When the House Appropriations Committee convened to debate the future of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the conversation extended far beyond a single budget line. It became a window into a larger shift in how we think about affordable housing, federal funding, and the role of local agencies in meeting community needs. 

Despite passionate, data-backed testimony from several lawmakers, the amendment to restore HOME funding was ultimately not passed. However, the Senate’s markup of the FY 2026 THUD appropriations bill did restore full funding to the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which is a significant and encouraging development. It signals strong support for continuing federal investment in locally driven affordable housing initiatives. 

However, this restoration isn’t a guarantee that the reversal is permanent.  

The House and Senate still need to reconcile their respective versions of the appropriations bills. With the August recess underway and the September 30 government funding deadline fast approaching, it’s highly likely that Congress will pass at least an interim continuing resolution to keep the government funded while negotiations continue. That means final decisions on HOME and other HUD programs may not be settled until later in the fall. 

If the HOME program doesn’t ultimately survive in the final negotiated bill, or if it doesn’t end up structured as it is in the Senate markup, it challenges us to reconsider how we build, preserve, and prioritize housing infrastructure moving forward.  

What the HOME Program Has Historically Done 

Over the last three decades, the HOME program has served as one of HUD’s most flexible and impactful tools for producing and preserving affordable housing. As multiple members of Congress reminded the Committee, HOME: 

• Created or preserved hundreds of thousands of affordable housing, both rental units and owner-occupied 

• Supported first-time homebuyers through down payment and closing cost assistance 

• Provided tenant-based rental assistance in high-cost markets 

• Leveraged billions in private and public dollars to support local housing development 

• Directed resources into high-opportunity areas, places with better schools, transit, and job access 

• Adapted to meet the needs of rural, elderly, and extremely low-income populations through community-based non-profits and Community Housing Development Organizations 

The Argument Against HOME: Fiscal Redundancy and Underutilization 

Several members clarified a common misconception: the HOME program is distinct from HOME-ARP. While HOME-ARP (a temporary, one-time appropriation under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) focuses on homelessness relief, the original HOME program supports housing development, rehabilitation, and ownership, functions ARP funds cannot legally replace. 

Opponents of the amendment raised budgetary concerns rooted in duplication and inefficiency: 

• Some eviction prevention and legal aid functions funded by HOME are already covered under other programs such as the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG),  Housing Stability Services under ERA (Emergency Rental Assistance), Eviction Protection Grant Program (EPGP) 

• The program carried a $57 million unspent balance, raising concerns about urgency and capacity. 

• Critics argued for budget consolidation, urging a focus on programs with faster spending rates or narrower targets. 

• Others suggested that affordable housing goals could still be met through expanding tax-based mechanisms like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and by investing in targeted programs like Section 202 (elderly), Section 811 (disabled), and Homeless Assistance Grants. 

The decision to eliminate HOME reflects a deeper philosophical divide: one side favoring flexible, locally directed grant programs; the other preferring centralized, tax-incentivized strategies that reward production efficiency. 

What This Means Going Forward 

While funding for the HOME program remains unsettled, affordable housing remains a legislative priority—just through a different lens. 

The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) marks a historic shift toward tax policy as the primary tool for housing investment: 

• LIHTC expansion was locked in, raising the annual allocation cap and lowering the bond financing threshold from 50% to 30%. 

• Opportunity Zones were made permanent, with new selection criteria intended to target investment more effectively. 

These provisions were enacted through budget reconciliation, meaning they bypass the traditional appropriations process. In contrast, HUD-administered programs, like public housing, HCV, FSS, and administrative funding for PHAs, must still be funded through the annual Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill. 

This dual-track approach creates both complexity and opportunity: 

• If HOME funding is ultimately not preserved in the final bill, the consequences for states, local governments, and nonprofit developers would be immediate and far-reaching. 

• PHAs may need to pivot toward new forms of partnership, supporting LIHTC developers with tenant services or acting as local housing coordinators. 

• Affordable housing stock may continue to grow through LIHTC, even if the deepest subsidies diminish. 

• Agencies can prepare by building cross-sector relationships, layered funding strategies, and data-informed planning to maintain impact in a shifting system. 

 As Funding and Policy Shifts, So Must Our Strategies 

The Senate’s decision to restore full funding for the HOME program is a meaningful step. But it’s not yet final. With the House and Senate still negotiating and a continuing resolution likely, the future of HOME remains uncertain. 

At the same time, we’re seeing an emerging avenue for growth in housing policy: a stronger emphasis on tax-based investments like LIHTC and Opportunity Zones. This isn’t necessarily a transition away from grant-based, HUD-directed funding, but rather an expansion of the tools available to support affordable housing. 

That shift may unlock new capital, but it also raises urgent questions: 

• Will those dollars reach the people who need them most? 

• Will deeply subsidized options disappear? 

• Will PHAs and housing leaders still have a seat at the table? 

At AMA Consulting Group, we believe the answer depends on how we respond. 

We encourage PHAs, city leaders, and housing professionals to stay alert, stay informed, and innovate and advocate at the local level. Keep building relationships across sectors. Keep tracking how tax policy and appropriations interact. And above all, keep showing up for the people and families counting on stable, affordable housing. 

The tools may be changing. But the mission remains. 

About AMA Consulting Group

At AMA Consulting Group, we help Public Housing Authorities and affordable housing professionals advance people and performance. Our team brings deep expertise in program management, compliance, and operational strategy bridging the gap between HUD guidance and on-the-ground realities. 

We don’t just help you meet the standard. We help you lead. 

Whether you’re navigating backlog or LIHTC compliance, adjusting to policy shifts, streamlining operations, or preparing for what’s next, AMA is your partner in building systems that work and teams that thrive. 

Learn more at amaconsultinggroup.com or email sales@amaconsultinggroup.com to connect.