An accepted weakness of the American Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is that it perpetuates poverty-stricken neighbourhoods with substandard schools, lacking local transportation and other social opportunities. Even without formal studies, this conclusion has been inevitable as the vouchers (also known as section 8 vouchers) are overwhelmingly ‘cashed’ in the same poverty-stricken neighbourhoods over and over again.
An important objective of the HCV program was to provide flexibility for low income citizens to move away from these neighbourhoods. This has not happened.
A recent Urban Institute study in five cities has formalized the existence of a barrier that has long been known anecdotally: landlord acceptance rates of vouchers is extremely low. Possessing a voucher might reduce a home-seeker’s rent to an affordable 30% of income, but only if they can find a landlord willing to accept the voucher. That search is a demanding task without experienced assistance, and the vouchers are time-limited. Often enough its just not possible to find a landlord to accept a voucher. The testers in the Urban Institute‘s study had to pursue on average 39 rental ads to get a single positive response.
As it happens, vouchers are most often accepted in the property-stricken neighbourhoods that many aspire to escape. Landlords seem more familiar with benefits to themselves of the HCV program in these neighbourhoods.
A recent story in this blog provided anecdotal evidence that familiarization with benefits of HCV vouchers improves landlord acceptance. It also explored the importance of knowledgeable assistance to home seekers in successfully finding housing: Try: Billie Vaughn Breaks Down Barriers to American Affordable Housing
HCV Vouchers are a particularly valued revenue resource for struggling, cash-strapped public housing projects.
Previously, but without hard evidence, the HCV program had been accused of limiting the ability to escape from poverty-stricken neighbourhoods. And indeed the Urban Institute study does provide formal evidence of this problem.
As well, the HCV program has been accused — again without hard evidence — of perpetuating discrimination against voucher holders by making it easy for landlords to refuse to accept vouchers based on the race of the applicant.
Alas, this particular Urban Institute study could come to no conclusions about racism. The reason? Landlord acceptance of vouchers was so infrequent that testing could not provide enough samples to determine reliably whether race was a factor or not.
For a great deal more detail on the successes and failures to date of HCV funding, for recommendations on changes to improve the voucher system, and for ways to improve further voucher testing processes, read more at the Urban Institute: A Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers
