in previous drafts, and I want to touch on two of 

those. 

One of them is that the new draft would permit housing agencies 

to charge families up to $75, the higher of $75 or 12 percent of the 

local fair market rent, even if this is above 30 percent of their income. It is not clear that even the increase of $75 is warranted. 

That would place as many as 350,000 families at risk of rent increases. But the increase to 12 percent of the fair market rent is 

especially problematic because that could result in substantially 

larger minimum rents, especially for large families and for people 

who live in high-cost areas. So I think it will be important as this 

legislation moves forward that Congress take a look at these provisions and reconsider them. 

15 

SESA also contains a new self-sufficiency initiative that encourages agencies to enter into partnerships with local providers of employment and supportive services. This is generally a promising 

and important initiative. We have some significant concerns and 

suggestions for improvements, which are detailed in my written 

testimony. 

I will close with that. Again, thank you for the privilege of testifying before you today, and I will be happy to take any questions 

that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer can be found on page 72 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Fischer. 

Mr. Russ, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. RUSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Mr. RUSS. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking 

Member Gutierrez. And my thanks to the members of the subcommittee for inviting me here to speak. 

I am Gregory Russ, the executive director of the Cambridge 

Housing Authority. And I have been operating or working in one 

way or another in this business for 37 years, actually prior to the 

creation of the housing voucher Program that we are talking about 

here today—an interesting point that wasn’t lost on me when others were testifying. 

I want to point out that the CHA was one of the original 24 

MTW agencies. And since that time, since we started down this 

road in 1998, 1999, we have pursued a number of policies that I 

believe address a number of the points that were made earlier 

when the various members of the subcommittee and various Members of the Congress had an opportunity to speak. 

We really have to think about a way to make structural reforms, 

and MTW does that. It does that in several ways. One, it balances 

the demands of the local market and conditions that we are in with 

the larger objectives of the Federal policy. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, is one of the most expensive housing 

markets in the country. If you look at our three-bedroom payment 

standard, which we are only allowed to set due to MTW, it is 

$2,000. In some of the communities around the country, that would 

be three vouchers. So we have this very expensive, very difficult 

market to work in. 

And it has not been lost on us that one of the things we must 

do is preserve the hard stock that we have in Cambridge in order 

to allow the community to continue to serve low-income families. 

And, in fact, that is one of the themes you will see in our Moving 

to Work plans and reports. 

We also wanted to simplify the business relationship with the 

families. Most of you have talked about structural reform. Try and 

calculate a rent under the current rules. It is very difficult. And it 

is very difficult for the family to understand not only what the rent 

is, especially on the voucher side, but how much money they will 

have to operate when they go out and try to rent the unit. These 

16 

are structural changes that we have taken on, and one of the policy 

innovations I will talk about in a minute. 

We have also concluded that we have to provide a variety of incentives and approaches, working with our nonprofit partners in 

our community, to encourage and promote work for the families 

who participate in these Programs. And one thing that MTW has 

allowed us to do, much like some of the other agencies here, we are 

partnered up with the nonprofits who work in Cambridge and 

across the Boston region in ways we could not have imagined 5 

years ago. It is very powerful in terms of forming partnerships with 

groups that are helping populations that you may not be able to 

typically serve through the conventional Program. 

Some of the things in Cambridge that we are attempting: We 

have created a Program called a sponsor-based voucher, where the 

subsidy is provided to organizations that are service-rich or dealing 

with transitional housing Programs or for unique populations, such 

as those who are homeless or victims of domestic violence. We currently have 59 subsidies doing that. 

We have partnered with nonprofits, four of them, working with 

families who are in shelters and are homeless. And we have 55 

subsidies dedicated to that Program, which envisions training, support, budget, building savings, and, finally, families moving on to 

self-sufficiency. These subsidies start as a sponsor-based and then 

transform to a tenant-based and allow the family to—the subsidy 

flexes, in a way, as the family is moving along the path to self-sufficiency. 

We have another 20 subsidies dedicated to a Program we call the 

Career Family Opportunity, with the Crittenton Women’s Union, 

which is a 103-year-old nonprofit that has been working with 

women in the Boston region for a long time. And this is another 

effort to bring households, typically single-headed households, into 

the working world. This is a subsidy that, on graduation, the family who has a voucher voluntarily agrees after 5 years to give up 

the voucher. So it kind of flies in the face of what we think of when 

we think about families who are economically disadvantaged. That 

is part of the requirement of the Program. There are shallow subsidies available to those families, and that Program looks very different than anything we could have done in the conventional 

forum. 

Two other things I will mention. We have changed the way we 

project-base vouchers to allow for the preservation of units in Cambridge, and we adopted a rent-simplification policy. And what is potent about the rent-simplification policy is people understand how 

the rent was calculated. 

These are the kinds of reform that SESA is getting at and we 

think that Moving to Work can expand upon. And we are very interested in taking your questions or talking about these ideas as 

we try to bring them to scale. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russ can be found on page 86 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Russ. 

We will now turn to Member questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

17 

Ms. Warren, you made a really interesting statement in your testimony that I would like to revisit. You said the landscape of Chicago and the life trajectory of thousands of low-income families 

would not be the same without the flexibility that the Moving to 

Work Program provides. 

Could you expand on that concept for the committee? 

And then, I do have a question for Ms. Palmer. 

Ms. WARREN. I would be happy to. 

I think all you need to do is look at the landscape of Chicago 

today, and you will see the difference from what it was 10 years 

ago. The high-rise, isolated, miles of public housing that was desolate, didn’t have retail, didn’t have markets, families couldn’t get 

their mail delivered, is no longer there. What you see now are 

beautiful mixed-income communities that are built into the fabric 

of the entire Chicago community. 

Chicago, 10 years ago, had 14 of the 16 poorest census tracts in 

the United States. And I hate to say it, but the Chicago Housing 

Authority, 10 years ago and longer, was the poster child for what 

public housing shouldn’t be and how government and public housing didn’t work. Today, with the MTW flexibility and the creativity 

and innovation of the City of Chicago and the agency, they have 

been able to tear down and rebuild brand-new communities and be 

able to provide residents opportunities to be prosperous. 

The reason that residents can be prosperous is not only because 

they are in brand-new communities but because we have been able 

to provide wraparound services. These services are put together 

through what we term our FamilyWorks Programs, which are social service agencies that do holistic approaches with our families. 

And so if there is any—we set up specific Programs with each individual family to work within the fabric of that community. 

So I think it is really simple, just looking at what Chicago is 

today versus what you saw 10 years ago. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. And I certainly have—it certainly has changed the skyline of Chicago, too. I have been in the 

Robert Taylor Homes, I was in Cabrini-Green, Henry Horner, and 

just about all of them, and it really has changed and made it a 

beautiful area. 

With that, Ms. Palmer, maybe you could—this is going to be kind 

of awkward, but we will see what we can do here. I know that you 

are a Chicagoan and that you are in Congressman Danny Davis’ 

congressional district. And you have had firsthand knowledge of 

the impact of supportive services like those being discussed today. 

So, from your experience, do you believe that the MTW Program 

has made a difference in linking services to housing? Or is housing 

alone enough to help a family achieve economic independence? 

Ms. PALMER. I will answer the last question first. 

Bricks and mortar do not build a family. You can build a house, 

but it is the support that you give the family to help maintain 

those families. So the wraparound services that we have for employment, child care, mental illnesses, and clinical services is the 

kind of services that our families need. When the high-rises were 

up, our families were just isolated, didn’t have services, didn’t have 

adequate child care, didn’t have employment. These services now 

come into play where our families are able to engage in employVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:33 Apr 19, 2012 Jkt 072615 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72615.TXT TERRIE
18 

ment, education, and make their lives better and better for their 

families. 

And I think what is really important to me is that our youth, our 

young generation gets to actually see their family members actually going to work, going to school, trying to become self-sufficient, 

so when they, too, become adult age, they can follow the same pattern. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Then just briefly, linking the services, how does that happen? 

Ms. PALMER. So there is, again, the FamilyWorks Program, 

whose outreach workers actually go out and knock on doors and 

talk to families and tell them about the services. As a matter of 

fact, I used to be an outreach worker for one of the services, and 

I would go out and I would just talk to the families about the services that they need. 

Because I am a friend of that community, people began to trust 

me. And in trusting me, they would allow the clinicians or the outreach workers to actually come in and engage with them. Once 

they got inside of the houses, they found that there were many, 

many issues. Families didn’t identify themselves because it was a 

norm for them. And so, by them being able to get into those houses 

and address some of the issues, a lot of those families have moved 

toward self-sufficiency. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. I thank you so much. And my time 

has expired. 

Mr. Gutierrez, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. 

I hope that the next time maybe we can have a hearing—because 

it seems like every time we talk about public housing we have to 

mention crime, as though they are interwoven—crime. Maybe the 

next time we talk about the $100 billion that we subsidize housing 

in America through the deduction we give people on their interest, 

we should talk about crime, too. But people say, Luis, what are you 

doing that for? Maybe we should. 

So I always kind of worry about crime and public housing. We 

are all concerned about crime, but it always seems to be that one 

thing always seems to be linked with the other. And then, lately, 

it is the illegal immigrants; you have to throw them in. You have 

black people; let’s throw in the brown people, too. Kind of like in 

Alabama, 40 years ago, you know what happened there. So let me 

just make that statement for the record. 

And then, Ms. Warren, I would like to ask you, what are things 

that we can do from our perspective that can help you in Chicago? 

And, first of all, I want to say, thank you for coming. And please 

give my best and warmest regards, as he left Charlotte to come to 

Chicago, lost to my colleague, Mr. Woodyard. Thank him for coming, and tell him I wish him Godspeed. 

Tell us, what can we do to help you? 

Ms. WARREN. I will make sure to pass along your kind words. We 

look forward to his starting, as well. 

I really appreciate what Congress has done thus far with the 

MTW Program, because it has made all—we would not be where 

we are today without it. 

19 

I do think continuing the flexibility with the Program is key. I 

know there have been some discussions about trying to rein in 

some of the flexibility and maybe putting a few more regulations 

on the Program, and that is a little concerning, because I think our 

Program has been so successful because we have been able to cater 

it and mold it and evolve it to where we know it works. And we 

continue to evolve it. And we have been— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So, of every 100 public-housing residents that 

you had, how many leave public housing? What percentage leave 

to private housing? How many leave the voucher system to nonvoucher-system housing? 

Ms. WARREN. As of today, I don’t have exact numbers for you. 

What I can tell you right now is, as an example, we have over 300 

families who have purchased homes through the Choose to Own 

Program. We have over 827 families who have graduated out of our 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program, with a total of $7.4 million— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And they have gone on to non-assisted housing? 

Ms. WARREN. Many of them have. 

What I will also just back up and explain is that, through the 

last 10 years of the Plan for Transformation, we have been working 

with the same population who started and helped us through the 

Plan for Transformation. So a number of those families are still 

with us and will probably end up remaining with us. 

What we are working on now with those families is that younger 

generation so we can break that generational cycle of poverty, we 

can encourage the youth, through education and job training, that 

there is something you can do when you turn 18 besides moving 

into another public housing unit. 

One of the things we offer through the MTW flexibility is free 

city college tuition to any public housing resident after financial 

aid. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thought you might say that. I was hopeful. So, 

in other words, if Congress increased Pell grants so that people 

could go to college instead of refuse to increase Pell grants, that 

might help you take people to self-sufficiency. If Congress actually 

supported increasing minimum wage in this country, that might 

help you take people to self-sufficiency. If Congress somehow increased Head Start Programs and nutritional Programs for people, 

that might actually help people get—if we sponsor job training Programs and skill training Programs so they would have new skills 

so they could go out in the market, that might actually help you. 

Ms. WARREN. Absolutely. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Because I think, many times, unfortunately— 

and I go back to what Mr. Woods suggested to us—we kind of say 

here, ‘‘You are only supposed to be there a short amount of time, 

and then you are supposed to get off. It is only supposed to be a 

short period of time.’’ But when it comes to all of the other substantial things that we might be able to do to help people get to selfsufficiency, we vote against it. But then we ask you, the managers 

of public housing, to do more with less and, at the same time, give 

less to the very population that you represent. 

Ms. WARREN. Exactly. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So I just wanted to draw on that and to thank 

you, because it is a hard job. And I know a lot of the work that 

20 

goes into making—and I just want to state for the record that those 

of us who believe in public housing, we are some of the strongest 

people against those who sell drugs, who are gang members, who 

cause violence. We are strong. And we don’t need anybody pontificating to us what it is we need to do when it comes to that. We 

are strong. We want a good, clean community. We would only hope 

people would help us achieve that, given the wealth and the depth 

of richness that this Nation has. 

Thank you so much. 

Ms. WARREN. I really thank you for your comments. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And thank you. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Hurt, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank each of you for testifying today. 

My district is mostly rural, southern Virginia. And my question 

is for—I would like to hear from Mr. Woods about the Program 

that he is involved in, in Winston-Salem, maybe because it is the 

closest one to where I live. 

But it sounds like to me, in the last 15 years, this has provided 

a real improvement to what you all do. And I think it sounds to 

me that most people recognize that the model previously demonstrated it was not working very well and improvements were 

needed. 

And so I was wondering if you could maybe cite specific examples 

of where the inflexibility of the current rules and regulations for 

PHAs, where—could you offer some specific examples of how that 

keeps you from meeting your objective? 

Mr. WOODS. Thank you very much. 

One of the problems that we see in Winston-Salem is the fact 

that we are unable to help families move because of in-place rules 

and regulations. One has to do with something called ‘‘split families.’’ It allows an individual who is living in a unit who is an adult 

to come into our management office and say, ‘‘I am not getting 

along with my brother, I am not getting along with my sibling, I 

want a split family.’’ 

Now, that is a problem because we have a large waiting list— 

200, 300, 400 individuals at any one time. This individual is already receiving some benefit of public tax dollars, living in a unit. 

Now they are jumping ahead of the waiting list, and they get preference to move into a unit over someone who has been waiting on 

the waiting list. And that is a problem for us because we are unable to move families who have been waiting for affordable housing 

or assisted housing to move in. That is one of the regulations that 

hurt us. 

Streamlined reporting: Mr. Russ talked about rent calculation. It 

is complicated. It is also complicated when one part of HUD asks 

you to keep your financial records on an accrual basis and another 

is asking you to keep it on a cash basis, and then you get somebody 

who says, ‘‘Reconcile the two.’’ It is impossible. Those are just two 

examples. 

Mr. HURT. Do you— 

21 

Mr. WOODS. Income exclusions: An individual has been unemployed for over a year. When they do get a job, for the first year 

the new income cannot be included as part of a rent calculation. 

So what happens? They go out, they get a credit card, they buy additional appliances. Then when it is time for the rent to kick in, 

guess what happens? They come to us and say, ‘‘I quit work, so my 

rent stays the same.’’ So, for a full year, they have had that benefit— 

Mr. HURT. Right. 

Mr. WOODS. —and we have been having to subsidize that, and 

now, when it is time for them to pay a portion of a higher rent, 

they quit work because there is no real work requirement. They 

can just say, ‘‘I quit work,’’ and there is nothing we can do. 

Those are several examples that hamper us in really helping a 

larger number of people on our waiting list. 

Mr. HURT. Do you believe, for the individuals and the families 

who receive the Section 8 assistance, do you believe that the opportunities for job training and education and employment are more 

readily available for those PHAs that have the MTW Program as 

opposed to others? 

Mr. WOODS. Oh, no doubt about it. They can come up with different types of incentives, as both agencies here talked about. I love 

the idea of an incentive of providing some type of college tuition. 

That is a carrot-and-stick approach. That is what is going to motivate individuals. There has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. 

Mr. HURT. All right. 

And let me just—one final question. How do you respond to some 

of the concerns that were raised by Mr. Fischer in terms of the suggestion that these principles are not proven and that somehow we 

are going to actually end up hurting the communities that we are 

trying to serve as opposed to helping them? 

Mr. WOODS. I think Ms. Warren’s testimony is the proof in the 

pudding: transformation of Chicago; better lifestyle; the integration 

into the broader community; mainstreaming families. 

What we believe is that, given the opportunity to come up with 

a unique Program guideline for our City, we can help more people 

move through the system quickly so that we can then move people 

from our waiting list to backfill that number. 

We have looked at it; we have been visiting other cities, such as 

Atlanta. We visited Chicago, we visited Kentucky. They all have 

great MTW Programs. We are looking for our opportunity. 

Mr. HURT. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am between two committees, but I wanted very much to be 

here today because I think we really do have to understand more 

about Moving to Work; I have to understand a lot more about it. 

So I am going to start with Mr. Fischer. In the previous Congress, we had a bill called the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, which 

expanded the Moving to Work Program but did so in a manner that 

protected residents and the housing stock. One of the important 

22 

features of that bill was the inclusion of retained provisions, parts 

of the 1937 Housing Act that Moving to Work agencies could not 

waive. The retained provisions included things like tenant representation on the public housing authority’s board, procedural 

rights for a tenant, lease requirements, resident choice portability, 

and other important parts of the public housing and Section 8 Program. 

Can you speak to the harm tenants would face if every housing 

authority in the country can waive provisions I just described? 

Mr. FISCHER. Sure. I think that there would be harm if there 

were an unlimited Moving to Work demonstration where agencies 

were able to waive the full breadth of housing assistance rules. 

I will just give one example, which is voucher portability. Under 

the existing voucher Program, families have to have the right to 

move anywhere in the country where there is a voucher Program. 

It is a critically important right that helps people get the most out 

of their housing assistance, and it is the key policy decision that 

Congress made in establishing the Program. Under MTW, if there 

aren’t any—under MTW agencies, in a number of cases, have curtailed that right in various ways, and this makes having the assistance less useful to the families who receive it. 

And that is just one example of something that, in a sweeping 

MTW situation, can get moved aside. It is a provision that helps 

to make housing assistance more effective. There are a lot of other 

examples of these provisions, like the ones that you mentioned, 

that could also be removed. 

Ms. WATERS. Additionally, you say MTW isn’t a good deal for 

taxpayers. What do you mean? 

Mr. FISCHER. I think what has happened in MTW is that there 

is a lot of funding—MTW permits funding shifts from the voucher 

Program to a range of other purposes. And one of the effects of this 

is that MTW has been less cost-effective in providing housing assistance to the lowest-income families. 

Housing agencies have used that money for a range of purposes, 

including some of the initiatives you have heard about today that 

are effective policies. In other cases, there have been situations 

where money has been wasted. For example, in the Philadelphia 

Housing Authority, which is one of the largest MTW agencies and 

in 2010 accounted for about one-sixth of the funds that were transferred, there have been a series of allegations of misuse of funds 

for a whole range of purposes, from payments for expensive professional services contracts, for gifts to employees, for very unnecessarily expensive construction projects. 

And so what has happened is that there have been—some of 

these funds have been used well, but other funds have been used 

less well. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Now, I take it we have some of our housing authorities that are 

represented now that have Moving to Work Programs? 

Ms. WARREN. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. You and you? How do you use your resources? How 

do you administer your Moving to Work Program? What do you do 

with the additional money? 

Ms. WARREN. I am sorry, with the initial— 

23 

Ms. WATERS. Resources that you get for the Moving to Work Program. How do you use those resources? 

Ms. WARREN. We are a part of the—we have the Plan for Transformation—that is the terminology that we use in Chicago—which 

is a 15-year, very strategic plan that has been in place since 2000. 

And that plan has allowed us to strategically work through all of 

our public-housing high-rises as well as work with our resident 

populations. 

So, every year, we have—again, we have a long-term plan, but 

every year we refine and evolve that plan and tailor the needs of 

the funding to what that year brings about, whether it is demolishing and rebuilding, whether it is financing of housing, whether 

it is adding different Programs to our resident services portfolio to 

help families with, say, early childhood— 

Ms. WATERS. Give me an example of your Programs that you 

have. 

Ms. WARREN. On the resident services side? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

Ms. WARREN. Okay. So we are set up through what we call the 

FamilyWorks Program, in which we contract with five service providers. And these service providers provide holistic, hands-on wraparound services to our families. They literally go door-to-door and 

work with our families on measured outcomes and plans to help 

them achieve either self-sufficiency or some type of economic gain. 

And we will do that with each family. We will— 

Ms. WATERS. This service helps to get them into job training Programs, and you have a job developer who gets jobs for them? 

Ms. WARREN. That is correct. We have job training, we have 

transitional jobs that we work with, we have a workforce development component. We also have a huge educational component. I 

mentioned—and I am not sure if you were here earlier—that we 

actually pay for city colleges for any family who is in our public 

housing development. 

Ms. WATERS. So you are helping the residents to become independent, and you have actual statistics on how many jobs and all 

of that? 

Ms. WARREN. That is correct, we do. 

Ms. WATERS. So, Mr. Fischer, how could you say that it is not 

money well spent? 

Mr. FISCHER. It is not that I think that—I think, like I said, 

some of these uses are good expenditures of funding. We strongly 

support having adequate funding to revitalize public housing. Targeting services on families in housing assistance would also be a 

good use of funds. 

What I object to is funding these uses by shifting money out of 

the housing voucher Program. Federal housing assistance today 

only reaches about one in four eligible families. There are long 

waiting lists in communities across the country— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Time has expired. Maybe you can come 

back to that because— 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. —Ms. Boldon is a service provider, and 

Mr. Russ, I think, had an answer, too. 

24 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I want to applaud all of the witnesses today. I think your input 

has been excellent. And your knowledge and your breadth of 

knowledge is really quite astounding. 

Mr. Fischer, you made a couple of comments that concern me a 

little bit. You said MTW hasn’t determined specific policies that 

should be used; that is a concern for you. And you don’t know what 

policies should work. I suggest it is not for you. I think MTW will 

not work for you. That is not a question. I just don’t think it is good 

for you, based on what you have said. 

The Public Housing Authority Directors Association, though, responded to some of your writings, and they said, ‘‘PHADA wishes 

to bring some matters concerning the Moving to Work demonstration to your attention, particularly as they relate to recent criticisms of the Program based on faulty, incomplete, and inconsistent 

assessments by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.’’ I believe that is you. 

‘‘Based on assessments by the Urban Institute, the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, and the independent study 

sponsored by MTW agencies, PHADA believes that the demonstration has been one of the most fruitful sources of innovation and 

growth for deeply assisted housing Programs during the 13-year 

history of the Program.’’ I think that speaks volumes. 

And I would like to applaud you, Mr. Woods, because you said 

some things I believe in. You said, ‘‘Empower me.’’ That is what my 

bill tries to do. You said, ‘‘Hold me accountable.’’ My bill does that 

through verifying and evaluating your accountability. You said, ‘‘I 

have innovative ideas.’’ We are looking for those. You said, ‘‘I believe in resident protection.’’ I think that is wonderful; so do we. 

Ms. Boldon, you said moving toward economic independence is 

huge and it has really worked for you. That is what this does also. 

And serving more families is what you are all about. And that is 

what MTW does. 

I think it is a really good Program. The witnesses today have 

supported my belief in it. It is not about cutting people off. It is 

about helping people, showing them that they can do many things 

on their own if they are just given a little direction, a little encouragement. 

But Ms. Warren, Ms. Boldon, Mr. Russ, and Mr. Woods, perhaps 

you would want to give some examples of successful Programs on 

helping residents become economically independent and how, basically, you were able to do this through MTW. Give me some examples that you would not have been able to do if you wouldn’t have 

been in MTW. 

Mr. RUSS. Yes, I would like to give a very specific one, and I 

would like to make two other observations. One, in Cambridge, the 

retained provisions that Congresswoman Waters mentioned, we do 

operate with most of those. We have not abandoned those protections for many of those items. 

And, second, I think that the comment that Mr. Fischer made on 

Philadelphia is off the mark, in the sense that we are actually 

25 

speaking here about individual issues, and it is yet to be determined if there is— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. And I would like to make one comment because I don’t like just to read letters from public housing 

authority directors— 

Mr. RUSS. Sure. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. —so we went and asked your people, 

I said, how many sites did you visit? They said, we didn’t. How 

many residents did you interview? We didn’t interview any. Were 

you able to visit Atlanta or Georgia sites, particularly? They said, 

no. How do you respond to the academic findings regarding residents’ employment and income improvements? They couldn’t. 

So I wasn’t willing just to accept the letter; we have gone and 

asked your people. And all those questions I just asked you, those 

were the answers we got back. 

Go ahead and— 

Mr. RUSS. And, Congressman, I would like to give one example. 

We have a Program, it is an after-school program called the Work 

Force Program. It starts with kids in 8th grade and works through 

12th grade, and it follows them for the entire time. We have funded 

that Program through a variety of sources in the past. Some of 

them are no longer available. We now fund that Program using our 

Moving to Work flexibility. 

That Program graduates out of high school on an annual basis 

95 percent of its participants. Another 93 percent of those kids go 

on to a secondary education. And the last time we surveyed, 6 

years after graduation about two-thirds of those kids no longer 

lived in public housing. 

So that is just one example of a small Program in Cambridge 

that we are using our MTW flexibility for. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. That is good. 

Ms. Warren, let’s give you a chance, too. Give me some ideas of 

what you have done. 

Thank you, sir. I didn’t mean to cut you off. I am almost out of 

time. 

Mr. RUSS. Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. So, I have a multitude of Programs. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Give me one. 

Ms. WARREN. I think one that is quite innovative that we use our 

MTW flexibility on is called Learn & Earn. And it is geared toward 

specifically youth from ages 13 to 15, because those youths tend to 

be left out of all the other Programs that are targeted to youth 

under 18. 

And so what we do is we work with them and actually pay them 

to go to school in the summertime for half a day, and they receive 

an academic—usually math or science, and learn for half the day. 

And the second half of the day is about job training and job placement and job growth. 

So for an entire summer they earn a stipend, they learn, and 

they get educated on the job, as well. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. That is great. 

Ms. Boldon, do you have something quick? 

Ms. BOLDON. Yes. In Atlanta, we started a preemployment workshop, and we did this in conjunction, of course, with the Atlanta 

26 

Housing Authority. And what we have been able to do is we have 

placed over 2,000 people in jobs. And we track them, and they have 

been employed over 6 months. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. My time is up. I want to thank you 

all for what you do. God bless you. And keep up the good work. 

And, those who don’t want to do it, have fun with what you are 

doing. But, those who want to move people to work, I just wish you 

all the best in the future. God bless you, and thank you for what 

you do. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you 

holding the hearing on these issues and your leadership on Section 

8 reform. 

I got a letter from my metropolitan housing agency. I live in Columbus, Ohio, and the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Agency is 

not part of the Moving to Work Program. They would like to be. 

So, much like Mr. Woods, the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority is anxious to get engaged and involved in this Program. 

And I just wanted to read something that they said to me, and 

then I have a question for Mr. Woods first. 

They believe that, under MTW, they will have a better opportunity to get people to work and stabilize their resident pool and 

increase the incomes in their community. And I assume that is— 

you talked about some of those same things, Mr. Woods, and your 

interest in getting in the Program and what you guys have done. 

I guess my question is for Mr. Woods, Ms. Boldon, and Mr. Russ. 

Have any of you experienced the ability to stabilize your rent pool 

as part of the Moving to Work, and has it increased incomes in 

your neighborhoods? 

Ms. BOLDON. I run an agency that partners with the housing authority— 

Mr. STIVERS. Right, you partner with—sorry, sorry. 

Ms. BOLDON. —so I am going to leave some of those answers for 

the housing authority folks. 

Mr. STIVERS. Yes. 

Ms. BOLDON. But I would like to say that our employment levels 

over the 10 years went from 18.5 percent to 78 percent at its peak, 

and it is now back at 56 percent because of the slowdown in the 

economy. 

Mr. STIVERS. But that is still a pretty impressive improvement. 

Ms. BOLDON. We are very proud of it. We call ourselves ‘‘pragmatic idealists.’’ 

Mr. STIVERS. Yes. 

We can just go down. And I know Mr. Woods wants the same 

thing that our Columbus folks want. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes. I just want to say very quickly, Winston-Salem 

is in a very unique position. In our City, we actually have a medical research park that is being built, and 27,000 to 30,000 new 

jobs are being predicted. 

Mr. STIVERS. Wow. 

Mr. WOODS. It is a culmination of Wake Baptist Hospital and 

several universities. If you don’t know, Winston-Salem Medical 

27 

Park has some leading industries that are coming in. They are able 

to actually grow body parts, and it is moving. 

This park is right next to my low-income community. Moving to 

Work will give us the opportunity to train residents to at least 

apply for the entry-level positions. That is why we are very, very 

concerned about being an MTW agency. 

Mr. STIVERS. And that is what I think the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority wants to do, too. So, in the interest of time, 

I will move on, and I know that you all have some great points to 

make. 

Mr. Russ talked earlier about project-based vouchers. And one of 

the other things that the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Agency 

has done a great job of is being a leader in project-based vouchers. 

There is a 20 percent cap on project-based vouchers, and they are 

starting to bump up against that. It is going to hurt their ability 

to serve specialized populations, including veterans, homeless folks, 

and also seniors. And they are really worried about that. 

Since you are the only one that I heard mention project-based 

vouchers in your testimony, Mr. Russ, I didn’t know if you wanted 

to talk about your experience quickly with project-based vouchers 

and how they can leverage private money and really be successful. 

Mr. RUSS. There are two things I would like to say. 

We redid the way—we abandoned the current regulatory framework, so we no longer have the cap in place. And we did that partly 

in response to the needs of some of the other nonprofits in the community, and our own needs, to be fair. So we do not have the cap 

that Columbus is bumping up against. 

And it has worked extremely well, in terms of helping us preserve probably close to 500 units in the City of Cambridge. And 

much of that housing is not our housing; it is the housing of the 

nonprofits who are at work in the community. 

Mr. STIVERS. And you got that exemption through HUD, right? 

Mr. RUSS. That was part of the Moving to Work agreement. And 

the other thing— 

Mr. STIVERS. Which is the other reason Columbus wants to be in 

Moving to Work. 

Mr. RUSS. Right. And I think one of the things about Moving to 

Work is it has really excellent unanticipated consequences. And the 

example I want to give is that, recently, we also assisted a nonprofit in our community who was purchasing an expiring-use property— 

Mr. STIVERS. And I am running out of time, but— 

Mr. RUSS. Okay. 

Mr. STIVERS. —I appreciate that. 

And I do want to ask Mr. Fischer one last question, because you 

brought up the Philadelphia Metropolitan Housing Authority and 

the mismanagement and potential corruption that has been alleged 

at that metropolitan housing authority is not limited to Moving to 

Work, is it? 

Mr. FISCHER. Well— 

Mr. STIVERS. It is a yes-or-no question. Is it limited to Moving 

to Work? 

Mr. FISCHER. I think it results from Moving to Work at Philadelphia. 

28 

Mr. STIVERS. You believe it is limited— 

Mr. FISCHER. It is not the only agency that has problems. I 

think— 

Mr. STIVERS. So you believe it is limited to Moving to Work? 

Mr. FISCHER. I think it stems from Moving to Work. 

Mr. STIVERS. But, from what I have seen, it is widespread. And, 

unfortunately, there are good and bad actors in every industry. 

And Philadelphia Metropolitan Housing Authority might not be one 

we— 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Dold, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And, if I can, I would like to, first of all, thank you all for coming 

again and thank you for your time. 

Ms. Warren, I am going to start with you. Because probably half 

of the questioners up here are from Illinois, we are going to focus 

more of our questions on Chicago, not to their detriment, but that 

is just the way it works. 

Mr. RUSS. She is up to the task. 

Mr. DOLD. You highlighted that the CHA’s Plan for Transformation involves breaking the generational cycle of poverty for 

the population served. And I certainly know that many here believe 

that this goal is paramount if we are going to succeed in our goal 

to approve assisted housing Programs in America. 

So what is Chicago doing specifically to address this daunting 

challenge, and what have been the results as of late? 

Ms. WARREN. That is a good question, and that is a tough question, but it is one we are addressing. 

We are addressing it in a couple of ways. One is, as I have already mentioned, our FamilyWorks Programs and those case managers and the clinical services. 

And we are approaching it from a two-generational approach. We 

have families who have been in our housing since before the Plan 

for Transformation who have children. And so the only way to really break that generational cycle is with the elder of the household 

or the mother or the father and the child at the same time. And 

there is a multitude of issues, generally, that come with that, so 

we try and address all those issues parallel. So we do what we can 

to help the family prosper but the child to grow from an educational and job training standpoint. So we— 

Mr. DOLD. Can you give me some sort of an idea? I recognize it 

is a daunting task, and I think we even mentioned that. But how 

has the success been thus far? Is it something that you can measure? 

Ms. WARREN. I think we cannot measure it yet. I think we are 

on our way to measuring it, because this is one of those Programs 

that has evolved with our FamilyWorks providers. 

We actually started with a different type of service Program. We 

have been through two different types of service Programs and 

found they didn’t work as well. We are now on this model, which 

we implemented a few years ago, and have found it works quite 

well because of the holistic wraparound services. 

29 

So, with that and through numerous studies, more studies than 

I have ever seen of any housing authority, on research projects that 

have helped us to identify key issues with some of our populations, 

we have been able to tailor Programs specific to those needs to 

start beginning to break that generational cycle. 

And, as Crystal mentioned earlier, the clinical services is a key 

component to what we do. Because, a lot of times, we get in and 

do basic services, but we can’t seem to get to the heart of the issue, 

and it turns out it is more of a clinical need and assessment that 

we have to put forth. 

Mr. DOLD. I am going to move on, if I can. 

Ms. WARREN. Sure. 

Mr. DOLD. Crystal, thank you so much for being here, as well. 

I know it is taking your time to be here. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Woods, I want to just go to you for a second, if I may, and 

your comments when you said to empower you. Certainly, we appreciate that and the fact that you stood up and said to hold you 

accountable. Certainly, that is something that we are looking to try 

to do, in terms of having more accountability in general with regard to housing. 

You state that there shouldn’t be a standard one-size-fits-all for 

the Moving to Work contract for every qualifying public housing 

authority. How should HUD and Congress establish parameters to 

balance this flexibility with the need to hold the housing authorities accountable in a results-driven process? 

Mr. WOODS. Thank you for the question. 

We have kind of wrestled with that issue. We think one basic 

standard should be whether or not you are a high performer. And 

during your annual plan, when you submit it into HUD, there just 

should be a box that says whether or not you are interested in becoming a Moving to Work or you are not. 

There can be other criteria, but it should not be competitive. 

That is what I think drives me crazy. When I first started in Winston-Salem, we applied, and we were told we were too small. We 

didn’t change any number of our units, we didn’t add any units, we 

didn’t lose any units. The following year, we were too big. And so— 

Mr. DOLD. Welcome to the government. 

Mr. WOODS. So it is like a moving target. 

And when I tell folks that you are not giving us any more money, 

what you are giving us is the flexibility and the responsibility for 

tailoring needs based upon my locality’s demand, I don’t think that 

is too much to ask for. 

Mr. DOLD. Certainly, I would agree. 

In the short period of time I have left, obviously, given the climate here, the budget restraints that we have here in Washington, 

D.C., and for Fiscal Year 2012, will the Moving to Work Program 

or flexibility allow the housing authorities to do more with less, in 

terms of Federal funds? 

Anyone? 

Mr. RUSS. Yes, I think that the thing that the Moving to Work 

gives us is it allows us to look across all the Programs. The money 

is fungible. You can balance as best you can. No one likes to deal 

with less money, I have to say that, but you can balance the impact 

of that inside your organization. 

30 

Mr. DOLD. Okay. I know my time has expired. Thank you so 

much. And, again, I appreciate you taking your time and energy to 

come and testify today. So I thank the entire panel. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Dold. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for 

allowing me to be a part of the subcommittee. 

Ms. Boldon, you seem to have a holistic approach. How are you 

funded? 

Ms. BOLDON. We run our contracts through a competitive response to an RFP put out by the Atlanta Housing Authority back 

in 2002. Before that, we were part of the development contract for 

Hope VI—Hope VI development. And so, we created the Program 

and defined it and implemented it using the Hope VI framework 

and those funds. 

Mr. GREEN. So you have worked with the Atlanta Housing Authority, is this what I am to understand? 

Ms. BOLDON. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. 

Now, let’s assume, dear friends, that we have something that we 

will call a standard housing Program. This is one that is not a 

Moving to Work Program. And let’s assume that we move to this 

Moving to Work Program. 

Would the cost for the standard program, which we will call 

‘‘X’’—would the cost to do the kind of Moving to Work Program that 

Ms. Boldon has called to our attention be ‘‘X-plus?’’ Is that a fair 

statement, that to move from a standard program to one with 

wraparound opportunities, resources, facilities, would it be ‘‘Xplus?’’ Or would you do this program, perform this program, in a 

stellar fashion with ‘‘X,’’ which is what you have for your standard 

program? 

And it looks like, Ms. Warren, you are leaning forward to answer. I read body language well. So I am going to call on you. 

Ms. WARREN. I was just going to say that I think without MTW 

flexibility, these programs couldn’t exist. 

Mr. GREEN. I understand. But what I need to know now is, if the 

standard Program costs ‘‘X’’ and you move from what I am calling 

a standard Program to the Moving to Work Program, will the cost 

be ‘‘X-plus?’’ Or can you do it with ‘‘X,’’ and do it to the extent that 

we have had the successes called to our attention? 

Mr. RUSS. Can I comment on this? 

Mr. GREEN. Let—Ms. Warren, you are with the Chicago Housing 

Authority. You have a Moving to Work Program, right? 

Ms. WARREN. Yes. I am sorry, I didn’t realize you were asking 

me. 

I would say that the Program shouldn’t increase because of the 

MTW name, if you will. But, again, most agencies— 

Mr. GREEN. Not the name—if I may? 

Ms. WARREN. Okay. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me be clear now. We have a standard Program, 

whatever this is— 

Ms. WARREN. Okay. 

Mr. GREEN. —and it costs ‘‘X’’ dollars to implement it. Just as 

Mr. Woods wants to move to Moving to Work, will it cost now ‘‘XVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:33 Apr 19, 2012 Jkt 072615 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\72615.TXT TERRIE
31 

plus’’ to do the kinds of things that Ms. Boldon has called to our 

attention? 

Ms. WARREN. The way I would look at it is that— 

Mr. GREEN. You know what? I appreciate you, Ms. Warren. I 

don’t mean to—maybe I am not clear enough for you. 

Let’s go to someone else who operates a housing authority. Let’s 

see—maybe I will have to go to Ms. Boldon. 

Ms. Boldon, what are your thoughts? 

Ms. BOLDON. Actually, I think that because we become so focused 

on finding partners who are, themselves, already funded, it probably after time ends up costing less. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. But I want to know, with the funds that are 

available, will it cost more for—let’s just talk about the Program 

rather than the source of funding. Will it cost ‘‘X’’ or ‘‘X-plus?’’ 

What I need to know is, does it cost more to move from the standard Program to the Moving to Work Program with the resources 

that you have called to our attention? Does this cost more money? 

Ms. BOLDON. It costs ‘‘X’’ and then, in time, perhaps ‘‘X-minus.’’ 

Mr. GREEN. So it does not cost any more to go to a Moving to 

Work Program? 

Ms. BOLDON. No. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. That is your position. 

Let’s go now to Mr. Fischer. 

Mr. FISCHER. I think when you look at the budget data, it is important to recognize that MTW Programs aren’t free, that when 

you hear about the things that MTW agencies are doing, that these 

do cost money. And it has been funded in different ways. Some of 

it is because MTW agencies receive, on average, much more generous funding formulas and also because they shift funds away 

from voucher assistance to other purposes. But those are the 

sources that have funded these things— 

Mr. GREEN. So your position is that it would cost ‘‘X-plus?’’ 

Mr. FISCHER. ‘‘X-plus.’’ 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. 

Now, Ms. Warren, we are back to you again now. I am not trying 

to pick on you. I genuinely want to know the answer. Is it going 

to be ‘‘X,’’ some amount of money, plus some additional money to 

do this wraparound that you talked about? Will it cost more money 

to implement? Regardless of the source, does it cost more? 

Ms. WARREN. It costs money. And what I—so I am really struggling with your question because we receive a set amount of 

money, and we set our priorities based on that money, and we have 

prioritized our money to have wraparound services. And I have 

worked at a housing authority that is not an MTW agency, and 

without being an MTW agency, we couldn’t afford to do what we 

do. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I am sorry. Your time has expired. 

And I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert the following material into the record: an October 3, 2011, letter from the 

Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority; an October 11, 2011, 

letter from HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan; an October 12, 2011, 

letter from the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association; a 

32 

second October 12, 2011, letter from the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association; an October 13, 2011, letter from the National Affordable Housing Management Association; an October 13, 

2011, letter from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities; 

a second October 13, 2011, letter from the Council of Large Public 

Housing Authorities; an October 13, 2011, letter from the Coalition 

of Housing Industries; an October 13, 2011, letter from the National Multi Housing Council and the National Apartment Association; and the August 2010 report to Congress on the Moving to 

Work Program by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

We are required to conclude this hearing at 4 p.m., which is why 

I was rushing through that, due to the joint session of Congress 

that begins at 4 o’clock. 

So I really would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here. 

I know we could go on with more questions. 

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 30 days 

for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. 

And I would like to thank all of you so much. This has been a 

really good panel. We really thank you so much for being here. And 

it gives us a lot of information that we really need to go forward 

with this bill. Thank you so much. 

And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

October 13, 2011 

34 


72615.001
35 


72615.002
36 


72615.003
37 


72615.004
38 


72615.005
39 


72615.006
40 


72615.007
41 


72615.008
42 


72615.009
43 


72615.010
44 


72615.011
45 


72615.012
46 


72615.013
47 


72615.014
48 


72615.015
49 


72615.016
50 


72615.017
51 


72615.018
52 


72615.019
53 


72615.020
54 


72615.021
55 


72615.022
56 


72615.023
57 


72615.024
58 


72615.025
59 


72615.026
60 


72615.027
61 


72615.028
62 


72615.029
63 


72615.030
64 


72615.031
65 


72615.032
66 


72615.033
67 


72615.034
68 


72615.035
69 


72615.036
70 


72615.037
71 


72615.038
72 


72615.039
73 


72615.040
74 


72615.041
75 


72615.042
76 


72615.043
77 


72615.044
78 


72615.045
79 


72615.046
80 


72615.047
81 


72615.048
82 


72615.049
83 


72615.050
84 


72615.051
85 


72615.052
86 


72615.053
87 


72615.054
88 


72615.055
89 


72615.056
90 


72615.057
91 


72615.058
92 


72615.059
93 


72615.060
94 


72615.061
95 


72615.062
96 


72615.063
97 


72615.064
98 


72615.065
99 


72615.066
100 


72615.067
101 


72615.068
102 


72615.069
103 


72615.070
104 


72615.071
105 


72615.072
106 


72615.073
107 


72615.074
108 


72615.075
109 


72615.076
110 


72615.077
111 


72615.078
112 


72615.079
113 


72615.080
114 


72615.081
115 


72615.082
116 


72615.083
117 


72615.084
118 


72615.085
119 


72615.086
120 


72615.087
121 


72615.088
122 


72615.089
123 


72615.090
124 


72615.091
125 


72615.092
126 


72615.093
127 


72615.094
128 


72615.095
129 


72615.096
130 


72615.097
131 


72615.098
132 


72615.099
133 


72615.100
134 


72615.101
135 


72615.102
136 


72615.103
137 


72615.104
138 


72615.105
139 


72615.106
140 


72615.107
141 


72615.108
142 


72615.109
143 


72615.110
144 


72615.111
145 


72615.112
146 


72615.113
147 


72615.114
148 


72615.115
149 


72615.116
150 


72615.117
151 


72615.118
152 


72615.119
153 


72615.120
154 


72615.121
155 


72615.122
156 


72615.123
157 


72615.124
158 


72615.125
159 


72615.126
160 


72615.127
161 


72615.128
162 


72615.129
163 


72615.130
164 


72615.131
165 


72615.132
166 


72615.133
167 


72615.134
168 


72615.135
169 


72615.136
170 


72615.137
171 


72615.138
172 


72615.139
173 


72615.140
174 


72615.141
175 


72615.142
176 


72615.143
177 


72615.144
178 


72615.145
179 


72615.146
180 


72615.147
181 


72615.148
182 


72615.149
183 


72615.150
184 


72615.151
185 


72615.152
186 


72615.153
187 


72615.154
188 


72615.155
189 


72615.156
190 


72615.157
191 


72615.158
192 


72615.159
193 


72615.160
194 


72615.161
195 


72615.162
196 


72615.163
197 


72615.164
198 


72615.165
199 


72615.166
200 


72615.167
201 


72615.168
202 


72615.169
203 


72615.170
204 


72615.171
205 


72615.172
206 


72615.173
207 


72615.174
208 


72615.175
209 


72615.176
210 


72615.177
211 


72615.178
212 


72615.179
213 


72615.180
214 


72615.181
215 


72615.182
216 


72615.183
217 


72615.184
218 


72615.185