Evaluation of the Regional Portability Pilot Program
Paul Fischer
August 27, 2009
This report will evaluate the yearlong portability pilot program administered by HCP of Illinois for three cooperating public housing authorities, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), the Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC), and the Cicero Housing Authority. The report is divided into three parts; the origins, rationale, and evolution of the pilot during the first year in operation, an evaluation of the program using data from the three housing authorities as well as from HCP of Illinois, and conclusions and next steps.
PART ONE: ORIGINS, RATIONALE, AND EVOLUTION
The portability pilot began as an outgrowth of conversations among the 14 Chicago area public housing authorities that meet periodically as part of the Housing Choice Voucher Working Group.[1] In addition to the housing authorities this informal organization includes other stakeholders interested in housing choice voucher issues in the Chicago region, totaling over 40 in number. It is co-chaired by the Regional Office of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC). One of the key concerns that emerged in 2006 was the growing costs and administrative inefficiencies of “porting” voucher families from one jurisdiction to another, between Chicago area housing authorities as well as from housing authorities outside the region.[2] In addition there was some apprehension about the areas where many “porting” families were moving to and their potential for increasing residential racial and economic segregation.[3]
With these concerns in mind the portability pilot program was developed with three goals; (1) reduce the administrative costs of “porting” families who were using the housing choice voucher within the Chicago region, (2) improve the efficiency of the portability process, and (3) increase the placement of “porting” families to “opportunity areas” within the Chicago metropolitan area so as to reduce the high levels of residential racial and economic segregation, while promoting access to good jobs, good schools, good transit, and other amenities. The CHA and the Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC), as the two largest voucher programs in the Chicago region, and who have the most “porting” clients between them were chosen for the pilot project. The Cicero Housing Authority, a much smaller housing authority also agreed to participate for comparison purposes. [4]
MPC secured just over $100,000 for a one year pilot project to determine whether a third party, mission-based nonprofit organization could improve the outcomes of regional portability efforts, helping more families access quality housing options in opportunity areas, while reducing the administrative costs and barriers. HCP of Illinois was selected to serve as that third party and to administer the program. This non-profit housing counseling agency has extensive experience with two of the three housing authorities, managing a number of housing mobility programs, as defined above, over a 14-year period.
Procedures were developed to serve 300 households porting into any one of the three jurisdictions. Marketing materials were created to interest families in the demonstration program promising them an individual counselor and additional search time if they participated. In-person presentations were used to recruit families into the voluntary program at briefings held at each of the PHAs for new port-in families. Finally, special administrative procedures were devised so that the entire process, implemented by HCP, would be fully integrated into the PHA housing choice voucher program. Procedures for referral, voucher issuance, housing search and housing lease-up were put into a written agreement so that all parties were clear on their role in the process.
The program officially began in August 2007 and ended in October 2008, about 14 months later. The original one-year time frame was extended to allow for administrative changes at HACC described below that delayed their active participation for many months. HCP worked with CHAC port-ins from August 2007 to May 2008 (9 months) and with HACC port-in clients from May to October 2008 (6 months). In the course of working with these families the expectation was that portability procedures would be simplified and streamlined while families would be given mobility counseling to expand their housing choices. Early on it became clear that some of the initial assumptions and goals were proving unrealistic or unattainable, particularly with regard to portability procedures. It was hoped that HUD would suspend or modify some of the cumbersome and complicated regulations that govern the portability process and increase its cost. The pilot would than be able to measure any efficiencies and cost savings achieved under the simplified procedures. But those waivers never materialized. Consequently, one of the two primary goals of the pilot, testing improved portability procedures could not be implemented.
Another challenge involved the Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC). The executive director of HACC who had helped develop the pilot resigned to become head of the CHA. For a while there was no permanent director. Significant staff changes occurred particularly in the housing choice voucher part of HACC. Consequently there was very limited involvement of HACC for much of the one-year pilot. There were very few briefing sessions and little other activity for HCP to participate in to generate families interested in an inter-jurisdictional and mobility move. HACC did not begin providing households for the program until May of 2008, nine months into the program year. Because of its late start, the pilot was extended until October 31, 2008 to try to include more HACC families. Unfortunately HACC was reexamining its rent reasonableness program during this time and had suspended higher fair market rent limits in more affluent areas with fewer minority families. This effectively limited the ability of HCP to find affordable units in opportunity areas in suburban Cook County. It should also be noted that Cicero, a very small housing authority, that was chosen for comparison purposes only referred one household to HCP during its 14 months in operation. Choosing a small housing authority for comparison purposes made a great deal of sense particularly in reference to portability administration but the shift in priorities to housing mobility made the addition of Cicero less relevant.
Initially, the program targeted only households wanting to move between the three jurisdictions and those who didn’t already have a unit identified. Due to a CHA request, the program was modified to allow anyone, especially people from out of the area, to participate. In the end, 213 CHA referrals and 84 HACC referrals participated. The total families served were 297.
HCP attended briefings at each of the two large PHAs and recruited households from the total pool of people interested in porting. In the case of the CHA, households who signed up for the portability pilot program came to a full mobility briefing at the HCP office where HCP also issued the voucher (provided by CHA). HCP provided landlord tenant rights and responsibilities training including housekeeping, information on opportunity areas and the new PHA jurisdiction. In the case of HACC, the housing authority issued the voucher and the family was simply referred to HCP for housing search assistance. In both cases, an individual counselor was assigned and rental listings were given in opportunity areas, clients were taken to view units, and other supportive services were provided.
HCP planned for a staff of three professionals and one administrative assistant to implement the program and provide mobility services for 300 households over the year. Because of the staggered nature of the workload however, HCP assigned two counselors from August to March and then 1.3 counselors after that. A real estate specialist devoted about a third of her time to the project, identifying appropriate units, and an administrative assistant was provided at one-third time as well. The director allocated 10 percent of her time to the project. Overall the project amounted to about 20 percent of HCP’s total workload so other costs were pro-rated as a percentage of the HCP total expense for the period. The costs came to just over $121,000 for the life of the pilot.[5]
PART TWO: PROGRAM RESULTS
The aim for the program was to serve 300 people and 297 were served. More would have been served within the time period if the HACC component of the pilot had started at the program’s inception and if HACC voucher families could have been counseled with for a full twelve months. As can be seen from Table One, 92 families ported between the three pilot jurisdictions while 40 ported into those jurisdictions from the rest of the Chicago area. Most significantly, 151 families that HCP worked with were from outside the Chicago area, as a result of the restructuring of the arrangement between HCP and CHAC. These families, as can be seen from the Table One were more interested in working with HCP than families who were from within the region. One possible explanation is that these families had fewest ties in the area and were less familiar with the Chicago area housing market and thus really needed the assistance of a counselor. They may have been more open to an opportunity move because they did not have social networks in the region, nor come with a firm picture of the racial complexion of different communities and housing markets, compared to families who had already lived in the region. Fortunately the CHA was more than willing to include those families in the portability pilot and they became the focus of the CHA part of the pilot program. By the pilot’s conclusion the CHA had provided 215 households, a much larger share than was initially projected.
The placement goal was 25% of households moving to opportunity areas.[6] By the program’s conclusion, as can be seen in Table Two, 24% of families did move to an opportunity area, very close to the program goal. The figures for both housing authorities were similar with 25% of CHAC families making an opportunity move versus 23% of HACC families. It should be noted that among the 60 families that made an opportunity move, 14 were HACC families who moved within the suburbs and of the remaining 46 CHAC families, 16 ended up in Tier One neighborhoods while 30 resided in Tier Two areas of the city. The 24% figure compares favorably to regular portability program although there is great variation.
Interestingly, HACC staff requested that HCP attend portability briefings after the portability pilot had ended which HCP agreed to do from January to March 2009, when the relationship ended again. During that three-month period (not actually part of the demonstration), HCP completed intake on another 72 “port-ins”. Of those, seven dropped out, and 37 moved with 15 moving to opportunity areas (41%). As of the writing of this report, three are in the process of moving to opportunity areas while 24 are still active. The placement rate in opportunity areas is significantly better with this second group mainly because HACC rents were increased. During the demonstration, HACC had set its payment standards at 100% of the Fair Market Rent (FMR), which is much lower than at any time in HACC’s recent history. HACC normally set rents for all of the jurisdiction at 110% of FMRs with the entire north suburban region where few minority families live set at 120% of FMRs. Obviously, 100% is a very significant decrease, especially since most areas considered opportunity areas were previously set at 120%.
TABLE ONE: WHERE FAMILIES PORTED FROM AND TO BY JURISDICTION
| PHA FAMILIES PORTED TO | JURISDICTION WHERE FAMIIES PORTED FROM | ||||
| CHAC | HACC | CICERO | REST OF CHICAGO AREA | OUT OF AREA | |
| CHAC | 46 | 1 | 28 | 138 | |
| HACC | 45 | 12 | 13 | ||
| CICERO | |||||
| TOTAL | 45 | 46 | 1 | 40 | 151 |
TABLE TWO: WHERE FAMILIES MOVED TO BY TYPE OF AREA
| AREA TYPE | CHAC | HACC | TOTAL | |||
| NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | |
| OPPORTUNITY AREA | 46 | 25% | 14 | 23% | 60 | 24% |
| TRADITIONAL AREA | 140 | 75% | 46 | 77% | 186 | 76% |
| TOTAL | 186 | 60 | 246 |
Another important consideration in evaluating the portability pilot are the administrative costs of operating the program. As noted earlier the pilot cost $121,000. HCP ended up facilitating 60 moves to opportunity areas for a per move cost of $2016. How does this compare with other housing mobility programs? Comparisons are difficult given the complexity and multiplicity of factors and the differences in service area environments. In general costs per opportunity move are typically over $3000.[7] The most apt comparison is with the mobility program run by CHAC, which deals with a similar population and in the same service area as the portability pilot. Over a five-year period, 2003-2008, the average cost per opportunity move in the CHAC program averaged $2718.[8] HCP’s cost per move was $2016 or 26% less than CHAC.[9]
To be fair it should be noted that much of HCP’s success was with families porting from out of town, a population that may be more prone to making a mobility move and consequently reduce the cost per move somewhat. But other circumstances like getting the program going from scratch and the challenges of working with an agency like HACC in transition mitigate the advantage of the out of state families. There is clearly a very significant cost differential and that makes an important argument for using a highly motivated and experienced third party like HCP in administering a region wide mobility program rather than depending on existing public housing authorities for cost effective and successful mobility counseling.
With regard to the mobility component of the pilot the program would have to be considered a success. HCP closely met its placement goals of 25% in a difficult environment and at a cost per move that is lower than other mobility efforts especially the most comparable of programs run by CHAC. Regional mobility was effectively integrated into the voucher program for two very large housing authorities and practices and procedures developed worked well in both cases. On the other hand the pilot failed to test any constructive recommendations about portability.
PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
The results of the portability pilot argue for a new approach to housing mobility in the Chicago area. This should be one goal of a Phase Two of the portability pilot. With the exception of the Gautreaux Program, which ended years ago, housing mobility efforts have been left to the initiative of individual housing authorities operating in their own service areas. HACC used the services of a third party for a number of years but recent results were not very good and the future of its mobility efforts is unclear. CHAC has done the most in this area but its efforts have also been limited. The remaining housing authorities have done little to no mobility counseling.
The success of HCP in meeting its 25% goal at a cost 26% lower than that of CHAC argues for a renewed look at a more regional approach to mobility run by a third party vendor like HCP with its years of experience and core commitment to housing mobility. The problem with using housing authorities for mobility is they often times lack the expertise and more importantly the commitment to mobility as an important goal of the voucher program. In addition they are distracted by their other responsibilities. These differences may explain the higher expense per move in the CHAC program. But most importantly they operate in one service area. The Chicago metropolitan area has over 14 housing authorities, each with its own limited boundaries. To improve success mobility programs need to break those limits, which can only be done with a regional administration.
The other priority of a Phase Two of the pilot needs to focus on reforms of the portability procedures among the Chicago area public housing authorities. The results of the poll of housing authorities mentioned earlier shows a strong desire to simplify administrative procedures for families porting in and out and has been tried in several others areas in the country. For example, PHA’s in several areas including Las Vegas and Orange County, California have a written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that essentially erases their jurisdictional lines for the purpose of portability. Each “original” PHA continues to administer the voucher for “their” client that moves to another jurisdiction covered by the MOU, but they pay the new PHA a flat fee for inspections and determining rents, the more local factors. PHA’s in these areas report great success with this simplified portability process and both MOU’s have been in existence for a long time.
While the unusually large number of housing authorities in the Chicago area makes the situation even more complex and challenging, a Phase II portability pilot could test similar approaches to that just described above, so that the portability process in the Chicago region could be more effective and less costly for all parties.
HUD and the new administration are giving careful attention to making serious changes in the operation of the voucher program. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA) is an important component of this administration’s housing initiative. The bill “reforms the financing of “portability” moves, so that families can more easily exercise their right to move with a voucher and agencies can save burdensome paperwork and avoid cash-flow problems.” [10]
Portability is clearly one of the priorities. Chicago would be an excellent “testing ground” for exploring regulatory reform as well as other innovations to improve portability. A third party agency like HCP is an essential component in testing these types of reforms. The regional orientation of SEVRA requires such an entity particularly in a region like Chicago.
[1] This group has been meeting quarterly for over 15 years to discuss the ever-changing issues surrounding the housing voucher program in the Chicago region.
[2] A questionnaire was administered by MPC staff, which asked public housing authorities to identify and rank their most serious problems and portability ranked the highest.
[3] Earlier studies including “Putting the Choice in Housing Choice Vouchers”, July 2004, described relatively high concentrations of African American voucher families in the south Cook County suburbs and the south and west sides of Chicago.
[4] Opportunity areas are defined for HACC as census tracts <10% poverty and <13% African American populations, based on averages of suburban Cook County per the 2000 Census. For CHAC the definition is very different. City neighborhood areas are defined by census tracts and include 77 official neighborhoods. CHAC looked at crime statistics, school performance data, employment opportunities and a host of other quality of life issues and developed criteria for determining an opportunity area. Forty of the 77 neighborhood areas are determined to be opportunity areas in the City of Chicago. Twenty are described as Tier 1 and 20 Tier 2. Tier 1 areas score higher on quality of life concerns overall. For Cicero, it was determined that any census tract <13.2 poverty and <5% African American was an opportunity area.
[5] HCP committed to leveraging resources from the start of the pilot program, which were used because of the extended life of the pilot.
[6] The 25% figure emanated from HCP’s experience running HACC’s mobility program for a number of years where the average yearly placement rate was 22%. HCP thought that raising the goal to 25% was both more ambitious for a new program but still doable.
[7] One of the most important federal mobility programs was Moving to Opportunity is which for a finite time in a number of cities. According to a 2001 Brookings Study administrative cost per move for MTO was approximately $3000. A mobility program in Baltimore County is averaging $4000 per move.
[8] Jennifer O’Neil who administered the program during most of that time period provided this data.
[9] If all clients served is used rather than only those making an opportunity move, than HCP served 297 clients at a cost of $407 per client, which is a much lower figure.
[10] Summary of SERVA proposal found www.nlihc.org/doc/SEVRA-fact-sheet.pdf.