Overall
Recommendation 1: Increase the budget for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP)
Rental assistance programs, like MRVP, are the Commonwealth’s principal tool in bridging the gap between what households with ELIs can afford to pay for housing, and the actual cost of operating and maintaining housing affordable to these households. This investment should balance project-based vouchers for both newly produced and preserved units, with mobile vouchers to provide operational support and housing choice. Project-based vouchers support both the production of new units, and the preservation of existing units, affordable to households with ELIs, while mobile vouchers ensure housing choice and expand options for households with ELIs beyond units produced or preserved with direct public support. Expanding access to both project-based and mobile vouchers will help to reduce the number of households with ELIs experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness.
Adding 4,400 total vouchers annually would provide operational support allowing property owners to physically maintain their buildings while keeping them affordable to these households and ensure that households with ELIs are included in the Commonwealth’s efforts to grow our housing stock. These 4,400 additional vouchers annually should include 2,200 project-based vouchers and 2,200 mobile vouchers to ensure vouchers support residents of newly built, newly preserved, and existing homes. This goal was established to support the creation of 22,000 new ELI Housing units over the next ten years through project-based vouchers, as part of the Commonwealth’s goal to develop 222,000 new units 19 overall over the same time, while also supporting residents in existing units through mobile vouchers. This would represent a significant increase over the Commonwealth’s current provision of nearly 11,000 total MRVP vouchers, including both mobile and project-based, noted above.
See Production Strategy 1, Preservation Strategy 2 and their recommendations, and Supports and Services Recommendation 1.4 for further details.
Recommendation 2: Invest in supporting and sustaining effective tenant organizations
Investing in building and sustaining the capacity of tenant organizations will ensure tenants are empowered to make their voices heard in decision-making processes which impact them. This will improve the quality of housing operations, facilitate more inclusive decision-making processes and lead to results which better align with the needs of tenants.
Recommendation 3: Ensure adequate staffing resources for HLC and other agencies which administer programs serving residents with ELIs
This report, as well as other recent reports and legislation, has either recommended or placed several additional responsibilities on the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) and partner organizations administering programs supporting the housing and housing-related needs of residents with ELIs. All of these organizations will require expanded staffing to carry out these recommendations, alongside recommendations from other Commissions and other initiatives which support the agencies’ ability to work toward housing stability and abundance in the Commonwealth.
Implementation pathway (Recommendations 1-3): These recommendations would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or through other appropriations mechanisms
Recommendation 4: Gather data about existing ELI units
Better understanding the location, characteristics, and support mechanisms associated with existing ELI housing units will help to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the status of ELI housing across the Commonwealth, opening the door to enhanced preservation efforts and improved program targeting. This should include annually collecting and analyzing the following data, as well as other relevant data points, on all housing units affordable and available to households with ELIs: location, bedroom count, 20 occupancy restrictions or requirements, and all government programs supporting or restricting unit rent.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented administratively by HLC and other implementation partners as necessary.
Positive Impacts
These recommendations would provide the funding, staffing, organizing infrastructure, and data needed to effectively implement the recommendations which follow.
Production
The Challenge: Massachusetts currently has an estimated 183,000-unit shortage of housing affordable to households with ELIs. As detailed in the Unlocking Housing Production Commission’s report, “Building for Tomorrow,” housing development in Massachusetts is extremely time- and cost-intensive. ELI housing production requires significantly greater investments and suffers from widespread misconception which may delay development. Combined, these factors create an especially challenging development context for ELI housing, which necessitates unique supports and enhanced financing to enable ELI housing production.
The Goal: Shrink the existing shortage of ELI housing by leveraging the strategies outlined here to efficiently produce 22,000 new units of housing affordable to households with ELIs by 2035, with half of these units developed as permanent supportive housing with supportive services.
Strategy 1: Codify and expand the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP)
As noted in the What Massachusetts is Doing Today section of this report, the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) is one of the Commonwealth’s most effective tools for helping residents with ELIs to access and maintain stable, affordable homes in both the private market and publicly assisted developments. However, the program’s current budget and administrative framework, which currently exists in annual budget language, limit its predictability, transparency, targeting, and reach. Codifying and expanding MRVP will provide predictable, long-term support for renters and property owners while strengthening the Commonwealth’s overall housing infrastructure.See also: Overall Recommendation 1; Preservation Strategy 2, Recommendations 2.1 & 2.2.
Recommendation 1.1: Codify MRVP in the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.)
Codifying MRVP would offer greater stability and clarity into program requirements and eligibility for tenants and housing developers alike. This will help to raise awareness and understanding of the program among potential recipients and landlords. This stability and clarity are critical to support the efficient and effective administration and expansion of the program.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through legislation.
Recommendation 1.2: Provide 2,200 additional MRVP project-based vouchers annually for households with ELIs (in addition to mobile vouchers)
MRVP provides rental assistance to families and individuals earning 80% or less of area median income either through project-based vouchers attached to specific housing units or through mobile vouchers issued for the benefit of tenant households. While mobile vouchers remain an essential part of the MRVP program, they cannot be underwritten by lenders and investors, who determine how much they will provide in loans or capital investment based in part on a property’s projected rental income. By expanding MRVP project-based vouchers, which can support both the production of new units and the preservation of existing units, the program would directly enable housing production and preservation by providing more developers with guaranteed, stable rental income for designated affordable units. Because the rents that households with ELIs can afford to pay do not come close to covering their share of project operating costs, project-based vouchers are among the only ways developers of ELI housing can demonstrate project feasibility, making them critical for the development of new ELI housing and preservation of existing units as affordable to households with ELIs. Providing 2,200 additional project-based vouchers would create a pipeline of financially feasible ELI units while ensuring that the Commonwealth's most vulnerable residents have access to deeply affordable housing with rental subsidies built into the development structure. See also: Preservation Strategy 2, Recommendation 2.2
Implementation Pathway: This recommendation could be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or through other appropriations mechanisms.
Positive Impacts
This expansion would directly address Massachusetts' 183,000-unit shortage of ELI housing by making it financially feasible to develop units that serve the state's lowestincome residents, who typically cannot afford market-rate or even traditional affordable housing. Project-based vouchers reduce the financial barriers that make ELI housing production particularly challenging by guaranteeing a reliable income stream to property owners, thereby attracting private investment and reducing the per-unit subsidy needed from other state sources. The stability of project-based assistance benefits both developers and tenants: developers gain predictable revenue, supporting the financial feasibility of developments, while households with ELIs secure permanent affordable housing without the burden of finding a unit, going through the voucher process with a landlord for whom that process may be unfamiliar, or of losing a unit when rents increase beyond those a voucher can support.
Strategy 2: Modify the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and support flexible funding sources to better support ELI housing development
The Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) governs how Massachusetts allocates federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which are the primary financing tool for affordable housing development in the Commonwealth. By strategically revising the QAP, the state can create stronger incentives and remove existing barriers that make ELI housing production particularly challenging within the current tax credit allocation framework. These targeted modifications would enable developers of projects serving a substantial number of households with ELIs to access enhanced financing tools, exceed certain cost limitations when necessary for project feasibility, and secure the deep subsidies required to serve households at or below 30% of area median income.25 Updating the QAP to prioritize and accommodate ELI housing development represents a powerful policy lever that can significantly accelerate production without requiring entirely new funding sources. Additionally, implementing more flexible funding sources would allow supportive housing development to proceed with reduced financing complexity, and thus reduced administrative and legal costs for this development type.
Recommendation 2.1: Expand use of income averaging for new production in LIHTC projects with appropriate developer capacity
Income averaging is a federal LIHTC option that allows projects to serve tenants across a range of income levels (from 20% to 80% AMI) while still meeting affordability requirements of LIHTC, rather than setting all units at a single income threshold. Expanding income averaging specifically for ELI housing production would enable experienced developers to create projects with a mix of income levels, including deeply affordable ELI units, while generating additional revenue from units serving households at slightly higher income levels to help offset the financing gap inherent in ELI development. This flexibility allows developers to structure financially sustainable projects that include significant numbers of units affordable to extremely low-income households without requiring proportionally larger subsidies from state sources. By limiting this expanded flexibility to sponsors with demonstrated capacity, the state can ensure that complex income-averaged projects are executed successfully while encouraging the production of more ELI units than would otherwise be feasible under traditional financing structures.
Recommendation 2.2: Allow housing for households with extremely low incomes (ELIs) to exceed per-unit eligible basis and allocation caps set by the QAP
The QAP currently establishes per-unit limits on both eligible basis (the development costs that qualify for tax credits) and tax credit allocations to ensure efficient use of limited LIHTC resources across multiple projects. However, ELI housing developments are much more difficult to finance because: (1) ELI housing cannot support as much amortizing debt due to the restrictions on tenant-paid income, without enhanced subsidies, and (2) ELI housing often requires a more robust supportive service infrastructure than other affordable housing; this impacts net operating income, which in turn reduces the amount that the project can borrow to finance development. Taken together, these constraints often make ELI Housing projects infeasible if subject to standard caps on LIHTC and other capital resources. Allowing ELI Housing projects to exceed these caps recognizes the legitimate additional costs of serving the Commonwealth's most vulnerable residents and prevents artificial cost limitations from becoming barriers to production. This modification would enable developers to access sufficient tax credit allocations to make ELI projects 24 financially feasible while maintaining cost discipline for projects with more shallow affordability.
Recommendation 2.3: Allow developers of ELI Housing with substantial supportive services to exceed certain limitations on project-based Massachusetts Rental Assistance Vouchers set by EOHLC when essential for project feasibility and provision of those services
Current limitations on MRVP project-based vouchers, including caps on the number of vouchers per project and restrictions on rent levels, can prevent developers from achieving the financial feasibility necessary to build ELI Housing with intensive supportive services. Allowing qualified ELI Housing developments to exceed per-project voucher limits would enable the creation of larger supportive housing projects that can efficiently deliver services to more residents, achieve operational economies of scale, and make better use of limited development sites in high-cost areas. Additionally, permitting rents up to 110% of Fair Market Rent (FMR) with periodic adjustments for these specialized projects recognizes that properties with substantial supportive services have higher operating costs and need adequate revenue to maintain both the housing and services over time. These flexibilities would be limited to projects demonstrating both necessity for financial feasibility and commitment to providing meaningful supportive services, ensuring enhanced voucher allocations serve the intended purpose of expanding ELI housing with supports.
Implementation pathway (Recommendations 2.1 - 2.3): Each of these recommendations could be implemented administratively through amendments to the Commonwealth’s QAP.
Recommendation 2.4: Implement the Supportive Housing Pool Fund to support the development of more ELI Housing, with a focus on the need for a funding stream to support necessary supportive services
While capital funding for housing construction can be assembled through various sources including tax credits and vouchers, the ongoing operational costs of supportive services— such as case management, mental health services, substance use treatment, and life skills training—often lack reliable, dedicated funding streams. Funding a Supportive Housing Pool Fund would create a stable, predictable source of funding for capital, operating, and supportive services, which together would enable individuals with ELIs who have complex needs to avoid or transition out of homelessness, maintain housing stability, 25 and improve their wellbeing. The Fund should also pool funding made available through various state agencies to fund supportive housing, and be paired with Production Strategy 3, Recommendation 3.9, which follows, to ensure a coordinated approach which aligns the timelines of these various funding sources to the maximum extent possible, while also ensuring that the various agencies administering this funding share goals and expectations for the projects they fund. Providing this funding and aligning the goals and decision making of the responsible state agencies is particularly important given the federal government’s recent announcement that it plans to shift funding away from previous prioritization of permanent supportive housing. This dedicated funding mechanism would remove a critical barrier to developing the 11,000 permanent supportive housing units targeted in the overall ELI production goal by ensuring developers can commit to providing services throughout the life of the project rather than relying on uncertain year-to-year appropriations. By comprehensively addressing the capital, operating, and services components of supportive housing, this fund would enable Massachusetts to efficiently produce housing that provides shelter and helps residents achieve greater stability and self-sufficiency.
Implementation pathway: The increased funding included in this recommendation would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or through other appropriation mechanisms. However, legislation will be required to allow certain state funding sources to be directed to the fund.
Positive Impacts:
These QAP revisions would directly accelerate ELI housing production by removing financial and regulatory barriers that currently make such developments difficult to finance and operate sustainably. By providing developers with enhanced flexibility in income mixing, increased cost caps, expanded voucher allocations, and dedicated supportive services funding, Massachusetts can leverage existing LIHTC allocations more effectively to produce housing that serves the state's most vulnerable residents. The combined effect of these changes would enable the development of financially viable projects that integrate both deeply affordable housing and critical supportive services, moving the Commonwealth significantly closer to its goal of producing 22,000 new ELI units by 2035.
Strategy 3: Reduce Development Timelines and Project Costs for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Housing
The Commonwealth has made substantial investments in affordable housing production, but the cost and time required to bring new units online, especially those serving residents with extremely low-incomes, remain significant barriers to meeting demand. Lengthy permitting processes, inconsistent local review standards, and fragmented state approvals can delay projects for years and increase costs. To achieve its production goals and ensure resources are used efficiently, Massachusetts should adopt a coordinated strategy to streamline development approvals, lower project costs, and accelerate the delivery of new ELI housing across the Commonwealth.27 See also: Unlocking Housing Production Commission’s “Building for Tomorrow” report.
Recommendation 3.1: Standardize zoning and site plan review and expedite permitting processes
The Commonwealth can work with municipalities to standardize zoning and site plan review procedures for ELI housing, creating predictable timelines and requirements across jurisdictions. A statewide framework for expedited permitting—prioritizing ELI housing developments for local and state review—would reduce uncertainty and allow critical projects to advance more quickly. Standardization will also help smaller developers and nonprofit organizations participate more effectively in ELI housing production.
Recommendation 3.2: Require mandatory bonds for appeals to discourage frivolous delays
To minimize unnecessary delays in ELI housing development, Massachusetts should require any party appealing a locally approved permit or zoning action related to an ELI project to post a mandatory bond of $250,000. This requirement would discourage appeals intended solely to delay construction and increase costs while preserving legitimate opportunities for legal recourse. Reducing the frequency of meritless appeals will allow approved projects to proceed without years of costly litigation.
Recommendation 3.3: Institute flat or capped municipal fees for ELI housing developments
Local development fees, such as building permits, infrastructure hookup costs, or water demand fees, can create significant financial hurdles for deeply affordable housing. The Commonwealth can institute flat or capped fee structures for ELI housing to provide cost certainty and improve project feasibility. This could be paired with state reimbursement mechanisms to promote equitable access to affordable housing development.
Recommendation 3.4: Establish a single application process for state permits for ELI housing with firm review timelines
The Commonwealth can implement a coordinated permitting process that allows ELI housing developers to submit one consolidated application for all required state approvals—from agencies such as the MBTA, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Department of Transportation (DOT), and other agencies requiring similar approvals—and receive decisions within a defined timeframe, such as 90 days. Establishing clear deadlines and a single application portal will streamline interagency review, eliminate redundant steps, and improve transparency for developers and municipalities alike.
Recommendation 3.5: Consolidate and accelerate appeals processes
When appeals of ELI housing permits or approvals occur, the Commonwealth can consolidate proceedings into a single, expedited process with defined timelines for resolution. Consolidated appeals will reduce procedural duplication, lower legal costs for developers, increase judicial efficiency, and prevent projects from being stalled by overlapping jurisdictions or inconsistent rulings. Ensuring a timely and transparent appeals process will help balance community input with the urgent need for affordable housing production.
Recommendation 3.6: Allow use of pre-certified designs and incentivize modular construction
To accelerate project delivery and reduce design costs, Massachusetts should create precertified building designs that have already been reviewed and approved for compliance with applicable codes and accessibility standards. In addition, the Commonwealth can create incentives for modular and off-site construction, which can shorten build times and improve quality control. Together, these measures can significantly reduce both the duration and cost of affordable housing development.
Implementation pathway (Recommendations 3.1-3.6): Each of these recommendations would require legislation to fully implement, though pre-certified designs could be developed and certain state pre-approvals could be granted for these designs administratively (recommendation 3.6). Pre-approval of these designs for local development review processes would require legislation.
Recommendation 3.7: Provide short, predictable timelines and pricing for utility companies provision of power for ELI housing
In order to ensure ELI housing units are available for occupancy as soon as possible, and that utility fees do not represent a barrier to quick utility hookups the Commonwealth can require that utilities provide permanent power to ELI housing developments within five business days of a developer’s request when all necessary infrastructure is established in the housing development itself. Additionally, implementing flat or fixed fee structures for ELI housing’s utility costs would help to establish greater predictability in the operating costs necessary to support this housing. Finally, the Commonwealth can establish short, fixed timelines for utilities to approve and connect solar arrays and other renewable energy sources in these developments to ensure that these developments can benefit from increased resiliency and reduced energy costs while also helping contribute to Massachusetts renewable energy targets.
Recommendation 3.8: Allow municipalities flexibility to establish a local tax increment financing agreement by-right for ELI Housing
Tax increment financing agreements have underpinned the success of the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP) program, allowing municipalities to realize development which otherwise might be financially infeasible. Empowering all municipalities to support ELI housing in this same way would increase the financial feasibility of ELI housing developments in these communities at no cost to the Commonwealth and without the need for direct municipal spending to enable projects.
Recommendation 3.9: Align inter-agency decision-making and funding programs to ensure coordination with the established timeline of HLC funding rounds
As noted elsewhere in this report, Massachusetts has among the most robust housing subsidy ecosystems, with many agencies under the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other Executive Offices providing financial support for ELI housing development in various ways in addition to funding provided through the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC). The multiple support sources add complexity to financing for an ELI housing development complex, particularly when timelines for these various funding sources do not align, or even conflict. The Commonwealth can ensure a coordinated approach which aligns the timelines of these various funding sources to the maximum extent possible, while also ensuring that the various agencies administering this funding share goals and expectations for the projects they fund.
Implementation pathway (Recommendations 3.7-3.9): These recommendations would require legislation to be fully implemented, though some increased coordination (recommendation 3.9) could be assured administratively
Recommendation 3.10: Implement specific timeframes for occupancy inspections of Section 8 and MRVP supported units, and provide funding to increase capacity to conduct inspections
Before a Section 8 or MRVP recipient can move into their new home, the unit must be inspected to ensure it meets important standards for livability. When these inspections are delayed, it delays the move-in date for the prospective tenant. To facilitate a quicker movein for these residents, the Commonwealth can require that these inspections, whether being performed by a local housing authority, a regional administering agency, or, in the case of state-aided programs, by a municipality or other approved entity, be conducted within ten business days of an initial request for inspection, following the completion of other requisite verifications. Understanding that there is limited capacity to conduct these tests, the Commonwealth could also allow these inspections to be conducted by regional capital assistance teams and provide funding to support the additional capacity necessary to conduct these inspections.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms, and once funded, could be implemented administratively.
Positive Impacts
Streamlining permitting, standardizing review procedures, and reducing unnecessary costs make it faster and more affordable to produce ELI housing in Massachusetts. These reforms will improve predictability for developers, lower the public cost per unit, and accelerate the delivery of housing to those who need it most. By implementing a unified and efficient development framework, the Commonwealth can ensure that state investments translate more quickly into stable, affordable homes for extremely low-income residents, advancing equity, efficiency, competitiveness, and long-term housing stability.
Preservation
The Challenge: Subsidized and naturally occurring (i.e. unsubsidized) housing affordable to households with ELIs is removed from the market each year as a result of maintenance challenges, expiring use restrictions, and purchase by market-rate and above market-rate housing operators. The loss of these units exacerbates the shortage of ELI housing and necessitates the development of new ELI units, often at a far greater cost than preservation.
The Goal: Maximize preservation of existing housing units affordable to households with ELIs, including both subsidized and naturally occurring (i.e. unsubsidized) units
Strategy 1: Preserve 100% of state-funded public housing units
As noted in the What Massachusetts is Doing Today section of this report, Massachusetts’ state-funded public housing is among the Commonwealth’s best assets in providing residents with quality, stable housing that they can afford. This is particularly true for Massachusetts’ extremely low-income residents, for whom few other affordable alternatives are available. It is important that the Commonwealth preserve each existing unit of state-funded public housing so these units can continue to support housing stability and affordability for extremely low-income residents.
Recommendation 1.1: Over 10 years, provide sufficient capital funding to address the current $4+ billion in maintenance and repair backlogs in public housing and prevent future backlogs
To maximize the potential of state-funded public housing to provide residents with stable homes they can afford, these public housing units must be properly repaired and maintained both for livability and accessibility. Proper repair and maintenance ensure that current residents have the healthy, accessible, quality housing they deserve and that units remain online and available to the residents who need them long into the future, including residents with accessibility needs. The Commonwealth’s current maintenance backlog has been decades in the making and cannot be resolved quickly. The Affordable Homes Act's $2.2 billion in authorizations to support repairs, maintenance, and necessary accessibility improvements in state-funded public housing, and subsequent programming of these authorizations in the Healey-Driscoll Administration’s FY26–30 Capital Investment Plan, bring the Commonwealth closer to clearing this longstanding backlog. Continued investments of this magnitude will be essential to fully clear this backlog by 2035.
Recommendation 1.2: Over 10 years, increase operating subsidies for state funded public housing to close the gaps between rents received and actual operating expenses
The Commonwealth provides the majority of funding that local housing authorities (LHAs) need for daily operations. However, while sizable, the operating subsidies when combined with the rents they receive from tenants, do not always reflect total operating costs. In order to ensure LHAs can support the robust operations their residents deserve, the Commonwealth can increase operating subsidies to shrink the gap between those subsidies, rents received, and actual operating costs. However, this increase should also account for the availability of other subsidies, revenue sources, and grant funding available to LHAs.
Recommendation 1.3: Continue investments in tenant organizing in state-funded public housing
Tenants’ lived experience in public housing provides crucial information for public housing decision-makers. Integrating tenant voices throughout LHA decision-making improves operations and makes LHA’s decisions more representative of the needs of their tenants, thereby increasing tenant satisfaction with the places they call home. Tenant organizations facilitate the efficient assessment of tenants’ needs, concerns and other feedback, allowing representatives of these organizations to speak with a higher degree of authority about the consensus among tenants on any given decision before an LHA. Supporting the formation and operation of these tenant organizations can lead to more efficient LHA decision-making processes, as well as outcomes which better represent the perspectives of LHA tenants and better suit their needs.
Implementation pathway (Recommendations 1.1 - 1.3): These recommendations would be implemented through new bond authorizations approved legislatively and programmed through the Commonwealth’s Capital Investment Plan (recommendation 1.1), and appropriations through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms (recommendation 1.2 & 1.3).
Recommendation 1.4: Exempt public housing authorities from the public bidding requirements of Chapter 149 while preserving prevailing wage
LHAs are subject to stringent procurement requirements. This creates significant administrative burdens for any repair and maintenance work that cannot be conducted by the LHA’s own staff. Under these requirements, LHAs must administer a public procurement process for a general contractor to conduct a given set of repairs and run public procurement processes for any subcontracts involved in that set of repairs.
For example, if an LHA seeks to make upgrades to a common area including new lighting, heating, sinks, and tiling, that LHA must undergo a public procurement for the general contractor managing the upgrade process, then undergo separate public procurements for the electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and tiling contractors, as well as for any other specialized contractor necessary to complete the full scope of repairs covered in the initial procurement of the general contractor.
LHAs must dedicate significant staff time and funding to each of these individual public procurement processes. Each individual procurement also takes significant time to run, meaning repairs and upgrades cannot be made until months after they are initiated. Exempting LHAs from this requirement would allow them to conduct a single procurement for any given set of repairs or upgrades, allowing LHAs to deliver updates more quickly and cost effectively, while still ensuring that contractors abide by prevailing wage laws by virtue of the initial public procurement for a specific set of repairs or upgrades.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through legislation.
Positive Impacts
By increasing the resources available to LHAs and their tenants, and enabling LHAs to use these resources more efficiently, these recommendations will increase LHAs’ capacity to provide healthy, stable, and affordable homes to extremely low-income residents, while also providing LHAs with an enhanced ability to ensure all decisions reflect the needs of tenants.
Strategy 2: Codify and expand the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP)
As noted in the What Massachusetts is Doing Today section of this report, the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) is one of the Commonwealth’s most effective tools for helping residents with ELIs to access and maintain stable, affordable homes in both the private market and publicly assisted developments. However, the program’s current budget and administrative framework limit its predictability, transparency, targeting, and reach. Codifying and expanding MRVP will provide predictable, long-term support for renters, property owners, and regional administering agencies (RAAs) while strengthening the Commonwealth’s overall housing infrastructure. See also: Production Strategy 1.
Recommendation 2.1: Codify MRVP in the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.)
As previously included in Production Strategy 1 earlier in this report, codifying MRVP would offer greater stability and clarity into program requirements and eligibility for tenants, landlords, and regional administering agencies (RAAs) alike. This will help to raise awareness and understanding of the program, not only among potential recipients but also among landlords. This stability and clarity are critical to support the efficient and effective administration and expansion of the program. See also: Production Strategy 1, Recommendation 1.1
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through legislation.
Recommendation 2.2: Provide 2,200 additional MRVP project-based vouchers annually for households with ELIs (in addition to mobile vouchers to expand housing choice)
As described in both Overall Recommendation 1, and Production Strategy 1, Recommendation 1, MRVP project-based vouchers are essential to both production and preservation of subsidized affordable housing for ELI households. Vouchers cover the gap between what households can pay and the costs of operating and maintaining affordable housing developments. Project-based operating support can enable existing subsidized housing not currently supported with project-based vouchers to physically maintain their properties while providing homes to households who cannot afford rents not based on their incomes. Preserving subsidized affordable housing is key to ensuring that new production results in a net increase in affordable housing. Project-based vouchers are also important for the acquisition of buildings to convert naturally occurring affordable housing into long term subsidized affordable housing. Please note, this recommendation reinforces the importance of providing the 2,200 additional project-based vouchers in the preservation context, but does not duplicate Production Strategy 1, Recommendation 1.2. It thus pairs with Supports and Services Strategy 1, Recommendation 1.4 to reflect an overall target of 4,400 additional annual vouchers, as noted in Overall Recommendation 1.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or through other appropriations mechanisms.
Positive Impacts
The predictability and clarity provided by MRVP codification will allow for more efficient operation of the program. Providing additional MRVP mobile vouchers to households with ELIs will ensure that any unit in which a household receiving that voucher lives will be preserved as affordable, thus increasing the supply of housing affordable to households with ELIs even absent the production of additional units affordable to these households.
Strategy 3: Invest in and Enable Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) Preservation
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) represents a critical portion of Massachusetts’ affordable housing stock. These privately owned, unsubsidized properties provide lower-cost housing to many residents with low and moderate incomes, particularly in neighborhoods experiencing rising rents and redevelopment pressure. While very few of these units are naturally affordable to households with ELIs, many do meet MRVP mobile vouchers’ payment standards, putting them within reach and making them vital to housing stability for these households. Preserving NOAH thus not only prevents displacement of these households but also opens the door to make units affordable to households with ELIs over the longer term through preservation supported by MRVP project-based vouchers. These opportunities make NOAH critical to maintaining economic diversity, and reducing the need for costlier production of new affordable units. Strategic investment and proactive acquisition policies can help the Commonwealth retain and expand this vital housing resource, while also economizing public funding by enabling the purchase of properties before continued speculation further drives up acquisition costs.
Recommendation 3.1: Allocate authorized funds to the Small Properties Acquisition Fund operated by CEDAC
The Commonwealth can dedicate resources to scale up the Small Properties Acquisition Fund, managed by the Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation (CEDAC). An initial $1 million investment in this fund enabled community land trusts to acquire three small multifamily properties, preserving affordability for eight households that otherwise faced displacement. The Legislature authorized $20 million in capital funding, including a $10 million authorization in the Affordable Homes Act and $10 million in the MassLeads Economic Development Bill, to continue this program. Allocating those funds will allow mission-driven nonprofits and community land trusts to acquire additional small buildings, secure long-term affordability, and stabilize vulnerable tenants.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s Capital Investment Plan.
Recommendation 3.2: Dedicate capital budget dollars for long-term financing of larger NOAH acquisitions
While the Small Properties Acquisition Fund targets small buildings, a complementary strategy is needed for larger NOAH properties that require substantial acquisition financing and capital repair resources. The Commonwealth can dedicate a portion of its housing capital budget to long-term financing tools that enable nonprofit developers to compete with speculative buyers and preserve affordability at scale.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through bond authorizations and the Capital Investment Plan.
Recommendation 3.3: Implement the Donation Tax Credit to encourage property donations for affordable housing
The Donation Tax Credit, enacted in 2016, intended to provide an incentive for property owners to donate existing housing to qualified nonprofit organizations that commit to maintaining long-term affordability. However, the credit has not yet been made available. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) should move forward with program implementation and target cost-effective opportunities to preserve existing affordable housing while expanding the portfolio of nonprofit-owned properties.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented administratively through regulation, and through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms.
Recommendation 3.4: Gather and analyze data to identify NOAH inventory and prioritize preservation opportunities
To effectively target acquisition and preservation efforts, HLC or a partner agency should develop a data-driven strategy to identify at-risk NOAH properties statewide. Tools such as Costar and Zillow can provide rent-level information, while assessors’ databases and registries of deeds can help identify unsubsidized properties that have not sold in the past decade and properties that have been sold two or more times in the past five years—both potential indicators of NOAH inventory. Centralizing this data will allow the Commonwealth to direct preservation resources efficiently, prevent displacement before it occurs, and track the long-term affordability of the state’s housing stock.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation could be implemented administratively, though it would likely also require funding provided through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms.
Recommendation 3.5: Advance policies that strengthen tenant and community rights to purchase NOAH properties
To further prevent displacement and preserve affordability, the Commonwealth can advance right-of-first refusal and opportunity-to-purchase policies for tenants, community land trusts, and other qualified preservation purchasers. These policies empower residents and mission-driven organizations to intervene before NOAH properties are sold to speculative buyers, preventing displacement, and ensuring that affordable units remain in the community over the long term.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through legislation.
Recommendation 3.6: Improve alignments of energy efficiency programs with other programs supporting capital improvements in ELI housing
MassSave’s Low-Income Energy Affordability Network (LEAN) program funds energy efficiency upgrades in homes where low-income residents live, primarily focusing on multifamily buildings. With heating and electricity costs amongst the highest in the nation,29 efficiency upgrades can represent significant savings for the building owner or resident. The Commonwealth can work to better align program goals, requirements, and timelines with other programs facilitating upgrades to buildings administered by HLC, MassHousing and other agencies.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation could be implemented administratively through enhanced inter-agency coordination, though some process improvements following that coordination may require legislative action.
Positive Impacts
By scaling successful acquisition programs, implementing existing tax incentives, improving data collection, and enacting tenant-empowering preservation policies, Massachusetts can protect existing NOAH units while expanding long-term affordability. These actions will prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents, strengthen neighborhood stability, and reduce public costs associated with homelessness and emergency shelter.
Supports & Services
The Challenge: While Massachusetts provides one of the nation’s strongest housing safety nets, gaps remain in the coordination, funding, and accessibility of these supports. At the same time, limited access to economic and housing mobility supports limits opportunities for residents with ELI to achieve greater stability and economic self-sufficiency.
The Goal: Ensure that Massachusetts households with ELIs have access to a coordinated, adequately funded network of housing, financial, and supportive services that prevent housing loss and promote stability, while also expanding pathways to upward housing and economic mobility.
Strategy 1: Maintain and enhance the Commonwealth’s housing safety net
As noted in the What Massachusetts Is Doing Today section of this report, the Commonwealth is a leader nationally in its level of housing support for extremely low-income (ELI) households through both ongoing and emergency rental assistance programs. These programs are critical to ensure that households with ELIs have a stable, affordable place to call home, and could be expanded to address gaps in existing programs.
Recommendation 1.1: Continue and increase investments in RAFT
The Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT) program is among the Commonwealth’s most effective homelessness prevention tools. Continued and increased investments in this program will ensure it can meet high demand and adapt to changing economic conditions. Sustained and enhanced support for RAFT will keep thousands of families housed each year and reduce the long-term public costs associated with homelessness.
Recommendation 1.2: Renew the Tenancy Preservation Program (TPP)
The Tenancy Preservation Program (TPP) has long acted as a neutral intermediary between tenants and landlords. It provides case management support to tenants at risk of eviction 39 where there is a connection between the reason for eviction and a tenant’s disability. It has thus played a critical role in preventing homelessness by helping households at risk of eviction remain stably housed, while also reducing strain on the court system, health care, and emergency shelter resources. To maintain these benefits, the Commonwealth can renew state budget funding for TPP’s continued operation to meet federal matching requirements for MassHealth’s Community Support Program-Tenancy Preservation Program (CSP-TPP), which met the requirement in FY26 using one-time funds. Stable funding will allow the program to retain experienced case managers, expand capacity in high-need regions, and strengthen coordination with Housing Courts, local service providers, and state agencies.
Recommendation 1.3: Establish an upstream rental assistance pilot program
The Commonwealth can create an upstream rental assistance pilot program that provides short-term financial assistance to households without requiring a notice to quit. This proactive measure would stabilize families before eviction begins, reducing the costs and disruptions associated with eviction, homelessness, and shelter use. The program would complement existing emergency rental assistance tools, creating a more comprehensive housing stability system.
Recommendation 1.4: Provide 2,200 additional MRVP mobile vouchers annually for households with ELIs
MRVP’s mobile vouchers provide a housing subsidy for residents which is not tied to the unit in which they live, but rather to the individual household receiving the voucher. Increasing the number of mobile vouchers available to households with ELIs will thus increase the number of units across the Commonwealth in which these households can live affordably, while also providing these households with increased housing choice and providing property owners with additional operating supports to enable property maintenance. This recommendation of 2,200 mobile vouchers pairs with Production Strategy 1, Recommendation 1.2 and Preservation Strategy 2, Recommendation 2.2 to reflect an overall target of 4,400 additional annual vouchers, as noted in Overall Recommendation 1.
Implementation pathways (Recommendations 1.1 - 1.4): These recommendations would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms.
Positive Impacts
Maintaining and enhancing the Commonwealth’s housing safety net through renewed and continued investments in proven programs such as RAFT and the Tenancy Preservation Program (TPP), while also creating a new program to help those caught in the gap, will enhance Massachusetts’ ability to prevent displacement and the social and economic costs and hardships which it creates.
Strategy 2: Expand Economic and Housing Mobility and Other Supports for Residents with Extremely Low Incomes
The Commonwealth's substantial housing safety net is critical to maintaining housing stability for households with ELIs. However, safety net programs could be paired with broader supports to increase opportunities for residents with ELIs to increase their savings, incomes and further improve their housing and economic situations.
Recommendation 2.1: Expand access to Resident Service Coordinators
Resident Service Coordinators serve as critical connectors between residents of affordable and public housing and the services that build, sustain, and increase housing stability, health, and access to employment opportunities. Increasing access to Resident Service Coordinators across developments will enable earlier intervention in challenging situations, and more proactive action to help households with ELIs access opportunities which increase their housing and economic mobility, thus, strengthening the social and economic fabric of our communities.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms.
Recommendation 2.2: Expand access to downpayment assistance programs
To promote wealth building and long-term housing stability, the Commonwealth can expand downpayment assistance programs for ELI and first-time homebuyers. By reducing barriers to entry for homeownership, these programs can help close racial and economic homeownership gaps while supporting neighborhood stability. Downpayment assistance could be paired with homebuyer counseling and financial education to ensure lasting success
Recommendation 2.3: Support and incentivize financial mobility programs in affordable housing developments
Affordable housing developments are effective settings for delivering financial empowerment and mobility services to interested residents. The Commonwealth can fund or incentivize programs within these developments to provide residents with access to credit counseling, rent reporting for credit, workforce training, budgeting support, and savings initiatives. Embedding financial mobility programs within housing supports residents’ long-term stability and fosters opportunities for upward economic movement.
Implementation pathway: These recommendations would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget or other appropriations mechanisms.
Positive Impacts
Expanding economic and housing mobility supports for extremely low-income residents will strengthen individual opportunity and community stability across the Commonwealth. Together, these initiatives will foster self-sufficiency, reduce poverty, and create stronger, more resilient communities.
Strategy 3: Strengthen Program Coordination, Targeting, and Resilience
To maximize the impact of the Commonwealth’s housing and economic mobility initiatives, state agencies should take proactive steps to safeguard resources, improve targeting, and strengthen coordination across programs. Ensuring that critical supports reach the highest-need populations and remain stable during fiscal or policy changes will make Massachusetts’ housing safety net more equitable, efficient, and resilient.
Recommendation 3.1: Develop a Contingency Plan to Mitigate Federal Funding Reductions
Given ongoing uncertainty in federal housing and social service funding, particularly as it relates to permanent supportive housing, the Commonwealth can establish a contingency framework to protect critical housing and rental assistance programs. This plan could include identifying flexible state resources, prioritizing programs that serve households with ELIs, and exploring alternative funding mechanisms to ensure program continuity during federal shortfalls.
Recommendation 3.2: Improve Targeting of Programs to High-Need Populations and Regions
The Commonwealth can strengthen data collection and analysis to better identify geographic areas and populations with the greatest housing instability. Using this data, HLC and partner agencies can adjust funding allocations, program eligibility, and outreach to ensure that resources are directed where they will have the greatest impact, particularly in communities with high rates of cost burden and eviction risk.
Implementation pathway (Recommendations 3.1 & 3.2): These recommendations would be implemented administratively, though targeting changes responsive to data (recommendation 3.2) in certain programmatic allocations would require legislation
Recommendation 3.3: Provide Technical Assistance for Tenants in Redeveloping Public Housing
To minimize displacement and disruption during public housing redevelopment projects, the Commonwealth can fund and coordinate technical assistance for tenants navigating relocation, return rights, and service connections. This support will help residents remain stably housed and engaged throughout the redevelopment process while preserving community cohesion.
Implementation pathway: This recommendation would be implemented through the Commonwealth’s annual budget.
Positive Impacts
Strengthening program coordination, targeting, and resilience will ensure Massachusetts’ housing initiatives remain effective and equitable even amid fiscal uncertainty. Together, these actions will enhance the efficiency, stability, and long-term resilience of these programs, not only enabling them to serve greater numbers of residents today, but to continue to do so for years to come.