The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued several controversial proposals that advocates say are aimed at slashing people’s housing benefits.
In February, HUD announced it seeking to require proof of U.S. citizenship or eligible status for every resident in HUD-funded housing, including “mixed-status” households.
Mixed-status households are those that include members who are eligible and others who are ineligible for housing assistance based on their immigration status. HUD allows families to live together in subsidized housing even if one family member is ineligible, but these households receive assistance at amounts prorated based on eligible members.
There are an estimated 20,000 mixed-status families in HUD housing. This covers about 80,000 people, including 37,000 children, nearly all of whom are U.S. citizens, says Marie Claire Tran-Leung, senior staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project (NHLP).
If adopted, the proposal would affect far more people because it would impose new verification requirements on all HUD residents, she says.
Affordable housing advocates have raised concerns that the proposed rule would require housing owners to inform federal officials about a household member who is in violation of immigration laws, a move that enlists owners into immigration enforcement and away from their mission of providing housing.
According to NHLP, the proposal contradicts statutory language as well as Congress’ prior actions that allow mixed-status families to stay together.
Tran-Leung and others also note that the proposal will not improve overall affordability. Instead, it will result in less affordable housing being available because there will be a loss in the higher rents that mixed-status families pay and public housing authorities won’t be able to spread the subsidies across more families.
Public comments on the proposed rule are due April 21.
When the Trump administration proposed a similar rule in its first term, about 30,000 comments were submitted. The rule was never adopted.
NHLP and Protecting Immigrant Families, two leading organizations at the intersection of housing, immigration, and poverty, have launched the Keep Families Together campaign to fight the proposal.
Proposed Work Requirements, Time Limits
Shortly after the mixed-status proposal, HUD issued another proposed rule that gives public housing authorities and Section 8 project-based rental assistance owners flexibility to implement work requirements and time limits for “non-elderly, non-disabled work-capable adults in HUD-funded housing.”
Fewer than 1% of all public housing authorities in the country have work requirements, noted HUD in a Feb. 27 press release titled “Secretary Scott Turner Moves to Restore Self-Sufficiency and Dignity to Those Living in Public Housing.”
“Housing assistance was never meant to trap work-able individuals on government support their entire lives, rather it should be a temporary foundation to launch into a life of self-sufficiency. Getting a paycheck is empowering, getting a welfare check is not,” Turner said in the press statement. “HUD’s proposed rule will restore dignity and well-being among residents we serve. Our proposal expands access for deserving families on waiting lists, while still preserving protections for elderly and disabled households.”
NHLP officials say the move could take away housing assistance for millions of families.
“We’re referring to this as a rule that really is designed to cut people’s housing benefits. That’s what it’s designed to,” says Korey Lundin, senior staff attorney at NHLP. “It’s founded on these false stereotypes about who lives in subsidized housing. The facts are that most people who can work, do work. The proposal is not based on facts, data, or research.
Advocates stress that saving enough to move off assistance takes time and a lot of support. In the current economy, most poor and working people will continue to struggle under the plan.
What prohibits families from being stably housed are sky-high housing costs that are out of reach of people who work full time and even work multiple jobs, according to NHLP deputy director Deborah Thrope.
“Working people are often forced to choose between full-time employment and caring for family members who need extra help like children, seniors, or adults with disabilities,” she says. “Policies that take away housing like work requirements and time limits will fuel mass housing instability and accelerate widespread racial, economic, and health disparities. By imposing work requirements and time limits on HUD tenants, Trump is evicting our poorest neighbors, cutting funding for affordable housing, and worsening the housing crisis for everyone.”
The term-limit proposal also applies to non-elderly, non-disabled residents. PHAs could not set a limit shorter than two years but would be able to implement a limit longer than two years. PHAs would need to add these policies to their plans and public housing leases if applicable, implement a hardship waiver policy, and offer supportive services in response to local needs, according to a summary by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
Public comments on the proposal are due May 1.
There are some PHAs that have implemented time limits and work requirements through HUD’s Moving to Work program. However, none have been nearly as harsh as what is being proposed, according to Lundin.
The new effort opens the door to allow PHAs and owners to implement the work or time limit policies, but they are not required to do so. However, if they do implement the policies they are required to provide supportive services, but HUD is not providing any funding for the services and the current text does not define supportive services, notes Lundin.
Also in February, HUD announced new guidance for nonpayment of rent in HUD-subsidized housing. This move ends a COVID-era standard and rules that required PHAs and property owners receiving HUD funding to provide 30-day written notification for nonpayment of rent prior to eviction.
Several housing organizations support this change, saying the 30-day notification requirement strained property owners and delayed legitimate eviction actions.