S-4673-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Katie Britt (R-AL)
What it does
This bill would allow public housing agencies (PHAs) and private owners of federally assisted housing to establish work requirements for adult tenants receiving federal housing assistance under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Housing Act of 1937. Qualifying activities would include employment, job training, education, community service, and job search. PHAs and owners that choose to implement requirements would be required to offer supportive services, provide written notice to tenants, and maintain a hardship exemption process. Assistance could be terminated for non-compliant tenants. The bill would take effect January 1, 2027.
Who benefits
Public housing agencies that want to implement work requirements but currently lack clear statutory authority. Private owners of project-based assisted housing who gain the same optional authority. Taxpayers and policymakers who favor linking federal benefits to workforce participation. Tenants who use the bill's required supportive services to gain employment and increase their income. Employers in local labor markets who may gain access to a broader pool of job-ready workers. Vocational training programs and community colleges that may see increased enrollment from tenants fulfilling education-based work activities.
Who is hurt
Work-eligible adult tenants who are unable to find employment or meet the required hours and face loss of housing assistance. Tenants in areas with high unemployment or limited job opportunities who may struggle to comply despite good-faith efforts. Tenants with informal caregiving responsibilities that fall outside the bill's exemptions (e.g., caring for an elderly parent). PHAs and owners that opt in would bear new administrative costs for verification, enforcement, and supportive services. Legal aid organizations and tenant advocacy groups may face increased caseloads from hardship and termination disputes. Tenants with pending disability determinations who remain in a compliance gap during the review process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that work requirements promote self-sufficiency and long-term economic mobility for assisted housing residents, pointing to evidence from TANF and similar programs showing that structured work participation requirements can increase employment rates among low-income adults. They contend the bill is carefully designed with broad exemptions — covering children, seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant women, caregivers of young children, and students — and a mandatory hardship process, ensuring that only those genuinely able to work are subject to the requirement. They further argue that requiring PHAs to offer supportive services alongside the mandate addresses a key barrier to employment for assisted housing residents.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that work requirements in housing assistance programs risk causing homelessness among the most vulnerable residents, citing HUD's evaluation of the Moving to Work demonstration, which found mixed employment outcomes and documented cases of assistance termination among people who wanted to comply but faced structural barriers like lack of childcare or transportation. They contend that the bill's exemptions, while broad, leave gaps — particularly for informal caregivers and those in areas with high unemployment — and that administrative complexity in verification and hardship determinations historically leads to procedural terminations unrelated to actual work capacity. They further argue that housing instability itself is a barrier to employment, making loss of assistance counterproductive to the bill's stated goals.
Constitutional context
The federal government's authority to attach conditions to federal housing assistance rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8). The Tenth Amendment is relevant because land use and housing policy are traditionally state and local functions; however, because this bill creates an optional framework for PHAs rather than a mandate, direct anti-commandeering concerns under Murphy v. NCAA (2018) are reduced. Equal Protection and Fair Housing Act considerations could arise if work requirements produce racially disparate outcomes, as Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities (2015) confirmed that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA.
Checks and balances
Congress grants optional authority to PHAs and private owners; HUD retains oversight through existing assessment systems; tenants gain a procedural check through mandatory hardship hearings; federal courts remain available to review terminations and potential Fair Housing Act disparate impact claims.
Historical precedent
HUD's Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program has allowed a limited number of PHAs to test work requirements since 1996; some MTW agencies have implemented similar requirements, providing partial but not fully analogous precedent at the federal program level.