[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Cushing N. Dolbeare
Date: 6/18/2002
Time: 1:25:13 PM
Remote Name: 63.205.79.26
MHC REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOMELESSNESS, RURAL HOUSING, AND INDIAN HOUSING
End chronic homelessness in 10 years by building additional units of supportive housing.
While the accuracy of homeless counts is controversial, the best current estimate is that at least 800,000 people are homeless on any given night, and that between 2.3 million and 3.5 million people experience homelessness over the course of a given year.25
About three-quarters of the homeless are single adults living alone, and about 15 percent are households with children. Indeed, nearly 200,000 children are homeless on a given day.26 In addition to those living on the streets or in shelters, an unknown number are doubled up temporarily with friends or relatives. A study of nine metropolitan areas found that between 2 percent and 10 percent of all poor families are homeless each year.27
The homeless can be divided into two broad groups. Up to one-third are the “chronically homeless” who experience frequent or long-term episodes of homelessness. This population—primarily single adults, although including a small percentage of families as well—generally suffer health or substance abuse problems in addition to extreme poverty.
Many of these individuals live in the homeless system, cycling from shelters to the streets to jails and hospitals—often at enormous cost. A recent study of New York City’s homeless system found that the public cost to care for a homeless, mentally ill person was roughly equivalent to the cost of housing that same person.28 The chronically homeless require “permanent supportive housing” to escape homelessness and reduce the enormous burden on public care systems.
The “transitionally homeless,” in contrast, are households whose predominant need is rapid access to affordable housing. Overall, the transitionally homeless have more in common with the “housed poor” than with the chronically homeless. In fact, many of the needs of the transitionally homeless can be met by increasing the affordable housing supply for extremely low-income families, as well as by policies promoting employment and self-sufficiency.
The MHC strongly endorses a program to end chronic homelessness within 10 years through provision of additional supportive housing. Best estimates put the number of chronically homeless people near 200,000 and the number of appropriate units near 50,000. This shortfall calls for another 150,000 units of suitable housing over the next 10 years, along with continued funding for the 50,000 or so existing units.
The tools to achieve this goal are already in place. For the last three fiscal years, 30 percent of HUD McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance funding has been set aside for permanent housing through the Shelter Plus Care, Supportive Housing, and Single Room Occupancy programs. The Commission recommends that this set-aside be made permanent as a way to ensure the addition of 15,000 incremental units of permanent supportive housing each year.
A related recommendation is to transfer renewal funding for expiring rent and operating subsidies for permanent supportive housing (initially funded under McKinney-Vento) to HUD’s Housing Certificate Fund. This would treat HUD-supported housing for the homeless similarly to other HUDsubsidized housing, freeing current year McKinney-Vento appropriations for investment in incremental permanent supportive housing units and other initiatives for the homeless.
Together, these two initiatives would serve to end chronic homelessness within 10 years. Policies recommended elsewhere in this report would also greatly reduce transitional homelessness. Moving these populations out of shelters and jails and off the streets is in the best interests not only of housing policymakers but of all Americans.
The Millennial Housing Commission recognizes, however, that providing extra domicile space alone cannot address the fundamental needs of either the transitionally or chronically homeless. Overall, a successful policy to solve homelessness must: • Provide sufficient public and private funding for a full continuum of interventions targeted to various homeless sub-populations, ranging from street outreach and emergency shelters to permanent affordable and supportive housing; and • Infuse this continuum of interventions with the high expectations, incentives, and supports needed to encourage homeless households to participate in treatment programs (to address their physical and mental health, substance abuse, and other personal conditions), work productively within the legal labor force, and otherwise engage in constructive behavior. In this regard, future policymaking on homelessness should draw on the lessons of welfare reform. The nation’s experience with the TANF program, enacted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act of 1996, has demonstrated conclusively that a system of narrow, unconditional public assistance is less effective in promoting self-sufficiency than one that artfully wields both sanctions and a broad array of supports. Moreover, the successful welfare reform experiment has, from its inception and throughout its implementation, recognized that a one-sized approach does not fit all target populations. Accordingly, the Commission recommends a broad spectrum of interventions in keeping with the paradigm shift that has occurred in the field of welfare policy.
Increase funding for housing assistance in rural areas.
By definition, rural areas are both remote and lightly populated. Many small town and farming communities were bypassed in the recent good economic times. As a result, poverty rates, unemployment rates, and the incidence of housing problems are at levels approaching those of the nation’s big cities. But rural housing needs are harder to serve than most urban needs, and are often neglected by major federal housing production programs such as HOME, CDBG, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. As a result, the Rural Housing Service (RHS) programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been the primary source of rural housing assistance since 1949. In addition to underfunding, rural areas face unique housing challenges. In particular, homeownership is the predominant tenure in rural areas, and there are far more owners than renters with affordability problems. Moreover, housing vouchers often do not work because there is not enough supply from which to choose. In recent years, federal spending on rural housing programs has been dramatically reduced. As a result, few new housing units have been added in the poorer, more remote rural areas that the Department of Agriculture has historically served. There is substantial demand and need for rural housing assistance, and backlogs for loans are at historic highs. The Commission believes that federal rural housing programs are an important element of the nation’s housing finance and delivery system, and that Congress and the Administration should therefore increase appropriations for lowincome housing in rural America. Specifically, the Commission recommends that Congress provide adequate funding for core RHS housing programs, including Section 515 rental housing, Section 521 rental assistance and housing assistance for farm workers, Section 502 homeownership loans and guarantees, and others. It should also ensure that rural areas receive their fair share of resources from other federal production programs based on objective measures of proportionate housing need. States need to pay special attention to the needs of rural areas as they allocate funding through these programs.
Increase funding for Native American and Native Hawaiian housing. The housing and finance needs of native peoples are urgent. According to the latest census data, the poverty rate among the nation’s 2.5 million Native Americans in 2000 was more than twice the national average.1 Forty percent live in overcrowded or physically inadequate housing.2 Current estimates point to the immediate unmet need for 220,000 affordable housing units, plus related infrastructure.3 The nation’s 399,000 Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders have serious housing needs, as well. While housing programs serving these populations are properly targeted to their unique needs, funding levels have been consistently inadequate. The Commission recommends that Congress increase funding for the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) block grant, and makes the following specific recommendations: 1. Increase funding for capacity-building, technical assistance and training, and the creation of Community Development Financial Institutions (or similar lending institutions) on reservations. Support for housing development is allocated through the NAHASDA block grant rather than through predetermined programs and plans. As a result, tribes need training and technical assistance to understand how best to use this and other resources. In addition, there is a critical need for institutions on Native American reservations to manage the financing for housing construction, rehabilitation, and home improvement loans.4 2. Fund the Land Title Commission to examine mortgage-lending practices and provide additional funds to the Interior Department to accelerate the mortgage lending process. Land issues in Indian Country are extremely complex. Approximately three-quarters of all Indian land is held in trust by the U.S. Government on the tribes’ behalf. The Commission urges Congress to provide funding for the Land Title Report Commission to analyze and improve the current system for maintaining ownership records and title documents, as well as for issuing certified title status reports. 3. Increase funding for housing-related infrastructure needs through Indian Health Services and the Rural Utility Service. Many tribal communities lack the basic infrastructure necessary for economic and community development. Seventy-three percent of all tribal water treatment facilities are considered inadequate,5 and fewer than 50 percent of homes on reservations are connected to a public sewer.6 More funds are needed to eliminate these health and safety hazards. 4. Increase funding for the newly enacted Native Hawaiian Housing Assistance Program. Nearly half of all Native Hawaiians experience problems of housing affordability, overcrowding, and structural inadequacy. There are approximately 20,000 families currently on a waiting list for a lease on a spot on a Hawaiian Home Land.7 There is a serious lack of access to capital on such lands, as there is in much of Indian Country on the mainland. 5. Develop a demonstration program for the provision of housing for tribal college students and faculty. There are 32 tribal colleges today, most of which are located in isolated areas where housing is in short supply. The American Indian population has become increasingly younger, and college education that is obtainable is critical for improving the self-sufficiency of future generations. Tribal colleges receive little or no funding from state governments. 6. Broaden the ability of tribes to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds for housing. Current law effectively prohibits a borrower in a tax-exempt issuance from relying on future federal financial assistance (e.g., guaranteed payments) to repay the loan. While various exemptions from this prohibition do exist, none is for programs tailored to Indian tribes. Under current law, tribes can issue tax-exempt bonds for rental units owned by the tribe and leased to tribal members, but not for single-family or multifamily units owned by qualified residents. In addition, tribes cannot issue tax-exempt bonds for rental housing owned by a partnership in which the tribe is a member.