This post is about an evaluation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, which was commissioned by HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). It was released in 2019, but merits a closer look, as it is being wound in to discussions about the future of the program.
What was RAD supposed to do?
One of RAD’s goals was to flow funds to allow repairs to aging public housing stock. To access funds, Public Housing Authorities (PHA) were required to change their source of HUD funding from an operating subsidy to housing vouchers. Shifting to vouchers meant that the properties had access to new sources of funding to repair or replace the existing housing.
Another goal of RAD was to enhance PHA’s capital reserves. Reserves are intended to set aside funds for future capital repairs to building systems such as wiring, roofing and heating/cooling.
RAD also included provisions for public housing tenants who were living in projects that converted to RAD. All public housing tenants who were living in buildings that converted to RAD were offered a housing voucher in their building. If the tenants had to move out while the renovations were completed, they were offered a temporary housing voucher or another unit in the complex. Housing vouchers were also offered to tenants who elected to move away from their their unit permanently.
What happened?
The evaluation reports that
- RAD units were repaired, while comparable units that remained in the public housing stock had fewer repairs or none at all.
- capital reserves for RAD units increased.
- two thirds of sitting tenants did not have to move during renovations. A further 10%, who moved for the renovation, returned to their former homes. The majority of tenants were pleased with the renovations.
Is there anything else we should know about the evaluation?
Yes, much more. Here are a few examples:
- The analysis looks only at projects that were renovated. The sample does not include any cases where the buildings were torn down and replaced.
- Investor equity was the largest single source of funding for the renovations (38.6%). This includes the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), a tax expenditure (i.e. tax revenue that the government didn’t collect). Commercial loans with no public backing accounted for 11% of the funding.
- The findings about renovations and capital reserves are based on a sample of 18 projects that had completed their renovations. This represents less than 2% of the total of 1,553 projects that had been approved during the first six years of RAD.
- The findings about tenant experience are based on a sample of 19 projects where repairs were completed. Some of these projects may be in the sample of 18 projects used for the financial analysis.
- Post renovation, tenants reported lower rates of broken or damaged windows, signs of mice or rats and signs of mildew. Tenants continued to experience no running water and unworkable toilets at similar rates before and after renovations. They were more likely to report peeling paint and broken plaster and cracks or holes in the walls after the renovations were completed.
Why does this matter?
The evaluation focusses on early RAD projects and only on housing units that were renovated. These and other features of the evaluation, some of which are noted above, mean that the conclusions and recommendations should not be considered universal to the program. Housing Authorities and decision makers who are considering a RAD conversion should be particularly attentive. Once on the RAD path, there is no going back1.
The research methods will be of interest in any jurisdiction where an evaluation is being designed. Partly this is because it is interesting to see how researchers break down and evaluate a research question. In this case, the researchers used available data in creative ways to analyse RAD’s effects.
It’s also important to remember that evaluations can only comment on what they look into. In this case, the evaluation was about renovated projects. The findings do not apply to projects where building were torn down and replaced. Decision makers, advocates, program managers and policy makers need to be sure that the evaluation they are designing will answer the questions they are asking.
For planners and managers, who are exploring program options for repairing buildings, the evaluation also includes an extensive discussion of how RAD works.
The full evaluation is available at HUD: Evaluation of HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD): Final Report
Footnotes
- When a PHA converts a project to RAD, the amount it receives from HUD stays the same. Before RAD, the PHA’s funding flowed from the Public Housing operating and Public Housing capital columns in HUD’s ledger (although it seems there are always exceptions). Upon conversion to RAD, the Public Housing Authority’s funding moves to the Voucher column of HUD’s ledger. HUD does not move Voucher funding to the Public Housing Operating or Public Housing Capital columns. For some reason it just isn’t done.
