Since 1996, a federal demonstration project called Moving to Work has shown that if public housing agencies are permitted to merge funds from various programs and are exempted from most regulations, they can administer housing programs better.Public housing - New England ; Public housing ; Housing policy

Josh Meehan

Brandy Curtis

English

PubMed

L. DEMPFLE

Crossref

ÜBER DIE SCHÄTZUNG DER GENETISCHEN KOVARIANZKOMPONENTEN
L. DEMPFLE
Lehtstuhl f. Tierzucht der TU München,
D-8ogo Freising, Weihenstephan (W-Gevmany)
In der angewandten Tierzüchtung benötigt man zur Optimierung der Zuchtprogramme, zur
Konstruktion von Selektionsindices usw. möglichst genaue Schätzwerte für die genetischen Varian-
zen und Kovarianzen.
Die zuverlässige Schätzung dieser genetischen Parameter ist praktisch nur bei gro&szlig;em
Datenmaterial möglich und aus Kostengründen müssen sie fast immer aus Versuchen geschätzt
werden, die für andere Zwecke (genetischer Fortschritt) optimiert wurden. !inige der zur
Schätzung der genetischen Kovarianzkomponenten möglicher Methoden werden im Hinblick
auf ihre Anwendbarkeit und Effizienz diskutiert.
ANWENLUNGSMÖGLICHKELTEN DER ZWEISTUFENSELEKTION IN DER TIERZUCHT
S. KLEINSCHMIDT P. GLODEK
Institut f. Tierzücht und Haustiergenetik der Universität Göttingen,
D-3&cent;oo Göttingen, Albvecht-Thaev-Weg I (W-Germany)
Der Erfolg einer zweistufigen Selektion nach der Wurfgrö&szlig;e beim Schwein wird unter spe-
ziellen Annahmen berechnet, die sich weitgehend an den derzeitigen Verhältnissen der deuts-
chen Herdbuchzucht orientieren. Dabei ist eine zweistufige Selektion, die 35 p. 100 der anfangs
geprüften Sauen in einer zweiten Stufe prüft, einer einstufigen Selektion nach dem 2. Wurf über-
legen.
BREEDING PLANNING IN THE CONTEXT OF BUSINESS PLANNING
H. MOMM
Institut f. Tievhaltung und Tievziichtung,
Universitat Hohenheim, 7000 Stuttgart 70 (W-Germany)
Consistent breeding planning requires far-reaching measures of practical organisation.
Refering to business planning, which is guiding the breeding planning under all different condi-
tions of business, the following can be said:
I. Breeding planning is like all plannings in business organisations part of the management pro-
cess. Breeding planning has, therefore, to be seen in connexion with all other steps of the
management process, i.e. the objective development and the accomplishment of plan.
2. In organizing breeding planning its integration in the process or management has to be consi-
dered. The planning specialists and the managers, therefore, have to work together closely
and continuously in the respective planning organs.
3. Against the background of the criterions of business planning empirical mvestigations should
be aimed at for the organisation of breeding planning. Therewith models of organisation from
breeding practice could be constructed, which might be helpful in solving the problems.
CROSSBREEDING EFFECTS IN PRACTICAL PIG PRODUCTION
G. RAL
(Sweden)
A comparative investigation into the effects of crossbreeding between the two breeds Swe-
dish Landvace and S aeedish Yorkshire has been carried out on the basis of 33 686 litters registered
with the computerized sow litter recording scheme. The litters were farrowed during the period


ÜBER DIE SCHÄTZUNG DER GENETISCHEN KOVARIANZKOMPONENTEN

Research Papers in Economics

Cambridge Housing Authority Housing A
Authority of the City of New Haven M
Massachusetts Department of Housing an
and Keene Ho Housing Authority in New
Hampshire Cambridge Housing Authority
Housing Authoriity of the City of New
Haven Massachusetts  Department of
Housing Keene Housing Authority in
Authority in New HampsCambridge H
Winter  2007 24
Moving to Work
In 1996, the Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration
was born.1 It was based on a simple premise: If a lim-
ited number of public housing agencies (PHAs) were
permitted to merge funds from various programs (fun-
gibility) and were exempted from most regulations,
they might administer programs better, serve more
low-income households, and reduce costs. Ten years
later, many see MTW as the best hope for public 
housing’s survival. 
Congress designed Moving to Work as an experi-
ment to see if relaxing the regulatory requirements of the
1937 Housing Act would improve public housing agen-
cies’ delivery of services to the nation’s neediest. Twenty-
four PHAs are currently participating. MTW public
housing agencies include state, county, and city PHAs
by Josh Meehan and Brandy Curtis
Cambridge Housing Authority
The past six years have been difficult for public housing. The war on terror,
the national debt, and the ongoing trade deficit are putting pressure on the federal
government to rein in discretionary domestic spending.
Unfortunately, social programs bear the brunt. Affordable housing pro-
grams—particularly public housing’s operating and capital programs—are being
hit hard. Couple diminishing appropriations with a program based on costly,
restrictive regulations, and you have a recipe for failure.
Within this context, a small, decade-old experiment in housing policy is 
taking on increasing significance.
i
s
t
o
c
k
p
h
o
t
o
.
c
o
m
A New Approach to
PUBLIC
Housinging A
M
ng an
 New
hority
w
of
n
 H
& Banking Communities 25
varying in program size and services.
Thanks to MTW’s flexibility, they can
design and test new approaches for 
providing and administering housing
assistance. The goal is to reduce cost,
increase the choices for low-income fam-
ilies, and boost residents’ self-sufficiency.
New England Tests 
the Program
The four New England sites participat-
ing in the demonstration (Cambridge
Housing Authority, Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Com-
munity Development, Keene Housing
Authority in New Hampshire, and
Housing Authority of the City of New
Haven) apply their MTW options in a
number of ways. (See the exhibit
“Moving to Work Activity.”) The differ-
ences reflect each agency’s response to
local conditions—markets, housing
needs, political cultures, and philoso-
phies about housing assistance.
Moving to Work is allowing New
England public housing agencies to
innovate in four areas: merging U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) subsidies for
increased flexibility, changing rent rules
and subsidy formulas, designing
administrative reforms, and increasing
family self-sufficiency through social
welfare programs.
Fungibility
Using Moving to Work flexibility, some
agencies have merged their funding
streams. Non-MTW public housing
agencies have three separate streams—
operating subsidies for public housing,
modernization grants (Capital Funds),
and tenant-based assistance (housing
choice vouchers, or HCVs)—and each
has a requisite use. Merged assistance
enables PHAs to use funds from all three
sources for any type of housing assis-
tance or transition-to-work service. 
Photographs courtesy of the Cambridge Housing Authority
Moving to Work Activity
Cambridge Keene Mass. DHCD New Haven
Alternative rent-subsidy formula X X
Self-sufficiency program X X X
Administrative reforms X X X
Site-based waiting list  X X X
Time limits X X
Change to inspection rules X X
Fungibility X X X X
Grand opening of a 
building developed in 
conjunction with the 
Cambridge Housing 
Authority.26 Winter  2007
All four New England agencies take
advantage of this fungibility. Cambridge
Housing Authority is able to leverage its
reserves, save on energy, use operating
and voucher subsidies for financing
modernization projects at its public
housing development, and go after
acquisition and development opportu-
nities. As a result, Cambridge has added
437 units (some affordable, some 
market rate) to its housing stock.
Rules and Formulas
The rules and formulas that non-MTW
agencies use to calculate rent are com-
plex and often cause residents to hide
income. They require time-consuming
and tedious verification and reporting.
HUD’s rules also increase rents each
time a resident’s income increases,
which discourages residents from mov-
ing toward economic self-sufficiency.
Several Moving to Work sites have
experimented with alternatives to the
traditional percent-of-income approach
for calculating tenant rent. Rent struc-
tures and optional deductions can give
families incentives to work, decrease
intrusion into their lives, and lessen
administrative burdens. A wide range of
alternative approaches exist nationwide,
including some that completely detach
rent determination from incomes. In
New Hampshire, Keene Housing
Authority has implemented a stepped-
rent approach. Cambridge, too, has 
drastically simplified the process, listing
rents by income and bedroom size on a
simple one-page chart.
Under Keene’s program, tenants
pay an increasing share of rent over
time, regardless of whether household
income increases. A flat rent increases by
steps after one and three years. Rental
assistance is limited to five years, with a
two-year extension for exceptional cir-
cumstances. In lieu of a housing-choice
voucher (Section 8 voucher), partici-
pants receive a housing-assistance
coupon. Unlike a housing-choice
voucher, the coupon is a fixed subsidy
given directly to the tenant, rather than
the property owner. Property owners
who rent to coupon recipients may 
self-certify compliance with HUD’s
Housing Quality Standards.
The flexibility of the MTW program
has allowed Cambridge to implement
comprehensive rent simplification. Rent
simplification establishes an easy-to-
understand rent and deduction sched-
ule, creates biannual recertifications,
and eliminates policies requiring 
residents to report income increases
between recertifications. In its voucher
program, Cambridge Housing Author-
ity increased the amount of assets 
residents may possess, limited interim
recertifications, restricted zero-income
rents, and established new minimum rents.
Administrative Reforms
Under Moving to Work, many public
housing agencies are able to alter HUD
procedural and reporting requirements
that they consider inappropriate and
unresponsive to local housing markets.
Administrative changes are producing
small-scale improvements in efficiency,
Lincoln Way, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Public housing agencies argue vigorously
that Moving to Work enables them to
improve the quality of housing stock,
enhance services to residents, and increase
affordable housing opportunities.& Banking Communities 27
cost savings, and staff time, enabling
agencies to divert resources to other
objectives. For instance, the Housing
Authority of the City of New Haven is
focusing on improving and enhancing
all department services and operations
to transform its management services
into a cost-effective and coordinated
model promoting self-sufficiency. 
Self-Sufficiency
For MTW agencies, promoting work
and self-sufficiency is a central goal, and
many report that employment and
income levels have risen substantially
during the demonstration.
Massachusetts Department of
Housing and Community Develop-
ment’s Moving to Work initiative
redesigns a section of its housing-
choice-voucher account to help 180
families receiving public assistance make
the transition to work. Its program pro-
vides an annual stipend to participants,
divided into three targeted uses: an
automatic contribution to a monthly
escrow account, a budget for work-relat-
ed expenses, and a shallow rent subsidy.
(Shallow means a relatively small 
subsidy. Participants contribute more
than the typical 30 percent of income
toward rent because some subsidy dol-
lars are going toward the escrow account
and the work-related expenses.)
Keene requires that participants
join its self-sufficiency program,
Resident Self-Reliance, which provides
individualized case management, sup-
portive services, and workshops on 
setting goals and developing skills. 
Proponents & Opponents
Recent cuts to housing programs plus
HUD’s increasingly proscriptive over-
sight are generating calls for MTW
expansion. Many industry leaders
believe that tapping the program’s flexi-
bility offers the best hope for public
housing agencies. Federal legislators
seem to be listening. In 2006 two new
bills were introduced. A bipartisan 
bill in the House of Representatives 
(H. 5443) would increase the number of
MTW agencies to 40 and would make
the program permanent. The Senate’s
far more ambitious bill (S. 3508) pro-
poses making 250 agencies MTW agen-
cies, establishes an accreditation board,
and makes the program permanent.
As PHAs and industry groups
clamor for expansion, some advocacy
groups are worried that, to cut costs,
public housing agencies will circumvent
existing regulations requiring them to
serve established percentages of
extremely low-income households. Both
the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities and the National Low Income
Housing Coalition have advocated
against expanding the MTW program.
Public housing agencies argue vig-
orously that Moving to Work enables
them to improve the quality of housing
stock, enhance services to residents,
and increase affordable housing oppor-
tunities. Unfortunately, few studies
evaluate the outcomes of the HUD
demonstration.
Given increasing calls for expansion,
MTW agencies, supportive industry
groups, and low-income advocacy organ-
izations (including opponents) are calling
for further evaluation. In response, HUD
and MTW authorities have begun
designing outcome measurements. 
What the Future Holds
As the Moving to Work debate builds in
Congress and in the public arena, three
things are clear. First, MTW is widely
supported by those in the trenches of
the public housing industry, with exec-
utive directors anxious to have its regu-
latory relief and financial flexibility.
Second, opponents and proponents
alike seek more outcome measure-
ments. MTW agencies want to have
their accomplishments measured
against those of non-MTW agencies—
and even against their own pre-MTW
policies. Moving to Work opponents
want to see whether MTW agencies are
using their flexibility to shift services
and funds from those who need it most
to higher-income households.
Finally, what began as a small,
obscure experiment in 1996 has entered
the consciousness of public housing and
stands a chance of creating a new
vision—a dramatically altered business
model that could serve communities for
years to come.
Josh Meehan is the special assistant to 
the Executive Director for Public 
Relations and Policy of the Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Housing Authority, where
Brandy Curtis was a research assistant
until August 2006.
Endnote
1 See http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/
ph/mtw.
Moving to Work:
What began as a small, obscure experiment in 1996 
has entered the consciousness of public housing and
stands a chance of creating a new vision—a dramatically
altered business model that could serve communities 
for years to come.
uThis Communities & Banking article is copyrighted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. The views expressed are 
not necessarily those of  the Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Copies of articles may be downloaded without cost at
www.bos.frb.org/commdev/c&b/index.htm.