In May 2021, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced their plan to release 70,000 long-term housing vouchers for individuals and families experiencing homelessness across the United States. The new initiative, known as the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program, requires local housing agencies and service providers to establish new partnerships and processes. Even so, the EHV program still bears many resemblances to its predecessor: the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. In both cases, voucher holders can select reasonably-priced housing from the private market. The federal government pays the difference between what the renter can afford to spend on housing and the total rent. No academic research is available about EHVs due to the newness of the program, but extensive research details the efficacy of HCVs in meeting the needs of America’s homeless population. Comparing HUD’s funding and regulatory approach to both programs will indicate if EHVs have the potential to succeed where HCVs have faltered in the past. The size and partnerships required to implement the program bode well for the ability of EHVs to reach homeless populations. However, these changes may not ensure the success of the program in serving particularly vulnerable homeless populations.
Given that many individuals and families experiencing homelessness qualify for HCVs, it first helps to understand the potential value-add of the EHV program. While many low-income individuals are eligible for HCVs, the reality is that only one in four HCV applicants ever receive one. Homeless individuals and families in particular face additional voucher access barriers due to the lack of a fixed address and specific documentation required to apply. The scarcity and administrative complexities of HCVs make it such that most homelessness response systems in America do not even regard the program as a key resource in their efforts to end homelessness. Since EHVs specifically target individuals and families experiencing homelessness, the program may more effectively deploy vouchers to alleviate severe housing crises.
The EHV program attempts to address both the administrative complexity and scarcity of vouchers that define its predecessor. For one, the program relaxes some of the income verification documentation needed to access a voucher. Secondly, HUD mandates that Public Housing Authorities (PHAs, the regional entities that manage housing vouchers and/or public housing) partner with their local Continuums of Care (CoCs, regional networks of organizations that work to end homelessness) to identify individuals and families eligible for EHVs. While a partnership between housing authorities and homelessness response systems may seem second nature, 75% of PHAs were not active participants in their local CoCs in 2013. Mandated collaboration may help homeless service providers foster communication between PHAs and people experiencing homelessness, especially for those who are unsheltered and without a fixed address.
EHVs also address the issue of scarcity through the sheer number of vouchers disbursed to PHAs. On any given night in 2020, 76,0000 chronically homeless individuals were sleeping on the streets, under bridges, and in other unsheltered locations. Chronic homelessness is characterized by being unhoused for at least a year while possessing a mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability–conditions that the current short-term rent subsidies more readily available within homeless services are not well-equipped to support.
If used strategically, 70,000 EHVs have the potential to create a substantial, long-term decrease in homelessness.
With that said, it remains to be seen if the EHV program will effectively address the needs of particularly vulnerable homeless populations. Similar to HCVs, EHVs do not come with funding for supportive services like case management or housing counseling. This is unlike other housing programs targeted towards people experiencing homelessness, which recognize that people with mental illnesses or substance use disorders remain sustainably housed at higher rates when their housing is paired with supportive services.
Furthermore, the ability of PHAs and the private market to effectively support high-need homeless individuals and families is questionable at best. Aside from the scarcity and administrative processes associated with HCVs, some of the biggest barriers to utilizing a voucher are the presence of a family member with a recent history of substance abuse or felony conviction. Families associated with substance abuse or felony convictions are less than half as likely to lease with a voucher than families without these traits. While the EHV program relaxes some of the restrictions against serving individuals with a history of substance abuse and criminal activity present within the Housing Choice Voucher program, PHAs still have the authority to re-incorporate these restrictions within their local implementation of the EHV program. Furthermore, landlord prejudice against voucher holders still impacts the length of time it takes for program participants to lease up units. A handful of states have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit landlords from refusing tenants due to their source of income, but there is not yet a federal solution that will support the equitable use of EHVs.
HUD has increased access to long-term financial assistance for a new segment of America’s most vulnerable individuals and families. As other commentators have noted, the work of homeless service providers is often constrained by the funding available to carry out their work. However, it is also important to consider how effectively the programs bolstered by these funds will work to meet the broad goal of ending homelessness. It is too soon to estimate the long-term impact of EHVs, but there are already signs that the program may not have fully shaken off the aspects of HCVs that sidelined the program within regional homeless service systems.