New Research Brief on Emergency Housing Vouchers Published by the Terner Center and Housing Solutions Lab
By: Tushar Gurjal, Senior Policy Manager
December 11, 2025 – Earlier today, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation and the NYU Furman Center’s Housing Solutions Lab published a research brief titled “The Potential End of Emergency Housing Voucher Funding: Public Housing Agencies’ Search for Solutions.” Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs) are vouchers that are “. . . targeted to people currently experiencing or at risk of homelessness and people fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking.”
The brief discusses the success of the EHV program, implications for families should the program end, and suggests ways to maintain support for EHV households. The brief also notes that “. . . a 3.3 percent increase in the 2025 annual HCV budget for housing assistance payments would allow the program to absorb all currently leased EHVs in a way that accounts for rising rents . . . .”
Prior to publication, NAHRO staff reviewed and commented on this brief.
Program Successes
The EHV program has proven to be a success. At its peak, the program had 67,466 vouchers leased. It differs from the general HCV program in that it uses referrals from Continuums of Care, provides additional service fees of $3,500 per voucher, and allows housing agencies to set higher payment standards (up to 120% of the fair market rent). The service fees are particularly useful with housing agencies using them “. . . in a variety of evidence-based ways to support rapid placements, including by providing voucher holders with housing navigation services and/or one-time cash assistance to cover furniture, security deposits, or application fees.” The service fees also help to improve landlord participation by “. . . ramping up outreach efforts, offering incentives for renting to voucher holders, or creating damage mitigation funds to reduce perceived risk.”
The brief also discusses how ongoing services for families would be helpful and how EHVs were used strategically in some communities to end homelessness.
Program End Implications
The brief notes that “[e]nding support to EHV households will likely cause widespread harm.” Many households in this program were experiencing homelessness when they first received their EHV and a removal of assistance could push them back into those earlier circumstances. Housing agencies working on transitioning EHV households are facing significant administrative burdens as they are working on pathways forward. Housing agency staff note that they may not have staff capacity to transition families in the future, so they are doing so now. Housing agencies that have EHVs from outside PHAs (i.e., ported vouchers) must coordinate with those initial PHAs to understand how much time is left to provide rental assistance based on available funding. Additionally, the unexpected end to the EHV program could cause landlords to “ . . . lose trust that federal rental assistance programs or PHAs are reliable if tenants lose their vouchers or are forced to move to access another program . . . .”
The brief also notes that absorbing EHVs into the HCV program may not provide a complete solution. Many PHAs are facing sharp financial constraints not allowing them to absorb EHVs into their general HCV program. Differences in payment standards between the EHV program and the general HCV program could also negatively impact landlords. Absorbing EHVs will result in longer waitlists for the HCV program. One anecdote the brief mentions states that “. . . if [a certain PHA] were to absorb all of the EHV vouchers into their HCV program, it would be about eight years before they could serve anyone new.” Finally, pressure from the EHV program may stop PHAs from project-basing vouchers as frequently, which will limit new construction of affordable housing.
Maintaining Support for EHV Households
The brief discusses how PHAs are trying to maintain support for EHV households. Some PHAs are trying to move families to public housing or project-based voucher developments. Some housing agencies are trying to work with their local Continuums of Care, but potential changes in how that program is funded may limit the viability of this option. Other PHAs are trying incentives to help people try to find ways off the program or providing smaller amounts of funding to create “soft landings” for families. Finally, others are exploring other funding sources like the HOME Investment Partnerships program, but there is a danger that HOME funding will also be reduced or eliminated.
Congress could save the program with modest funding changes. A “. . . 3.3 percent increase in the HAP budget would be sufficient to absorb all currently leased EHVs.” Additionally, adding service fees to all newly issued vouchers in the HCV program “. . . would amount to only a 2.2 percent increase in the HAP budget.” Finally, increasing funding by 7.1% over the 2025 HAP budget would “. . . better reflect rising rents . . . .” The brief ends by stating that creating complementary state and local programs would be beneficial.
The full brief can be found at this website.
The brief itself can be found here.