Participating households are responsible for finding a rental unit that meets program standards and has a landlord willing to accept the voucher. The household then contributes a share of its income (approximately 30 percent) towards rent and utilities, while the PHA pays the balance due directly to the landlord, up to a locally determined maximum based on HUD’s established Fair Market Rents. Federal rules establish income guidelines and other broad eligibility criteria for the voucher program; however, PHAs have some discretion to use the program creatively to address local needs and policy goals, such as ending homelessness or improving access to resource-rich neighborhoods.
Approach
While the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is subject to a wide range of federal regulations, PHAs have many areas of discretion that can affect the value of the vouchers and how they are used. These include decisions about (a) the maximum rental subsidy to pay by neighborhood; (b) the order by which families will be admitted into the program; (c) whether any vouchers will be attached to specific buildings and, if so, what share of the overall voucher allocation will be “project-based;” and (d) whether vouchers can be used for homeownership. PHAs can also decide whether to provide additional assistance (either independently or in partnership with other entities) to help families access resource-rich areas.
Under the HCV program, participating households pay approximately 30 percent of their monthly income each month for rent and utilities, while the PHA pays the balance, up to a maximum known as the voucher payment standard. HCV holders may choose to spend more to lease units with rents above the payment standard, and may pay up to 40 percent of their income at initial occupancy. The PHA is responsible for setting payment standards for each bedroom size, based on HUD’s calculation of the fair market rent (FMR) for the surrounding area or the ZIP Code (for PHAs choosing to use Small Area FMRs). PHAs generally have the choice of establishing a single set of payment standards for the entire jurisdiction or using different sets of payment standards in different geographical areas. The latter approach adds complexity to program administration but can help participants access homes in a broader range of neighborhoods by ensuring that the payment standards are tailored to neighborhood rent levels. Units rented with HCVs are also subject to reviews to determine the reasonableness of the rent, based on rent levels of similar units, and are required to meet housing quality standards set by HUD. PHAs are obligated to perform a physical inspection of units to ensure the unit meets HUD’s housing quality standards before the start of a voucher holder’s lease, and subsequent inspections will generally be performed each year.
Among other benefits, households participating in the HCV program have a greater choice of units than in a place-based subsidy program, and participants may have the flexibility to select units in higher-cost neighborhoods that offer more amenities and services. This flexibility is enhanced when a PHA sets payment standards based on Small Area FMRs, which allow for higher payment standards in high-rent areas.
Ordinarily, HCVs are used by participating households to help pay for the rent of rental units they locate themselves—a format known as tenant-based rental assistance. However, local housing authorities can elect to allocate up to 20 percent of their Section 8 voucher authorization to project-based vouchers (PBVs). PHAs can project-base another 10 percent of their Section 8 voucher authorization (up to 30 percent) if they operate in an area where the voucher is difficult to use (e.g., where the vacancy rate is less than four percent). Because the PBV program is unit-specific, housing authorities enter into long-term contracts—typically up to 20 years—with property owners, with the option to renew. PBVs are a source of funding for the preservation and construction of new affordable housing supply because they can be leveraged to raise additional sources of capital.
PHAs can choose to allow vouchers to cover the costs of mortgage payments, rather than rent, a format known as Section 8 homeownership. (The HCV program was formerly known as the Section 8 voucher program.) However, as of 2023, the Urban Institute reported that fewer than 0.5 percent of vouchers were used towards homeownership, and three out of four PHAs did not support the use of homeownership vouchers.
Eligibility
Both the family and the unit need to meet program requirements in order for a tenant to rent a unit using a HCV.
Eligible households for the HCV program must be low-income, defined by HUD as earning 50 percent of AMI or less, but some exceptions allow families with incomes up to 80 percent AMI to be admitted to the program if other requirements are met. In addition, 75 percent of the HCVs newly awarded each year must go to extremely low-income households with incomes no greater than 30 percent of the AMI. PHAs determine eligibility based on the income limits for their locality published by HUD. Recipients must also be U.S. citizens or have an immigration status in one of several specified categories. PHAs collect income and other information to qualify families for the HCV program. Families are subject to reexaminations to confirm continued eligibility, typically every year.
Admission
PHAs have some discretion about whether to keep their waiting lists open and how to organize them. They may prioritize applicants based on the date of application, a lottery system, or specific admissions preferences established by the PHA that reflect local priorities. For example, a PHA may give preference to applicants for HCVs who are experiencing homelessness or spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Applicants who meet these criteria move ahead of other applicants on the waiting list. While some PHAs generally maintain an open waiting list, others keep it closed and only periodically open it for a short period, using a lottery to select which applicants to put on the list. Some of the PHAs that generally keep a closed waiting list for general applicants will allow applicants meeting certain high-priority preference categories (for example, victims of domestic violence) to apply at all times. In addition, HUD regulations expressly place some limits on a PHA’s administration of the waitlist, for example, when it comes to community preferences, residency requirements, income, and other forms of discrimination.
Family composition determines the type and size of the unit a family can rent with their voucher, based on occupancy standards set by the PHA. For example, a PHA may set occupancy standards dictating that a single parent with one school-age child of the same gender may still qualify for a two-bedroom unit voucher, or they may determine that this type of family structure qualifies for a one-bedroom unit.
Inspections
The PHA also inspects the unit and determines if the size is appropriate for the family. PHAs also inspect the unit at occupancy to ensure it meets HUD’s basic health and safety standards. Typically, PHAs re-inspect HCV units every year. Inspectors look at safety features, such as smoke detectors, as well as sanitary conditions, for example, for evidence of rodents. Finally, the PHA is responsible for determining the reasonableness of the rent the landlord charges for the specific unit by comparing the rent to that of other similar units.
After determining that the unit is the appropriate size, of reasonable quality, and carries a reasonable rent, the tenant can move in and use the HCV to cover a portion of the rent. Tenants can move and continue using their voucher, as long as the new unit meets the abovementioned criteria. HCVs are also portable between localities that operate HCV programs. The “receiving” PHA with jurisdiction in the area where the new unit is located administers assistance following the move.
A 2024 report published by the Urban Institute suggested that coordinating inspections is a key reason why landlords are hesitant to participate in the HCV program. The report also noted that, for every 100 units, four low-income urban renters and two low-income suburban renters inhabited severely inadequate units according to inspection results. HUD generally requires an HCV inspection of each unit before a lease is signed and rental assistance begins. However, HUD has allowed PHAs to implement alternatives in order to lease up units and start Housing Assistance Payment contracts faster. In these cases, a PHA could use an alternative inspection—such as an inspection already conducted for another housing program—to meet housing quality and inspection requirements, allowing them to skip additional inspections. A PHA can also approve a tenant’s lease and start assistance payments even if a unit fails the inspection, as long as deficiencies are not life-threatening and all other deficiencies are fixed within a 30-day period.
Partnerships between PHAs and cities, towns, and counties
As noted above, PHAs have substantial discretion to adjust how the HCV program operates to meet local needs. The PHA’s decisions are set forth in documents known as the PHA Plan and the Section 8 Administrative Plan.
While PHAs are generally administratively distinct from cities, towns, and counties, and thus not directly controlled by local governments, there are numerous ways these local entities can work with PHAs to strengthen the community’s ability to meet its housing goals. By working closely with the PHA to develop coordinated policies, cities, towns, and counties can encourage the priority use of HCVs to support their common goals. For example, where preventing or ending homelessness is a community goal, the PHA may give preference on the voucher waiting list to individuals experiencing homelessness. Often, this preferential status is paired with housing search assistance provided by the city or local Continuum of Care, resulting in the coordinated delivery of services that increases the likelihood of successful outcomes.
Communities can also encourage access to resource-rich areas through the administration of an HCV program. For example, local housing department staff can work with the PHA to facilitate the development of dedicated affordable housing in resource-rich areas by combining HOME or Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the city, project-based vouchers, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Project-based vouchers provide deeper affordability that makes these units accessible to extremely low-income families.
Payment standards
As noted above, PHAs also have discretion to vary payment standards, which can be helpful for increasing the housing choices of participating households in resource-rich areas. Here, too, there is a possibility for collaboration between the PHA and the local political jurisdiction. The PHA can allow for increased voucher payment standards in high-cost areas. Among other options, it can request permission from HUD to set exception payment standards above 110 percent of the metro-wide Fair Market Rent, or establish exception payment standards up to 110 percent of the applicable Small Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR). SAFMRs are set by HUD at the ZIP Code level, rather than on a metro-wide basis, meaning that they more accurately reflect actual rents in specific parts of town, including high-cost neighborhoods. Use of exception payment standards based on SAFMRs can increase options for voucher recipients in these neighborhoods, which often have schools with high proficiency rates or other desirable amenities and services. To help realize the potential inherent in higher payment standards for participating households to access resource-rich areas, the city, town, or county could fund mobility counseling and security deposit assistance to help voucher holders afford to rent units in resource-rich areas.
Because each PHA allocates a fixed amount of assistance through the voucher program each year, increasing payment standards in one area without lowering them in other areas may mean that fewer households can be helped, at least in the initial year. However, as PHAs’ subsidy costs rise, their subsidy from HUD also generally rises over time, assuming congressional appropriations for the program adjust with inflation and the cost of renewals. PHAs will need to weigh this and other trade-offs to determine the approach that works best to achieve their goals. Smaller localities or localities in a region with significant market variation may benefit from coordination with each other and the PHA to meet local and regional affordable housing needs.
PHAs and local housing department staff can also partner to conduct outreach to recruit and retain landlords who agree to accept vouchers, particularly those with units in resource-rich areas. PHAs may also dedicate staff or offer financial incentives to encourage good relations with landlords.
Voucher utilization
In some jurisdictions, landlords have no legal obligation to accept housing choice vouchers and may refuse to rent to households that participate in the program. Local jurisdictions can pass source of income laws (or lobby for such laws at the state level) that require landlords to rent to all eligible tenants, regardless of their source of income. However, while source of income laws reduce landlord discrimination, they have not proven to significantly expand housing opportunities for voucher holders across resource-rich neighborhoods. Instead, a 2011 HUD report suggested source of income laws are more closely correlated to the general success rate of voucher use than location-based success. Success is defined as a signed lease within a specific time period of receiving a voucher. Furthermore, HCV success rates between low and high rent counties demonstrate the need for longer allotted search periods. In a 2022 study, the success rate of voucher holders was the highest in the lowest rent counties over a 90-day period. Over a 365-day period, the success rate was the highest in the highest rent counties, suggesting a PHA’s willingness to provide longer search times positively affects success rates and the effective use of vouchers.
Reviewing neighborhood concentration
While HCVs provide renter subsidy, voucher recipients often remain limited to the neighborhoods that they are able to access, often the same neighborhoods as poor renters, supporting the need for alternatives with greater location-based subsidy like Small Area FMRs. In a 2022 study tracking the average census tract characteristics by renter type in New York City, the poverty rate among all renter households was 19 percent compared to 26 percent among New York City voucher households. In other words, though HCVs increase access to housing, they are often unsuccessful in increasing access to opportunity, leaving voucher renters concentrated in neighborhoods more susceptible to poverty.
Examples
In Washington State, the King County Housing Authority (KCHA) provides housing choice vouchers for more than 11,000 households. One-quarter of KCHA’s vouchers are set aside for people with special needs who are referred to the program by partner agencies, including families experiencing homelessness, victims of domestic violence, and people with a terminal illness. Other applicants are selected to be added to KCHA’s voucher waitlist every two to three years via a random lottery drawing. In December 2017, using its flexibility under the Moving to Work demonstration, KCHA began using a tiered payment standard system to ‘increase voucher holders’ access to high-cost areas and ensure subsidy amounts accurately reflect market rental rates. KCHA categorizes ZIP Codes into one of six tiers, within which the payment standard for a one-bedroom rental ranges from $1,300 in the lowest-cost areas to $2,060 in the highest-cost areas.
In 2025, the Mesa Housing Authority (MHA) and City of Mesa, Arizona, partnered to increase Housing Choice Voucher access by implementing Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs), shifting payment standards from a metropolitan-wide average to ZIP Code-level market rents. To incentivize landlord participation in the HCV program, the MHA joined the Arizona Landlord Incentive Program (ALIP), providing landlords a one-time $500 bonus for every new Housing Assistance Payment contract signed with a voucher tenant.
In North Carolina, in an effort to encourage more landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers and create a more landlord-friendly voucher process, the Durham Housing Authority (DHA) introduced various initiatives for landlord support, including a dedicated landlord email address, where questions regarding HCVs are addressed within 24 hours, and a landlord hotline. The DHA also increased staff to oversee and manage the city’s HCV program. They also established a landlord committee and hold quarterly landlord meetings on HCV services.
Related resources
- Housing Choice Vouchers Factsheet. This HUD resource provides an overview of the program and answers to common questions. The complete regulations governing the program are available here (24 CFR Part 982).
- The Housing Choice Voucher Guidebook. This HUD publication includes details of the HCV program. Some key sections of the Guidebook include:
- Waiting List and Tenant Selection: This section provides details on opening, closing, and managing a HCV waitlist. It also includes information about establishing and employing local preference criteria in allocating vouchers.
- Eligibility and Denial of Assistance: This chapter outlines requirements for families in the HCV program.
- Payment Standards: This section provides a detailed description of procedures for setting payment standard amounts and the circumstances under which exceptions may be requested.
- Rent Reasonableness and Housing Quality Standards: These sections outline the standards for rent reasonableness reviews and housing quality inspections that PHAs conduct prior to accepting a unit for a HCV.
- Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Contracts: This chapter provides guidance on HAP contract execution, changes requiring a new HAP contract, contract terms, and owner responsibilities.
- What Do We Know About Housing Choice Voucher Program Location Outcomes? Published by the What Works Collaborative, this literature review on locational outcomes of voucher recipients argues that neighborhoods are critically important in housing.
- Housing Mobility Program in the U.S. 2020 (PRRAC–Mobility Works, July 2020). This report provides a detailed list of housing mobility programs and their respective housing contexts in the United States.
- What Do We Know About Housing Choice Vouchers? This 2018 research paper from the Furman Center reviews what we know about Housing Choice Vouchers.
- Calculating Success Rates for the Housing Choice Voucher Program Using HUD Administrative Data. This 2025 research paper, published by the Furman Center, calculated success rates of the Housing Choice Voucher program using HUD administrative data.