Under current law, people between the ages of 18 and 24 who were in foster care and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless may use Family Unification Program (FUP) vouchers to help pay for housing for up to 36 months. Once that housing assistance ends, the voucher is reissued to another eligible household or individual.
H.R. 4300 would make three major changes to vouchers that are first issued to qualifying adults after the date of enactment. The bill would:
Extend the assistance period for those vouchers for up to 60 months if the holder of the voucher meets requirements for education, job training, or work; is disabled; is caring for a child under the age of six or a disabled person; or is in a drug treatment program;
Require Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to terminate those vouchers used by those young adults once their initial period of assistance ends and not reissue them to another eligible household; and
Allow PHAs to receive a supplemental administrative fee if they waive their residency preference for a young adult who receives a voucher.
CBO expects that the changes in the bill would not apply to vouchers paid with funds from the 2019 appropriation (Public Law 116-6), in which the Congress appropriated $20 million for incremental FUP vouchers. Because CBO scores continuing resolutions on an annualized basis, CBO assumes that the bill’s provisions also would not apply to vouchers issued under P.L. 116-59, the current continuing resolution, which expires on November 21, 2019. Under current law, no appropriations are authorized for FUP vouchers after 2020, and the bill would not authorize such appropriations for new vouchers. Accordingly, CBO does not estimate any budgetary effects related to FUP vouchers over the 2021-2024 period.
However, if the Congress continues to provide funds for those vouchers despite the lack of an authorization, CBO expects that implementing the bill and terminating those vouchers after the initial period of assistance would reduce spending for FUP vouchers relative to what otherwise would be spent under such an appropriation. In the same manner, providing supplemental fees for PHAs that waive residency preferences would have insignificant costs.