Marilyn Roy bounced around the country, homeless off and on for four years, before landing in Lawrence in 1992.

A year later she moved into her own house south of downtown, aided by a federal Section 8 rental voucher furnished through the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority.

Roy is still there, and she is still getting much-needed help from the program.

“Basically, it’s given me stability,” she said. “It’s enabled me to have a good place to live. For me, it’s been a nurturing environment.”

But Roy and a host of city, county and business leaders in Lawrence say the Section 8 program’s effectiveness is now threatened by a Bush administration proposal to change the way it works.

Instead of sending funding directly to 2,600 local housing authorities across the country, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development would send the money to states in the form of block grants. The states would then decide how to allocate the money.

Proponents say it will streamline the federal bureaucracy and allow states to target aid where it’s most needed. Opponents say the changes unnecessarily add state bureaucracy to the program and may result in fewer dollars to help low-income residents pay rent.

“The system that we have now is a real problem. The complexity is a real problem,” HUD assistant secretary Michael Liu said this week. “This would help more people in an efficient manner.”

Barbara Huppee, director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority, disagreed.

Marilyn Roy, a Section 8 funding recipient, is among those worried that proposed federal changes in the rental assistance program could endanger her support. Roy is pictured Wednesday in her back yard; she was once homeless for four years.

“We think this will really hurt,” she said. “It will hurt low-income people, and it will hurt the community.”

Who gets helped

The Section 8 program, started in 1976, helps mainly low-income families, though some exemptions are available for the elderly and the disabled. People must apply to the local housing agencies for vouchers that can be used for private rentals.

In Douglas County, Huppee said, the housing authority helps pay rent for 594 clients all but 52 in Lawrence. Sixty-four percent of the clients here are elderly or disabled, she said.

HUD says about $1 billion in voucher money is overpaid to tenants each year and the program could be managed more efficiently if states assumed control.

But Huppee said her agency used every bit of the $2.4 million in Section 8 funding it received from the federal government. She’s worried her department won’t see as much money if the funds are filtered through the state.

R.E. “Tuck” Duncan, a member of the Topeka Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, testified on the bill Tuesday before a congressional subcommittee.

¢ Bush wants Section 8 vouchers changed to state block grants (5-5-03)¢More about Section 8 housing

“Logically, if you move the system from the feds to the state and the state has to administer it, that means there will be less dollars for local authorities to administer the front-line program or you’ll reduce the subsidy amounts,” Duncan said in an interview Wednesday. “The people that you’re serving don’t get the full benefit.”

Local officials agree. City and county commissioners, along with the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, have sent letters to local congressmen asking them to oppose the changes.

“The proposal will only add administrative bureaucracy and administrative costs to this program,” Mayor David Dunfield wrote this week to Rep. Dennis Moore, D-.Kan., “not reduce costs, as should be the intent of the legislation.”

Jean Milstead, interim CEO of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, agreed.

The proposal “appears to carry a number of unfunded mandates that over time will result in fewer families being served with less housing assistance,” she wrote in a letter to Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Kan.

Official reaction

The state, which would take on administrative duties for Section 8 if the proposal passed, takes a neutral stance on the issue.

“The states definitely do have the ability to administer the program,” said Roger Williams, asset management administrator for the Kansas Department of Commerce and Housing. “It would streamline it a little bit.”

But state officials also are concerned Congress wouldn’t maintain funding levels for the program.

“It is a vital program … it would hurt a lot of people if it was cut,” Williams said. “The bill’s present form doesn’t guarantee those funds.”

He didn’t know how many Section 8 clients live in Kansas.

Ryun, who represents the west half of Lawrence, sits on the House Financial Services committee that is considering the bill.

“I believe that states are best equipped to meet needs in their communities,” he said. “I think that the fundamental concept of transferring Section 8 housing funds to individual states as block grants is a sound one.

“However,” Ryun said, “the most important aspect is to make sure families who need housing are effectively served.”

Roy, who has her own house cleaning business and hopes to leave the Section 8 program soon, said she just hoped low-income residents weren’t hurt by any changes.

“Real human beings are in these programs, real people and intelligent people who have dreams,” Roy said. “They’re not just taking from the government because it’s easy to do.”

Staff writer Joel Mathis can be reached at 832-7126.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.