CCLP public comment on housing assistance for mixed status families

CCLP public comment on housing assistance for mixed status families

by Chris Nelson | Apr 22, 2026

Equity work, Family Economic Security, federal action, Housing, Immigration, Legal Advocacy, Public Benefits, Public Comment, Research and Policy Analysis

The following public comment was submitted by Chris Nelson on behalf of CCLP on April 20, 2026, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, regarding the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status, which provides housing assistance to families, including those with mixed status households. For more information see the proposed rule on the Federal Register.

Re: HUD Docket No. FR-6524-P-01 Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status

To Whom It May Concern:

The Colorado Center on Law and Policy (CCLP) strongly opposes the proposed rule published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on February 20, 2026, "Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status" (Docket No. FR-6524-P-01). We urge its withdrawal, allowing HUD's current, long-standing regulations to remain in place. CCLP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan anti-poverty organization that advocates at the state level and in administrative and legal proceedings to support the needs and legal rights of Coloradans facing economic insecurity. This includes many families who would have their rights violated and be displaced by this proposed rule.

HUD frames this rule as a straightforward effort to bring its regulations into alignment with Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. It is not. The rule directly contradicts the plain text of the statute it claims to implement, which says that financial assistance shall be made available on a prorated basis to families like these.[1] It eliminates a mechanism that Congress deliberately designed to keep mixed-status families housed together. It imposes burdensome new documentation and verification requirements that will create barriers for eligible citizens, legal residents, and other eligible noncitizens. It significantly underestimates the costs it would place on displaced families, on immigrant communities already experiencing severe housing insecurity, and on state and local governments struggling to address a severe homelessness crisis. Lastly, it does not satisfy the fundamental requirements of reasoned agency decision-making mandated by federal law.

The Rule Would Cause Severe Harm to Children and Families

The most immediate and significant consequence of this rule is its impact on children. HUD's own analysis estimates that approximately 36,000 eligible U.S. citizen children will lose housing assistance because of this rule.[2] These children are entitled to assistance under Section 214 but are losing it because the rule provides no practical option for their families to remain together in assisted housing. For the vast majority of affected families, households where parents are ineligible but children are citizens, expelling a parent to preserve housing assistance is not a realistic option. HUD's analysis recognizes this, projecting that around 78 percent of mixed-status families will leave assisted housing together rather than separate. [3]

This outcome directly contradicts the research that HUD relies on to justify its housing assistance programs. In its own Regulatory Impact Analysis, HUD cites the work of Chetty et al. (2016) to underscore the importance of housing choice vouchers, especially noting that neighborhood effects are "especially important for children."[4] However, the new rule displaces tens of thousands of those very children from stable housing situations, putting them at risk of the instability that research consistently links to poorer educational outcomes, increased school mobility, and long-term harm to economic mobility and health. HUD cannot simultaneously use this research to defend the value of housing assistance while ignoring its implications for the children this rule displaces.

The rule also raises concerns under Executive Order 13045, which requires federal agencies to identify and assess policies that may pose environmental health or safety risks to children and to give those risks serious consideration before proceeding.[5] Housing instability is among the most well-documented risks, linked with substandard living conditions, disrupted medical care, food insecurity, and exposure to unsafe environments. HUD's own regulatory alternatives section acknowledges that limiting this rule's scope to exclude families with children "would also avoid a conflict with Executive Order 13045."[6] Rather than resolving that conflict, HUD moved to proceed with the broader rule, offering no meaningful explanation for why displacing 36,000 eligible children is consistent with the protections that Executive Order requires.

Read the full Public Comment here.

**********

[1] 42 U.S.C. § 1436a(b)(2) ("any financial assistance made available to that family by the applicable Secretary shall be prorated").

[2] U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Development, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Housing and Community Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status, at 13 n.26 (Sept. 30, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2026-0199-0006 [hereinafter Regulatory Impact Analysis] ("HUD anticipates approximately 36,000 eligible children may choose to exit housing assistance to remain with their ineligible adult family member.").

[3] Regulatory Impact Analysis at 47, Appendix A, Table A2.

[4] Regulatory Impact Analysis at 12 (citing Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz, "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment," American Economic Review106(4): 855-902 (2016)).

[5] Exec. Order No. 13,045, 62 Fed. Reg. 19,885 (Apr. 21, 1997).

[6] Regulatory Impact Analysis at 37 n.61.

Recent articles

Skills2Compete CO testifies against repealing career support services

Apr 17, 2026

CCLP testifies to protect Colorado farmworkers

Apr 10, 2026

CCLP testifies against high drug prices

Apr 9, 2026

CCLP challenges misinformation in medical debt debate

Apr 8, 2026