Mandatory small area fair market rents (SAFMRs) and opportunity moves: implementation strategies of public housing authority (PHA) administrators

Purpose – In 2016, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) promulgated the SAFMR rule to address the clustering of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) in segregated and economically distressed areas. The rule was designed to set HCV subsidies based on average rents at the ZIP code level. This change from setting subsidies based on metropolitan-wide rents was intended to increase subsidies in high rent areas, removing barriers to “opportunity moves.” The purpose of this paper is to add to the literature by examining the perceptions of public housing authorities (PHAs) administrators about their experiences implementing SAFMRs. Design/methodology/approach – In all, 24 metropolitan areas were mandated by HUD to implement the SAFMR rule. Data for this analysis came from semi-structured interviews with ten administrators in eight PHAs. The interviews took place during the fourth year of implementation under the SAFMR rule. The interviewees included a diverse group of administrators in terms of gender, race and the region where their PHAs were located. Findings – The results of this study suggest that opportunity moves are encumbered by underfunding of the HCV program, the limited supply of affordable rental housing in opportunity areas and insufficient resources for supportive programs. Additionally, dissonance between definitions of opportunity moves that informed the SAFMR policy framework and PHA administrators’ perceptions of local opportunity structures contributed to the paucity of opportunity moves. Research limitations/implications – This paper focuses on the perceptions of PHA administrators during the fourth year of implementing the HCV program under the SAFMR rule. This study relied on data from qualitative interviews with these individuals to understand the perspective of street-level bureaucrats. Qualitative data were not collected from elected officials, policymakers or HUD administrators. Secondary data and archival resources were used to understand these aspects of the SAFMR rule. Practical implications – This paper’s focus on the perspective of streel-level bureaucrats illuminates how ambiguities and omissions in the design of public policies produce inconsistencies in the policy implementation process. This focus also illuminates how street-level bureaucrats sometimes lack access to evidence-based data that policymakers used to design programs. In these situations, they reference field experiences and antidotal information to inform instead. A core contribution of this paper is a better understanding of the incongruence between evidence-based data, field experience and antidotal information effect policy implementation. Originality/value – This paper focuses on the perspective of PHA administrators who implement affordable housing policies. The analysis provides insights into the perceptions and policy implementation strategies of street-level bureaucrats. Although this paper focuses on the USA, it informs similar analysis in an international context.