The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from HUD to administer the voucher program, and housing subsidies are paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The voucher recipient remains responsible for paying any difference that exists between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Voucher recipients are responsible for finding a suitable housing unit where the owner agrees to rent under the program. Because housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are free to choose their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments provided that the chosen housing meets the requirements of the program, and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Qualified housing may also include the family's present residence. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, and if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home. Please note that to restrict access to tenant information HCV locations are identified in public records by the owner, and not the tenant. Public data pertaining to the locations of HCV program participants are only available as U.S. Census Tract aggregations. Moreover, to protect the confidentiality of those receiving Housing Choice Voucher Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this service. This dataset includes both tenant-based vouchers and project-based vouchers. HCV_PUBLIC_PCT are calculated using 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (DHC) table H4 Tenure Renter Occupied field. To learn more about the Housing Choice Voucher Program visit: https://www.hud.gov/helping-americans/housing-choice-vouchers, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_Housing Choice Vouchers by Tract Date of Coverage: Up to 7/2025Last Updated: 7/24/2025

🇺🇸 미국

This service provides spatial data and information for Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) recipients aggregated to 2020 U.S. Census Tract geography. The HCV Program assists very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from HUD to administer the voucher program, and housing subsidies are paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The voucher recipient remains responsible for paying any difference that exists between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Voucher recipients are responsible for finding a suitable housing unit where the owner agrees to rent under the program.

This dataset describes information related to the City of Mesa Housing Authority (MHA) which administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program assists low-income individuals or families living in Mesa with rental assistance according to their income. Information in this dataset is used to calculate the Utilization Rate (the percentage of vouchers that are leased up of the number of allocated vouchers from US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) to MHA) and the Voucher Budget Authority (the percentage of the allocated funding dollars for rent payments on behalf of current housing voucher participants).

This service denotes estimated PHA service area boundaries in an effort to provide critical data to those responsible (HUD staff, researchers, and external partners) for the evaluation and monitoring of HUD’s rental assistance programs. This is an experimental dataset that is designed to aid researchers in studying the HUD-funded Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. The methodology and the service areas themselves have not been validated by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) or the Public Housing Agencies. PD&R welcomes engagement from internal and external stakeholders on the continued refinement and development of this dataset.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Housing choice vouchers (HCV) are administered locally by public housing agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive federal funds from HUD to administer the voucher program. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit where the owner agrees to rent under the program. This unit may include the family's present residence. Rental units must meet minimum standards of health and safety, as determined by the PHA. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home.HCV locations are identified in public records by the owner and not the tenant so access to this information is restricted to help safeguard the location of HCV units. Due to the sensitive nature of the HCV locations, these are aggregated to the U.S. Census Bureau s census tract geography.

NCHS has linked 1999-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and 1999-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to administrative data through 2019 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) largest housing assistance programs: the Housing Choice Voucher program, public housing, and privately owned, subsidized multifamily housing. Linkage of NCHS survey participants with HUD administrative records provides the opportunity to examine relationships between housing and health.

Abstract (en): This study estimates the effects of means-tested housing programs on labor supply using data from a randomized housing voucher wait-list lottery in Chicago. Economic theory is ambiguous about the expected sign of any labor supply response. We find that among working-age, able-bodied adults, housing voucher use reduces labor force participation by around 4 percentage points (6 percent) and quarterly earnings by $329 (10 percent), and increases Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program participation by around 2 percentage points (15 percent). We find no evidence that the housing-specific mechanisms hypothesized to promote work, such as neighborhood quality or residential stability, are important empirically. (JEL I38, J22, R23, R38)

Housing Choice Vouchers by TractThis National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) dataset, shared as a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) feature layer, displays the census tracts of those areas with residents who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) in the United States. Per HUD, "The Housing Choice Voucher Program (also known as Section 8) helps low-income families, elderly persons, veterans and disabled individuals afford housing in the private market. Program participants can choose any eligible housing unit, including single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments, with rent partially covered by a subsidy paid directly to the landlord. There are around 2,000 Local Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) across the country that administer the HCV program with funding from HUD."Census Tract 800609Data currency: current federal service (HCV by Tract)NGDAID: 121 (Assisted Housing - Housing Choice Vouchers by Tract - National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA))OGC API Features Link: Not AvailableFor more information, please visit: HCV Applicant and Tenant Resources; Housing Choice Vouchers by TractSupport Documentation: Housing Choice Vouchers by TractFor feedback please contact: Esri_US_Federal_Data@esri.comNGDA Data SetThis data set is part of the NGDA Real Property Theme Community. Per the Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC), Real Property is defined as "the spatial representation (location) of real property entities, typically consisting of one or more of the following: unimproved land, a building, a structure, site improvements and the underlying land. Complex real property entities (that is "facilities") are used for a broad spectrum of functions or missions. This theme focuses on spatial representation of real property assets only and does not seek to describe special purpose functions of real property such as those found in the Cultural Resources, Transportation, or Utilities themes." For other NGDA Content: Esri Federal Datasets

This dataset and map service provides information on Fair Market Rents (FMRs). FMRs are primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program, initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a rent ceiling in the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) for rental assistance. HUD annually estimates FMRs for 530 metropolitan areas and 2,045 nonmetropolitan county FMR areas. By law the final FMRs for use in any Fiscal Year must be published and available for use at the start of that Fiscal Year, on October 1.

The dataset contains current data on low rent and Section 8 units in PHA's administered by HUD. The Section 8 Rental Voucher Program increases affordable housing choices for very low-income households by allowing families to choose privately owned rental housing. Through the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program, the administering housing authority issues a voucher to an income-qualified household, which then finds a unit to rent. If the unit meets the Section 8 quality standards, the PHA then pays the landlord the amount equal to the difference between 30 percent of the tenant's adjusted income (or 10 percent of the gross income or the portion of welfare assistance designated for housing) and the PHA-determined payment standard for the area. The rent must be reasonable compared with similar unassisted units.

Measures the ability of housing voucher holders to find housing in the private rental market. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is the federal government?s largest low-income housing assistance program where people can seek housing in the private market. The maximum housing assistance is generally the lesser of the payment standard minus 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income or the gross rent for the unit minus 30% of monthly adjusted income. Source: Picture of Subsidized Housing, HUD Years Available: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023

The data provided here denotes the authors’ revised service areas for a subset of 377 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) for which HUD previously estimated service areas. Using HUD administrative data on the location of Housing Choice Voucher holders, HUD’s estimated service areas were revised to better capture voucher activity. Specifically, the authors developed two different tests and correction procedures. The first assesses if the estimated service area omits a sizable share of voucher holder locations (so is “too small”), and if so, adjusts to include census designated places or counties containing at least 5 percent of a PHA’s voucher holders. The second test checks whether the estimated service boundary includes areas the PHA does not appear to serve and that are clearly served by another PHA (so is “too large”), in this case adjusting by removing those areas. 148 of the 377 PHA estimated service areas were found to be too small, too large, or both, and so have revised service areas that differ from HUD’s estimated service areas. The detailed methodology is provided below. Additionally, a spreadsheet is supplied that identifies geographies that were added to and dropped from HUD’s estimated services to create the revised service areas for affected PHAs.

This is an experimental dataset that is designed to aid researchers in studying the HCV program. The methodology and the service areas themselves have not been validated by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) or the Public Housing Agencies. For additional discussion of the approach, see Tauber et al. (2024); please contact the authors with any questions or comments.

Reference:Tauber, Kristen, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan. 2024. “Whom Do We Serve? Refining Public Housing Agency Service Areas.” Cityscape 26(1) (2024): 395-400.

Through its data linkage program, NCHS has been able to expand the analytic utility of the data collected from the 2014 and 2016 National Hospital Care Surveys (NHCS) by linking patient records with up to three years of administrative housing data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) largest housing assistance programs: the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, Public Housing (PH) , and privately owned, subsidized Multifamily housing (MF). These innovative linked data will support a wide array of patient outcomes studies, including the opportunity to study complex relationships between housing and health.

The data provided herein denotes the estimated service areas for all Public Housing Authorities (PHA) receiving assistance through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (excluding Guam, the Marshall Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) developed this dataset in response to repeated requests from HUD staff, researchers, and external partners. This is an experimental dataset that is designed to aid researchers in studying the HUD-funded Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. The methodology and the service areas themselves have not been validated by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) or the Public Housing Agencies. PD&R welcomes engagement from internal and external stakeholders on the continued refinement and development of this dataset. Please send any comments or questions to GISHelpDesk@hud.gov. Standards used to estimate PHA primary service areas are as follows: State-Level Public Housing Authorities:For the purposes of this dataset State-Level PHAs are identified through either their name, or their PHA Code also known as the Participant Code. Any PHA whose name contains the word “State”, or whose PHA Code begins with a ‘9’ (not including the two-character state code that begins the PHA code) is considered a State-Level PHA, and the service area therefore includes the entirety of that state. County-Level Public Housing Authorities:For the purposes of this dataset County-Level PHAs are identified as any PHA containing the word ‘County’ or ‘COUNTY’ in the organization’s formal name. The service area of a County-Level PHA includes the entire county after which the PHA is named, or the county which contains the majority of the units (combined low-rent and voucher) administered by the PHA. Moreover, a PHA that administers units located in jurisdictions outside the county for which the PHA is named, or the county which contains the majority of the units administered by the PHA, does not include those extraterritorial jurisdictions as part of its service area . Subsequently, the estimated service areas of housing authorities operating at a regional level, that is operating in multiple counties (contiguous or otherwise), are relegated to a single county. Local-Level Public Housing Authorities:For the purposes of this dataset Local-Level PHAs are identified as any PHA that does not fall into the category of State-Level or County-Level Public Housing Authority as described above. The service area for a Local-Level PHA is first defined as the primary Unit of General Local Government (UGLG) served by the PHA. The primary local government jurisdiction is defined as the UGLG that contains the largest share of total units (combined low-rent and voucher) administered by that PHA. However, in cases where greater than 20% of units administered by that PHA are located outside of the primary local government jurisdiction served by the PHA, the PHA’s service area is defined as the entirety of the county that the primary local government is located in.Please note, that the methods used to compile the estimated local PHA service areas illustrated in this dataset remain the same regardless of a state’s allowance for state-wide voucher portability.

The data provided herein denotes the estimated service areas for all Public Housing Authorities (PHA) receiving assistance through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (excluding Guam, the Marshall Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) developed this data set in response to repeated requests from HUD staff, researchers, and external partners. This is an experimental data set that is designed to aid researchers in studying the HUD-funded Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. The methodology and the service areas themselves have not been validated by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) or the Public Housing Agencies. PD&R welcomes engagement from internal and external stakeholders on the continued refinement and development of this data set. Please send any comments or questions to GISHelpDesk@hud.gov. Standards used to estimate PHA primary service areas are as follows: State-Level Public Housing Authorities:For the purposes of this dataset State-Level PHAs are identified through either their name, or their PHA Code also known as the Participant Code. Any PHA whose name contains the word “State”, or whose PHA Code begins with a ‘9’ (not including the two-character state code that begins the PHA code) is considered a State-Level PHA, and the service area therefore includes the entirety of that state. County-Level Public Housing Authorities:For the purposes of this dataset County-Level PHAs are identified as any PHA containing the word ‘County’ or ‘COUNTY’ in the organization’s formal name. The service area of a County-Level PHA includes the entire county after which the PHA is named, or the county which contains the majority of the units (combined low-rent and voucher) administered by the PHA. Moreover, a PHA that administers units located in jurisdictions outside the county for which the PHA is named, or the county which contains the majority of the units administered by the PHA, does not include those extraterritorial jurisdictions as part of its service area . Subsequently, the estimated service areas of housing authorities operating at a regional level, that is operating in multiple counties (contiguous or otherwise), are relegated to a single county. Local-Level Public Housing Authorities:For the purposes of this dataset Local-Level PHAs are identified as any PHA that does not fall into the category of State-Level or County-Level Public Housing Authority as described above. The service area for a Local-Level PHA is first defined as the primary Unit of General Local Government (UGLG) served by the PHA. The primary local government jurisdiction is defined as the UGLG that contains the largest share of total units (combined low-rent and voucher) administered by that PHA. However, in cases where greater than 20% of units administered by that PHA are located outside of the primary local government jurisdiction served by the PHA, the PHA’s service area is defined as the entirety of the county that the primary local government is located in.Please note, that the methods used to compile the estimated local PHA service areas illustrated in this dataset remain the same regardless of a state’s allowance for state-wide voucher portability.

Nearly 9 million Americans live in extreme-poverty neighborhoods, places that also tend to be racially segregated and dangerous. Yet, the effects on the well-being of residents of moving out of such communities into less distressed areas remain uncertain. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a randomized housing experiment administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that gave low-income families living in high-poverty areas in five cities the chance to move to lower-poverty areas. Families were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) The experimental group (also called the low-poverty voucher (LPV) group) received Section 8 rental assistance certificates or vouchers that they could use only in census tracts with 1990 poverty rates below 10 percent. The families received mobility counseling and help in leasing a new unit. One year after relocating, families could use their voucher to move again if they wished, without any special constraints on location. (2) The Section 8 group (also called the traditional voucher (TRV) group) received regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers that they could use anywhere; these families received no special mobility counseling. (3) The control group received no certificates or vouchers through MTO, but continued to be eligible for project-based housing assistance and whatever other social programs and services to which they would otherwise be entitled. Families were tracked from baseline (1994-98) through the long-term evaluation survey fielding period (2008-10) with the purpose of determining the effects of "neighborhood" on participating families. This data collection contains data from the 3,273 adult interviews completed as part of the MTO long-term evaluation and are comprised of adult variables that have been analyzed. Using data from the long-term evaluation, the associated article reports that moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood leads to long-term (10- to 15-year) improvements in adult physical and mental health and subjective well-being, despite not affecting economic self-sufficiency. The data contain all adult outcomes and mediators analyzed for the associated article as well as a variety of demographic and other baseline measures that were controlled for in the analysis.

May 29, 2014

Dear Colleague:

May is National Foster Care Month, a time for our Nation to reaffirm its commitment to America’s children. Last year, roughly 200,000 young people entered into foster care because of abuse and/or neglect. Inadequate housing was a factor in many of these cases. In fact, every year, inadequate housing contributes to the removal of 22,000 children from their families. This can have lasting consequences for young people.

Research shows that children facing housing instability, homelessness, and poverty are more likely to be involved in the child welfare system. When a family is living in distressed conditions or experiencing homelessness, it can affect their ability to care for their kids, and it can have a negative impact on the ability of kids to learn in school, maintain good health, and keep their hope for the future. With this in mind, it is critical that we do everything we can to provide them with the safe and stable housing they need to succeed.

To achieve this goal, it is critical that all of us—Federal agencies, public housing authorities, Continuums of Care, and local child welfare agencies—closely collaborate with each other. The needs of families are diverse. Some need intensive support and long-term access to appropriate services. Others simply need financial assistance to care for their children. In many cases, neither child welfare agencies nor programs aimed at preventing homelessness can meet all of these needs alone.

The programs authorized by title IV-B of the Social Security Act provide a limited pool of funds to prevent the removal of children from their homes or to help those in foster care reunite with their families. In general, states use title IV-B funds for short-term, crisis-driven interventions and services, which may include one-time assistance with housing, utilities, or other related housing costs. For many of these families, gaining access to reliable housing supports, such as provided through HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) or public housing programs, can provide the key to a stable future.

We know that families are more likely to remain housed if they have a targeted service paired with appropriate housing that meets their needs. Through close collaboration, child welfare agencies and public housing agencies can provide these paired services to keep families and youth in safe and appropriate housing. One example is HUD’s Family Unification Program (FUP).

A special purpose voucher program, FUP demonstrates how local partnerships can address housing needs for families using child welfare services and youth aging out of foster care. Similarly, public housing agencies and child welfare agencies can come together to establish a local preference for families referred by child welfare and couple this housing assistance with supportive services. Child welfare agencies can also collaborate with private multifamily housing owners that provide HUD-assisted rental assistance, or by partnering with state or local housing agencies to develop local affordable housing through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Together, child welfare agencies, housing agencies, and Continuums of Care can create an array of housing interventions to serve these children, youth, and families better.

Currently, The Children’s Bureau has two sets of grants aimed at providing more information about successful housing interventions for these vulnerable families. One develops strategies for homeless youth and the other targets homeless families. HUD and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families will continue working together to develop and disseminate information about promising practices and strategies for serving this population.

Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to End Homelessness recognizes the critical needs of youth and families by designating them as two prio

The John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood (the Chafee program) provides funding to support youth/ young adults in or formerly in foster care in their transition to adulthood. The program is funded through formula grants awarded to child welfare agencies in States (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and participating Tribes. The program is funded at $143 million a year. Chafee funds are used to assist youth/ young adults in a wide variety of areas designed to support a successful transition to adulthood. Activities and programs include, but are not limited to, help with education, employment, financial management, housing, emotional support and assured connections to caring adults. Specific services and supports are determined by the child welfare agency, vary by State, locality and agency, and are often based on the individual needs of the young person. Many State or local agencies contract with private organizations to deliver services to young people. Eligibility for the program, as outlined in federal law, includes: States and Tribes may have additional requirements for eligibility. State and Tribal agencies may elect to serve young adults up to age 23 only if the agencies also offers foster care to young people up to age 21. The following states have opted to provide Chafee services to young people up to age 23: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Chafee program has an additional appropriation of approximately $43 million annually for the Educational and Training Vouchers (ETV) Program. The ETV program provides financial resources to meet the post-secondary education and training needs of young adults who have experienced foster care after age 14. The program provides formula grants to States and participating Tribes to help young people pay for post-secondary educational and training. Under federal program requirements, agencies may award a voucher of up to $5,000 per year per young person to cover the unmet needs of the student’s cost of attendance at a post-secondary institution. The program can provide assistance to young people up to age 26, but an individual may receive a voucher for no more than a total of 5 years. States receiving Chafee funding are required to submit data to the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD). NYTD data are used to learn more about services provided to and outcomes experienced by youth transitioning out of foster care. For more information on NYTD, visit the Children's Bureau NYTD webpage. If you or someone you know may be eligible for Chafee services and/or the ETV program, please contact your local child welfare agency or state program manager. Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program, to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, to determine initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP) contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program (Mod Rehab), and to serve as a rent ceiling in the HOME rental assistance program. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually estimates FMRs for 530 metropolitan areas and 2,045 nonmetropolitan county FMR areas. By law the final FMRs for use in any fiscal year must be published and available for use at the start of that fiscal year, on October 1.