Today public housing continues to exist, but eligibility and aid depend on one’s location. While the federal government has developed nationwide programs, states, and local agencies provide the actual housing to their citizens. A state must follow the federal guidelines but can determine how much aid it receives, and each state can set some of its own guidelines in terms of preferential treatment and eligibility. All this means that one’s state of choice, particularly the choice between a red or blue state, will determine his or her level of aid in terms of public housing.
Before looking at the differences at the state level though, let’s cover today’s policies. The basic principles of public housing today have stayed consistent with the policies beginning in the 1960s when civil rights were first incorporated. In 1974, Nixon created the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program, which is still very much alive today. The program provides rental certificates for low-income families to use to pay a portion of their rent on privately owned units. This was a change from the past policies because it allowed low-income families to break away from large public housing facilities and instead lease private units.
At the time, families were expected to pay 30 percent of their income toward rent and utilities and then HUD, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, would cover the rest as long as it was under the maximum aid level. It seemed that the 1960s brought positive changes, but in the 1980s housing programs were dramatically cut. The 1990s saw a huge increase in the need for homeless shelters due to the lack of public housing. Today, while subsidizing housing projects has continued to decline, more rent vouchers and Section 8 certificates are being handed out each year.
But how have the changes come about in different states? Massachusetts is viewed as a prime example of a blue state and has one of the best public housing programs in the country. This is generally because Massachusetts applies for and accepts a great deal of federal funding. In addition, the state has low qualifications in terms of who can receive public housing assistance. For example, in order to qualify for the Section 8 Rental Assistance Voucher, one must simply show records of being a good tenant in the past and take in 80% or less than the median income in their community. Statewide, the income limit to qualify as a single person is $45,100 annually.
On the other hand, Texas is viewed as a strong red state and is not highly prized for its public housing program. In fact, the state accepts much less federal aid and therefore has a much smaller public housing budget than Massachusetts, despite having a population four times the size of MA. Additionally, a single person must take in $33,650 annually or less in Texas to qualify for public housing aid. While the eligibility is calculated based upon the state’s median income; there are large gaps in terms of eligibility between states. In addition, the private sector in Texas has refused to aid low-income families in terms of housing. This means that citizens must rely solely on public sector housing, much of which is in poor condition as, in general, it has not been updated since the 1930s.
While in many eyes the Texas system is flawed, those in opposition to public housing would support Texas over Massachusetts. Many believe that public housing gives people a crutch and allows them to take unearned money. Others argue that public housing should have a time limit so that people have an incentive to work hard and get off the aid. While we can hope that one day public housing programs will no longer be needed, it should be not out of lack of funding or desire, but instead, because it is no longer needed. Until that day though, housing is a basic need that needs to be met regardless of race or income.
While public housing is a federally supported program, it is run by the local public housing authorities. It is up to the PHAs to determine how their public housing system will be run. The federal government applies base funding to all, but when more funds are available, states can apply for more money. This often means, out of each state’s own choice and differences in opinions about public aid, that blue states will have larger public housing budgets than red states. Therefore, it is clear that a low-income family is much better off living in a blue state.
The right to a quality home should not, however, depend on one’s exact location within the United States. As a social worker, it shall be one’s duty to advocate for adequate housing for all, as shelter is a basic human need. For, as Cohn said, “This country has room for different approaches to policy. It doesn’t have room for different standards of human decency.”
References
Cohn, J. (2012, October 25). Blue states are from Scandinavia, red states are from Guatemala: a theory
of a divided nation. The New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/108185/blue-states-are-scandinavia-red-states-are-guatemala#
HUD. (n.d.). Housing choice vouchers fact sheet. Retrieved from
Mass Resources. (n.d.). Public housing. Retrieved from http://www.massresources.org/public-housing.html
Texas Housing. (n.d.). Public housing in Texas. Retrieved from
Photo Credit:
