HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) has released an evaluation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program’s Choice Mobility Option. RAD helps to preserve affordable units in public housing properties by allowing public housing agencies (PHAs) to apply to HUD to convert these properties to project-based Section 8 Housing contracts, thus increasing their access to public and private funding sources that can improve properties’ financial stability and physical condition. The focus of this report is the Choice Mobility feature of the RAD program, which allows residents of RAD properties to request a tenant-based voucher (TBV) to move to a unit in the private rental market. The researchers found that use of the Choice Mobility Option remains limited among residents of RAD properties, which may be a consequence of gaps in communication by PHAs and tenants’ satisfaction with their current units and neighborhoods. Read the article.
RAD was authorized by Congress in 2012 as a mechanism for PHAs to convert their at-risk public housing properties to either a Project-Based Voucher (PBV) contract through HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) or a Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) contract through HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing programs. As RAD has unfolded, it has become unnecessary for a public housing property to truly be “at-risk.” Conversion to a Section 8 contract can make it easier for PHAs to access the capital needed to fund the maintenance and renovation needs of these properties. A prior evaluation conducted in 2019 found that RAD increased properties’ access to funding sources like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and commercial loans. RAD’s Choice Mobility feature allows tenants to request a TBV one year after moving into a RAD PBV property or two years after moving into a RAD PBRA property.
This report – one of five congressionally directed evaluations of the RAD program – aims to evaluate the implementation and use of the Choice Mobility option and explore its relationship with tenant and property outcomes, as well as its impact on overall TBV availability and waitlists. The researchers used HUD administrative data to identify converted RAD PBV and PBRA properties and to estimate the use of the Choice Mobility option by eligible residents of those properties. Based on these findings, they conducted virtual site visits at 13 PHAs in 2020, including eight where residents had used the Choice Mobility option and five where residents had not used it. Interviews were conducted with a total of 32 staff members and 14 residents. The researchers also conducted surveys on the Choice Mobility option with 339 RAD PHAs (146 surveys completed), 61 owners and managers of RAD properties (22 surveys completed), and 1,600 voucher holders (720 surveys completed).
The researchers found that by the third quarter of 2021, 79% of all residents of RAD PBV properties were eligible for the Choice Mobility option, as were 41% of all RAD PBRA residents. This difference largely reflects variations in eligibility criteria between the two property types, with PBV tenants eligible for Choice Mobility after one year of tenancy versus two years for PBRA tenants. In 2021, approximately 1.7% of eligible households in RAD PBV properties had used the Choice Mobility option, as compared to 0.2-0.8% (depending on calculation method) of eligible RAD PBRA households. Use rates have been consistent in recent years, suggesting that annual Choice Mobility use has stabilized as the RAD program has matured. The RAD PBV use rate is similar to that of the “regular” (non-RAD) PBV program’s Family Right to Move opportunity (1.4%).
RAD tenants who used the Choice Mobility option were more likely to be Black (67% movers versus 52% non-movers), of working age (83% versus 50% non-movers), live in larger households (3 members versus 2 in non-moving households), and less likely to have a disability (28% versus 45% of non-movers). There were no significant differences in the incomes of Choice Mobility-eligible households that moved or did not move. When asked the reasons why they requested a voucher, three-quarters of Choice Mobility users reported wanting to move to a more desirable neighborhood, and just over 40% said they were dissatisfied with the physical condition of their then-current home. Interestingly, among non-moving RAD households surveyed, nearly half reported choosing not to move because they are satisfied with their current unit’s physical condition, and over 40% reported liking their current neighborhood. Fifteen percent of non-movers reported not exercising the Choice Mobility option because they were told there were no vouchers available (although according to RAD rules, they should have been placed at the front of their PHA’s HCV waitlist). Among both movers and non-movers surveyed, proximity to a job was the most infrequently cited reason for choosing to request or not request a voucher, respectively. Fifty-eight percent of movers reported paying more for rent and utilities in their new units than in their prior RAD units, though the researchers note that this could reflect changes in household composition or income that may have spurred the decision to request a voucher in the first place.
Because RAD tenants who exercise the Choice Mobility option are placed on voucher waiting lists and have priority over other applicants, the researchers sought to understand whether and how this opportunity may impact already overburdened voucher waitlists. PHAs report that Choice Mobility households comprise less than one percent of the total voucher waitlist (0.7%), which is similar to the share of PBV Family Right to Move households (0.8%). This trend is consistent across PHA size and Choice Mobility request rate. While 61.7% of surveyed PHAs said they had enough vouchers to cover all Choice Mobility requests, overall voucher waitlist times remain long and the small number of Choice Mobility requests could still have an outsized impact on the wait times of non-RAD voucher applicants. Among surveyed Choice Mobility users, 35% reported being on a voucher waitlist for two months or less, while 41% reported being waitlisted for more than six months.
The researchers found that across PHAs and property types, the process RAD residents must undertake to request a Choice Mobility voucher is largely similar. Most surveyed tenants who moved with the Choice Mobility option reported being “very” or “somewhat” informed about the characteristics of the opportunity (76%) and reported receiving clear communication about their requests from PHA staff. Among surveyed RAD tenants who had not exercised the Choice Mobility option, only a third (32%) reported being aware of the opportunity at all. The lack of awareness among RAD tenants suggests that PHAs may need to improve their strategies of reaching out to tenants about their mobility options. To this end, PHAs reported utilizing multiple communication methods to inform RAD tenants of the Choice Mobility option – including written notices, presentations, and informal conversations – but emphasized that literacy and language barriers continued to be a challenge to effective outreach.
Overall, the use of the Choice Mobility option by residents of RAD properties remains low, though data limitations obscure the underlying reasons for this trend. It may be a factor of RAD tenants being content with their units and neighborhoods, a lack of awareness of the Choice Mobility option, or some other factors. The researchers emphasize that higher quality data is needed to parse through these causal factors. For example, they discovered that PHAs may not be consistently tracking Choice Mobility requests. Nearly half of surveyed PHAs did not provide responses to questions on the number of residents eligible for Choice Mobility, while nearly a third reported that they did not have this data at the PHA-level. Anecdotally, some PHAs stated that they did not track Choice Mobility requests separately from residents on other voucher waiting lists.
Read the article at: https://bit.ly/4iFN8vy.