As the housing crisis continues to affect residents across New York City, the CityFHEPS program is at the forefront of the response to helping low-income households secure housing. Launched in 2019 during the de Blasio Administration as a consolidation of several rental subsidy initiatives, CityFHEPS was designed to ensure that low-income families pay no more than 30% of their income on rent and reduce the overwhelming number of individuals in homeless shelters.
The scale of CityFHEPS has expanded dramatically, growing from an initial budget of $25 million to a staggering $1.25 billion projected for 2025, aiding more than 55,000 households in the process.
This substantial growth highlights the severity of NYC’s housing crisis, as demand for affordable housing surges. As of 2024, nearly 123,000 households depend on federally funded Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, a program that also caps rent at 30% of a household’s income. The backlog for Section 8 has become a pressing issue, with waitlists stretching for years, further emphasizing CityFHEPS as a vital alternative for families unable to afford market-rate apartments.
Despite its significance, CityFHEPS faces criticism stemming from its current eligibility framework, wherein only those residing in homeless shelters can access these vouchers. Critics argue that this requirement forces rent-burdened households to lose their homes and enter shelters to qualify for assistance.
In a bold move in 2023, the City Council voted to broaden CityFHEPS eligibility to include rent-burdened families at risk of eviction, which was met with resistance from the Adams Administration. The administration vetoed the council’s decision, citing excessive cost concerns, prompting the council to override the veto and insisting on the expansion. This led to a legal clash, as the council filed a lawsuit after the Adams Administration continued to defy the council’s decision.
The estimated price tag for the expansion contrasts sharply between the City Council and City Hall. The council estimates a cost of $10.6 billion over five years, while City Hall places the figure at $17.2 billion.
Recent legal rulings have also complicated these efforts. The New York County Supreme Court sided with the Adams Administration, ruling that state law inhibits the City Council’s policymaking authority over social services like CityFHEPS. An appeal by the City Council and the Legal Aid Society is currently underway, signaling that the fight over CityFHEPS is far from over.
Deputy Council Speaker Diana Ayala expressed her disappointment in the administration’s reluctance to expand CityFHEPS, arguing that keeping families in their homes is more cost-effective than providing shelter services.
“If a person has an apartment and they would qualify anyway… why not just keep them in their apartment and allow them to apply?” Ayala stated, advocating for preventative measures to reduce homelessness.
Criticism has also been directed towards City Hall’s new decision to increase the rent burden for long-term CityFHEPS recipients from 30% to 40% of their income. Ayala pointed out that this change disproportionately affects households with earned incomes, as it applies to pre-tax income rather than net income.
This restructuring could result in families struggling to meet basic needs, according to Ayala, who recounts her own experience with Section 8 vouchers in the 1990s when a significant portion of her income went towards rent.
Arguments against the Mayor’s office also emerged from Council Member Pierina Ana Sanchez, chair of the Council’s Committee on Housing. She referred to the Adams Administration as a “paradox,” criticizing the promotion of affordable housing while simultaneously restricting access to CityFHEPS for those most in need.
Sanchez highlighted that the current eligibility requirements mean families in need must first face eviction before they can access assistance, emphasizing the detrimental effects that eviction can have on families and their stability.
Research indicates that evicted families often lose access to neighborhood resources—including schools and healthcare—which further jeopardizes their chances of recovery.
Robert Desir, a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, argued that allowing households to retain their current apartments would be a more effective solution. He noted that many families currently paying less than $1,500 in rent could face insurmountable obstacles in finding comparable housing once evicted.
“Our communities should not be disrupted; stability is key to progression,” Desir said, emphasizing the importance of keeping families in their homes and communities.
City Hall defended its position, arguing that the substantial expansion of CityFHEPS since Adams took office in 2022 shows commitment to addressing housing accessibility. The program’s budget has reportedly shifted from $253 million in FY21 to a projected $1.25 billion for FY25.
Officials claim it’s misleading to suggest reluctance to expand CityFHEPS, citing the program’s significant budget growth as evidence of ongoing support. They also assert that reducing the level of support for long-term CityFHEPS recipients allows for prioritizing resources to those who need them most.
However, Sanchez contended that the cost-saving measure will not amount to significant savings for the city and called for alternative methods to find the budgetary savings rather than penalizing low-income families.
“The city is saving $25 million a year by screwing up lives for our lowest-income New Yorkers,” Sanchez stated.
Ayala echoed similar sentiments, warning that raising the rent burden to 40% risks trapping voucher recipients in a cycle of poverty.
Rachel Fee, executive director of affordable housing non-profit the Housing Conference, cautioned that increasing the rent burden could place a significant strain on already struggling families.
“Taking funds away from necessary expenses like food and childcare will have profound implications for their overall wellbeing,” Fee remarked.
In response to the backlash, City Hall pointed a finger at state and federal authorities, emphasizing that they should shoulder more responsibility in enhancing housing voucher programs.
New York State’s recent budget did introduce a $50 million housing voucher pilot aiming to help families at risk of homelessness, but some argue it falls short of the needs on the ground.
State Sen. Kristen Gonzalez expressed optimism that the new pilot program will provide much-needed assistance, however, others like Assembly Member Claire Valdez worry it does not go far enough.
As federal budget cuts loom under the Trump Administration, the future of Section 8 is also in jeopardy. The proposed cuts to housing vouchers, public housing, and assistance for vulnerable populations could force the city and state to fill the gap left by federal reductions.
Yvonne Peña of the Community Service Society remarked that the growing need for supportive housing showcases the stark reality of the crisis in New York City.
“The numbers don’t lie; more families require assistance to avoid homelessness and maintain stable living conditions,” Peña affirmed.
Sanchez resisted the notion that the council is attempting to
image source from：https://www.amny.com/news/nycs-largest-housing-voucher-program-expands-but-lawmakers-say-its-not-enough/
