Overview of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program

To:

Dr. Harris, Director of Planning of Planneapolis

Cc:

Katelyn Blackburn, Melanie Blake, Daryl Callaway, Dakota Desai, Elijah Faz, Rebecca LaVictoire, Joseph Laws, Ethan Mazzio, Daisy Munoz, Duy Nguyen, Erin Stanley, Georgex Tafoya, Amanda Van Buren, Yueyang Wu

From:

Emily Fitzsimmons

Date:

March 28, 2021

SUBJECT: Overview of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Executive Summary This memo evaluates the history, mechanics, and administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program in response to Planneapolis’ low-income housing needs. Considering the existing academic, governmental, and news literature about the Section 8 HCV program, I recommend that Planneapolis utilize the HCV only if the city administers the program differently than most housing authorities currently operate the subsidy. These changes would consist of an anti-discriminatory ordinance for renters, an expansion of the housing authority staff, and active services for voucher recipients and landlords throughout the entire HCV process.

The Section 8 HCV program was a federal response to the failures of the public housing projects of the 1950s and 1960s. With the HCV and the demolishing of public housing projects, the US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) has shifted away from primarily project-based housing subsidies to tenant-based subsidies, which includes the vouchers. Now the Section 8 HCV program is the United States’ largest housing assistance program and provides about $23 billion to 2.2 million voucher recipients every year (Thomas).

Despite its widespread use, the HCV has severe weaknesses, namely systemic discrimination, lack of resources, mismatch between the program and voucher recipients’ needs, and administrative shortcomings. Much of the literature is based on interviews with program participants, who consistently report discrimination from landlords, the community, and housing authority employees based on income and race. Additionally, recipients report extremely long waitlists, slow paperwork processes, and little assistance from employees through the program. They also struggle to adhere to the program’s regulations because the rules do not properly cater to the needs and circumstances of voucher recipients. Lastly, there simply are not enough vouchers to go around: HUD does not provide enough funds to the HCV program to meet community needs, which also contributes to poor program management by the housing authorities.

Notably, the HCV program’s strengths lie in its goals and principles. The Section 8 HCV program’s purpose is to assist low-income households as well as disabled people and the elderly in affording private market housing (“Housing Choice Voucher Program”). This purpose is grounded on principles of decreasing the concentration of poverty and increasing residential choice and mobility for those with low incomes (Teater, “Factors”).

Context Over the course of the last three decades, Planneapolis’s housing market has developed into one with very high property values and without affordable housing units. In particular, the city faces a severe lack of housing that is financially accessible to low-income households. This inability to house those with the lowest incomes and the least resources reflects very poorly on Planneapolis and has serious social, economic, and environmental sustainability implications that will ultimately undermine the holistic wellbeing of the entire community. In short, Planneapolis needs solutions to this affordable housing crisis; this memo explores the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program as a possible tool for this issue. In particular, this memo evaluates whether Section 8 housing vouchers are a viable option in general and for Planneapolis specifically.

Research Methodology The research that supports this memo largely includes peer-reviewed academic literature, but I also gathered information from government documents and websites as well as online articles. This selection ensures input from the administrators of the program, from third-party academics, and, most importantly, from voucher recipients. The oldest source dates back to 2000; however, most of the resources are from around 2010 or within the last few years. Moreover, the studies and articles involve a range of cities from different regions in the United States, including the Northeast, the South, the West, and the Midwest.

Initially, my research of the Section 8 HCV program was focused on the development of the program over time and whether it has been a successful strategy in providing affordable housing and improving quality of life for low-income people. As I found more information about the program, however, I expanded my analysis to focus more on the experiences of voucher recipients, particularly the discrimination they face and their struggles with the program’s organization and administration.

Historical Development of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Pre-Tenant-Based Housing Subsidies During the 1930s, the United States experienced the Great Depression, a severe economic

collapse that left many without jobs and without homes. In response to this crisis, the federal government enacted many federal aid programs, including the first public housing in 1937. At this time, public housing consisted of project-based subsidized housing, meaning that the subsidy was attached to the unit of housing and applied to anyone who lived there (White). This method for subsidized housing continued for the following three decades, playing a major role in the displacement of low-income people, longlasting concentration of poverty, and the segregation of communities of color that persists today (White; DeLuca et al.). This hyper-concentration of poverty and severe lack of resources created an extremely stressful environment that affected public housing residents’ physical and mental health, academic performance, access to jobs, and exposure to violence, crime, over-policing, and addictive substances (DeLuca et al.). With these public housing failures of the 1950s and 1960s in mind, President Nixon declared a moratorium on new construction of public housing projects in 1974 because of the increasing costs associated with construction and management of the projects (DeLuca et al.; Thomas). Although the moratorium was quickly lifted, this act signaled a major shift in federal policy toward market-based solutions (DeLuca et al.).

Federal Policy Becomes Tenant-Based with Section 8 In that same year, tenant-based housing subsidies emerged in Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act; this method of assistance emphasized choice, mobility, and the ability to partake in the private housing market for those with low wages (DeLuca et al.; White; Miller). This policy promoted mobility and choice within the private market with the goal of deconcentrating poverty – a major issue with the public housing projects – and create more mixed-income areas (Thomas). In the 1980s, the tenant-based subsidy policy grew stronger with the addition of the portability feature; this allowed recipients to move anywhere in the country and still maintain their voucher as long as they still qualified and found approved housing. Discord about this addition to the voucher illustrates the discrimination that voucher recipients experienced even in the early years of the program: Many wealthier and white people did not approve of the portability feature because they were concerned about lowincome people moving nearby and the supposed trouble they would bring (White).

During the 1990s, the movement away from project-based to tenant-based assistance continued as public housing construction slowed down considerably and existing public housing was demolished under the HOPE VI program. During this time, vouchers were heavily utilized to assist the households displaced under the HOPE VI program, and the elimination of over half the public housing at the time would essentially require tenant-based strategies over project-based assistance in the following decades (DeLuca et al.). Shortly after, the Section 8 housing program was renamed the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) in the 1998 Quality and Work Responsibility Act, which combined the certificates and vouchers within Section 8 (Teater, “A Qualitative”). Since this change, the HCV expanded under the Obama

administration by raising the value of the vouchers so that recipients could access better housing and neighborhoods, but this growth was halted in many places with the Trump administration. Even so, the Section 8 HCV is now the largest housing rental assistance program in the United States, providing nearly $23 billion to 2.2 million voucher recipients each year (Thomas).

Official Mechanics of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Purpose and Goals In contrast to traditional public housing complexes, Section 8 HCV were the first tenant-based subsidized program, which means that the subsidy stays with the tenant rather than the housing unit (Teater, “A Qualitative”; “Part 982”). This strategy helps realize the program’s two main goals: 1. Promoting mixed-income neighborhoods by helping low-income households participate in the private housing market 2. Promoting residential choice and mobility for voucher recipients, so they can live in higher quality housing and neighborhoods that meet their needs (Teater, “Factors”; Teater, “A Place”) The Section 8 HCV’s ultimate purpose is to help very low-income households, disabled people, and the elderly afford “decent, safe, and sanitary housing” (“Housing Choice Voucher Program”; “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”; “Part 982”). Housing types can include single-family homes, manufactured housing, apartments, or townhouses; likewise, a voucher recipient can use their aid either to rent or buy a home. Funding for the Section 8 HCV program comes from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), but state or local housing authorities administer the program by distributing the vouchers to those on the waitlists and delivering funds directly to landlords on behalf of voucher recipients (“Housing Choice Voucher Program”; “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”; “Part 982”).

Program Eligibility Eligibility for the HCV is determined by a household’s total gross annual income, family size, and authorization to live in the United States (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”). Generally, a household making 50% or less of the area median income is eligible for the program, but most of the participants must fall into the very low-income category to be selected for Section 8 vouchers, which means that the household’s income is 30% or less of the area median income (Thomas; “Part 982”; “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”). However, the following also makes a household eligible for the voucher: 

A very low-income household



A low-income household already receiving aid form the 1937 Housing Act



A low-income household that satisfies additional criteria from their local Public Housing Authority’s administrative plan



A low-income household that is a non-purchasing resident of HOPE I or HOPE II public housing



A low-income or moderate-income household that has been displaced due to prepayment of their mortgage or termination of their insurance on low-income housing



A low-income household that is a non-purchasing resident of a housing project that is part of a homeownership program (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”) HUD requires that at least 75% of a housing authority’s voucher recipients must be very low-

income, unless specifically approved by HUD to do otherwise (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”; “Part 982”). Despite these requirements, housing authorities still retain a lot of flexibility in administering the program: These agencies can determine their own standards for admission into the program, any preferences for those on the waiting lists, and how many vouchers they distribute as well as how much they are worth (Thomas; “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”). Although housing authorities are prohibited from making admission requirements based on family makeup, ability, income, race, and similar attributes, housing authorities are permitted to give preference to certain households, including but not limited to homeless people, forcefully displaced households, those living in substandard housing, and those paying more than 50% of their income on housing costs (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”).

The Payment Standard and Rent Once a household is selected from the waitlist to receive the HCV, the housing authority determines the amount of aid the household will receive based on their income and the local “payment standard,” the amount it takes to rent a moderately-priced unit large enough for the tenant’s household (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”). The household is required to put 30% of its monthly income toward housing costs; if the rent is less than the decided payment standard, then the housing authority will pay the remainder of the rent directly to the landlord on behalf of the voucher recipient (“Housing Choice Voucher Program”; “Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”; “Part 982”; Miller). If the rent is higher than the payment standard, the housing authority will still pay the same amount to the landlord, but the tenant will be responsible for the rest of the rent. Notably, in this case, the housing authority will not approve a unit that requires more than 40% of the tenant’s income (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”; “Part 982”).

Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Housing In the vein of the program’s principle of housing choice, the voucher recipient has the right and responsibility to find their own housing unit, which must be approved under health, safety, and rent amount requirements by the local housing authority. Acceptable units must include: 

Sanitary facilities (a toilet, a tub, working plumbing, etc.)



Facilities for food preparation and waste disposal



Appropriate space for the size of the household



Secure and safe building, site, and neighborhood



Operating heating and cooling systems



Safe electricity systems and lighting



Sound structure and building materials



Safe interior air quality



Potable water supply



Sanitary house conditions (no infestations or vermin)



Smoke detectors (“Part 982”) Moreover, the property owner must agree to accept Section 8 funds (“Housing Choice Vouchers

Fact”; “Housing Choice Voucher Program”; “Part 982”). Because the vouchers are in such high demand, a recipient has 60-120 days to find suitable housing, depending on the housing authority, or the voucher will be given to the next person on the waitlist (Miller; Teater, “A Place”; “Part 982”). As long as the voucher recipient lives in approved housing and continues to qualify under the program’s income requirements, the household will continue to receive the subsidy, even if they move across the country.

Notably, however, the tenant must live in the local jurisdiction of their initial housing authority for one year before they are allowed to move beyond that jurisdiction and still retain their voucher. If authorized by their local housing authority, a household can also use their voucher to purchase a home rather than rent it (“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact”). In this case, much of the process is the same except that the housing authority can either provide assistance for the monthly house payments or the down payment under the Section 8 HCV program; the recipient cannot get both. Additionally, voucher recipients following this tract must partake in homeownership counseling (“Part 982”).

Actual Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Monetized Benefits and Costs of Section 8 As with most initiatives, the Section 8 HCV does not translate from the written plan to reality very well, largely because of discrimination and poor management. Notably, a 2011 study that assigned monetary values to different costs and benefits of the program gave a promising view of the HCV. In particular, the study found a large net benefit to recipients of the Section 8 voucher that averaged at $9,066; likewise, the mean net benefit for society was positive at $1,869. However, the mean net benefit for non-participants – those not receiving the vouchers – was -$7,197, a considerable cost. The benefits associated with the Section 8 HCV that were included in this study consist of the monetary housing assistance, increased access to other public programs like food stamps and public health care, improved child education outcomes, improved child health, as well as reduced crime and substance abuse. The authors of this study found that recipients of the voucher were only slightly more likely to receive welfare from other programs and to enroll in food stamps compared to non-recipients, but the voucher recipients did gain considerable benefits from subsidized childcare and access to better schools. This particular

benefit not only provides parents with more time since childcare is provided for, but the children also tend to perform better in school, which is also multiplied by the improved income and healthcare associated with the program. The children of voucher recipients can also gain access to more resources and opportunities in the new schools, setting them up for long-term success. The authors also found that many voucher recipients experienced improved health by moving to better quality housing and safer neighborhoods while also gaining access to healthcare. The costs this study attaches to the HCV program include tax-related costs of the voucher and other public services, effects on the neighborhoods where voucher recipients leave and join, and changes in the labor market due to the vouchers (Carlson et al.).

Mistreatment of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Recipients However, most sources are much more critical about the Section 8 HCV program, especially in the administration of the program at the local level. First, the program fails to meet the extremely high demand for housing assistance. Most housing authorities maintain waitlists for the HCV program that extend up to ten years; about 20% of those waitlists are at least three years long (Teater, “Factors”; DeLuca et al.). Unless they are given preference, applicants will be on the waitlist for months or years, especially because of poor information dissemination and communication between the housing authority and applicants (DeLuca et al.). User guides to the program highly recommend applying to multiple housing authorities in order to increase your chances of obtaining a voucher (Miller).

HCV recipients also report many poor experiences with the employees of their housing authorities and administration of the program. Besides the long waitlist for admission into the program, recipients describe slow paperwork processing that can hinder their ability to pay rent, regularly late housing advisors, and physically unwelcoming housing authority offices. Even worse, the housing authority employees can often be unclear, disrespectful, and unprofessional to recipients (Teater, “A Qualitative).

In that vein, voucher recipients face stigma on several fronts during the process of finding housing. First, recipients often experience condescension, disrespect, and general lack of aid from housing authority employees (Teater, “A Qualitative”). Some housing authorities will reject applicants from even getting on the waitlist for discriminatory reasons like not already living in a predominantly white town, or they will give preference to those already living in the town (Thomas). Likewise, housing authority employees will often direct recipients to low-quality housing with infestations, lead paint, damaged structures, and similar conditions that should not have passed the Section 8 inspection (Thomas; Teater, “A Qualitative”). Housing authority staff commonly discourage households from looking in affluent neighborhoods because this can supposedly prevent the recipient from finding housing at all, which would lower that housing authority’s assessment rating from HUD (DeLuca et al.). Research also shows that minority voucher holders are less likely to live in low-poverty areas than white voucher

holders, meaning that employees are promoting upward mobility for white participants much more than for people of color in the program (DeLuca et al.).

HCV recipients’ biggest barrier in finding housing is discrimination from landlords due to stereotypes that low-income people are unruly tenants (Teater, “A Qualitative”). As of 2019, only fourteen states had laws that ban discrimination based on tenants’ source of rent, including government aid, so many tenants are rejected by landlords because of their Section 8 status, which effectively keeps households in high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods and low-quality housing (Thomas; Miller; DeLuca et al.). Even in the states with anti-discrimination laws, it is very difficult for HUD to enforce because only about 20% of these violations are actually reported, and, like other cases of discrimination, it is very difficult to prove (Thomas). For this reason, guides highly recommend that voucher recipients extensively document any communication or meetings with the housing authority and potential landlords, especially the reasons for denied housing (Miller). Notably, however, voucher recipients typically do not have the resources or time to dedicate to a lawsuit when they only have a couple of months to find housing. Even if an HCV recipient does find a landlord willing to participate in the program, many report issues with the landlords during their tenancy, such as invasion of space and privacy or inadequate property maintenance (Teater, “A Place”; DeLuca et al.).

Lastly, there is often pushback from communities against Section 8 because wealthier people maintain discriminatory practices and stereotypes against low-income households. For instance, wealthy neighborhoods will dispute construction of Section 8 housing, and municipal governments will utilize exclusionary zoning to prevent affordable housing from being built in high-income areas (Thomas).

Additionally, many recipients are involuntarily displaced from their current homes due to gentrification and rising rents. Moreover, this discrimination against low-income people is inseparably coupled with discrimination against people of color, who often experience generational poverty from historical institutional racism. The evidence shows that “black and Hispanic families are significantly less likely than whites to be living in low-poverty neighborhoods,” and face even more barriers in achieving upward mobility in their communities (DeLuca et al. 270).

Administrative Weaknesses Even setting aside the systemic discrimination against low-income households and people of color, HCV recipients also report issues with the basic rules, regulations, and administration of the program. On a broad level, the Section 8 HCV is underfunded for the demand, so housing authorities compete for grants from HUD. As a result, the housing authorities focus heavily on the services that will get them the points needed to maintain funding. Despite the principles of the policy, HUD’s scoring system does not emphasize poverty decongestion, desegregation, or upward mobility but rather the number of voucher recipients who get into housing within the allowed time. As shown in Tables 1 and 2

below, a housing authority could score zero points in efforts toward housing mobility, poverty decongestion, and racial desegregation and still be considered a high performing agency. In that vein, housing authorities also tend to emphasize quantity over quality in assisting voucher recipients get housing, especially because HUD measures mobility as simply moving from one place to another (DeLuca et al.; Teater, “A Place”). There is no upward mobility involved in the score; therefore, many residents make many lateral moves within short time spans, which is not just unhelpful but harmful to physical and mental health (Teater, “A Place”; Teater, “Factors”). Because this program largely depends on local conditions, HUD generally lets the local housing authority make decisions about vouchers, only loosely monitoring the agency to ensure that it is following the rules and intentions of the original policy (Thomas).

Table 1. HUD Scoring Categories and Points Scoring Category

Table 2. HUD Grade Categories

Number of Points

Housing Quality Inspections

30

Administrative Performance

100

Points

Grade

Performance Tag

Awarded

Percentag

131

90%

High performers

e

(income verification, voucher

points or

utilization, rent calculations, wait

above 87-130

60%-89%

Standard

points 87 points

59%

performers Troubled

list management, etc.)

Housing Mobility/Poverty

15

Decongestion/Racial Desegregation Maximum Score

or below 155

(DeLuca et al.)

(DeLuca et al.)

Furthermore, many tenants and landlords in the Section 8 program struggle with following the rules and regulations involved, partly because they do not know the rules and partly because the administration makes it very difficult to do so (Miller). In addition to the administrative issues discussed above, such as long wait times for meetings and slow paperwork processing, housing authorities tend to have high staff turnover. This slows the process, prevents voucher recipients from building relationships with their housing advisors, and places the responsibility of tracking documents and communication on the voucher recipient (Miller).

One of the biggest challenges that HCV recipients face is finding quality housing that accepts the voucher within that short time frame of 60 to 120 days. In fact, over a third of those granted vouchers lose those vouchers because they are unable to find housing within the allotted time. The search for housing is

difficult for several reasons, including discriminatory landlords, lack of time, and simply finding a unit that fits the tenants’ needs. Notably, the housing authorities offer little help in this process, typically offering a small and outdated list of properties that are of extremely poor quality. Without the help of housing professionals, the voucher recipients have to utilize alternative methods of house searching, including word-of-mouth, newspaper ads, and drive-by research; additionally, the tenants have to sell themselves as tenants to landlords in order to even be considered (Teater, “A Place”). When an HCV recipient cannot find suitable housing, they are either forced to give up their voucher or lease substandard housing and keep searching (DeLuca et al.).

Once someone is officially in the HCV program, the rules and regulations still make it difficult to remain in the program (DeLuca et al.). Many voucher recipients feel that the rules coupled with paperwork processing makes it too risky to report changes in circumstances or to even seek a change in circumstances. For example, married couples do not receive as many benefits as unmarried participants because of the assumed combined income. Likewise, some people in the program cannot get a job that pays enough to live, but if they get any job, their Section 8 aid would decrease. So they are essentially forced to remain unemployed in order to retain housing security. Lastly, if a voucher recipient suddenly becomes unemployed, they are at a high risk of not being able to pay their rent because the housing authority paperwork takes so long to process. In that vein, recipients also report feeling a financial burden in the program because of how unstable their aid amounts are. This instability adds major stress in not knowing if they will be able to afford their current apartment, or if they will have to give up other important needs to cover that gap (Teater, “A Qualitative”).

Weaknesses and Strengths Clearly, the Section 8 HCV suffers from serious weaknesses, including systemic discrimination, a lack of resources, mismatch with voucher recipients’ needs, and administrative shortcomings. As a result, the HCV has mixed results: Many who need it most do benefit from the rental assistance, but many in the program do not benefit nearly as much as they should, and some even get financially stuck (Teater, “A Qualitative”). Participants report many poor experiences throughout the process of applying for and staying in the HCV program due to those weaknesses so that there is more literature criticizing the system than there is promoting it. At this point, opponents of the HCV program would not only include neoliberal politicians and NIMBYs but also some academics.

However, the Section 8 HCV does have strengths in its conceptual design. First, the voucher system was an excellent spin on public housing, especially in response to the hyper-concentration of poverty. The principles of mobility, choice, and poverty decongestion are all valid goals in improving quality of life. All people should have options in housing and opportunities for upward mobility;

moreover, mixed-income neighborhoods are a credible strategy towards more equitable community resource-sharing and towards greater residential diversity.

Recommendations If the Section 8 HCV program would be implemented in Planneapolis like it is in many other places, I recommend that Planneapolis search for a different strategy to address the housing crisis for the city’s low-income residents. Accepting the program as it is with the glaring discrimination interwoven at all levels as well as administrative, regulatory, and funding issues would be counterproductive to the city’s goal of housing low-income residents and improving their quality of life.

However, I think that at least some of the program’s shortcomings can be solved or mitigated at the local level if the city is willing to dedicate adequate resources and time to its implementation in the long-term. First and foremost, I would recommend that Planneapolis pass an ordinance banning housing discrimination based on sources of rent as well as establish a legal team to address violating landlords.

Similarly, Planneapolis would need to expand the local housing authority with housing and social work professionals to combat the administrative issues that many recipients face. In particular, the office would need employees dedicated to implementing the program and helping voucher recipients in every step along the way, including the application, admission, housing search, and membership maintenance. These employees would need to be professional, understanding, and appreciative of the efforts and experience of participants in the HCV program. Additionally, the housing authority would need to develop a positive and active relationship with local landlords, reaching out to them, communicating openly with them, and educating them about Section 8 HCV and the recipients. This would help prevent the discrimination that many face during their housing search, provide more options for voucher recipients, and help landlords find new tenants. Overall, the office implementing the program would need to actively prioritize equity, desegregation, and the voucher recipients, which research shows is the key to improving housing authority performance (Hernandez).

If Planneapolis is willing to diverge from the common execution of the Section 8 HCV, then I highly recommend utilizing this program, especially since the city could obtain more external funding for low-income housing from HUD. However, if Planneapolis is not willing to institute a long-term plan that addresses the common issues associated with the Section 8 HCV, then the city should explore other routes toward low-income housing.

References Carlson, Deven, et al. “The Benefits and Costs of the Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program: A Framework and Estimates of First-Year Effects,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 30, no. 2, 2011, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23018982. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.

DeLuca, Stafanie, et al. “Segregating Shelter: How Housing Policies Shape the Residential Locations of LowIncome Minority Families,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.

647, May 2013, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23479104. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.

Hernandez, Melissa Gomez. “Public Service Values and Disparate Performance: The Case of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program,” Doctorate dissertation, ProQuest, 2018, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/docview/2193409613?pq-origsite=primo.

Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.

“Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet,” HUD.GOV, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d., https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8#:~:text=The %20housing%20choice%20voucher%20program,housing%20in%20the%20private %20market.&text=A%20housing%20subsidy%20is%20paid,behalf%20of%20the %20participating%20family. Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

“Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8),” Benefits.gov, Benefits.gov, n.d., https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/710. Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

Miller, Maya. “What You Really Need to Know About How Section 8 Really Works,” ProPublica, Pro Publica, Inc., 9 Jan. 2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/what-you-need-to-know-about-howsection-8-really-works. Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

“Part 982—Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance: Housing Choice Voucher Program,” Code of Federal Regulations, National Archives, 25 March 2021, https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title24/subtitle-B/chapter-IX/part-982. Accessed 25 March 2021.

Teater, Barbra. “Factors Predicting Residential Mobility Among the Recipients of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, vol. 36, no. 3, Sept. 2009, https://heinonline-org.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/HOL/Page? collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jrlsasw36&id=559&men_tab=srchresults. Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

---. “A Place to Call ‘Home’: Exploring the Experiences of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Recipients in their Efforts to Find Housing,” Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Sciences, 2009, https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/10.1606/1044-3894.3892. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.

---. “A Qualitative Evaluation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Recipients’

Perspectives,” vol. 20, no. 4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010371242. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.

Thomas, Jacqueline Rabe. “How Wealthy Towns Keep People With Housing Vouchers Out,” ProPublica, Pro Publica, Inc., 9 Jan. 2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/how-wealthy-towns-keeppeople-with-housing-vouchers-out. Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

White, Sammis. “Review of ‘Neighborhood Choices: Section 8 Housing Vouchers and Residential Mobility,’” Journal of Regional Science, vol. 49, no. 1, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679787.2008.00604_9.x. Accessed 17 Feb. 2021.