The Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, authorized in 2012, is designed to enable public housing agencies (PHAs) to convert public housing and properties in other affordable housing programs into project-based Section 8 housing. The intent of conversion is to address projects’ short-term capital needs and preserve their long-term viability.

This report is part of a broader evaluation of RAD’s public housing component. The evaluation is organized around four study topics: (1) choice mobility, (2) long-term preservation, (3) asset management, and (4) PHA organizational change. This report addresses the first topic, which evaluates the implementation of the RAD choice mobility option and its impact on property outcomes, tenant outcomes, and the voucher program.

Specifically, the report presents findings from 46 interviews with PHA staff, property owners, and residents across 13 PHAs. The purpose of those interviews was to understand choice mobility implementation and takeup, the experiences of RAD residents who request vouchers, and how the choice mobility option affects PHAs and property management.

The findings of this report include:

1. PHA staff and resident interviewees noted relatively limited takeup of the choice mobility option. PHA staff members noted that their newly converted RAD units are of high quality, which can serve as an incentive for residents to stay in the building. Although some residents who had not moved mentioned the high quality of the converted housing, others pointed challenges in obtaining other housing, including a lack of quality private-market housing that would accept a voucher as their reason not to move.
2. PHA staff reported having enough voucher turnover to implement the choice mobility option. PHAs included in this phase of the study did not exclude any RAD properties from the choice mobility option, but nearly all of them adopted a limit to the number of choice mobility moves permitted at each property to help manage turnover and vacancies. Staff reported that the number of choice mobility requests was below those limits. PHA staff expressed confidence in their ability to manage choice mobility requests at the pace they were received.
3. PHA staff said they effectively communicated the choice mobility option to their residents. Residents who had used choice mobility reported mixed experiences, however. PHA staff reported that they were able to communicate the option to all residents and could track and respond to resident voucher requests. Residents’ experiences varied across agencies, with some reporting finding communications and steps clear and sufficient and others saying they were confused about the process.
4. Both PHA staff and residents mentioned that challenges in finding private-market housing served as a barrier to exercising the choice mobility option. Most PHAs reported that they did not offer housing search assistance or support for residents who opted to move from a RAD development into private-market housing. Because the funding structure of RAD does not provide specific or additional support for choice mobility beyond the regular HCV program, PHAs generally do not provide targeted mobility services to RAD households. A small number of interviewed residents who requested a voucher commented on long wait times to receive a TBV, although whether wait times were due to the program requiring residents to live in the RAD development for a period of time or the PHA lacking available vouchers was unclear.
5. PHA staff did not believe that the choice mobility option affected unit turnover or property management costs. Some PHA staff reported other factors that affected turnover costs, including limited staff capacity, which was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some program administrators indicated that turnover costs for RAD units have increased because of the need to hire third-party vendors when faced with limited staff capacity, but overall, PHA staff still reported that turnover costs were lower after conversion because the units were newer.