By the early 1980s, the amount of budgetary appropriations for the Section 8 rent assistance program had continued to increase due to increased rental and construction costs, while the number of units produced in a year had continued to decline. At the same time, studies have shown that subsidizing the use of new or essentially renovated housing is more expensive than the cost of subsidizing existing housing units. Since contracts had been written for so long, each time they financed a new contract, the Anaigners had to provide large amounts of budgetary powers (see below to illustrate the impact of long-term contracts). As the budget deficit widened, members of Congress addressed the high costs associated with Section 8 of new building construction and major renovation, and these section 8 program sections were repealed in the City and Rural Rehabilitation Act 1983 (P.L. 98-181). The first section 8 program can be classified as a project-by-project rental assistance under Section 8. This program includes units created as part of the new building, major rehabilitation and moderate components of the rehabilitation of the old Section 8 program, which are still under contract with HUD. Although no new buildings, substantial remediation or remediation contracts have been concluded in recent years, approximately 1.3 million of these units are still funded by multi-year contracts that have not yet expired and do not require new credits or multi-year contracts that have expired and are renewed each year, requiring new funding. Although the existing MTW program has been described as a demonstration, it has not been implemented in such a way that it can be evaluated effectively. As a result, there is not enough information on the various reforms adopted by MTW agencies to assess their effectiveness.
There is, however, some information on how PHA is using the flexibility provided by MTW. The agencies participating in MTW used flexibility differently. Some have made minor changes to their existing Section 8 voucher programs and public housing programs, such as limiting reporting obligations. B; Others have implemented the full amount of funding between their public housing and coupon programs and have significantly changed their eligibility and rental policies. Some have implemented a policy of time limitation and work requirements similar to that of the Social Reform Act 1996. From 1937 to 1965, federal housing and subsidized mortgage insurance were the main forms of federal housing assistance. Problems with public housing and other public housing programs (such as Section 235 and Section 236 of the National Housing Act) – particularly their high costs – have led to increased interest in other forms of housing assistance. A new approach was adopted in 1965 (P.L. 89-117). The Section 23 program has helped family families living in rental housing by allowing the Public Housing Authority (PHA) 2 to rent existing housing on the private market and lease it to low-income families and low-income families3.