Leveraging Administrative Fees in the Housing Choice Voucher Program to Address Housing Instability Among Children

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, often referred to as Section 8, is the largest federal rental assistance program in the country, serving approximately 2.3 million low-income households. As of 2024, about 37% of households participating in the HCV program were families with children.[i] Overall, about 2 million children are served through the program.[ii] While the HCV program is an important tool for housing low-income families with children, participants often face challenges that prevent them from accessing and maintaining stable housing. These challenges include transportation barriers, income discrimination, difficulty finding landlords who accept vouchers, high moving costs, and limited availability of family-sized units.[iii] [iv]

Administrative fees in the HCV program can be a source of funding to implement strategies that enhance access to stable housing and ultimately improve housing outcomes among low-income children. This article examines the current uses and limitations of HCV administrative fees, explores flexibilities under the existing system, highlights potential strategies for using these funds to support families and address housing instability among children, and calls for policy changes to enhance these efforts through increased federal funding and support.

Administrative Fees in the Housing Choice Voucher Program

Administrative feesare payments provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to cover costs associated with administering the HCV program. These fees support day-to-day operations, such as applicant intake, income reviews, unit inspections, disbursing Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) to landlords, financial management, and program planning. PHAs can also use administrative fees to help voucher holders find housing. This includes pre-move counseling, scheduling unit tours, transportation, help with rental applications, and post-move support such as landlord-tenant mediation.[v] 

Since the 1970s, administrative fees have been calculated based on the number of vouchers under lease and the local Fair Market Rent (FMR). Today, HUD uses a two-tier formula: a “Column A” rate (7.5% of 1993 or 1994 FMR, adjusted for inflation) applies to the first 7,200 unit months, and a “Column B” rate (7% of the same FMR) applies to all additional units under lease.[vi] The main challenge with administrative fees is that they have been underfunded by Congress for the last 20 years. Underfunding of administrative fees may lead agencies to delay unit inspections, in turn slowing voucher turnover and increasing the time it takes to lease-up (i.e., the process of finding, securing, and moving into a unit using a voucher). Underfunding may also limit PHAs’ capacity to engage with landlords and create leasing opportunities for voucher holders.

In 2022, HUD expanded the allowed use of administrative fees to include direct financial assistance for families and landlords.[vii] Eligible activities now include landlord incentive and retention payments, help with security and utility deposits, application fees, holding fees, and even renter’s insurance when required by a lease. These expanded uses show the potential of administrative fees to not only help voucher holders lease and maintain housing, but also to address broader issues like housing instability among children.

Impact of Housing Instability on Children

About one in six children in the U.S. experience housing instability.[viii] Extensive research shows that unstable housing has serious negative impacts on children’s health, education, and long-term wellbeing. Children experiencing homelessness face higher risks of health issues such as asthma, malnutrition, obesity, and mental health challenges.[ix] [x] Frequent moves, especially those involving school changes, are associated with lower reading and academic performance.[xi] Additionally, overcrowded housing is linked to lower math and language scores, reduced high school graduation rates, and decreased college attendance.[xii] [xiii] For low-income renter households, falling behind on rent, frequent moves, and having a history of homelessness are all associated with negative health outcomes for children.[xiv]

In contrast, stable housing provides a foundation for children’s health, education, and emotional development. Research shows that children in stable housing are more likely to thrive academically and experience long-term economic benefits.[xv] Federal housing programs like the HCV program are important for ensuring families and children are stably housed. However, many families with children still struggle to lease-up due to barriers like limited family-sized units, landlord discrimination, and insufficient support during the housing search.[xvi] [xvii] To address these challenges, PHAs can implement strategies under existing HUD rules to use administrative fees to support families and ensure children have a safe and stable place to live.

Using Administrative Fees to Reduce Housing Instability Among Children

Despite limited funding, PHAs have flexibilities under existing HUD guidance to use administrative fees to implement targeted strategies that support families with children and address housing instability. Possible strategies include:

Strategy 1: Develop and Implement Housing Search and Navigation Services for Families with Children

One strategy PHAs can employ is using administrative fees to provide housing navigation services that focus on barriers to lease-up specific to families with children. Families with children often experience a distinct set of challenges in the housing search and lease-up process. These challenges can include the need for larger units and a preference for housing near schools and childcare providers.[xviii]

Housing navigation services can provide individualized support to help families overcome lease-up barriers and access units that meet their specific needs. For example, PHAs can use administrative fees to hire dedicated housing navigators to assist families with identifying suitable units, preparing paperwork, scheduling inspections, and negotiating with landlords. These staff can also offer guidance on locating units near high-quality schools, childcare providers, and public transportation. Additionally, mobility counseling can help families move to higher-opportunity neighborhoods, where children are more likely to thrive.[xix] Navigation services can also extend after a family is leased-up, by providing post-move check-ins, referrals to family support services, and mediation between tenants and landlords to help families remain housed.

The Creating Moves to Opportunity (CMTO) demonstration project is one example of how housing navigation support can help families with children overcome common housing search barriers and ultimately move to higher-opportunity neighborhoods.[xx] The project was implemented by the Seattle Housing Authority and the King County Housing Authority with support from federal and philanthropic partners. Although not funded directly by administrative fees, the CMTO project provided housing navigators to families with children who participated in the HCV program. Services included providing information about high-opportunity areas, short-term financial assistance, tailored housing search assistance, and connections to landlords. As a result, 53% of families who received navigation support moved to high-opportunity neighborhoods, as opposed to 15% of families who did not receive these services.

The CMTO project demonstrates that housing search and navigation services tailored to families’ specific needs are effective at getting families leased-up in areas that best suit their needs and preferences. PHAs that invest administrative fees in similar services, even on a smaller scale, could improve voucher utilization, shorten lease-up times, and increase the likelihood that children live in high-opportunity areas.

Strategy 2: Incentives to Engage and Retain Landlords Renting to Families with Children

Another strategy PHAs can implement is using their administrative fees to provide landlord incentive and retention payments. This strategy addresses one of the major challenges in the HCV program, which is a lack of landlord participation. Administrative fees can be used to encourage landlord participation, increasing the number of family-sized units available, and reducing the perceived risks of renting to families with children.

Existing HUD resources include an HCV Landlord Guidebook that describes monetary incentives and reimbursements PHAs can offer to attract landlords.[xxi] One strategy outlined in the guidebook is a signing bonus, which offers a financial award to landlords for joining the program. This approach helps to add existing rental units into the program by incentivizing landlords to participate and complete required inspections. Larger rental units (i.e., 2 or 3 bedrooms) in particular can be difficult for families with children to find, increasing their risk of overcrowding.[xxii] PHAs can help address this shortage by offering signing bonuses to landlords who specifically bring family-sized units into the program and make them available to voucher holders.

Landlords may also be hesitant to join the program because of concerns about potential property damage, missed rent payments, or the perceived administrative burden of working with the program.[xxiii] [xxiv] While concerns about delayed inspections and program requirements are valid, assumptions about voucher holders being more likely to miss rent or damage property are often rooted in misconceptions rather than reality. To help address both real and perceived risks, the HCV Landlord Guidebook describes damage or risk mitigation funds to attract and retain owners.[xxv] These funds can be used in certain circumstances to repay a landlord for losses incurred because of unit damage beyond normal wear and tear. These tools are especially important when leasing to families with very low incomes, poor credit histories, or multiple prior evictions, circumstances that can often lead to discriminatory leasing practices or limit a family’s ability to pay for any unit wear and tear discovered when they move out.

Researchers conducted a national scan of landlord engagement activities and identified a variety of strategies PHAs are using to attract landlords to rental assistance programs.[xxvi] For example, a PHA in Rhode Island offers $2,000 for the first apartment rented with the HCV program and $500 for each additional unit. Landlords can also receive reimbursement for up to $2,000 for necessary repairs identified during program unit inspections.[xxvii] In Oregon, HCV landlords can apply for reimbursement of up to $5,000 for qualifying damages, including unpaid rent, late fees, property damage, and lease violations. Although these initiatives are supported by a range of funding sources, similar activities can be funded through administrative fees under current HUD guidance, helping to increase the availability of family-sized units for voucher holders.

Strategy 3: Increase Tenant Knowledge and Education through Workshops and Programming

PHAs can also use administrative fees to increase tenant education, an overlooked but important component of helping families find and maintain stable housing. Many families with children, especially those with a history of housing instability, may be unfamiliar with lease terms, landlord expectations, or budgeting, which can delay lease-up or lead to voucher loss.[xxviii]

While voucher holders are required to attend orientation sessions explaining how the HCV program works, these sessions often lack the depth needed to prepare families for long-term success.[xxix] HUD guidance allows PHAs to use administrative fees for tenant counseling, and structured tenant education programs can fill knowledge gaps families may have about leasing and maintaining rental housing. These programs can teach families important skills such as how to read and understand a lease, communicating with landlords, budgeting for rent and utilities, preparing for inspections, and avoiding lease violations. For families with children, workshops can also address how to maintain a stable home environment that supports child well-being.

These programs can be offered as low-maintenance workshops or webinars, making them a practical option for PHAs with limited staff. When paired with navigation and landlord incentives, tenant education programs could help reduce evictions, build landlord trust, and support housing stability.

Policy Recommendations to Expand Use of Administrative Fees to Support Children Experiencing Housing Instability

In addition to implementing strategies approved under current HUD guidance, Congress, HUD, and PHAs can each play an important role in expanding allowable uses of administrative fees to support families and reduce housing instability among children.

Federal Recommendations

Congress should significantly increase allocations for HCV administrative fees to ensure PHAs have the resources necessary to support families with children beyond just rental assistance. Currently, many PHAs are financially limited to covering day-to-day operational costs, leaving little room to invest in supportive services. Increased funding would enable PHAs to invest in services that promote housing stability and long-term well-being, such as housing search assistance, mobility counseling, and landlord recruitment and incentive programs.

Additionally, HUD should expand its guidance to explicitly allow PHAs to use administrative fees for building and maintaining partnerships with other family and child serving systems. This can include collaboration with local schools, early childhood systems, and family-serving agencies to provide more comprehensive support to voucher families. HUD should also issue best practices to help PHAs implement these approaches within their communities.

One example of a multi-system partnership is the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), which collaborates with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to provide HCV vouchers to families experiencing homelessness.[xxx] This partnership aims to help students and their families achieve housing stability and meet basic needs, ensuring students are prepared for school and ready to learn. By aligning housing with child development support, this partnership demonstrates how PHAs can support child and family well-being through cross-system collaboration.

PHA Recommendations

PHAs can align administrative fee spending with child and family well-being by developing targeted spending plans within their Annual PHA Plans. These plans can outline how administrative fees will support child-specific needs, such as housing navigation services for families and tenant education. PHAs could also pursue partnerships with schools, child welfare agencies, healthcare providers, and early intervention services to create integrated supports. By operating under a shared framework, these collaborations can advance housing stability, child development, and economic mobility for voucher families.

Conclusion

The HCV program is an important tool for supporting low-income families with children, yet many still face barriers to stable housing. Administrative fees provide PHAs with a flexible mechanism to address these challenges, funding services such as housing navigation, landlord incentives, and tenant education. While current HUD guidance permits these uses, many PHAs lack the funding needed to implement them effectively. Increased federal funding is critical to allow PHAs to support families and children beyond just rental assistance. Additionally, expanded HUD guidance is necessary to ensure PHAs have the flexibility to pursue a wide range of strategies that promote housing stability. With increased funding, broader guidance, and intentional planning, administrative fees can be leveraged more effectively to provide children with the stable housing that is foundational to their long-term well-being.

[i] National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. (2025, July). NAHRO 360 report. https://www.nahro.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-NAHRO-360-Report.pdf

[ii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2024, September 30). Policy basics: The housing choice voucher program. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/the-housing-choice-voucher-program

[iii] Graves, E. (2016). Rooms for improvement: A qualitative metasynthesis of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Housing Policy Debate, 26(2), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573

[iv] Airgood-Obrycki, W., & Molinsky, J. (2019, April). Estimating the gap in affordable and available rental units for families. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_family_sized_rental_housing_2019.pdf

[v] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2022). Notice PIH 2022-18.  https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PIH2022-18.pdf

[vi] Abt Associates. (2015). Housing Choice Voucher Program administrative fee study.  https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/AdminFeeStudy_2015.pdf

[vii] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2022). Notice PIH 2022-18.  https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PIH2022-18.pdf

[viii] Lebrun-Harris, L. A., Sandel, M., Sheward, R., Poblacion, A., & Ettinger de Cuba, S. (2024). Prevalence and correlates of unstable housing among US children. JAMA Pediatrics, 178(7), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.1159

[ix] Strashun, S., D’Sa, S., Foley, D., Hannon, J., Murphy, A. M., & O’Gorman, C. S. (2020). Physical illnesses associated with childhood homelessness: A literature review. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 189(4), 1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-020-02233-3

[x] Bassuk, E. L., Richard, M. K., & Tsertsvadze, A. (2015). The prevalence of mental illness in homeless children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(2), 86–96.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2014.11.008

[xi] Cordes, S. A., Schwartz, A. E., & Stiefel, L. (2019). The effect of residential mobility on student performance: Evidence from New York City. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1380-1411. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218822828

[xii] Solari, C. D., & Mare, R. D. (2012). Housing crowding effects on children’s wellbeing. Social Science Research, 41(2), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.012

 [xiii] Lopoo, L. M., & London, A. S. (2016). Household crowding during childhood and long-term education outcomes. Demography, 53(3), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0467-9

[xiv] Sandel, M., Sheward, R., Ettinger de Cuba, S., Coleman, S. M., Frank, D. A., Chilton, M., Black, M., Heeren, T., Pasquariello, J., Casey, P., Ochoa, E., & Cutts, D. (2018). Unstable housing and caregiver and child health in renter families. Pediatrics, 141(2), e20172199. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2199

[xv] Pollakowski, H. O., Weinberg, D. H., Andersson, F., Haltiwanger, J. C., Palloni, G., & Kutzbach, M. J. (2022). Childhood housing and adult outcomes: A between-siblings analysis of housing vouchers and public housing. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(3), 235–272. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20180144

[xvi] Airgood-Obrycki, W., & Molinsky, J. (2019, April). Estimating the gap in affordable and available rental units for families. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_family_sized_rental_housing_2019.pdf

[xvii] Graves, E. (2016). Rooms for improvement: A qualitative metasynthesis of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Housing Policy Debate, 26(2), 346–361.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573

[xviii] Airgood-Obrycki, W., & Molinsky, J. (2019, April). Estimating the gap in affordable and available rental units for families. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_family_sized_rental_housing_2019.pdf

[xix] Sard, B., & Rice, D. (2016, January 12). Realizing the Housing Voucher Program’s potential to enable families to move to better neighborhoods. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/realizing-the-housing-voucher-programs-potential-to-enable-families-to-move-to-better

[xx] Bergman, P., Chetty, R., DeLuca, S., Hendren, N., Katz, L. F., & Palmer, C. (2023, January). Creating Moves to Opportunity: Experimental evidence on barriers to neighborhood choice (NBER Working Paper No. 26164). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26164

[xxi] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Landlord Incentives. HUD Guidebook: Housing Choice Voucher Program. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/LLGuidebook_Incentives_FullChapter.pdf

[xxii] Airgood-Obrycki, W., & Molinsky, J. (2019, April). Estimating the gap in affordable and available rental units for families. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.  https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_family_sized_rental_housing_2019.pdf

[xxiii] Lasky‑Fink, J., & Linos, E. (2023, December). Barriers to landlord engagement in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Evidence from surveys and a field experiment. The People Lab, Harvard Kennedy School. https://peoplelab.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Barriers-to-Landlord-Engagement-in-the-HCV-Program.pdf

[xxiv] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Landlord acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers.  https://www.huduser.gov/portal/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Landlord-Acceptance-of-Housing-Choice-Vouchers.pdf

[xxv] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Landlord Incentives. HUD Guidebook: Housing Choice Voucher Program. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/LLGuidebook_Incentives_FullChapter.pdf

[xxvi] Tsai, J., & Solis, V. (2024). National scan and narrative review of landlord engagement activities in the United States. Cityscape, 26(2), 457-488. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscape/vol26num2/ch23.pdf

[xxvii] Rhode Island Housing. Landlord Partnership Program. https://www.rihousing.com/wp-content/uploads/Landlord-Partnership-Program_FINAL.pdf

[xxviii] National Housing Conference. Elements of successful mobility programs. https://www.nhc.org/policy-guide/voucher-mobility/elements-of-successful-mobility-programs/

[xxix] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HCV applicant and tenant resources. https://www.hud.gov/helping-americans/housing-choice-vouchers-tenants

[xxx] Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles. HACLA expands partnership with LAUSD to provide Section 8 vouchers to homeless families.  https://www.hacla.org/en/news/hacla-expands-partnership-lausd-provide-section-8-vouchers-homeless-families