CMHA Housing Choice Voucher Landlord Outreach Assessment

A thesis submitted to

The Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Community Planning Of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning by

Joseph Jaroscak

Bachelor of Political Science and Spanish Butler University May 2009

Committee Chair: Dr. David P. Varady Committee Member: Dr. Shaun Bond

Submitted April 5, 2013

Abstract

The Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV) in the United States was designed to deconcentrate poverty, but has struggled to do so. One strategy currently utilized by housing authorities is to implement a series of outreach programs to engage a broad group of landlords throughout their jurisdictions. Much of the previous literature on the

HCV program focuses on its effectiveness in deconcentrating poverty, with little mention of landlords and their role. This thesis utilizes the work of three classic studies on landlords of low-income housing, with the addition of other sources which mention the importance of landlord programming and additional services for the HCV program to be successful in deconcentrating poverty.

Through a qualitative study of landlord outreach programming administered by

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA), this thesis seeks to understand the

CMHA‘s methods and gauge their effectiveness. Two methods were used to develop this understanding. The first method was through a series of structured no-participant observations of three types of signature landlord programs administered by CMHA. The second method was through semi-structured interviews with key informants including landlords, CMHA staff, and Housing Opportunities Made Equal Staff (HOME). These interviews were informed by the observation phase and developed an understanding of perceptions on the landlord programming as well as the relationships within and between these groups.

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. David Varady, for providing me with guidance and feedback throughout the research and writing process. It was an incredible honor to work with and learn from his wealth of knowledge. I would also like to thank Dr. Shaun Bond, my thesis committee member. His feedback and perspective were valuable in helping shape my thesis and in developing a clear concept. I would like to thank all of the informants who participated in the interview process and shared their insights and knowledge of the HCV program. Additionally, I would like to thank the

CMHA staff for cooperating and allowing me to access their events for observation.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their boundless support.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract...... i Acknowledgements ...... iii Chapter One ...... 1 CMHA HCV Landlord Outreach Assessment Thesis Problem Statement ...... 1 Nature of the Problem ...... 1 Research Questions ...... 2 Methods ...... 3 Observation Methodology ...... 4 Chapter Outline...... 7 Chapter Two ...... 8 The Predicament of Low-income Landlords: A Literature Review ...... 8 Early Research on Low-income Landlords ...... 8 More Recent Studies of Low-income Landlords ...... 11 HCV and the Role of Landlords ...... 12 Chapter Three ...... 15 The Key Players and the Study Area: An Overview ...... 15 Introduction ...... 15 Housing Choice Vouchers ...... 15 The Role of HUD in HCV ...... 17 Overview of CMHA ...... 18 Attracting the Landlords ...... 19 Chapter Four ...... 23 CMHA Landlord Outreach: Learning by Observing ...... 23 Introduction ...... 23 Connecting Landlords with Tenants...... 24 Recruiting and Informing Landlords ...... 29 Landlord Workshops ...... 44 Conclusion ...... 48 Chapter Five ...... 51 Landlord Outreach: CMHA Staff and Landlords Weigh In ...... 51 Introduction ...... 51 Landlord/CMHA Relationships ...... 51 Landlord Financial Burden and Risk ...... 57 Time, Paperwork, and Inconsistencies ...... 61 Resources for Landlords ...... 62 Value of CMHA Meetings ...... 65 Conclusion ...... 70 Chapter Six ...... 73 Conclusion: Moving Forward in Landlord Relations ...... 73 Research Questions ...... 73 Methods ...... 74 Conclusions ...... 74 References ...... 79

Chapter One CMHA HCV Landlord Outreach Assessment Thesis Problem Statement

Nature of the Problem

The Federal Government, through the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), has made significant changes in the way it funds and makes affordable housing available. As significantly less investment has gone to building public housing developments, the focus has shifted to creating opportunities for qualified candidates to seek housing in the private rental market through subsidies, starting with Section 8 and now through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program.

Housing Choice Vouchers have shifted the role of housing authorities throughout the nation and have changed the face of affordable housing.

An important argument in support of the HCV program is that it will have a significant impact in helping to disperse the heavy concentrations of poverty created via previous affordable housing efforts (especially public housing). However, there is a large amount of research which indicates that voucher recipients often cluster in low- rent communities (Varady, Wang, Wang, & Duhaney 2010, Varady, Wang, Murphy, &

Stahlke, 2012). Furthermore, the high concentration of Housing Choice Voucher recipients can lead to severely negative impacts, which may hinder the success and expansion of these programs throughout a region.

As part of the HCV program, HUD has mandated that housing authorities implement landlord outreach programming (The Quality Housing and Work

Responsibility Act of 1998, HUD), in which landlords are recruited and educated about the benefits of accepting HCV participants. This is done through orientation meetings, information sessions on maximizing the program, fairs which allow landlords to meet 1

potential tenants, and web resources. Although these programs and resources are mandated by the Federal Government, there has been little research evaluating the effectiveness of this outreach. This thesis project aims to reduce this gap.

Through observation and interviews regarding the efforts of the Cincinnati

Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA), this project seeks to improve understanding of whether and how the HCV and landlord outreach programming have helped landlords in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area. With a better understanding of the perspective of landlords on this programming, and the other issues which they face in operating in the low-income market, we may help to identify what outreach strategies work, and how the

HCV program may be made more effective in which case it would be possible to expand the program to more communities thereby creating more affordable housing options and opportunities.

My analysis of HCV outreach will be placed in the context of three landmark studies from the 1970s (The Tenement Landlord by George Sternlieb, Urban Housing

Policy by William Grigsby and Louis Rosenburg, and Housing Investment in the Inner

City: Dynamics of Decline by Michael Stegman). Since the 1970s little research has been done on the landlord side of affordable housing. I hope to reduce the size of this gap.

Research Questions

I attempted to examine the effectiveness of landlord outreach efforts from the point of view of CMHA, landlords, fair housing advocates, and others involved in the process.

• How effective is CMHA‘s landlord outreach programming? How well are its outreach

events attended? Has CMHA been able to increase the pool of landlords? Which

types of landlords attend and which ones do not?

• To what extent have landlords changed their perceptions of HCV as a result of the

meetings? Do landlords feel that ―they are on the same page‖ as CMHA with regard to

such issues as tenant selection and eviction?

• What are CMHA officials‘ expectations regarding the program and to what extent have

these expectations been achieved? What problems have they experienced in carrying

out the program and how have they dealt with them?

Methods

In carrying out the literature review, I systematically searched the topic areas related to low-income housing landlords. The sources used in the literature review were found in a search of databases such as the HUD User Portal, Taylor and Francis, World

Cat, and Google Scholar. The search terms used were; Landlord, Landlord Outreach,

HCV Landlord Outreach, Social Housing Landlords, and Social Housing Landlord outreach.

To carry out the study I used a mixed methods approach. First, I attended public meetings between September and December 2012 and conducted structured observation at these meetings focusing on landlord attendance, landlord participation,

CMHA and landlord interactions and structure and effectiveness of the events. Second,

I carried out semi-structured informant interviews with landlords and housing officials aimed at the following issues: reasons for participating (or for not participating), perceived strengths and weaknesses of the sessions, perceived impacts of the sessions

landlords‘ behavior, and suggestions for improving the program. I employed a snowball interview methodology. That is I asked CMHA and other officials for the names of landlord-participants to interview and used those interviews to identify other landlords to contact. I obtained University of Cincinnati Internal Review Board (IRB approval) for the interview process.

The Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) fully cooperated in this research endeavor. In addition I reached out to individuals from several other local organizations i.e. Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME), the Real Estate

Investors Association (REIA), and the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky

Apartment Association.

Observation Methodology

As part of my research I observed three specific types of meetings associated with the HCV Landlord outreach program, landlord orientations, continuing education workshops, and Super Saturdays. The landlord orientation is a program run by

CMHA, aimed at welcoming landlords into the HCV program and at educating them on the process of getting a unit approved for a voucher holder tenant. This orientation also covers the roles and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in the program. Landlords are required to participate in the landlord orientation and may do so by attending a session held weekly at one of the CMHA offices, or by watching a series of videos online. The continuing education workshops are designed to provide free training and education for landlords. At these periodically held workshop sessions experts on different landlord or property management issues train and educate landlords. The sessions provide adequate time for the experts to respond to the landlords‘ questions.

Finally, the Super Saturday event is a housing fair held once a month at the CMHA office at 1635 Western Avenue in the West End of Cincinnati. This housing fair connects landlords with voucher holders to begin the tenancy process. I will now discuss the methodology I followed for observing the different types of events.

Landlord Orientation

The Landlord orientation is designed to inform landlords about the HCV program and what is required in order to take part in the program.

The following questions helped to structure my observations:

· Who is the presenter and what is his/her position at CMHA or in their

organization?

· How well is the event attended?

· What is the key message offered by CMHA staff?

· How does the message differ from the online version?

· What is the interaction like?

· What types of questions are asked?

I did not take part in the sessions, but instead focused on taking notes. I used the sessions to identify questions for the informant interviews. I was particularly interested in attendance, what information was covered, how the landlords responded, how the

CMHA staff and landlords interacted, and the types of questions asked by attendees

Landlord Education

The landlord education events are free workshops intended to continue the flow of information to landlords and to provide them with resources that will help them to comply with standards.

The following questions helped to structure my observations:

· How well was the event attended?

· What were the key messages conveyed to landlords?

· What was the interaction like?

· What types of questions were asked and how did CMHA staff answer them?

I took notes on the contents of the workshops and the ―general tone‖ of the sessions.

Super Saturdays

The Super Saturday event was intended to provide a central location for landlords and potential tenants to meet and establish relationships.

The following questions helped to structure my observations:

· How well was the event attended?

· How well was the event organized?

· How were landlords treated by CMHA staff? (For example, were CMHA staff

respectful?)

· What questions were raised that could be answered via the informant interviews?

As was the case with the other two types of events my strategy was to observe and take notes but not to participate in the discussions.

Chapter Outline

This chapter (Chapter one) has described the nature of the problem and has explained the research methods utilized. Chapter two, a literature review, highlights the complexity and challenges facing low-income landlords. The chapter covers ―classic‖ studies from the 1970s as well more recent research focusing specifically on the

Housing Choice Voucher program. Chapter three describes landlord outreach efforts, i.e. HUD requirements, CMHA programming, as well as the various types of partnerships that exist. Chapter four (which along with chapter five is the core of this thesis) presents the main findings arising from my direct observation and describes how this informed the informant interview phase. Chapter five highlights the key findings from my informant interviews, that is, how well CMHA‘s efforts are succeeding in attracting, educating, and retaining HCV landlords. Chapter six (Conclusion) answers the research questions that I have raised in this chapter, formulates recommendations for public housing outreach efforts and makes recommendations for future research on this subject.

Chapter Two The Predicament of Low-income Landlords: A Literature Review

Early Research on Low-income Landlords

Three ―classic‖ studies from the 1970s have provided us with insights concerning the challenges facing low-income rental housing landlords. George Sternlieb and colleagues (1966) study of the factors that lead to urban decline and abandonment by landlords of rental properties in the urban core, and highlights multiple factors that influence the landlord‘s actions. This classic study provides a framework for understanding obstacles faced by landlords in urban areas, and helps to describe different types of landlords.

Sternlieb‘s study was written at a time closely linked to urban renewal and slum clearing. About the effectiveness of such aesthetic approaches to city improvement he states, ―The basic problems of slum housing are still with us. They are, however, seen more and more as part of the overall context of a broader problem." (1966, p. 1) He attempts to identify and understand some of the underlying issues which impact housing in impoverished communities. He also explores the factors that influence landlords‘ ability to provide adequate housing.

Sternlieb‘s study took place in Newark, New Jersey, and although the study was performed in the 1960s many of his insights are relevant today, ―It is within this context of rapid population shift, of an aged city whose core is composed largely of inadequate housing, of a city that partakes of the fiscal and human problems which are nearly universal among American municipalities, that Newark‘s efforts at renewal and rehabilitation have taken place." (1966, p. 38)

Sternlieb describes the types of landlords who own rental housing in inner city slums. He challenges the general perceptions of these landlords, ―The much-publicized popular concept of the ‗slumlord‘ relies on the supposition that there are a small number of individuals who own the bulk of slum tenements.‖ (1966, p. 121) In reality, different types of landlords own and operate this housing. Sternlieb illustrates the diversity of landlords in terms of the size of their operation, their geographic area of ownership, and level of involvement with their properties (122-140). The results contest the idea that all landlords of low-income housing fit into the same mold.

Sternlieb draws a distinction between the owners of numerous parcels on the one hand and the ―single-parcel‖ owner on the other (1966, 142-151). The latter typically is someone who lives in the same building that he/she rents. These small operators have different attitudes and behavior from multi-property landlords. Clearly, an understanding of the diversity of the landlord population is critical to identifying strategies for developing effective affordable rental housing programs.

The issues faced by landlords of low-income housing were further studied as part of Michael Stegman‘s 1972 evaluation of Baltimore poverty‘s poverty program during the late 1960s. Stegman expands on the issues faced by landlords who lease to low income tenants. His work builds upon the ideas presented by Sternlieb, suggesting that the failure of inner city housing has come out of weak policies and an inability and unwillingness of policy makers to understand the needs and experiences of landlords in these communities (Stegman, 1972, p. 3). Not only are the needs and interests of landlords misunderstood says Stegman, policymakers should seek the advice of landlords in developing and implementing low-income housing policies.

Stegman discusses the factors that lead to decay of a community, further illustrating the challenges that landlords face in trying to maintain quality housing. Of the decline of communities, he states, ―Regardless of some differences in the finer points of the respective theories, a strong consensus exists among housing experts that neighborhood decline is associated with change in occupancy from one socioeconomic group to another‖ (1972, p. 55). This is not to suggest that the landlord has no control over issues which may influence this shift, however, it does speak to a larger societal force impacted by a variety of externalities.

Furthermore, Stegman points to a number of factors such as vandalism which hinder the financial ability of landlords to stay on top of these shifts (1972, p. 55-92).

Because financial resources have historically been leaving the inner city, this makes it difficult if not impossible to counter neighborhood decline. Put somewhat differently, the decline of low-income housing stock cannot simply be ascribed to greedy landlords, but rather to the existence of some uncivil tenants and a broad range of social and economic factors.

Stegman explores the nature of relationships between low-income landlords and tenants. He states, ―An oft-repeated sub-theme throughout this book will be the assertion that, reasonably high incidences of housing difficulties notwithstanding, there does not seem to be excessive dissatisfaction with housing among low-income consumers in the inner city‖ (1972, p. 151). This may be due to the fact that low- income renters become accustomed to what is readily available to them.

Throughout his book, Stegman effectively describes the struggle experienced by landlords in trying to provide quality housing while not excusing them from the responsibility for some of the problems.

The Baltimore Poverty Study also yielded a second important classic work on low-income housing landlords in the inner city. William Grigsby and Louis Rosenburg low-income housing is somewhat more concentrated than Sternlieb had found true in

Newark (Grigsby & Rosenburg, 1975).

Grigsby and Rosenburg highlight the complexity of the landlord experience, which results from the wide range of landlord types and the policy challenges posed by this diversity. ―Although these categories are, to some extent arbitrary, they do help to distinguish salient characteristics that are associated with size of holdings. For example, casual investors are, almost without exception, amateurs who are difficult to reach through any potential program.‖ (Grigsby & Rosenburg, 1975, p.161) This statement highlights the varied levels of sophistication among low-income housing landlords implies that policymakers need to respond to the different types of landlords differently.

More Recent Studies of Low-income Landlords

Neil S. Mayer (1984) also sees the need to provide incentives to landlords to improve their private rental properties. He disputes the notion that nonresident landlords are less likely to make significant repairs to their property. According to Mayer, landlord dedication depends on their involvement with the property.

Kathy Arthurson focuses on the impact of neighborhood stigma and poverty concentration in Australian rental housing. She states: ―Australian debates, in part, cite

lack of ‗social mix,‘ whereby social housing neighborhoods consist of large concentrations of homogenous housing and tenants experience high levels of disadvantage, as a significant part of the problem in contributing to the negative reputations.‖ (Arthurson, 2012) She elaborates on the psychological effects of such concentration especially social stigma. To expand the pool of landlords to include those outside the inner city would reduce stigma associated with low-income rental housing

(including social housing).

HCV and the Role of Landlords

Since about 1980 HUD has shifted its focus from subsidies to landlords to subsidies to tenants. The current program is called Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV).

There has been quite a bit of scholarship on who participates in the program, and how participants benefit, including whether they are able to move into ―better,‖ lower poverty neighborhoods. Research has been performed to understand the HCV, in terms of how vouchers are used by tenants and whether it is an effective means for dispersing poverty (Varady, Wang, Wang & Duhaney. 2010; Varady, Wang, Murphy & Stahlke,

2011).

Despite the growing number of reports, articles, and books on housing vouchers, relatively little attention has been given to the perspective of landlords involved in the program. Negative perceptions of the HCV program are likely to deter some landlords from participating; some landlords may believe that implementation of the will have negative impacts on destination neighborhoods (Marr, 2005). Matthew D. Marr suggests that this stigma impacts voucher holders and landlords alike, and must be addressed by housing authority officials (2005, p. 96-108). This type of stigma must be

understood and addressed holistically in order for housing authorities to involve more landlords from low-poverty areas.

As the strategies for addressing urban poverty begin to look increasingly at HCV to provide low-income tenants with the mobility and options to move to different communities, there must be a greater focus on how to attract and retain a variety of landlords with properties throughout a metropolitan area. Unless there is a wide enough base of landlords participating, then the program will not be able to function as intended.

Research on two housing voucher demonstrations - Gautreaux and Moving to

Opportunity (MTO)—provides important insights into the need for landlord outreach and how it might take place. These were two separate efforts in American cities aimed at increasing the choice of voucher holders and through greater choice use the voucher program as a mechanism to promote socio-economic mobility.1

Kleinhans and Varady (2011, see also Varady and Kleinhans, forthcoming) speak to the importance of engaging landlords, outreach to landlords implies program official‘s willingness to address landlord concerns, e.g. what types of screening and eviction policies are permitted. ―Taking these concerns seriously is a sine qua non for landlords‘ willingness to rent their units to voucher holders‖ (2012, p.5) This statement suggests the need for cooperation and partnership between housing authorities and landlords in order to ensure a program that is mutually beneficial and therefore viable.

Such partnership and communication empowers participants with the knowledge and resources to ensure safe and high-quality housing opportunities (2012, p. 31).

1 For more detailed information on the history and purpose behind Gautreax and MTO, see Alex Schwartz’s text, Housing Policy in The United States Second Edition (2010). 13

Other voucher studies touch upon the role of landlords. Kathy Edin and colleagues (2012) see low-quality landlords as a problem for the program. On the other hand, Turner notes the need for housing authorities to reach out to landlords, especially those who previously have not participated in the HCV program. "In my view, MTO argues for next steps that include encouraging rental property owners in safe, well- resourced communities to participate in the voucher program, and informing voucher recipients about the full range of locational options available.‖ (Turner, 2012) Better- educated landlords could reduce the stigma associated with the program.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to review both classic 1970s studies on the and more recent HCV research to understand the challenges facing low income rental landlords and how public housing outreach efforts might be carried out. This review has shown the importance of understanding landlords and the variety of their experiences. It is also apparent from the literature that the inability of the HCV program to disperse poverty points to a larger set of issues that must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Among these issues is the attraction and retention of a broad pool of landlords with units in low poverty communities. The ability of a housing authority to attract quality landlords in a wide range of communities is key to the future success of the HCV program. Through a case study of the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority‘s HCV program I hope to improve understanding of how ―quality‖ landlords can be attracted and retained, particularly ones with properties in low poverty areas.

Chapter Three The Key Players and the Study Area: An Overview

Introduction This chapter is provides a general understanding of the Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV) both as it exists federally and as administered by the Cincinnati

Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA). The first section of the chapter will provide a background understanding of the HCV program and its history. Next, there will be a discussion of the role of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) in the administration of HCV. Following this will be an overview of CMHA as a housing authority and in its role as administrator of the HCV program in Hamilton

County, Ohio. Following this, I will provide a discussion on CMHA‘s efforts to attract, educate, and retain landlords within the program. The final section of this chapter will discuss the implications that the sequestration may have on the HCV program both federally and locally.

Housing Choice Vouchers

The Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV) is a federal housing program overseen by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides qualified individuals with vouchers that help them to pay a market rent for an apartment or rental home. About the HCV program, David P. Varady and Carol C.Walker state,

―When the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) introduced housing vouchers in the early 1980s, they were part of a broader HUD strategy to deconcentrate poverty and reduce isolation of low-income families (2007, P.5).‖ It is important to note from this statement that the HCV program has been in existence since 15

the 1980‘s, and that it was adopted as one part of a multi-faceted plan to address the issue of poverty concentration in the United States. This helps to explain the time-frame under which the HCV program has been implemented and the context under which it exists. Varady and Walker continue to discuss the issue of concentrated poverty and the approach that the United States government has taken to address it throughout history.

To better understand the HCV program as a poverty deconcentration strategy, one must understand how it developed over time. Federal affordable housing from the

1930‘s into the 1960‘s relied on the use of project based housing (Varady & Walker

2007, p. 7). Varady and Walker noted that this strategy for public housing and for subsidized private housing developments led to the clustering of poverty in urban communities and communities in undergoing change and in turn that this clustering often has led to a decreased quality of life in the destination communities.

As concentration increased into the 1960‘s public housing conditions continued to decline. ―Unemployment, high crime rates, delinquency, troubled schools, drug abuse, and dysfunctional families characterized public housing communities. Residents of surrounding areas viewed these conditions with alarm and feared a widening contagion.‖ (Varady & Walker 2007, p. 7) Residents of surrounding communities feared that public housing problems would spread to their communities. Out of this fear, came a sense of urgency to address low-income housing problems through alternative means. A growing number of housing experts believed at the time that housing vouchers would be a superior approach, as compared to public housing, for dealing with affordability problems and for deconcentrating poverty.

This movement led to a number of policy changes in the 1970‘s. The first major program was the Experimental Housing Allowance Program (EHAP) (2007, p. 8).

Varady and Walker state that the EHAP program provided individuals with the opportunity to seek housing with greater opportunity for choice than was previously the case. The Experiment showed how a broader tenant based housing program would work on a larger scale. They state that this led to the legislation for the section 8 program in 1974, through which participants found and rented privately owned housing within the jurisdiction of the housing authority providing the assistance. The Section 8 program was further altered in the 1980‘s to address the issue of poverty deconcentration and to widen the housing choices of low income tenants, through the implementation of a voucher program, allowing voucher holders could rent from any willing landlord whose unit qualified under certain standards. The voucher and Section

8 certificate programs were combined by 1999 to create one comprehensive program allowing for increased tenant choice.

The Role of HUD in HCV

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees a number of federal affordable housing programs, including the HCV program. HUD sets requirements around the HCV program, but it is the responsibility of individual public housing authorities to implement and administer the program. HUD provides funding for the HCV program, in addition to mandating policies aimed at maximizing the program‘s effectiveness. Among the mandated policies imposed by HUD is the requirement of engaging potential and current landlords in a series of programs designed to enhance their education and provide support (The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act

of 1998, HUD, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], 2001). The ultimate goal of these requirements is to diversify the pool of available landlords in the

HCV program to include housing options in low-poverty communities.

Overview of CMHA

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) is the housing authority responsible for administering and implementing HUD programs in Hamilton County,

Ohio. CMHA was created in 1933 out of the Ohio Housing Authority Law (Cincinnati

Metropolitan Housing Authority [CMHA], 2013). A key element to CMHA‘s support of affordable housing in the Cincinnati area is the HCV program. There are roughly 11,600 families with vouchers in Hamilton County (CMHA, 2013). The HCV program allows individuals and families with a voucher to access market rate housing in an affordable way. The voucher holder pays 30% of their income and the voucher covers the difference, in some cases such as unemployment the voucher makes up all or part of the individual‘s rental cost. This program expands housing choice and it creates a market opportunity for landlords. It is also intended to mitigate the negative effects of poverty concentration by creating affordable housing opportunities in low-poverty area.

However, the success of the HCV program in achieving this dispersion of poverty has been called into question (see below).

Existing research suggests that CMHA‘s HCV program has achieved limited success in deconcentrating poverty in Hamilton County (Varady, Wang, Wang &

Duhaney., 2010, Varady, Wang, Murphy & Stahlke, 2012). These results point to the need for more effective landlord outreach efforts.

The 2010 and 2012 studies used Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques to examine the degree to which HCV holders are clustered. ―In general, the implementation of the HCV program in Hamilton County has not led to poverty and racial deconcentration. However, the fact that a disproportionately large number of emerging hot spots are in predominantly White, middle-income areas may be good news.‖ (2010, p. 58) While the HCV program may not be an overwhelming success vis a vis poverty deconcentration it may be moving in the right direction.

This struggle to deconcentrate poverty highlights the need for additional interventions to improve the effectiveness of the program. The HCV program‘s inability to address the clustering of poverty suggests the need to reassess the strategy and the need to rework the program especially with respect to landlord outreach. This thesis builds upon Varady et al.‘s 2010 and 2012 studies by focusing on the landlord outreach component of the program. I hope to show what can be done to attract and retain

―good‖ landlords in low poverty areas.

Attracting the Landlords

CMHA‘s current approach was developed to retain a broad pool of landlords from a variety of geographic locations. HUD, through the Quality Housing and Work

Responsibility Act, passed down these requirements and shares, in their Housing Choi suggestions for engaging landlords in low-poverty communities, in the Housing Choice

Voucher Program Guidebook and educated them on the program in order to develop strong lasting partnerships (HUD, 1998 HUD, 2001).

It should be noted that HUD requirements for landlord outreach, provide a baseline of what must be achieved, but this level can be exceeded. However different

housing authorities manage landlord outreach differently. This variety limits the possibility for researchers to directly compare outreach efforts across housing authorities. However, ―best practice‖ case studies can be of considerable value.

CMHA meets HUD guidelines through a series of programs including landlord orientations, Super Saturday housing fairs, and continuing education workshops. As defined in Chapter One, landlord orientations involve the mandatory introduction of landlords into the HCV program. Landlords watch a video detailing the process of getting a unit approved as well as the tenants‘ and landlords‘ roles, rights, and responsibilities. The orientation can be viewed online or in person at a CMHA office during a weekly scheduled orientation session. The Super Saturday event is a housing fair held once a month at the CMHA office on 1635 Western Avenue in the West End of

Cincinnati. At the Super Saturday event, landlords and voucher holders connect and begin discussions around renting a unit. Continuing education workshops are held periodically by CMHA to provide free training for landlords on a wide range of topics pertinent to managing a HCV rental property. In the continuing education workshops,

CMHA invites an expert on a specific topic to train and answer landlord questions about the issue at hand.

These events are important to the landlord as they equip landlords of all levels of sophistication with information and opportunities to connect with voucher holders. This thesis seeks to evaluate CMHA‘s landlord engagement programming by examining the perceptions held by landlords and affordable housing officials. Through an analysis of observations of CMHA‘s three main landlord engagement programs and in conjunction with a series of interviews with CMHA officials, landlords, and other affordable housing

professionals, I will highlight CMHA‘s successes and failures in and will use these results to highlight the ways in which CMHA outreach might be improved.

HCV and Sequestration

Because HCV program is funded by HUD, a federal agency it will be affected by the cuts that will occur through ―sequestration,‖ or the automatic budget cuts of $85 billion that went into effect on March 1, 2013 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

2013). Douglas Rice of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that these cuts have serious consequences for many of the housing programs administered by

HUD. Of the HCV program he says, ―Nationwide, more that 100,000 families could lose the Housing Choice Voucher assistance they need to rent decent housing at an affordable cost, placing many at risk of homelessness. About half of these households are elderly or have disabilities, and most of the rest include children...‖ (Rice, 2013)

Landlords involved in this program will likely experience negative effects, they will likely find it more and more difficult to maintain their properties and collect rents. Although it is too early to know exactly how this situation will play out, it will be important housing experts like Douglas Rice to monitor the ability of housing authorities and landlords to continue providing quality housing options in the face of such cutbacks.

Conclusion

The U.S. government‘s approach to low-income housing policy has evolved from a system which led to clustering of poverty and substandard housing conditions, to one

(vouchers) which has at least tried to attain enhanced choice and o deconcentrate poverty. Existing research on CMHA‘s HCV program shows that it has achieved modest success in deconcentrating poverty; any future improvements will require

attracting a larger pool of ―good landlords‖ in ―good neighborhoods.‖ To achieve this goal CMHA officials (and their colleagues elsewhere around the United States) need to understand what program features will help in attracting responsive landlords in low- poverty neighborhoods. The next two chapters seek to improve understanding of how well landlord outreach is being carried out at present.

Chapter Four CMHA Landlord Outreach: Learning by Observing

Introduction

CMHA has three main types of programs that are geared toward attracting and retaining landlords. The first, the Super Saturday event, is set up as a fair to link voucher holders with landlords that have available units. This event attempts to create a partnership between landlords, tenants, and the housing authority. The second type, the landlord orientation, is held once a week and is designed as a requirement for involvement with the HCV program. Although HUD and CMHA mandate attendance at the orientation, it is very informal and is available online, so individuals do not have to attend the orientation in person. CMHA hosts a third type of outreach, workshops intended to provide continuing education to landlords and to update them on changes in the HCV program as well as changes in landlord law. The most recent workshop covered fair housing.2

The remainder of this chapter presents my observations of a series of CMHA outreach events between September 2012 and March 2013. My role was that of a ―non- participant observer.‖ I made a conscious decision not to be involved in the activities I was observing because I believed that if I did so I would affect the program I was studying. My aims were to gain insight into the types of information conveyed to landlords, the way landlords and CMHA staff interacted, and the level of participation of

2 CMHA also host an event called Manager‘s night in, in which both landlords and tenants can come to the CMHA office on 1635 Western Avenue, in the West End, to speak one on one with a manager of the program about any concerns. Late in the course of my research, CMHA added an event called a Cookie and a Chat in which landlords are invited to the same West End location once a month to ask questions or address concerns in a roundtable format with CMHA staff present and light refreshments. These events are not covered in this study. 23

landlords. I also anticipated that these meetings would raise questions that I could explore further in my informant interviews.

Connecting Landlords with Tenants

1. Super Saturday #1: 9/22/2012. The Super Saturday event is designed as an open house in which landlords and voucher holders are given the opportunity to meet with one another and find potential housing matches within the program. The event, held on Saturday, September 22, 2012 was scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. and run until

12 p.m. I arrived to the meeting at 9:45 and was greeted by a manager from CMHA.

She welcomed me, gave a quick briefing, and introduced me to the two representatives from Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME), Cincinnati‘s fair housing organization.

When I arrived, some of the landlords had already taken seats at tables and were waiting for the event to begin. The voucher holders were allowed to enter the room at

9:50 AM and immediately began to interact with the representatives from HOME as well as landlords and property owners.

The room was set up with numerous tables which landlords decorated in their own ways and displayed their information as appropriate. There was no formal structure or layout for the room; some tables were tightly packed together near the middle of the room as they might be for a luncheon, and others were set up to the outer edges of the room. Next to one of the landlord booths, CMHA set up a station for children with crayons and coloring sheets.

The informal style of the event and the fact that tables were not organized in a manner that allowed for easy maneuvering from one table to another, may have caused confusion and impacted the interactions. The layout of the tables added to confusion

because some of the landlords who arrived late did not know where to set up their booth.

At the event, HOME acted as a liaison between prospective tenants and potential landlords. HOME Staff made prospective tenants aware of available apartments in the communities of their interest and directed them to a landlord serving that community. In order to effectively match tenants with landlords in their desired communities, HOME had a binder that divided the Cincinnati area into its different constituent communities.

This binder contains all of the available property information that landlords provided. It should be noted that HOME did not have a computer on hand to input any information or present the catalogue. The binder was categorized by community, listing the available units in each neighborhood or area. The HOME staff would ask each individual where they were hoping to move, and then would refer to the binder to see what was available. It did not appear that additional information about the community was listed within the binder. The program, however, does seek to connect landlords with a positive track record to tenants who have been pre-screened.

It appeared to me that HOME was working closely with both the tenants and the landlords. As voucher holders arrived, they stopped at the HOME table and filled out what is called an intake sheet. This sheet requested a variety of information about the voucher holder. The HOME officials noted where the voucher holder hoped to move on the back of the sheet. Once the attendee filled out the sheet and the HOME representative showed the voucher holder some potential properties from the binder, the HOME official notified the voucher holder that they would run a check of the individual‘s criminal record.

One prospective tenant anticipated the background check and provided HOME with one that had already been prepared. The representatives from HOME said that they were impressed at how prepared he was; he replied that he really wanted to move to a new home. He explained that every individual in his current building had been displaced, and as a result had received a housing voucher. This interaction illustrates that HOME works closely with voucher holders to help them find housing options, but also that they make sure that the voucher holders they are matching with landlords are qualified. This is an important role that ensures that landlords and tenants are pleased with their situations and have found a good fit.

HOME‘s work is not limited to interacting with voucher holders. They work very closely with landlords and seek to build strong relationships with them. This relationship was apparent through the interactions of HOME staff with landlords and tenants alike.

One landlord who had never previously attended a Super Saturday event came to the

HOME table and asked about what was expected of her at the event. The HOME representatives informed her that she should set up at any of the open tables and share her property information with the voucher holders. Another landlord, who The HOME staff person mentioned ―been close‖ with HOME for multiple years, came over to the table to ask about more specific landlord issues. He had a specific question about a tenant/landlord responsibility issue. The unit in question was infested with bugs, and although he supplied the tenant with bug bombs, the problem persisted. He wanted to know if it was still his responsibility to continue to take care of the problem. The HOME official advised him to take note of this issue and adjust his lease for the next term, but

did not provide detail on what could be done in the short term. The landlord went on indicate the availability of other apartments he managed for HCV clients.

Two more landlords checked in with HOME as they arrived to the event. They informed the HOME representatives about available units and provided them with the information pertinent information. It was clear from the interactions that they had been in contact previously; the HOME staff members and the ―new‖ arrivals seemed to have a relationship of mutual respect and the worked well together.

At the event, each landlord had his or her own style. Some of the landlords had posters and photo images on easels to display their properties. Others just laid out documents with images and information about the available units. Some of the landlords and representatives brought computers and had slide shows with images of the available units. In order to attract prospective tenants, one landlord decorated his table with balloons and had a basket of snacks including peanut butter crackers. Each of the landlords sat with voucher holders and discussed their needs and tried to match those to available properties. During such discussions, one of the landlords repeatedly pulled out blank pieces of paper and draw a simple map to explain the proximity of the property to major roads and bus stops.

It was obvious that the event achieved considerable diversity with respect to the way landlords set up their exhibits and in how they interacted with potential tenants. It also appeared that the event attracted landlords varying with respect to the size of their

firm and their levels of experience. The event seemed to succeed in offering a variety of housing options to clients. 3

During the event the CMHA manager who oversees the Super Saturday event approached me and started a conversation. Unsure of how to react and not wanting to be rude I engaged in discussion. She addressed some of the questions I had concerning CMHA‘s landlord outreach efforts and shared some of her insights. She informed me that CMHA is a member of numerous landlord groups in the region, which opens them up to the landlords and provides a common ground.4

In terms of direct services from CMHA to landlords, she informed me of the existence of an online landlord portal, which provides 24-hour access to pertinent information which helps landlords and CMHA operate effectively. The portal includes a list of prospective tenants, 24-hour access to client information, and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets with financial information. These products aim to improve communication and information sharing between CMHA and landlords.

Other services provided to landlords and tenants involved with CMHA include a live customer service line to which individuals can call with questions or concerns, a manager‘s ‗night in‘ during which a staff member is in the main office after hours to field questions from landlords or tenants, and walk-in consultations for landlords and tenants to meet with CMHA staff. CMHA is also one of a few housing authorities with live telephone customer service lines rather than automated.5 The manager‘s ‗night in‘ program refers to a program under which a supervisor remains at CMHA‘s voucher

3 This, however, is based on observation and not interaction, so I am unable to say whether my speculation on the experience and type of landlord was truly varied or if the tenants were exposed to a wide range of properties in low poverty communities. 4 She did not list all of these organizations off hand. 5 I did not attempt to validate this claim. 28

office for an evening tasked with the responsibility of answering‘ questions from clients who drop in to the office. The CMHA manager informed me that this is an informal session and takes on whatever format is necessary. Sometimes it is a one-on-one consultation and other times can be a forum.

She also discussed the Housing Assistance Payment Contract (HAP contract) and encouraged me to review one. This document is split into two parts. The first is to be filled out by the landlord and the second section, which addresses the responsibilities of the tenant, is signed by both parties.

Recruiting and Informing Landlords

1. Landlord Orientation #1: 9/25/2012. The Landlord Orientation meetings are held at the Strand Lane location of CMHA at 295 Strand Lane, Cincinnati, OH in the

Winton Hills neighborhood, in a conference room with cinder block walls, paintings, a conference table, and a television. On this particular morning, scheduled for 10 a.m., no landlords arrived. I had the opportunity to speak with the CMHA Owner Compliance

Manager, who briefed me on the typical format of the orientation. When landlords arrive, CMHA staff members show them an orientation video, and afterwards return for any questions. He informed me that it is not mandatory for landlords to attend the orientation in person because it is also available online.

I found it difficult to be direct (non-participant) observer and to completely avoid interactions with attendees. The staff person was aware of and interested in my research, which led to questions and subsequent conversations about the study. I started by informing him about my research on CMHA landlord outreach. He informed me that he was aware of the landlord‘s perspective, that is, the bureaucratic hoops

through which they have to jump. He suggested that the involvement of landlords in the program is dependent on the market. When landlords are desperate they will deal with the CMHA system, in a tighter housing market, they might not feel the need to become involved with it. ―If you are going to make more on the open market why do it

[the HCV Program].‖ He noted that HCV landlords were not allowed to charge higher rates than allowed by HUD and had to pass certain housing quality standards that otherwise they might not have to achieve. To further build on this point, he stated that the inspections department determines the rent, and often experience complaints about the rate allowed.

I asked about the seemingly low landlord turnout. He stated that despite CMHA staff efforts to promote and publicize events; low turnout is often the case. I asked whether or not CMHA is able to track how many people view the online version of the landlord orientation. He responded that the information may possibly be available but that CMHA currently does not track this. As the orientation is a requirement for participation in the HCV program, I was surprised that CMHA was not tracking landlord participation, even if only by recording the number of views of the video, or hits to that section of the website.

2. Landlord Orientation #2: 10/2/2012. Only one landlord participated in this event, although he was not pre-registered. This further emphases the fact that the attendance is difficult to predict. The CMHA representative began by showing the orientation video and then left for the showing of the video. She returned to the room after the video ended.

The landlord orientation video used for the session is the same as the one displayed online. It discusses the benefits of and requirements for landlords to participate in the HCV program. It is thirty-nine minutes in length. The video seeks to help the landlord to improve his or her overall experience with the program, and includes pertinent information about rights and responsibilities of the landlord and the tenants. During the video, the one attendee took notes.

Shortly after the video ended the CMHA representative returned to the conference room and fielded any questions from the landlord. The landlord asked a series of questions aimed at addressing some of his concerns based on past experiences with the program. Below is a list of the questions and the responses that he received.

He asked, ―What is the relationship between HUD and CMHA?‖ She (the CMHA staff member) said that HUD is an umbrella organization and that CMHA is governed by

HUD. The fact that this question was asked, suggests a basic lack of knowledge among some landlords about HCV.

He then asked: ―Is it okay if my unit does not have any appliances?‖ The response was that this is fine as long as it is spelled out in the lease and the Request for Tenancy

Approval (RTA) and is agreed upon by the tenant. This conversation suggested to me that CMHA allows landlords and tenants considerable flexibility in drawing up a lease.

However I wondered whether a unit could pass a CMHA housing quality inspection if it working appliances. When I checked with the CMHA website. information provided by the CMHA staff person was incorrect. HCV tenants cannot move into housing units unless they contain appliances that are in working order (CMHA, 2013).

If landlords are provided with incorrect information during the orientation session this can cause landlords to improperly prepare their units for the inspection process, causing the unit to fail the inspection. When this happens it forces the tenant to continue to look for a place to live, while at the same time causes the landlord to lose out on a month or more worth of rent. Although it is dangerous to generalize from one session this instance highlights the need for CMHA officials to do a better job in providing accurate information when responding to landlords‘ questions.

The landlord next asked: ―Will CMHA notify me if someone [a tenant] goes off of the program?‖ The answer was ―yes.‖ A procedure is in place to notify the landlord if and when a tenant leaves the HCV program...

The landlord asked: ―If they tear up the property will they be kicked out?‖ After some initial hesitation, that the CMHA representative said that some but by no means all HCV clients are kicked out of the program for damaging the property. This answer seemed vague and to me. She (the CMHA staff person) did not seem to adequately acknowledge or address the issue of tenant responsibilities for property upkeep.

The landlord followed up by asking: ―What is [the tenant‘s] incentive to keep up the property?‖ The CMHA staff person‘s answer was that the property owner should properly screen potential tenants before leasing the unit. She went on to describe the hearing process, stating that if a hearing is requested a hearing officer is brought in to be an impartial third party and to make a ruling on disputes between landlords and tenants. The landlord asked if he could contact a hearing officer to get their perspective on what goes during a typical hearing, but the staff member stated that she did not

know any hearing officers, because they are not directly affiliated with CMHA.6 I understand the reasons for having a third party (it reduces of the possibility of a conflict of interest) but it seemed to me that the hearing process is not a transparent one, either for landlords or tenants. Furthermore, the landlord deserved a more complete answer concerning the nature of the hearing.

The landlord asked: ―Are there any inspectors available so I can discuss with them the issues of property damage and liability?‖ The CMHA staff person left the room to check. When she returned she stated that none of the inspectors was available at that time. It is worth mentioning that at that each of the other orientations an inspector ran the session. This facilitated a useful question and answer session.

The landlord asked for an example of a lease that works well or that CMHA endorses or recommends. The staff member directed him to the CMHA website.

Although it is valuable to have a website with resources such as sample leases and detailed information about policies, it seems that this orientation session would be more valuable with additional guidance on issues like a model lease. Furthermore, it would have been helpful to provide the landlord with some pointers or best practices in how to formulate a lease, or what issues to consider, in addition to directing him to the website.

The landlord asked the CMHA representative to clarify the part of the video which encourages landlords to be regularly present on the property, but not to be invasive.

What does this mean? Apparently, CMHA expects landlords to be responsive to tenants‘ concerns, however if they plan to enter the unit they are supposed to provide the tenant with 24-hour notice.

6 In following up on this issue, I was unable to find further information on CMHA‘s process for engaging the third party mediator, or how the details are arranged. 33

The landlord then asked for some general advice about participating in the HCV program. The staff member spoke of her experience in the customer service side of processing HAP contracts. She recommended that the landlord make sure that he completed all of the questions and that the information be consistent in all of the documents. She also stated that some landlords are uncomfortable providing their W-9 information including their Social Security number on a document that goes back to the tenant. ―If you can‘t trust the tenant you shouldn‘t be leasing to them.‖ Because identity fraud is widespread (and not only among HCV clients) this comment seemed inappropriate. The landlord seemed to me to be expressing a legitimate concern.

Finally, the landlord asked: Would he be reimbursed if he allowed a tenant to stay in the unit before the application was fully processed and the unit inspected? The staff member said that the landlord should not give a tenant keys until the rent reasonableness calculations were approved by CMHA. ―Rent Reasonableness (RR) is the HUD mandated process that housing authorities use to ensure that HCV program participants pay a ―reasonable‖ amount of rent to owners.‖ (Cincinnati Metropolitan

Housing Authority [CMHA], 2013) The website goes on to define the word reasonable,

―‗Reasonable‘ is defined as what a knowledgeable consumer will pay for rent in a particular rental market.‖ (CMHA, 2013) This definition of rent reasonableness and the answer to the landlord‘s question, suggest that HUD and CMHA are dedicated to ensuring accuracy in the rent that is paid, but also in protecting landlords.

3. Landlord Orientation #3: 10/9/2012. One landlord arrived for this event. The orientation was scheduled to begin at 10:00 AM, but she arrived at 10:08. She was led to the conference room by the Assistant Manager of HCV inspections at CMHA. He

helped her find a seat at the table which had a good vantage point for the television and informed her that the video would be about 39 minutes long, and that he would return at its completion in order to answer any questions.

During the video portion of the session another individual arrived in the conference room. She later identified herself as a new CMHA employee in the landlord services department. She was there as part of her orientation to better understand the landlord outreach performed by CMHA.

As the video was nearing its conclusion, with a few minutes left, the HCV inspector returned to the conference room. He quietly passed around a sign in sheet and slid his business card across the table to each of the individuals in the room. This created a sense of concern and involvement that did not exist in the previous orientations.

The landlord started off by asking ―Is the information that was included in the video available on the website?‖ He answered ―yes‖ and described how to access the landlord part of the site, detailed what could be found, and stated that ―the video can also be viewed on the website.‖

The landlord next asked how to verify whether or not the rent would be reasonable, before the CMHA assessment. The assistant manager suggested that she should speak with area landlords, look at the newspaper, and apartment finder magazines, which can be found at Kroger (a supermarket chain). I wondered whether this reply was adequate for guiding the landlord in preparing his property for an HCV tenant. Are small landlords equipped to appraise their properties adequately?

Shouldn‘t there be more specific guidance especially with regard to rent reasonableness?

The landlord went on to ask: ―Who is responsible for the yard work.‖ In response, the CMHA staff person asked: ―Is your property a single family home?‖ The landlord said: ―Yes.‖ The assistant manager responded that this information [the tenant responsibilities] should be outlined in the lease. Had I been a landlord attendee I would have asked what the term ―yard work‖ means, what a lease might look like, how tasks and responsibilities would be described, and what might happen if a tenant was physically unable to perform such tasks. I also wondered whether the tenant could sue the landlord (or CMHA) if she were hurt carrying out such tasks.7

The landlord next mentioned that she currently has a tenant who is living in the unit, who used to have a voucher and forfeited it. This former HCV tenant was now thinking about applying to be in the program again. Would the former tenant be automatically reinstated if she applied for a voucher again? The CMHA representative stated that after someone gives up her voucher she does not automatically get it back.

There is now a two to three year waiting list, although there are some exceptions.8 This brief excerpt shows that HCV tenants may lack knowledge of key aspects of the program and therefore that it is important that landlords have a good understand of the

HCV program.

The landlord asked: How can I ensure the quality of the tenant. The assistant manager informed her that she should perform a credit history and a police check. He

7 I did not look to these questions because they were out of the scope of my research, but it highlights a problem with the communication in these meetings that there is little detail in the answers, or where they come from. 8 He did not go into detail on the types of exceptions and I was unable to find them on the website. 36

stated that you can have the tenant provide a police check from the Hamilton County

Justice Center and that there are a number of agencies available to check credit. He did not, however, provide names of specific websites.

4. Landlord Orientation #4: 10/16/2012. I arrived to the CMHA building on

Strand Lane at 9:55 and there were already 2 prospective landlords in the conference room. (Actually, there were three people; one was the adult daughter of a female landlord). As the CMHA staff member led me into the room the three individuals were conversing about the program and why they were interested in joining. I heard the landlords talk about their desire to benefit from reliable payment, and to take advantage of services linking landlords to tenants. The assistant manager introduced himself and explained the agenda of the orientation. He started the film at 9:58 and stated that he would return when the film ended. Mid-way through the video, at 10:23, another woman arrived to take part in the orientation, but she did not sign in.

With three landlords and four other people involved in this discussion much of the conversation built off of questions and ideas from the other participants. This experience was quite different from the previous two orientations in which just one landlord was present. The discussion took on a very conversational tone, and by the end the group had built a bit up a sense of camaraderie. The two landlords who had been there the whole time had many questions and were often adding on to what the others had asked.

After a brief discussion about tenants and advertising the property, one of the landlords asked, ―And we‘re still using our leases? Or is there a standard lease? The assistant manager responded, ―You are using your leases.‖ This question referred to

whether or not CMHA had a standard lease document, or if the landlords could use the same lease that they had used in the past.

With that answer addressed, the group moved back to the topic of advertising and landlord outreach. The website Gosection8.com was mentioned as a resource to advertise to landlords. One landlord asked, ―Is GoSection8.com the same as the

Landlord Portal?‖ The CMHA representative responded: ―No, they are different things,‖ and went on to explain the two sites. Of the Gosection8.com site he stated, ―Go to the

CMHA website and there is a link to Gosection8.com. You can advertise properties for free.‖ Gosection8.com is a national website, where landlords willing to accept housing choice vouchers can advertise their properties. Based on the structure of the HCV program, the voucher holder and landlord would still need to go through the process of having the unit approved for the voucher, but this is still a useful resource for connecting willing landlords with potential tenants.

Of the Partner Portal, the assistant manager stated: ―You can‘t get a Partner Portal account until you are in the program.‖ The partner portal is designed for landlords to track their HCV partnership with CMHA and to keep an electronic record of all interactions. This topic came up during a number of the orientations. Gosection8.com on the other hand is designed specifically for marketing properties.

One landlord asked of the HCV program: ―Is this program different from [the program in] Kentucky?‖ The CMHA representative responded, ―The overall program is the same throughout the country, but aspects are different.‖ The two programs both fall under HUD supervision, but the way in which they are carried out may vary.

Another landlord then asked about moving forward in the tenant landlord agreement process: ―Who has to take the first step?‖ The assistant manager responded, ―You need to fill out the RTA [Request for Tenancy Approval].‖ Thus, the landlord should begin the process with a tenant by filling out an RTA form. The landlord initiates the RTA process after the tenant has shown interest in the property and indicates a desire to rent.

The assistant manager, in the interest of making sure each participant had a chance to have his or her chance to ask questions, asked the landlord who arrived late if she had anything to ask at that time. She stated: ―I still don‘t understand what the partner portal is.‖ He went on to explain that the partner portal is an electronic resource in which makes the data available at your fingertips. Additionally, he stated that it gives the landlord a full accounting of all units, and that landlords with multiple units find it most useful.

Another landlord went on to ask, in reference to how landlords are paid: ―I understand the Direct Deposit, but is the tenant portion to us or to you?‖

This question was in reference to the fact that CMHA automatically deposits the tenant‘s portion of the rent into the landlord‘s account. The assistant manager responded that the tenant portion goes directly to the landlord and that each tenant and landlord setup agreements on how that is managed. He also suggested that the tenant portion at times is either very small or there is tenant payment at all. This response seems to suggest that a significant number of tenants in the HCV program are unemployed and or on welfare.

A family member of one of the landlords asked of the RTA: ―Once that [the RTA] is turned in it takes several weeks.‖ The landlord was suggesting that the RTA takes a long time to be approved. The assistant manager responded, ―No, as soon as you turn it in we tell you that you should be hearing from an inspector in two weeks.‖ He clarified that it was 15 days. The discussion moved on to the topic of tenant landlord agreements. A landlord asked about utilities. She stated that she paid some of the utilities including heat and water, and wanted to know how that impacted what she was able to charge a tenant. He informed her, ―There is a chart on the website that says if the landlord pays x,y,z for specific utilities the rent can be this {specific amount}.‖ As this conversation continued, he also mentioned that landlords can only charge tenants for utilities if they have separate meters. I interpreted this to mean that a ‗mom and pop‘ landlord either needed to pay for utilities out of pocket or pay to have a meter installed.

The conversation returned to the topic of attracting tenants and a landlord said: ―

Go Section 8 is a good tool [for attracting HCV recipients].‖ Based on a simple web search, I found that Gosection8.com is a website which allows landlords to post available properties which accept vouchers. The website can be used by voucher holders to search for available apartments in specific areas. There is also a feature in which landlords can search for voucher holders. The reliance on the web-based tool may assume that the potential tenants have computers or computer access. Although libraries are a resource for internet access, this still may not be a completely reasonable assumption for all HCV recipients. The CMHA representative responded by warning

that because the baseline website is free, CMHA may charge for upgrades in the future.9

A landlord asked, ―Do you happen to have ... any inspection checklists?‖ The assistant manager stated: ―Yeah they are on the website.‖ This is in reference to the checklists that are used by inspectors to assess the quality of the unit. These resources are available online, and help landlords understand how to prepare their rental unit for inspection by a CMHA Inspector. CMHA seems to utilize their website to store the majority of informational content on the HCV program. Although this is web resource is useful I believe that the orientation events would be improved if CMHA shared checklists and similar materials with the landlords at orientation sessions. The CMHA facilitator could have also discussed some of the reasons why units failed inspection and what landlords could do in response to bring their units up to standard. .

As an aside about the HCV program, one landlord stated: ―I should have done this a long time ago.‖ Another landlord said, ―Yeah that‘s what I keep telling myself.‖ In response he mentioned one of the perks of the HCV program stating, ―[Under] this

[program] you‘ve got [sic] your money the first of the month.‖ In a loose housing market like Cincinnati‘s this is a real benefit for landlords.

Another question dealt with the eviction process. The assistant manager stated,

―As soon as we get a notification that they have been evicted we make direct movement to terminate the voucher.‖ This led to a discussion on the rights of landlords and certain regulations. The assistant manager mentioned that landlords have the right to deny

[acceptance to] tenants for legitimate reasons but they must comply with federal

9 It should be noted that CMHA does not run the website gosection8.com and has no role in the pricing of its services. 41

regulations forbidding discrimination. Unfortunately he did not indicate what the legitimate reasons were for evictions. One of the landlords mentioned that he had to turn away a tenant because he had too many family members as compared to bedrooms. Then, one of the landlords began to ask: ―How is a bedroom defined…‖

First, he clarified the question: ―What is the criteria for a room to be a bedroom?‖ The

CMHA representative offered the following requirements; 1 egress and 1 regress access point including a window for egress and 2 electrical wall outlets. He went on to state that the doorway does not even need a door. A landlord asked: ―Is that in writing somewhere?‖ The CMHA staff person stated that it is on the HUD website, but it is easier to follow the information on the CMHA website. ―Ours is easier to follow, it is in laymen‘s terms.‖ This speaks to the differing roles of HUD and CMHA in the HCV program that the responsibility of making the program engaging and understandable falls mainly on the housing authority.

A landlord asked if it was allowed to take a photo of a tenant. The facilitator

(assistant manager) did not ask about why a photo was needed, but responded, ―I would get a release [from the tenant].‖ Another landlord suggested that she take a picture of the individual‘s photo I.D. She appeared to be referring to the individual‘s driver‘s license. The discussion then moved to background checks on potential tenants.

One landlord mentioned the website of the clerk of courts, which is a good resource for performing background checks. The landlords discussed this website and how they used it. To me, this highlighted the importance of information sharing and networking in the landlord community.

In regards to background checks one landlord mentioned many tenants not clearing, ―That‘s the reason I haven‘t been able to rent to anybody... they lied.‖ (The term not clearing, refers to the inability of the individual to pass the background check.),

Another landlord mentioned that she had had some bad experiences with tenants including the theft of curtains from the unit. To this the CMHA facilitator stated, ―This is not a social club, this is a business.‖ I think the he was emphasizing the importance of protecting the property as an asset and making sure that tenants stay within the guidelines. He was empathizing with the landlords and expressing an understanding that they have to make decisions that will help their business. It seemed to me that the assistant manager was leaving landlords considerable discretion as they tried to select responsible tenants.

5. Landlord Orientation #5: 10/30/2012. I arrived at the office on Strand Lane at about 10:00 AM in the morning and entered the conference room to see that one landlord had already arrived. The Owner Compliance Manager led me into the room and he addressed the landlord, asking: Have you seen the video online before?‖ The landlord replied: ―No, I have not‖ and the manager responded, ―Okay, I will go ahead and start the video and will be back to answer any questions.‖ He left and kept the door slightly open behind him.

The video ended at 10:41 and the manager returned at 10:42. He asked if the landlord had any questions. The landlord only asked one question, ―They mentioned that they want...‖ This question was muddled, but the general topic was, that the landlord was expected to register the for the landlord wanted to know why needed to register their properties with the auditor. The CMHA manager responded: ―CMHA no

longer requires this, but the city may still require it.‖ The landlord asked: ―Why would the

City require this?‖ The manager said that the City did this to keep track of absentee landlords. This question had not come up in previous orientations and I would have liked to know more about the procedure. This was the shortest of the orientation sessions, leading me to believe that the landlord may have had experience with the

HCV program in the past, but this is just an assumption.

Landlord Workshops Workshop held 10/24/2012.

This workshop addressed fair housing, and was led by a representative from the organization, Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME). The title of the presentation was ―Fair Housing: Overview for Landlords/Property Owners.‖ The meeting was scheduled to begin at 5:30 PM, and when I arrived at 5:20 the Housing Compliance

Manager led visitors into the auditorium. This was the same room in which the Super

Saturday event was held. It is a large space with a projector, long tables and moveable chairs. The seating is not set up in auditorium style, nor is it permanent.

The space posed some problems. Because of the size of the room and the lack of audio equipment this made it difficult to hear portions of the presentation. This was most evident when participants asked questions, because speakers answered the questions directly without repeating the questions. By 5:29 I counted 17 landlords in the room, but as the presentation began, more people continued to trickle in. Based on conversations I overheard among the different landlords, it appeared that some of them were familiar with one another. This raised a number of questions in my mind: Were there social networks among landlords? Did the same people come to these meetings?

These are questions that I hoped to answer in the interview phase of the research. 44

At 5:32 the manager Introduced HOME‘s fair housing specialist and began the presentation. At the same time, copies of the PowerPoint presentation and HOME pamphlets were passed out to the crowd.

During the presentation the fair housing specialist stood in front of the crowd, next to the projector screen and the CMHA manager stood to the side of the room at the computer to click slides. The fair housing speaker began by informing the group about

HOME, stating, ―We are basically the enforcer of fair housing.‖ She went on to stress the importance of fair housing saying, ―From the time you get your property until you get rid of it, you have to think about fair housing.‖

She then held up a yellow pamphlet, entitled ―Ohio Tenant-Landlord Law:

General Guidelines,‖ and said, ―Here is the power that your tenants have, and you need to know that.‖ The pamphlet is a simplified explanation of tenant - landlord laws. It avoids using legal terminology. She also held up a white pamphlet that read ―Federal

Fair Housing Act: Everyone Has the Right to Fair Housing‖ that elaborates on the different types of discrimination.

After showing this pamphlet, she began to discuss protected classes and how to avoid discrimination. Recently HUD added sexual orientation as a protected class, which means that an individual of the LGBT community cannot be turned down on his/her sexual orientation. At this point it became clear that the presentation and the

PowerPoint did not completely match up, and that the presentation was intended to be more free flowing, informing landlords of things that may not have known. She went on to inform the group that HOME monitors Craig‘s List, and often they see advertisements that stray away from what should be done. She showed one example: ―Children:

minimum age 14.‖ She stated that limiting age is not allowed, suggesting that children are a protected class.

Another policy was discussed. Families are allowed to rent an apartment as long as there are no more than 2 people per bedroom. This is something that is often discussed in landlord orientations as well. She warned landlords that they cannot say anything to potential tenants that might discourage them from seeking to rent the space.

She then went on to discuss vouchers for people with mental health disabilities. When screening tenants with disabilities a landlord is not allowed to ask about the potential tenant‘s condition or capabilities.

The presentation then moved to the topic of consistency in terms of how the landlord deals with tenant issues. She stated that landlords should have a consistent set of standards that they apply to tenants, whether they are in the HCV program or not.

She urged landlords to make sure that information on the availability on a unit is consistent. On the topic of difficult tenants, she stated that the landlord can limit the amount of times that he or she meets with a tenant, but the tenant cannot be ignored.

She went on to say that landlords need to make sure not to show favoritism.

After emphasizing consistency, the fair housing specialist briefly covered the topic of domestic violence, as covered by the Violence against Women Act. She explained that if the voucher holder or her children were the victims of a domestic dispute on the premises, the landlord must hold off on evicting them. This is to suggest that the female tenant and her children cannot be evicted for this particular disturbance, as long as she did not instigate the situation.

Immediately after covering this topic the discussion returned to the issue of consistency, as a landlord asked: ―I know I have different tenants and [sometimes] may bend rules on payment, can I get in trouble with that?‖ The HOME official misunderstood the question (answering a different one) saying that a tenant would only be exempt from a late payment if they receive SSI, in which case they would have to pay their rent when they received their check. (This usually happens on the first of the month. She suggested that if the landlord made it a habit of allowing tenants to pay late, this would cause trouble. ―The Magistrate will ask if there is a pattern of allowing the rent late.‖ Unless you submit a 30-day notice that you will no longer accept late payments, this will not hold up in court. Also, she stated that there is no fair housing law which requires the landlord to give leeway on rental payments. Although this did not seem to directly answer the question, the response emphasized strict enforcement of rental payments. The manager added CMHA‘s perspective on accepting rental payments, stating that no matter how much (or little) the tenant with a Housing Choice

Voucher is expected to pay, the landlord is obligated to collect the rent. Both landlords and tenants need to fulfill their responsibilities.

A landlord asked: ―Who is responsible for paying the utilities?‖ The fair housing speaker responded, ―There is no fair housing law that requires that your name is on the utilities.‖ She noted that in the HCV program whatever is agreed to in the lease must be followed, but this is up to the landlord and the tenant to determine. This question is also covered in the landlord orientation that each landlord is expected to view online or attend in person. Given the redundant question I wondered whether the orientation is being used to its full potential. I also wondered whether the availability of the online

version is limiting the number of people participating in sessions like this one. The discussion returned to the topic of families with children. The fair housing specialist explained that a curfew can be included in the lease for children in the building, by the landlord, but only if it consistent with the curfew policy (if any) of the city or town in which the unit is located. She explained that the previously mentioned 1 bedroom per 2 people rule does not apply to visitation rights.10

Finally, the session ended with a discussion of the topic of persons with disabilities. The fair housing specialist mentioned that a landlord may only ask about a tenant‘s disability if the tenant makes a request for a specific accommodation, in which case the landlord can ask for verification. The topic of assist animals was discussed; they must be allowed by law to provide physical and emotional support. The example of a woman who was both blind and epileptic was discussed. She actually required two dogs, due to the complexity of the dog‘s responsibilities.

Conclusion

I attended three types of meetings that CMHA holds in order to educate and maintain outreach to landlords involved in the HCV program. Through structured non- participant observation, I sought to understand the general flow and tone of these meetings and to identify potential strengths or challenges in CMHA‘s landlord outreach efforts.

This phase of the study helped clarify the types of services available to aid landlords in selecting tenants and managing their businesses. Observing the different

10 It was difficult to hear the question and answer portion of this workshop due to the layout of the room and the lack of audio equipment. This could have impacted the quality of the session and the ability for all landlords to absorb all of the information shared. 48

types of outreach sessions raised questions in my mind about the dynamic relationships between landlords and CMHA staff and well as the strength of social networks among landlords.

The Super Saturday event highlighted CMHA‘s ability to develop positive working relationships with landlords. At the same time my attendance at the Super Saturday event generated a number of questions that I will pursue further in the next chapter.

What is HOME‘s role in landlord outreach? How does CMHA work with HOME? What are landlord perceptions of Super Saturday events?

My attendance at landlord orientations fleshed out a number of problems with the process. One of these is the lack of oversight by CMHA in terms of ensuring that landlords actually participate and acquire critical information about HCVCMHA‘s lack of oversight on these orientations causes concern about whether landlords are being reached with the policies, regulations, and rights within the HCV program.

In addition to the limited understanding of how many landlords actually utilize this resource, there is currently no method for understanding if the landlords retain the information. It may be worthwhile for CMHA to ask: What is the purpose of the orientation? Is this purpose being fulfilled? Should CMHA monitor landlord participation in a more meaningful manner?

Unfortunately the question and answer sessions left me unsure of CMHA‘s role.

It appears that CMHA points landlords to web resources without giving additional background. Although this is a beneficial resource; landlords may view in-person attendance as unnecessary. CMHA could attendance at the orientation worthwhile by

distributing copies of key documents, by showing landlords how to navigate the website and benefit from it.

Another weakness has to do with poor communications i.e. inconsistencies and inaccuracies in CMHA‘s answers to landlord questions. I was able to detect mistakes by comparing answers provided at meetings with information readily available on the web if a landlord leaves the meeting with an incorrect understanding of a policy, this could adversely affect his involvement in the program. The preceding discussion suggests the following questions: Does CMHA train their staff to facilitate these meetings? What could be done to improve the value of these meetings for landlords?

Given the fact that poverty deconcentration was a major reason for the shift the housing vouchers it is surprising that this subject was hardly mentioned as part of landlord outreach. HOME (and to a lesser extent CMHA) warned landlords not to discriminate against housing voucher recipients but they did not devote nearly as much attention to the importance of moving to high-opportunity, low-poverty areas.

Chapter Five Landlord Outreach: CMHA Staff and Landlords Weigh In Introduction

This chapter utilizes seven informant interviews to compare and contrast the views toward landlord outreach from CMHA and HOME staff on the one hand and landlords on the other. In carrying out the interviews I sought to follow up on questions raised during the observation phase (see preceding chapter). Because of the small sample size my conclusions should be considered preliminary in nature.

The interviews focused on five themes and my analysis concentrates on these themes as well: landlord financial burden and risk, administrative aspects of the program, resources for landlords, the perceived value of the CMHA landlord-outreach events, and suggestions for improving the CMHA-landlord partnership and training. The names of those interviewed for this chapter have been removed for confidentiality purposes. The informants will be referred to as HOME official, CMHA official 1 and 2, and landlord 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Landlord/CMHA Relationships

The nature of relationships between landlords and CMHA officials came up in a number of different ways throughout the informant interview process. These interviews suggested a disconnect between the hopes and expectations of landlords as opposed to the position that CMHA takes in working with them. An official from HOME (the fair housing agency) weighed in on the issue of this relationship stating.

You can characterize it and I don't know whether you've seen this or not but it's some of the employees just know that the landlords are contractors and you gotta be suspicious of them and it's very defensive, where other staff people see them as sort of partners [that is] stakeholders in making the program more [effective]…. 51

This illustrates an element of distrust between landlords and some members of

CMHA staff. She further highlighted this point by stating:

I mean what you have seen tells you how effective those group sessions are…but you really haven't heard where the issues are because landlords are very hesitant to talk to CMHA, it‘s a regulator who has power over you and therefore you don't gripe, they do gripe but they don‘t make really strong complaints.

In suggesting such wariness among landlords to voice their opinions about the program, she alludes to foundational issues that could impact the quality, transparency, and effectiveness of the implementation and growth of the CMHA HCV outreach program. She also suggests the impact of this distant relationship:

Well I mean there isn‘t a lot of outreach to landlords, you know I‘m frankly not Really aware of much other than if you want to be part of our program go through this orientation type stuff, you know. There‘s not a lot of other outreach to that. Too much the attitude is still, ‗you‘re making money off of it you‘re coming to us, you know, you‘ve gotta do what we say or we won‘t play with you.‘ CMHA‘s attitude toward the landlord as opposed to [what would be best]…. We need you to program him [the landlord] and you know I would much rather have them. It is not just reaching out [that‘s necessary],but it's also looking at the policies when they make a policy change. [I] think about how it's [the change is] going to affect … the whole program and the landlords in the program. The new raising of the housing quality standards is a great example. You know, CMHA made a policy decision that we are going to raise the quality standards for Section 8 landlords. They had been applying the HUD standards which are minimal, they have to, it‘s required, and now they [CMHA] [sic] are going to raise the bar for local landlords on their own. That will make it very difficult for some landlords. There will be a big transition problem with it and frankly it will narrow the market, and maybe in a good way. Maybe some of the poorer programs, or the landlords that don‘t know what they are doing will fall off, but if you look at it from the tenant‘s point of view the market is going to be smaller, it‘s narrowing. I really wish Section 8would look at that policy, say it‘s going to have ‗that‘ effect. [Then they should ask:] what can we do to mitigate that [effect], what can we do to encourage landlords with good property and good programs [but] I don't even see them having that discussion now or really thinking in those terms.

During an interview with two CMHA staff members the theme of CMHA-landlord relationships was addressed from a different perspective. Staff member 1 stated:

Honestly, if everything goes well [it] is very limited contact, and I think that‘s kind of the ideal situation. If you don't know the name of the landlord, someone says their name and doesn‘t generally ring a bell. It probably means everything is for the most part fine. An ideal situation at least from our standpoint [i.e.] from our department is, we will go out, inspect the unit [and] the new move in and it will pass. So … everything worked ideally. The next time we will interact with you [the landlord] is next year when we have to go back to do the annual inspection. So you know, the less we interact with the landlord [the more] it means things are going well.

CMHA staff member 2 added:

Most of the interaction really is, between the [CMHA] inspectors and the landlords [regarding] dealing with correcting …failed inspection[s] the initial time. That is really where you have the most touch point with the landlords.

It appears that CMHA staff prefer not to be in close contact with landlords, and feel that [non-contact]t is part of the design of the program. This was further highlighted when CMHA staff member 1 spoke about outreach

The outreach to be honest …I can‘t really say. I do much of that in the training that we do. It‘s open to everybody, for the most part, whether you are a current landlord or not. I think at some point we were doing … continuing education. and so it [was] really open to anybody, whether or not you are in the [HCV] program. As far as retaining landlords, to me, it‘s [in] the [nature] of Housing Choice Voucher program. People have a choice, so if you put out a product that they like, they‘re going to continue to come. What is it that we can do? [It] is service, [we] provide a service, if we are prompt in what we do, professional in what we do, landlords will choose to stay with us. One thing that we can tell landlords is, you get a free inspection at move-in, every year we will come out and inspect your unit again and tell you what the deficiencies we see are, and you‘re going to get your check on time. Every time on the first of the month, you know that CMHA‘s portion of the rent is going to be there. And we have 11,000 voucher holders, they move probably more than they should, so

there are people always looking for units. Our rents are supposed to be comparable for any other unit on the market for a similar type unit.

CMHA staff member 2 added:

I would say recruitment is difficult, [i.e.] recruitment of landlords, because you need the tenant to want to go there. You know, the whole process initiates [sic] with the tenant. We do encourage, we have … Go Section8.com on our website, so we do offer [outreach] and [we do have] the Super Saturdays. So we offer free marketing tools for landlords, so you know they‘ve got the property, we‘ve got the client and we‘re offering them free marketing connection between the two. I think a lot of the recruitment is just the education [of landlords] and …overcoming the fear associated with a government program.

These two quotations illustrate that CMHA‘s emphasis is on creating programs and making them available to a wide audience, but little is done to make the public aware of these programs.

CMHA staff also spoke about the typical complaints and comments filed by landlords, suggesting that they have little applicability to CMHA‘s role in the program.

CMHA staff member 1 stated:

A lot of times what it generally comes back to is lease enforcement, [the] landlord will be frustrated perhaps because the tenant did this or that, but really, the tenant is not CMHA‘s tenant, it‘s the landlord‘s tenant. It‘s a matter of them having to enforce their leases. A lot of times they‘ll ask, well the tenant did this, what should I do? [I say: ‗You‘re the landlord, you have a lease.‘

CMHA staff member 2 added:

And a lot of times it‘s your [CMHA‘s] tenant., [she] did this, coming from the landlord to CMHA. ..That is not the case, the tenant is the landlord‘s tenant. They [the landlords] are [also] just a participant in the voucher program.

Landlord 1, who stated that she has been involved in the program for 15 years, indicated that her experience in the program had helped her develop strong relationships within the organization [CMHA]:

When I have issues, because I have done it for so long, I know exactly who to contact. For a new landlord, or a small landlord, they are not going to know that. So trying to get your information by calling the main line or just walking in [to the HCV office], is not sometimes going to cut it. So that can be a big negative, just because they‘re so large. I don‘t have that issue anymore, but I have in the past. So it‘s just [learning to navigate] the channels.

Landlord 2 provided a different perspective, indicating that CMHA doesn‘t understand the role that landlords play in the program:

They don‘t view the landlords as a customer; they view the landlord as a supplier of a product for the customer. They view the tenants as the customer. If they change that attitude and realize, you know, the customers and suppliers are really the same thing. Right, without me there‘s not a place for the tenant to live, without the tenant, they don‘t need me. We‘re equally important in this little triangle, and yet we‘re the ones that are putting very expensive assets [on the line] and that their tenants, their other clients, are often abusing [their homes], and abusing [it] in a lot of different ways. I believe that they [CMHA] have worked to lower rents, but they deny this, so they can give it [the voucher] to more people. We [the landlords] are picking up the cost of providing subsidized housing through the private sector and it‘s an expensive business, and more and more of my clients [i.e. other landlords] don‘t want to take Section 8 because of all of the hassle and all of the expense that this clientele can bring.

Landlord 2 continued:

There are some great people at CMHA and there are some stressed, overworked, unhappy people. It really depends on who you are dealing with. Most of them try and do a good job. Some are just difficult people to work with, and I think they are just burned out, and they [CMHA‘s top brass] know who those people are too. You can sit with a group of landlords and they‘ll tell you who the bad ones are, because we all deal with them. The housing specialists [at CMHA], have a lot of …, they deal with a zillion phone calls, emails [and so forth]. Some are great, call back, and follow up right away. Others, things just seem to get lost all of the time. The organization loses paperwork on a massive scale, we make a

copy of everything we give them, so that when they call us up a week later and say we are missing this or that, usually it‘s in [the] packet we already gave them and we just give it to them again. I‘ve spent too much time driving around getting signatures a second or third time after they‘ve lost stuff.

Landlord 3 also mentioned the lack of understanding from CMHA, but he showed an understanding of the complexity within the organization:

The bureaucracy… You have very well-meaning people in the trenches at CMHA that care, but the organization‘s dysfunction and [its inability] to recognize who all of their customers are and to effectively manage the organization to those needs has never been understood and or acted upon in a manner conducive to all of the stakeholders, in my opinion. So that comes down to the apartment [sitting] empty for two months as opposed to two weeks, because you can‘t get them [CMHA] to come and inspect. And if they come and inspect they say well you can‘t move someone in because of something silly like a loose doorknob, well great we can tighten that up right now. ‗No we will have to come back in a week and inspect the doorknob.‘ Really?

He also had some thoughts on how to improve CMHA‘s relationship with landlords, and the overall quality of the program:

The biggest thing they could do, I think, (but they will argue [that] this isn‘t how HUD has it set up for them,) is treat the landlords like a customer as opposed to a supplier. More automation, better use of … when a letter is going to be sent out to the landlords [use] e-mail it so I get it there in thirty seconds not four days later in the mail. I know they‘re working on some of that. [but] it‘s a slow road for them. HUD gives them all types of requirements that aren‘t always sensible.

They say they can‘t do this, but I struggle with it. They have a lot of power, right, you have the money you have the power. They want us to enforce, anything that‘s a problem, they want us to enforce our lease for them. Well it‘s hard to do that. Sometimes our most difficult CMHA [voucher] tenants are our most difficult tenants [that is, compared to those not using vouchers]. If section 8 could play a more active role, educating the tenants about what‘s expected from them [that would be good].11 We don‘t want them to move in and trash our yards, we don‘t want them to move in and leave the garbage pails out [after the trucks come by], we don‘t want them to move in and anger all of the neighbors, and we end up

11 I thought this was covered by the HCV tenant orientation session but it appears that this may not be true at least with respect to this landlord. It was beyond the scope of this project to examine how widespread this perception is. 56

having to teach them how to be responsible members of the community. This goes back to [the fact] that, a lot of them were raised in government housing, subsidized housing in poverty areas. They don‘t know how to live any different. It would be nice if we had a partner with Section 8, raising the expectations [standards of conduct] of the tenants, teaching the tenants to be responsible members of the community

The preceding comments suggest that there is a lack of trust that CMHA has the interest of the landlords in mind when they make policy changes.

Landlord 4 asked that he not be recorded, so I was unable to extract quotes of the same length as the other informants, although he shared great insights. On the topic of landlord CMHA relationships, he, like many of the other landlords cited the increase in standards, but largely spoke positively. He suggested that high standards, both on the exterior and interior of the building could be helpful in weeding out landlords that were in the program just to receive a paycheck. This is a benefit to which each of the landlords interviewed, but most also mentioned the negative side, as to how it might affect landlords who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

Despite his positive thoughts on their inspection standards, landlord 4 cited significant issues with CMHA‘s ability to engage and inform landlords. He suggested that CMHA could improve their communications with landlords through avenues such as a quarterly outreach meeting or a weekly email update.

Landlord Financial Burden and Risk

The interviews unearthed a concern among the landlords that CMHA policies place an undue financial burden and risk on landlords. The HOME official stated:

I think that you need to see context; I mean the market right now. Some of what you are seeing has to be put in context of the current market which for many landlords, they [the smaller ones], are getting foreclosed on. Just like homeowners, they bought high, they bought in the boom years when everyone said they were going to make lots of money on this rental 57

property. So they bought in the early 2000s, and so they bought high, they had heavy mortgages, and then stuff hit and they‘ve been struggling to make those mortgages and a lot of them are being foreclosed on and so you have that and now you're at the point where the market seems to be coming back a little bit particularly at the higher ends. Whether its coming back at the low-income end or not [is uncertain]. You also have property that‘s being taken off [the market]. More of it is vacant and being demolished and things like that. So all of that market context has a lot to do with how landlords are feeling and how CMHA is related to it.

Landlord 1 also noted the financial constraints on landlords due to changes in the

HCV program. :

The program has changed a lot. Not necessarily for the better, but not really for the worse either. They used to pay landlords a security deposit for any damages, which really gave an incentive to the landlords, but didn‘t hold any of the tenants responsible for their actions; [while in reality] you have to be held responsible. Now tenants are responsible for their portion, the security deposit. Any damages and the tenant can actually be stricken from the program. If they don‘t pay their portion, if they are evicted, or if they leave with massive damages and don‘t compensate the landlord after they leave.

She continued:

A lot of owners, because of the decline of the rental market, are strapped for cash. So many landlords lost their properties just because their business model was wrong. But a lot of them are still keeping their head above water and struggling. Well [consider] even just this new window thing. A new window is $250. So if you go into a building of ten units [and you have to replace the windows], five windows per unit, which is not that many, that‘s fifty windows, that‘s what $10,000? For a landlord that can barely keep the mortgage paid, they can‘t do it. So just by this one change, [even though] I understand it, it‘s going to kick a lot of landlords out of being able to do Section 8.

Landlord 2 spoke more specifically about proposed policy changes at CMHA, and how they would impact landlords in Hamilton County:

There‘s a new director of the agency, Mr. Johnson. Now he‘s looking to shake things up. My bigger issue is, his big focus is to raise the standards on the owners. I want to see them raise the standards on the tenants, because when I rent to these tenants, these houses are in beautiful shape and then a year later they look like crap and they can‘t pass inspection.

The doors are broken, the cabinets are broken, the closet doors are off, the mirrors are broken, and the toilets are broken. It‘s like …, I didn‘t go over there with my hammer; break the toilet, break the mirror, break the doors, put holes in the wall, ruin the new carpet, [and] break the windows. The tenant did that, and now I have to pay to repair all of that, and if I don‘t they‘ll kick the tenant out and I‘ll get back the vacant beat up property.

He elaborated on the financial concerns of landlords:

If you‘re not making $200-$300 a month, you‘re losing money in your business, because vacancies will cost you $2,000-$3,000 dollars in a heartbeat. So you could lose three years‘ worth of cash flow on a house that goes vacant with a lot of damage, wear and tear, copper gets stolen, the air conditioner gets stolen. There are a lot of expenses in this business that are often poorly understood. So someone goes out and buys a piece of rental property, and now they realize they didn‘t know what they were getting into, especially if they over paid. Now they are dealing with a very challenging rental market, with tenants who are really hard on the property.

He went on to note that:

There was a day when Section 8 housing was a very profitable business. It‘s not that way anymore. They‘ve lowered the prices on rents, and our other costs have gone up. We we don‘t get a premium for dealing with that market anymore.

This highlights the need for our society to re-think existing stereotypes of section

8 (HCV) landlords as greedy and unconcerned about their tenants. There should also be consideration of the challenges many landlords face in dealing with the low-income rental market.

Landlord 3 provides another perspective on the financial burden on landlords in the HCV program and how it has changed over the years.

In the old days, [I say that] because I‘m so old, the housing office would say you don‘t have to collect a deposit, but in the event that there's damages tenant damages upon eviction or termination of the lease we‘ll fix it, we‘ll pay for it which was actually a pretty good gig, because the average section 8 certificate holder, especially in an urban environment, is (and I‘m going to contrast that to like Lima Ohio) there‘s ‗baggage‘, That

resident [in Cincinnati] is on the public dole is because they‘ve got issues. It‘s very often a single mom, her two or three kids and the real problem is the baby‘s daddy, but I digress… . That person …is living hand to mouth…Maybe … they don‘t have very good social skills when they come from a very different environment than perhaps where you were raised...This voucher holder probably doesn‘t have any post high school education, more often than not they have dropped out of high school because of pregnancy or because of a hundred different things. Maybe they‘re working, maybe they‘re not.

Things that you may have been taught growing up, that the house has to be clean, and the dishes done, and the rooms vacuum[ed]. Those social skills may not be on board that resident. I‘m not suggesting the resident is mentally challenged, [rather] they may not have [had the] same upbringing. So, when they leave sometimes the place is absolutely destroyed. Now, we [also] have market rate tenants [who] when they leave the place is destroyed, but the average voucher holder can‘t come up with a full month‘s rent deposit. They don‘t have any money, so they don‘t have the means to do that, so the old program actually made some sense. Okay, you‘ll move them in, and you‘re going to take a risk. If you take a risk and you‘re burned, well we‘ll pay for that. Okay, well it doesn‘t work that way anymore so now if you want to take that resident, you‘re at risk solely with that resident. If I was the government, if I was HUD that‘s exactly what I would have, I would have gotten out of that system [when housing authorities paid for damages] a long time ago, rightfully so. If you‘re a landlord however, you‘re taking on much more risk. That risk is financially quantifiable. It‘s a financial risk, it‘s a cost to turn over an apartment in time and dollars.

This comment, shared by landlord 3 provides some insight into how the HCV program has changed over the years. His statement, as others have alluded, suggests that the housing authority used to pay for any damages to the unit after a tenant left.

This is no longer covered, and landlords are expected to collect a security deposit from tenants, but as he states this is not always a realistic expectation, due to the financial situation of some of the tenants.

Time, Paperwork, and Inconsistencies

A major concern of landlords regarding CMHA‘s implementation of the CMHA program is the bureaucratic and time consuming process involved with getting a unit approved for a HCV tenant.

CMHA staff member 1 spoke about landlords‘ concerns about the lack consistency during the inspection process, in applying housing quality standards.

One of the things they complain about is consistency, that we‘re not consistent in what we do. We‘ll get one inspector who will come out and say one thing, then another year somebody else will come out and write them up [i.e. a violation] for something else.

Landlord 2 spoke about the costs involved with CMHA‘s process and CMHA‘s inability to keep relevant paperwork up-to-date.:

They are quick to cancel vouchers, make us re-do paperwork, make us run around and get more signatures. Every time I have to go meet a tenant, because the tenants don‘t drive, I gotta pay someone an hour or two to go get a signature, and then get the paperwork back to Section 8. So there is a real cost to us in all of that inefficiency on their end. I think they have gotten a little better, but there is still, lost paperwork is a big issue.

Landlord 3 also expressed concerns about the size of CMHA and its inability to effectively work with landlords:

I would argue all day long, as a landlord that you should never take a voucher … in CMHA territory, because the housing authority is so big and so challenged [in running] their day to day operation. They clearly do not perceive the landlord as a customer. They have a very narrow focus. [CMHA‘s view is] that it is the resident, the voucher holder, [that] is the customer. That‘s a problem, because they need to understand that the resident is their customer, the community that they‘re working in is their customer, and that the landlord is their customer [too], because without any one of those pieces the program doesn‘t work.

So if you‘re a landlord and you decide to take a voucher holder, number one, [is to ask] why would they do it. I would argue that the average guy [landlord] that takes it, takes it because it‘s his or her only alternative to getting income for their income producing property at a level conducive to meeting their financial requirements to maintain. I loosely use the term maintain in the contest of their total investment [portfolio].

This suggests that CMHA‘s size negatively affects its ability to function efficiently and provide the necessary services to its landlords.

Landlord 4 suggests that in his two years of involvement with the CMHA HCV program, he has seen the responsiveness of caseworkers to landlord issues decline.

He suggests that funding cuts likely play a role in this. Despite this concern, he conceded that when these issues were brought up to people at the management level the problems were dealt with effectively.

Resources for Landlords

The HOME official discussed at length the limited help available to HCV landlords from CMHA and other sources. 12

Number one, bottom line there is not a lot out there to help, yeah, they‘re pretty much on their own. HOME currently has a very small program that you know recruits landlords that have properties in low poverty areas, and Ms. D [at HOME] sort of recruits those people, holds their hands, listens to their problems, and tries to act as an ombudsmen and we refer tenants to them [landlords] that are pre-screened. … She has a good … pool of landlords that she can use that way. She also makes referrals to other places but these are usually smaller landlords (or not big corporations at least)…We try to keep the deal together once we refer the tenant. If CMHA comes back and doesn‘t pass what is a beautiful suburban house [with respect to housing quality standards] because of some little thing on the checklist …we help the landlord through the frustration.

Actually, we do outreach to CMHA on some issues in this ombudsman role. In other words understand, it‘s keeping the deal together it‘s really

12 Although this quotation is quite long, I elected to keep it in the text as is due to its wealth of information and value to this topic. 62

[acting] on behalf of the tenant, I mean we are trying to keep this place as a place that the tenant can move to. So yeah I guess it helps the landlord too, but really, it‘s like you know what‘s going on here.

We had one the other day, you know they‘re unusual things but everyone agreed this was a three-bedroom apartment, the person had a three bedroom voucher and then all of a sudden the inspector comes by and discovers what he thinks is a fourth bedroom. So all of the sudden the deal‘s all off, and nobody else thought it was, nobody else claimed it was [a bedroom], the room had no windows and therefore legally was not supposed to be a bedroom. And so, you know, we exchanged some e- mails, you know, to try to get it straightened out and CMHA is responsive usually to us. Not that they [always] do what we want but they respond. Often we will refer people [landlords] down, if the timing is right, to manager‘s night at the CMHA HCV office and things like that that they might not otherwise be aware of.

This refers to the fact that HOME will work with landlords by working through the problems, reaching out to CMHA, and referring landlords to events that will allow them to get more information. She later spoke about other roles that HOME plays:

On the policy level we will make comments on their annual policies. A lot of mission … is to have more stable and integrated great neighborhoods. The voucher program is very important to that, [mission so we will suggest policies or policy changes that keep the voucher program healthy, [meaning keeping] as many landlords as possible involved in it. I will tell CMHA if I‘m hearing from the landlord community that they are really really upset about something. And … if we start having people dropping out of, I‘ll talk to them about it and bring it to their attention. It doesn‘t always work, but it‘s part of the relationship, it‘s part of the expectation.

She went on to describe the resources shared by other groups:

As far as other groups besides HOME, the only other one out there is probably REIA, the Real Estate Investment Association and they don‘t really do landlord training. They train the investors on finances and they have classes for landlords and stuff like that, including, I mean they can‘t get into the details of section 8 but highlight what the program basically is and some information on it. They don‘t do the hands-on training, the ombudsman stuff. Sometimes they will speak on policy issues, but not too often. Sometimes they‘ll have a section 8 speaker come into one of their meetings but this does not happen often].

And then the [Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky] Apartment Association is [the organization] that most of the large corporate landlords are members of. REIA is mostly for smaller landlords. The Apartment Association consists of the big corporations, the Towne Properties and places like that. CMHA, just recently has rejoined them. They were a member for a while and then dropped out for quite a few years, and so hopefully there will be more of a dialogue with other landlords that will allow them [CMHA] to hear a little bit more of the landlord side of things. Again [when CMHA meets with] the Apartment Association CMHA is hearing from the big ones.

From HOME‘S point of view, our programs and funding [HOME‘s] are so small we‘re not really going to have an effect and we will continue to serve in an ombudsman role to help people move to low poverty neighborhoods and recruit landlords, who you know otherwise would be out of the program. And we will continue that but we‘re talking one staff person, it‘s not going to have an impact on the market or really on the 10,000 families that have CMHA vouchers. So really to have any impact it‘s [funding] got to be larger than that. I don‘t know, I guess it‘s back to what I was saying before about CMHA understanding the landlord market more and understanding how much they need the landlords. And yes they have to enforce [regulations] against them if they are not doing what they need to and they need to set standards …they also need to do what they can to keep that market as large as possible. The worst thing that could happen is that it [the landlord pool] could get so narrow that people cannot find places.

CMHA staff member 2 highlighted the growth of the mobility program, which is administered by HOME, as an important resource for landlords:

We‘ve also started a mobility program, I don‘t know a lot about it. It‘s with HOME, Housing Opportunities Made Equal, we did a competitive bid process for somebody to run a mobility program that assists in the recruitment of landlords in areas of low poverty.

Landlord 3 felt that CMHA did provide a lot of help to landlords.

They have a great website, for a very nominal amount of money you can advertise your property through their website. This makes it very affordable. [Over time] the system has become mechanically easy to navigate. The problem is, when something goes afoul, there‘s you know, this huge divide.

The divide that he refers to is the lack of direct communication between CMHA and landlords. One of the biggest issues, in this landlord‘s opinion, is that that each of

the landlord‘s residents may have a different counselor and this makes it very difficult when the landlord wants to deal with tenant issues by contacting the CMHA office.

Landlord 4 spoke about another important resource provided by CMHA, the partner portal. He stated: ―The partner portal is great, I have dealt with the Campbell

County partner portal and this one exceeds it far and away.‖ From this one landlord‘s perspective, CMHA has strong systems in place to help landlords.

Value of CMHA Meetings

As mentioned in chapter 4, CMHA holds a number of varied events designed to inform and support landlords in the HCV program. The informants shared their perspectives on these events with me.

The HOME official spoke about the role that HOME played in the fair housing training which I attended and discussed in the previous chapter. Her comments highlight the value of these programs, but also the complexity of combining HOME training within the confines of the HCV program:

Doing training for Section 8 landlords is one way of reaching the landlord community with the fair housing message, but the truth of the matter is the law Is no different for them than it is for anybody else, and so our training would be similar. The problem is they're coming to a CMHA site and they have questions that are not fair housing questions, that relate to the [CMHA] Section 8 program, and so I've always wanted to be sure that there was a CMHA person there, because I have told our folks numerous times, don‘t even try to answer those question you are there to teach fair housing and if there are Section 8 questions you need to defer them to CMHA.

This speaks to the confusion that may come out of some of the training workshops as landlords come to a CMHA site and are trained on something that goes beyond the HCV program.

With regard to CMHA programming she stated: 65

We have discovered over the years that the best way to reach audiences is to go to them [or to] go to REIA. REIA has four educational programs a month and they‘re always looking for programs. And if CMHA would go on that night and volunteer a speaker [even though this might be] something that conflicts with [an event] at their own site, they would reach a whole lot more people. I mean they get a hundred people at the REIA meetings twice a month; [In contrast] they get five out when they come out to CMHA‘s offices as something separate. So I It's just that that going out more and partnering more [would make sense]. They [CMHA] need[s] to listen, is it's not at those big meetings that they need to listen. They need to have something akin to focus groups or regular meetings to hear what the landlords are saying. They don‘t always have to do it, but if they don‘t know what the problems are, they sometimes [experience] unintended consequences [in regards] to some of the stuff they‘re doing.

This reinforces the earlier noted disconnect between CMHA and landlords, but also suggests the potential for stronger programming and partnership. CMHA staff member 1 also spoke to the lack of attendance at their events:

I think we do quite a but, unfortunately they‘re not always well attended, short of this one like I said I have never seen this many landlords all in one room.

This refers to a recent meeting in which policy changes were discussed. The meeting attracted a large number of landlords, but this probably was likely due to the fact the agenda included a discussion of proposed policy changes that would impact landlords. It seems that although CMHA provides meetings, they are not well attended or promoted.

Furthermore it seems like the same small number of landlords come to the events.

Yeah I mean, I don‘t have any hard evidence, but from what I can see, I‘d say a lot of times it‘s the same people who tend to come. I shouldn‘t say a lot of times, but I do notice some of the same people. … I think that the ones that tend to come are the ones [who] want as much information as they can get. They want to be proactive; they want to know, ‗Are there any changes? If there are any changes, what are they? If there are rules that I need to know

about tell me now so I can adapt what I am doing to fit those needs.‘ They‘re generally landlords [who] are, hungry for knowledge. Basically if [we throw] free training, [they are] going to jump on it.

CMHA staff member 2 added:

We work with landlords that run the gamut. From the mom and pop ‗I own one unit or I own a four family building or something like that, and I don‘t really know all of the fair housing rules and all the different rules that actually go along with being a landlord. I just happen to own this building.‘ All the way up to the expert property management firms who run the two, three hundred unit communities throughout the area, and I think you tend to get a lot of those smaller owners that attend.

In response, CMHA staff member 1 suggested:

It‘s funny though, and again depending on the topics, some of the large ones [management firms] will come to certain [events], and they will actually send their staff to [learn] certain things. However, some of them, they do their own training in house. They don‘t really need to go. Well here‘s the thing with the orientation, you don‘t physically have to come here, you can watch it online, and you only have to take part in it if you are a new landlord, so if you have already attended the program you are not going to come. [I am not to saying] that everyone is trying to beat the system, but you‘re self-certifying that you‘ve watched it, so you are not going because there are different ways that people can access the orientation.

I asked CMHA staff member 1 about whether he was concerned about the lack of landlords who had gone through the orientation process. He responded:

The way I look at it, it‘s informational, we‘re providing you with a general overview of the program and how it works. It‘s to your benefit to take advantage of it. If you don‘t fully take advantage of it, and then you come back and say I didn‘t know, well did you not watch the video? It was plain as day, it was written there. So again, I view it as information that we‘re providing to you, something you should take advantage of, [if you are] trying to beat the system, it‘s really your loss. Because again, it [the orientation] goes into a lot of details, that is, what you the landlord should be looking for, what CMHA‘s expectations are, so if you don‘t watch it and claim that you watched it you‘re doing yourself a disservice.

Landlord 1 liked the continuing education workshops: ―They offer a lot of very helpful programs, However, I don‘t tend to go to very many of them, because I have been doing this so long. Regarding ― Super Saturday‖ she said:

It‘s really kind of hit or miss. I have come to every Super Saturday, period. We have been doing so for over four years now. But I have actually been to a couple of them where it‘s us and maybe one other person, which I love, personally I‘m fine with it. The one that was just this past weekend and the one the month before was kind of odd [because of low turnout]. You are seeing more landlords than tenants, which is not usually the case. And what will happen is if you keep going, you are going to see a lot of those smaller landlords that [sic] really don‘t do their homework or don‘t bring anything to give out, [Eventually] you‘re going to see them not show up, because they don‘t get any positive [return on their] time. You have to present yourself well, because you‘re a reflection of the property...

Landlord 2 also stated that he did not attend many of the CMHA events and that he wasn‘t sure about the effectiveness of CMHA outreach efforts.

I‘ve been a Section 8 landlord for a long time, so I get their calls about the Super Saturday, which I‘ve never attended. I don‘t know whether they‘re contacting people that aren‘t already on their books. I don‘t know how they reach landlords that are not Section 8 landlords already, because I get these phone calls ‗Hi this is so and so with CMHA. We are holding a Super Saturday event on March 13th. Please come and meet tenants.‘ Or ‗We‘re having an educational class at the CMHA Headquarters at 4 o‘clock on Wednesday afternoon‘. So I know how they reach me, you know they‘re all voice based. You never get an email from the organization. I write my email [address] on every piece of paper I give to them. They‘re struggling with technology, [that] is my perception. It‘s all voice and [US] mail, [the latter] gets screwed up all of the time.

Landlord 2 went on to discuss the quality of CMHA landlord training.

I think any training is good. I‘m a pretty well educated landlord. I‘m a realtor, a property manager; I‘m active in the Real Estate Investor Association I‘ve attended hundreds of hours of training on these topics. A lot of landlords don‘t have any of that background. They bought a house and they‘re like, ‗What do we do now?‘ And so, I think training is good for those folks. The Real Estate Investor Association would like them [CMHA, to attend and participate], We believe the more educated our landlords in town are, the better off everybody is.

He further stated:

There‘s a lot of things to know about managing a house; there‘s leasing, there‘s tenant landlord law, there‘s fair housing law, there‘s eviction law,

there‘s how do you maintain a property, there‘s finance, so there‘s a lot of different pieces to being an educated rental property owner. A lot of people start with ‗Well I want to buy a house‘ [so these people have a lot to learn].

Additionally he said:

Every bit of education is good. Is going to a three hour class on landlording at Section 8 going to make you a quality landlord? No, but going to one class at UC isn‘t going to make you a sociologist, you know, you get your degree over four years and you work in the field for ten or twenty years, and then you‘re a [good] sociologist.

Landlord 3 seemed to agree with Landlord 2, that while the training sessions were important, they needed to be part of a more comprehensive approach:

...So it‘s one thing to offer these classes, that‘s a very passive, that‘s a very non-engaging approach.[CMHA also needs to create a [landlord liaison], but I don‘t mean an ombudsmen [someone who handles landlord complaints]/, Arguably one might say the director is [a liaison] but I don‘t agree.

From this and other comments it would seem that a landlord liaison would help address issues as they came up, providing personalized attention to the landlords involved in the program that had knowledge of their cases. This would also lead to more streamlined communications between CMHA and the landlord.

On the topic of CMHA‘s training sessions and other events, landlord 4 stated: ―I don‘t think that we utilize them enough.‖ This speaks to the perception that while on the one hand CMHA offers quality outreach training the events are underutilized and under- attended. Landlord 4 also suggested that as a large housing operator his company would be interested in having CMHA come to their site for staff training, if that were possible. This further highlights the fact that there may be additional avenues by which

CMHA can reach a broader audience with their programming and training.

Conclusion

The informant interviews highlighted in this chapter were meant to inform my findings and questions from the existing literature and my observation of meetings, workshops, and events held by CMHA. I interviewed individuals with intimate experience in the HCV program and its implementation by CMHA in Hamilton County,

Ohio. These individuals include CMHA staff, HOME staff, and local landlords and property managers. Some of the landlords and property managers also shared perspectives about their affiliation with organizations such as the Real Estate investor

Association (REIA) and the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Apartment

Association (GCNKAA).

Five key findings resulted from the interview process. The first key finding pertains to the financial burden imposed upon the landlords involved in the CMHA HCV program.

This financial burden comes from a variety of issues including changes in policy and administration of the HCV program that have raised standards on landlords and removed the responsibility of paying for damages from the housing authority. Another key element of the landlord financial burden has to do with the climate of the housing market, many landlords with mortgages can no longer afford to charge the HUD mandated HCV rental rates and make a decent profit. .

The second key finding concerns the complexity of the relationships between landlords and CMHA. It was apparent from the interviews that there are some issues of trust between CMHA staff and local landlords and a fear that if a landlord speaks out against CMHA policies or practices, they will be punished by way of slowed service. It was also apparent that there is little outreach from CMHA to landlords, which points to a 70

deeper disconnect in the understanding of CMHA‘s role in the HCV program. It seems that landlords value the ability to have more personalized and streamlined services, such as the ability to contact one CMHA staff person about their concerns (as opposed to different people at different times).

Third, from the landlord‘s perspective HCV is a time consuming process, the extensive paperwork, and there are often inconsistencies involved in getting an apartment and tenant approved. Several informants believed that the size of CMHA‘s operation limits its effectiveness.

Fourth, informants spoke about the need to better coordinate the variety of resources for available for landlords, both through CMHA and other outlets. The CMHA website and the partner portal were seen as valuable CMHA‘s resources. Another key program mentioned by housing officials and landlords was the Regional Opportunities

Counseling mobility program, which is run by HOME. This program was seen as having significant value, but it was noted by a HOME official that its small staff caused limitations to its reach and effectiveness. Another important source of information and training, as noted by some of the landlords and officials were the trade organizations,

REIA and GCNKAA. These trade organizations appear to play a major role in providing networking opportunities for landlords. Unfortunately it was beyond the intended scope of this paper to examine in any detail the roles played by these organizations.

Fifth and finally, the interviews illustrated both the value and limitations of CMHA meetings and workshops. CMHA brings in experts on various landlord issues, which allows for exposure to educational opportunities at no cost. However that this approach can lead to mixed messages, as the expert may be speaking from a specific perspective

which does not fully align with CMHA policy. Overall, the perception was that CMHA‘s programming provides significant value to landlords of many backgrounds but low attendance reduces the potential value of this strategy. Informants made a number of useful suggestions including 1) developing a more comprehensive approach to engage and educate landlords and 2) having CMHA attend and give presentations at meetings for organizations such as REIA and GCNKAA.

Chapter Six Conclusion: Moving Forward in Landlord Relations

The purpose of this study was to better understand the challenges faced by key stakeholders in the CMHA HCV program (i.e. landlords, CMHA staff, fair housing officials) and the impact of CMHA‘s services on their operation. A growing body of literature has emphasized the need to disperse poverty through the HCV program.

However to do this it will be necessary to involve more landlords in low-poverty neighborhoods. Although the need for improved outreach to landlords is a given, there has not been much research on existing efforts by local housing authorities to engage landlords. This study looks at the efforts by CMHA in Hamilton County, Ohio to provide services for landlords in compliance with HUD mandates. My aim was to add to existing understanding of the varying perspectives of landlords and housing professionals regarding HCV landlord outreach efforts.

Research Questions

In order to better understand the CMHA HCV program and CMHA‘s impact on landlords in Hamilton County I asked three sets of questions.

First, to what extent does CMHA offer a quality experience for landlords? How effective is CMHA‘s landlord outreach programming? How well are its events attended?

Has CMHA been able to increase the base of interested landlords? Which types of landlords attend and which ones do not?

Second what is the nature of the relationship between landlords and CMHA staff as a result of outreach efforts?. To what extent have landlords changed their perceptions of HCV as a result of the meetings? Do landlords feel that ―they are on the same page‖ as CMHA with regard to such issues as tenant selection and eviction? 73

How effective has CMHA‘s outreach been from the perspective of CMHA staff as well as landlords? What are CMHA officials‘ expectations regarding the program and to what extent have these expectations been achieved? What problems have they experienced in carrying out the program and how have they dealt with them? What are landlords‘ perspectives on these questions?

Methods

In order to answer these questions I used a mixed-methods approach. I began by conducting a literature review, which uncovered studies aimed at better understanding the challenges faced by low-income rental landlords as well as more recent research looking at the HCV program. Specifically, I looked at the ability of HCV program to disperse poverty, and the effectiveness of demonstration/experimental programs (e.g. Gautreaux and MTO) in promoting increased neighborhood choice and greater social mobility. I reviewed the limited literature which advocates expanded landlord outreach to improve the HCV program‘s effectiveness.

In order to get a sense of CMHA‘s approach to landlord outreach engagement, education, and retention, I attended a number of meetings and events held by the housing authority for landlords. In conjunction with this form of direct non-participant observation, I conducted a series of six semi-structured interviews with seven individuals including landlords, CMHA, and fair housing officials.

Conclusions

Six key themes emerged from my study: (1) the complicated nature of landlord and CMHA relationships (2) the financial burden imposed on landlords, (3) the inefficiencies of the HCV program, (4) the resources available for landlords, (5) the 74

value of CMHA meetings and events for landlords, and (6) the lack of emphasis on the deconcentration of poverty in the landlord outreach programming. Each one of these topics has implications for how landlords understand and engage the HCV program and for the success of the program overall.

1. CMHA and landlord relationships. Throughout the research process and particularly through informant interviews, I found that there were serious difficulties in the relationship between landlords and CMHA. The interview process uncovered a sense of mistrust between landlords and the housing authority. Several informants expressed a fear among landlords that speaking out against the program would lead to resentment and retaliation by CMHA staff through reduced service, although some did acknowledge that this fear is unfounded. Informants also perceived a disconnect between CMHA and landlords as to the role that the housing authority should play in the

HCV process for landlords. Landlords expressed a desire for improved customer service and streamlined communication. They felt that landlords were not valued within the program and should be treated as customers, as they are an equally important piece to the success of the HCV program as tenants or members of the community.

2. Financial burden on landlords. The interviews highlighted the fact that landlords take on a significant financial risk when they become involved in the program.

Landlords expressed concern with increased housing quality standards imposed by

CMHA, without increased standards placed on tenants, and on their limited ability to increase rents. They also noted that the HCV program has moved the burden of paying for tenant damages from the housing authority to the tenant, which increases the risk of the landlord absorbing these costs. The fact that landlords face increasing challenges

with meeting mortgage payments only compounds this situation. In these discussions, landlords struggled to pay over-leveraged mortgages and to maintain their property to the standard required by HUD.

3. Program inefficiencies. Landlords and housing officials also lodged complaints about the inconsistencies and the time costs associated with the HCV program.

Because of these issues, it is faster to accept a market-rate tenant than approve a tenant through this program. In addition to the standard length of the process, some landlords and officials noted that it can be even longer due to inconsistencies in the inspection process or paperwork getting lost. Landlords highlighted the size of CMHA's operation as a hindrance to efficiency and streamlining..

4. Limited Resources. Landlords in Hamilton County can seek support, training, and other services through a few different sources including CMHA outreach among others. Interviewees noted that resources for landlords in Hamilton County are somewhat limited, but landlords seem to be taking advantage of what is available and are pleased with these services. Some informants suggested that the web resources provided by CMHA are helpful and informative, but one informant mentioned that the resources are located on the website and that there is little outreach or promotion by

CMHA. However, no estimates were given as to how many landlords are not being reached. HOME‘s mobility program seeks to connect landlords with pre-screened tenants and to shift some HCV tenants to low-poverty areas, but it was beyond the scope of this project to evaluate the mobility program‘s effectiveness. In addition to

HOME‘s mobility program, there are two trade organizations, REIA and the Apartment

Association of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, and these both provide training and

networking opportunities. These services combine to create a number of opportunities and support systems for landlords in the Cincinnati region.

5. CMHA events: CMHA suffers from an ongoing problem of poorly attended events. Many of the sessions I attended attracted only a handful of landlord, and even the Saturday events only attracted a disappointing number. The landlords to whom I spoke felt that there could be more and better outreach from CMHA concerning the meetings. They also suggested that training sessions could be coordinated with the programming of other organizations such as REIA and the Apartment Association of

Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky.

Based on my observation and follow-up web research, there are also issues with the information shared at the CMHA events. In the orientation sessions, I found that staff members often directed landlords to the CMHA website without answering the question or providing much detail. Additionally, there were points in the orientation meetings where information provided by staff was either vague or proved to be incorrect based on consultation with the CMHA website. This lack of information and periodic misinformation are issues that affect the value and quality of CMHA‘s programming.

CMHA‘s orientation programming would be more helpful and informative, if staff provided orientation packets, addressed questions as thoroughly as possible before directing landlords to the website, and prepared for common questions in order to prevent discrepancies in the information provided.13

6. Poverty deconcentration. Although poverty deconcentration was the major impetus for this research, the subject rarely came up in my observations and interviews.

13 It should also be noted that there is a computer in the conference room where these meetings are held. As many of the orientations which I observed only had one landlord in attendance, there might be an opportunity to walk the landlord through the website. 77

This suggests to me that it is a secondary concern for stakeholders. If HUD wants a focus on wider neighborhood opportunities, it has to provide a different set of guidelines and incentives.

In general these six conclusions emphasize the need for CMHA to better engage the landlords and to recognize their value as important players in the HCV program.

While it is important for CMHA to set high standards for landlords, it is also important for

CMHA to recognize the real-life challenges low-income landlords face especially when they choose to become involved in this program.

It is my hope that this project stimulates more research on landlord outreach among American public housing authorities. Although many of my conclusions are applicable to medium-sized housing authorities in the Upper Midwest and Northeast regions, it is important to recognize that HUD encourages considerable flexibility in the administration of HCV and in particular landlord outreach. Improved knowledge of landlord outreach will be dependent on more case studies that employ a mixed-methods approach like the ones I used.

References

Arthurson, K. (2012). Social Mix, Reputation and Stigma: Exploring Residents‘ Perspectives of Neighbourhood Effects.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2013, March 5). Estimated Cuts in Federal Housing Assistance and Community Development Programs Due to Sequestration, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-28-13hous.pdf

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority. (2013). Property Owner Learning Center. Retrieved from http://www.cintimha.com/property-owners.aspx

Edin, K., Deluca, S., & Owens, A. (2012). Constrained Compliance : Solving the Puzzle of MTO ‘ s Lease-Up Rates and Why Mobility Matters, 14(2), 181–194.

Grigsby, W. G. & Rosenburg, L. (1975) Urban Housing Policy.

Go Section 8. (2013). Gosection8.com. Retrieved from http://www.gosection8.com/index.aspx

Kleinhans, R. & Varady, D. P. (2011) Moving out and Going Down? A Review of Recent Evidence on Negative Spillover Effects of Housing Restructuring Programmes in the United States and the Netherlands. International Journal of Housing Policy. 11:12, 155-174.

Varady, D. P. & Kleinhans, R. (Forthcoming) Relocation Counseling and Supportive Services as Tools to Prevent Negative Spillover Effects? Learning From Gautreaux and other Mobility Programs.

Marr, M. D. (2005). Mitigating apprehension about section 8 vouchers : The positive role of housing specialists in search and placement Mitigating Apprehension about Section 8 Vouchers : The Positive Role of Housing Specialists in Search and Placement, (October 2012), 37–41.

Mayer, N. S. (1984). Conserving Rental Housing A Policy Analysis, Journal of the American Planning Association (October 2012), 50:3, 311-325.

Rice, D. (2013, February 15). Looming Cuts Threaten Housing Programs. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.offthechartsblog.org/looming-cuts-threaten- housing-programs

Schwartz, A. F.(2010) Housing Policy in the United States. Routledge, New York

Stegman, M. A. (1972). Housing Investment in the Inner City. The Massacusetts Institute of Technology. Boston.

Sternlieb, G. (1966). The Tenement Landlord. Rutgers University. New Brunswick, NJ.

Turner, M. A. (2012). MTO's contribution to a virtuous cycle of policy experimentation and learning. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 14(2), 213- 218.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1999). Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housin /phr

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2001). Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housin /programs/hcv/forms/guidebook

Varady, D. P., Wang, X., Wang, Y., & Duhaney, P. (2010). The Geographic Concentration of Housing Vouchers, Blacks, and Poverty Over Time: a Study of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Urban Research & Practice, 3(1), 39–62.

Varady, D.P., Wang, X., Murphy, D. & Stahlke, A. (2012). "Does the Shift of America's HCV Program to the Suburbs Lead to Community Decline?"

Varady, D.P., & Walker, C. (2007). Neighborhood Choices: Section 8 Housing Vouchers and Residential Mobility. Center for Urban Policy Research/CUPR. New Brunswick, NJ.

.88 Stat. 662. (1974). Housing and Community Development Act of 1974