History of Moving to Work (MTW)
History of MTW Legislation and Agency Selection
| Year | No. of PHAs Added/Removed | How MTW Slots Were Filled/Vacated | PHAs Added/Removed |
| 1996 |
+ 30
|
30 MTW PHAs authorized by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat 1321), dated April 26, 1996. 24 MTW PHAs selected from December 18, 1996 HUD Notice and Invitation to Apply. 6 slots filled through Jobs-Plus Initiative. |
Birmingham, Cambridge, Cherokee Nation, Delaware, Greene, High Point, Keene, Lawrence-Douglas County, Lincoln, Los Angeles County, Louisville, Massachusetts, Minneapolis, Portage, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, San Mateo, Seattle (also Jobs-Plus), Stevens Point, Tampa, Tulare County, Utah Consortium, and Vancouver Jobs-Plus Only: Baltimore, Chattanooga, Cuyahoga, Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul |
| 1999 |
- 6
|
5 agencies selected in 1996 NOFA do not sign MTW agreements; 1 Jobs-Plus selectee does not sign agreement. | Birmingham, Cherokee Nation, Los Angeles County, Stevens Point, and Tampa |
| 1999 |
+ 2
|
2 MTW PHAs specifically named and authorized in 1999 Appropriations. | Charlotte and Pittsburgh |
| 2000 |
+ 6
|
6 MTW PHAs selected in PIH Notice 2000-52. | Atlanta, District of Columbia, King County, New Haven, Oakland, and Philadelphia |
| 2000 |
+ 1
|
1 MTW PHA added as authorized by 1996 statute. | Chicago |
| 2003 |
- 6
|
6 Jobs-Plus agencies' participation in demonstration completed and terminated. | Baltimore, Chattanooga, Cuyahoga, Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul |
| 2004 |
- 3
|
Participation in demonstration completed and terminated for 3 MTW PHAs. | Greene, High Point, and San Diego |
| 2008 |
+ 1
|
1 MTW PHA added as authorized by 1996 statute. | Baltimore (slot available from Jobs-Plus) |
| 2008 |
+ 1
|
1 former MTW PHA returned to demonstration. | San Diego |
| 2008 |
+ 4
|
4 MTW PHAs specifically named and authorized in 2008 Appropriations. 30 Agencies execute Standard Agreement, extending participation to 2018. |
Alaska, San Bernardino, San Jose, and Santa Clara |
| 2009 |
+ 3
|
3 PHAs added through PIH Notice 2009-29. | Orlando, Tacoma, and Champaign County |
| 2010 |
+ 2
|
2 PHAs added through PIH Notice 2010-29 (HA) | Boulder and Lexington |
| 2012 |
+ 4
|
Three PHAs added pursuant to 2011 Appropriations and one added pursuant to 2010 Appropriations. Application criteria was set forth in PIH Notice 2012-16. | Columbus, Fairfax, Holyoke, and Reno |
| 2016 |
|
The Standard Agreements for 39 Agencies were extended to the end of each agency’s FY2028, pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. | |
| 2021 |
+ 31
|
31 PHAs selected through the MTW Expansion MTW Flexibility for Smaller PHAs cohort pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. | Auburn, Brattleboro, Brighton, Bristol RHA (VA), Cheraw, Dover, Fayetteville, Fort Mill, Harrisonburg RHA, Hibbing HRA, Kandiyohi County HRA , Maryville, McLeod County HRA, Neptune, New Smyrna Beach, Newnan, Ozark Housing Community, Pleasantville, Pocatello, Pomona, Randolph County, Ripley County, Robeson County, Rockville Housing Enterprises, Rosenberg, Ruston, Sheffield, Solano County, South Sioux City, Travis County, and Washington County CDA (MN) |
| 2021 |
+ 10
|
10 PHAs selected through the MTW Expansion Stepped and Tiered Rent cohort pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. | Akron MHA, Asheville, Charleston-Kanawha, Everett, Fort Wayne, Houston, Kern County, Portsmouth RHA, Salt Lake County (Housing Connect), Washington County (OR) |
| 2022 |
+ 29
|
29 PHAs selected through the MTW Expansion Landlord Incentives cohort pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. | Alameda, Ann Arbor, Bergen County, Berkeley, Brockton, Burlington, Dothan, Florence, Greenville, Harrisburg, Hawaii, Housing Catalyst, Jefferson County, Joliet, Knoxville, Lake County, Lane County (Homes for Good), Lewiston, Middletown, Northwest Georgia, Norwalk, Rockford, Salt Lake City, Santa Barbara, Spartanburg, Spokane, Vacaville, Winnebago County, and Yakima |
| 2022 |
- 1
|
1 PHA voluntarily decided not to pursue MTW designation after selection. | Burlington |
| 2022 |
+ 18
|
18 PHAs selected through the MTW Expansion Asset Building cohort pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. | Bangor, Bristol (CT), Clackamas County, Concord, Grand Rapids, Grinnell, Lakeland, Madison, Medford, Medina, New Hampshire, Salem, Sanford, Santa Cruz County, South Carolina Regional, Springfield, Twin Falls, and West Palm Beach |
| 2023 |
- 1
|
1 PHA voluntarily decided not to pursue MTW designation after selection. | Grinnell |
| 2024 | +14 | 14 PHAs selected through the MTW Flexibility for Smaller PHAs II Cohort pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 | Bath, Boca Raton, Boulder County, Evansdale, Great Plains, Kendall, Livermore, Staunton, Portsmouth (NH), Pittston, Rochester, Seminole County, Watertown, West Hartford |
| 2024 | -1 | 1 PHA voluntarily decided to rescind their MTW designation. | Fayetteville |
| TOTAL |
138
|
Last updated October 17, 2024