Appendix 1: Summary Analysis of Voucher Provisions of House
| Appendix 1: | |||
| Key Features of the Bills | FY 2005 | House Bill | Senate Bill |
| Voucher renewal funding | $13.36 billion | $14.19 billion | $14.09 billion |
| Tenant Protection vouchers | $162 million | $166 million | $192 million |
| Administrative fees | $1.200 billion | $1.225 billion | $1.295 billion |
| Total tenant-based account | $14.7 billion | $15.6 billion | $15.6 billion |
| Voucher funding formula | Budget-based; determined by agency’s average leasing and voucher costs during May – July 2004. | Budget-based; determined by each agency’s share of renewal funding in FY 2005. | Budget-based; determined by agency’s average leasing and voucher costs during the most recent 12-month period. |
| Voucher funding adjustments available to state and local housing agencies | For first-time renewal of “tenant-protection” or HOPE VI vouchers. | (1) Up to $45 million for agencies harmed in 2005 because their average costs for FY 2004 were higher than during May – July 2004. (2) Same as FY 2005. | Same as House bill. |
| Renewal of Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers | Included in Section 811 account. | Included in Section 811 account. | Included in Tenant-based Rental Assistance account, with potential to deepen shortfalls. |
| CBPP Analysis of the Bills | |||
| Vouchers cut in 2005 and left unfunded in 2006 | 75,000 | 18,200 | 32,600 |
| Total vouchers funded (subtracting wasted vouchers) | 1,968,300 | 2,036,800 (2,025,100) | 2,022,400 (2,020,200) |
| Amount of funding wasted because formula would overfund some agencies | Likely some, but amount undetermined | $79 million | $15 million |
| Vouchers in use cut because formula would underfund some agencies* | 27,900 | 6,000 | |
| Agencies facing voucher cuts because of underfunding* | 1,013 agencies administering 47 percent of vouchers | 629 agencies administering 27 percent of vouchers | |
| Agencies facing significant cuts (at least 50 vouchers or 5 percent of vouchers in use)* | 387 agencies administering 29% of vouchers | 54 agencies administering 11% of vouchers | |
| Cost of full funding of bill’s formula | $13.92 billion | $14.56 billion | $14.25 billion |
| Funding proration required under the funding formula* | 4.08 percent | 2.13 percent | 0.22 percent |
| Agencies that would receive funding for more vouchers under the funding formula* | 833 agencies, administering 31 percent of vouchers | 1,148 agencies administering 53 percent of vouchers | |
| *For the purpose of making a fair comparison of the effects of the different voucher funding policies proposed in each bill, these figures assume that $14.19 in renewal funding is applied to each bill’s voucher funding formula. | |||