	Introduction

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is the federal government's largest needs-based housing assistance program, in terms of both the number of families served and the cost to the federal budget. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides federal funds to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs)—which are state-chartered local government entities—to administer the program. While the basic structure of the program, such as the type of assistance provided and who is eligible, is governed by federal statutes and regulations, many important elements of the program are left to the discretion of local PHAs. By the time the Section 8 housing assistance program—the precursor program to the Housing Choice Voucher program—was enacted in the mid-1970s, federal law governing public housing directed much of the administration of the program, including which families PHAs should serve (both in terms of income eligibility and priorities and preferences for certain types of families) and how much PHAs should charge families for rent. For example, PHAs have discretion to determine
which categories of families to prioritize for assistance (through a practice known as "local preferences"), which categories of families to exclude from assistance (through screening, denial of admission, and termination of tenancy policies), how families are chosen for assistance (through waiting list policies), how much time families have to use their assistance (through housing search time policies), how much families will be required to pay in rent (through minimum rent policies), and how often families' rents will be adjusted (through interim recertification policies). PHAs must update their administrative plans to reflect any new requirements as directed by HUD and to reflect any changes that might be the result of local circumstances. In total, 18 interviews were conducted with PHA officials. Yet, the findings of HUD's study are informative as to how PHAs used their discretionary authority when that authority was first made permanent and do offer a useful perspective on how PHAs' use of their discretionary authority has changed since 2000. PHAs may also use specific household characteristics, which are called "local preferences," to rank families on their waiting lists. In turn, these PHAs found it challenging to keep the preferences at a manageable number. PHA policies varied widely in terms of how far back they looked for disqualifying behavior when evaluating tenants. About 18% of PHAs reported having a policy of conducting fingerprinting, generally if a criminal background check had been inconclusive. Some of the PHA officials interviewed indicated that their PHAs have adopted stricter rules that allow little-to-no room for consideration of circumstances. Another official who cited a 20% denial rate indicated that most of the denials were related to bad debt or unmet financial obligations rather than criminal activity. This leaves PHAs with the discretion to evaluate families on a case-by-case basis and provides an opportunity for administrators to consider a family's circumstances. However, CRS also found that the majority of PHAs had selected the maximum minimum rent allowed. Implications

In general, PHA officials were favorably disposed to having some minimum rent, which is reflective of the survey data showing that at least 79% of PHAs had a minimum rent set at either $25 or $50. Findings

Although 79% of all PHAs in the sample required tenants to report all changes in income, most did not process interim recertifications for all income changes. However, it is possible that when PHAs prepare to open long-closed waiting lists, they will consider the use of a random selection method in place of their current date and time policy because most applications would be submitted within the same time frame. During discussions with CRS staff, several PHA officials indicated that the opening of their waiting lists was not likely to happen in the immediate future and some mentioned that they needed to reduce the number of tenants within their current programs and thus were not considering adding applicants to the waiting list. Search Time and Extensions

Once a family is selected from the waiting list, they have to find a landlord willing to accept the voucher. The majority of PHAs establish an initial search time of 60 days, which is the minimum required by regulations. However, there is limited information available about how the program is being administered in many communities. Two PHAs failed to supply copies of their plans for the study. Form
A number of PHA officials who were interviewed mentioned that they purchased their Section 8 administrative plans from private companies. As noted in the findings of this study, in several cases PHAs appeared to view their policy discretion in the Housing Choice Voucher program from the perspective of the options provided in the plan they had purchased rather than from the perspective of the full set of discretionary options provided under the law. Some PHAs have a broad definition for those that are homeless, while other PHAs have a more limited definition.
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is the federal government's largest needs-based housing assistance program, in terms of both the number of families served and the cost to the federal budget. Under the program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local public housing authorities (PHAs), which, in turn, provide subsidies to low-income households to use to rent private market apartments. Although the basic structure of the program is governed by federal law and regulations, PHAs have discretion to determine many important elements. How PHAs use their discretion has implications for how families experience the program, how local communities perceive the program, and the program's cost.
Little comprehensive information is available about how PHAs use their discretion under the HCV program. Thus, to gain insight that might be useful to Congress, CRS conducted a study that looked at a representative sample of PHAs. Data for the study were taken from the administrative plans that PHAs are required to produce. To supplement information from the plans, interviews were conducted with a subsample of PHA officials. Where possible, results of the CRS study were compared to a study conducted by HUD in 2000. The findings of this study may be relevant to policymakers as they consider HCV reform proposals.
Major Findings
Almost all PHAs (96%) use local preferences (i.e., specified categories of families) to rank families on waiting lists for assistance. This is a change from 2000, when only about 59% of PHAs used local preferences. All PHAs have policies that consider a family's prior criminal activity and most consider a family's prior unmet financial obligations when evaluating eligibility for assistance. The policies vary in terms of what PHAs look for (types of crime, evidence) and how far back they look. Most PHAs have also adopted policies that allow them to evaluate families on a case-by-case basis. PHAs use similar policies to terminate assistance for criminal activity. Most PHAs (79%) have adopted a minimum rent of more than $0 per month, and the majority (70%) have adopted the maximum allowable minimum rent ($50). Some PHA officials said they saw minimum rents as promoting fairness; cost savings were not generally mentioned. Most PHAs require families to report all changes in income between annual recertfications, but most PHAs do not adjust families' subsidies at that time unless the income increase is above a certain threshold. In interviews, some PHA officials said that the administrative hassle of recalculating subsidies was not worth the savings, but some noted that a recent verification system required by HUD had led them to recertify more frequently than they had been previously. It is commonly understood that most PHAs have long waiting lists and many PHAs have closed their waiting lists to new applicants. When opening their waiting lists, the majority of PHAs (77%) determine who is added based on the date and time the application was submitted. About 18% of PHAs use a random selection method. In interviews, several PHA officials noted that they found it challenging to manage the process of opening their waiting lists because of an overwhelming demand for vouchers. Once a family is selected from the waiting list, it has a limited time in which to use its voucher. Most PHAs provide families with the statutory minimum of 60 days of initial search time, although most also allow families an extension to 120 days without requiring the families to meet other conditions (such as being elderly or having a disability). While PHA administrative plans must be made publicly available, it was difficult for CRS to obtain copies of the plans in several cases. Most PHA officials who were interviewed saw their plans as program guidebooks, which is a different purpose than that envisioned by HUD. It appears that many PHAs have purchased their administrative plans from private companies. Based on CRS interviews with PHA officials, it seems that some PHAs perceive their discretionary authority as being limited to the options provided in the purchased plans, or they are unaware of the full discretionary authority that they have.