The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance held a hearing on June 26 on the HUD Moving to Work program entitled “Evaluating How HUD’s Moving-to-Work Program Benefits Public and Assisted Housing Residents.” Witnesses were representatives of four public housing agencies (PHAs), two that currently participate in the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program and two that do not. A representative from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was the fifth witness. The PHA witnesses expressed considerable support for MTW, while the GAO witness raised concerns about expanding MTW because of the lack of program evaluation.In an opening statement from Subcommittee Chair Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), he noted that the Obama administration has called for a substantial expansion of the MTW program (see Memo, 4/12) and that he hopes Congress will recognize the need to expand the program. MTW, which has been a “demonstration” since it began in 1996, gives public housing agencies the authority to waive key requirements of public housing and voucher law, such as income targeting and rents based on 30% of tenant income, and to implement administrative efficiencies, such as those that would be provided by rental assistance reform legislation to all PHAs. MTW agencies can impose work requirements, time limits, and other policies that may not be in the best interests of tenants, according to NLIHC. It is also NLIHC’s position that MTW essentially block grants public housing and voucher assistance to PHAs, leaving Congress, HUD, and the public without information on which to determine what federal funding is accomplishing at the local level.Subcommittee Ranking Member Michael Capuano (D-MA) said he would like to find a way to make the MTW program “more reportable,” noting that “we have not done a good job to see how [the MTW program] can be expanded.” Representative Capuano said that currently HUD has three staff to oversee the program and that there is no way HUD can oversee an expanded program without more resources. He said there would hopefully be a bill drafted later this year that included MTW expansion.Several Subcommittee members spoke about how long waiting lists for public and assisted housing could be ameliorated by the MTW program. Mr. Capuano asked the PHA witnesses with MTW programs if they still had waiting lists to which they responded yes. He noted that, “even with MTW, we still have waiting lists” and that MTW is not a panacea or an answer to everything. Daniel Nackerman, president and CEO of the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernadino (CA), testified that the MTW program has allowed his PHA to “streamline processes and eliminate redundant, outdated program work tasks.” Designated an MTW site in 2008, the HACSB has instituted five year time limits for housing assistance, work requirements, tiered rents, and minimum rent increases. Mr. Nackerman opposes any MTW authorizing legislation that does not “reflect the existing work and flexibility of existing sites.” He said that keeping the “original MTW structure” in place is paramount in any discussion about expanding MTW. Existing MTW sites have contracts to run their MTW demonstrations through 2018, but want their existing MTW status to continue permanently, even in the absence of evaluation of the policy and program changes they have made.Gene Reed, director of the Abilene (TX) Housing Authority, not an MTW site, testified that, “through MTW, PHAs are allowed to use current government funding to leverage non-federal development activity. Over a period of time this will allow PHAs to migrate away from full dependence on government funding to minimal dependence on government funding while still meeting their mission.” He said that MTW will help the federal government reduce spending and allow PHAs to mitigate impacts. Mr. Reed also testified that if his agency was an MTW agency, his agency might be able to redirect funds to address the transportation needs of residents.Larry Woods of the Housing Authority of Winston-Salem (NC), a non-MTW agency, testified that MTW status would give his housing authority the ability to require work and/or self-sufficiency programs, without which he could not achieve his goal of encouraging self-sufficiency of residents. He noted that his agency can have an admissions preference for working families, but it cannot have a work requirement for continued occupancy. The HA of Winston-Salem has surveyed its non-elderly, non-disabled public housing residents, who report they would live in their housing forever. He said residents have “no understanding…that someone else is supplementing their ‘independence.’” He stated that the average length of stay on his agency’s voucher program is eight to ten years.Greg Russ, director of the Cambridge (MA) Housing Authority, testified on his agency’s MTW program and the MTW program in general, which he said has been used to create sponsor-based housing programs, subsidize low income homeownership programs, and run youth mentorship programs. Mr. Russ testified that, after the GAO report in 2012, current MTW agencies organized to help HUD improve its capacity to manage the MTW program by creating a reporting and assessment tool, to “help HUD do a better job of oversight” of the agencies that developed the reporting and oversight tool. Mr. Russ also testified that there “is a broader effort in the field to develop more effective monitoring through third party accreditation for housing authorities” and that “accreditation has the potential to shift many compliance functions away from HUD to a new leadership group: an accreditation board, where HUD is a participant in establishing standards but not the sole arbitrator of the rules.”Basing his remarks on a GAO report from April 2012, Matthew Scire testified that the shortage of standard performance data and indicators for MTW program “hindered comprehensive evaluation efforts and that such evaluations are key to determining the success of any demonstration program.” “I think the verdict is really out right now as to whether or not, on net, the MTW agencies are doing more than they would have without the MTW flexibilities. That remains to be demonstrated,” Mr. Scire said.In early 2012, NLIHC and several other groups, including the Council of Large Public Housing Agencies (CLPHA), the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), developed a stakeholder agreement on MTW expansion in an attempt to advance voucher reform legislation. This agreement was included in the April 2012 version of the House’s draft Affordable Housing and Self Sufficiency Improvement Act (see Memo, 4/13/2012). Mr. Capuano asked the witnesses if they would recommend he support or oppose the MTW stakeholder agreement if it were up for a vote “tomorrow.” Mr. Nackerman said no, Mr. Woods and Mr. Reed said their feelings were mixed, and Mr. Russ said that while he has some issues with the stakeholder agreement, he would recommend support because the good in it outweighs its complexities.Meanwhile in the Senate, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation on June 18 to significantly expand the Moving to Work demonstration program. The bill, S. 1117, is a reintroduction of previous legislation from Senator Vitter and was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.The bill would direct HUD to have at least 80 public housing agencies in the MTW program by the end of FY14, at least 160 PHAs in the program by the end of FY15, and at least 250 PHAs in the program by the end of FY16. The HUD Secretary could choose to go above the 250 minimum required in the bill. All MTW sites would be made permanent by this bill.The bill would allow PHAs to comingle their housing choice voucher and public housing funds, which many MTW PHAs do today under their flexible authority. The bill would also require MTW PHAs to have work requirements, time limits of five years, and rent policies that are “designed to encourage employment, self-sufficiency, and homeownership.” Current MTW agencies are allowed to have such policies if they so choose. Finally, the bill would do away with income targeting requirements for public housing and voucher units to households with incomes below 30% of area median. Access hearing documents can be found at: http://1.usa.gov/19BQHtV Read the April 2012 GAO report: http://1.usa.gov/12uGE7Z Read the 2012 stakeholder agreement on MTW: http://bit.ly/19HAXJi