How have local housing authorities planned to transition EHV households to other programs like HCV or project‑based vouchers?
Executive summary
Local housing authorities (PHAs) are following HUD’s June 2025 playbook to move Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) households into ongoing programs—chiefly the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program and, in some cases, project‑based vouchers (PBVs)—by creating targeted waiting‑list preferences, using available HCV unit‑months, and updating administrative and PHA plans to avoid abrupt loss of assistance when EHV funding runs out in 2026 [1] [2]. Strategies vary by jurisdiction: some PHAs have sought HUD waivers to add EHV families to HCV waitlists or to adopt PBV preferences, while others are pausing new applications, offering transition counseling, and coordinating with Continuums of Care to preserve supportive services [3] [4] [5].
1. HUD’s deadline and the legal framework that drove PHA planning
HUD told PHAs the EHV funding is likely to be exhausted by the end of calendar year 2026 and issued PIH Notice 2025‑19 laying out how PHAs should plan careful transitions into HCV or other existing Section 8 pathways so families do not abruptly lose assistance [1] [2]. The notice emphasizes that when families move to HCV, standard HCV rules apply—EHV waivers do not carry over—and that PHAs must have HCV unit‑months available and follow existing HCV eligibility and income rules [3] [1].
2. The principal mechanics PHAs are using: waitlist preferences and administrative plan changes
PHAs are being advised to create an EHV‑only local preference on their HCV waiting list and to document such preferences in their administrative and PHA plans; HUD has offered a streamlined submission/review process for regulatory waivers that would permit placing EHV families on HCV waiting lists with a designated preference [2] [3]. Where only partial HCV capacity exists, agencies are encouraged to adopt multiple, narrowly tailored preferences to prioritize the most vulnerable EHV households and to ensure only current EHV participants qualify [2] [6].
3. Alternative pathways: project‑based vouchers and unit coding
Some PHAs and local agencies are using PBV preferences or project‑based slots as an off‑ramp for EHV households—SDHC, for example, introduced a PBV waiting‑list preference to facilitate stable transitions—while HUD guidance also clarifies procedural steps such as using the “EHCV” code on HUD‑50058 reporting, which triggers administrative fee allowances and reporting mechanics [5] [7]. HUD is clear that EHV funding cannot be used for HCV HAP costs once a family is transitioned, so PHAs must absorb costs under their consolidated HCV Annual Contributions Contract [3].
4. Local implementation: examples of cautious and proactive planning
Large PHAs like NYCHA have paused opening HCV waiting lists while pursuing HUD approval to add EHV households as a preference and have said they expect to begin phased transitions in early 2026; smaller PHAs (Placer County, Washington County, San Diego) have published timelines, estimated local exhaustion dates, and promised at least 90 days’ notice to households before final rental assistance payments end [4] [8] [9] [5].
5. Service continuity, supportive services, and the funding gap that complicates transitions
Coalitions and advocates warn that many EHV households rely on Continuum‑of‑Care (CoC)‑funded supportive services that are not automatically preserved by an HCV transition, prompting calls to protect CoC renewals and to secure additional HCV renewal funding so transitions do not undermine stability or continuity of care [10] [11]. Analyses suggest modest increases in HCV HAP budgets could allow more successful transitions, but Congress has not committed additional funds and some PHAs have already depleted reserves that might have smoothed the cliff [10] [4].
6. Equity, screening, and voluntary vs. mandatory moves
HUD’s framework allows transitions to be voluntary and contingent on availability, but also requires PHAs to apply full HCV eligibility screening (income, citizenship, criminal screening) before converting assistance—rules that could exclude some EHV participants who were admitted under EHV flexibilities [6] [1]. PHAs must balance preserving assistance for the most vulnerable with the reality of limited HCV slots, a policy tension that has prompted calls for clear prioritization criteria.
7. Political risk and what remains unresolved
Congressional appropriations remain the wild card: advocacy groups, city mayors, and PHAs are lobbying for renewal funds to avert displacement of roughly 60,000 households, but federal budget proposals and past underfunding of HCV raise real risk that PHAs will face impossible choices and that planned transitions will leave gaps in assistance and services [12] [13]. Reporting documents what PHAs are instructed and what several have begun to do, but it cannot predict future congressional action or whether all local transitions will succeed without additional funding.