[Senate Hearing 109-872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-872
MCKINNEY-VENTO REAUTHORIZATION AND
CONSOLIDATION OF HUD'S HOMELESS PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINATION OF S. 1801, TO AMEND THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE ACT, AND PROVIDE FOR CONSOLIDATION OF HUD'S
HOMELESS PROGRAMS
__________
MARCH 30, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http: //www.access.gpo.gov /senate /senate05sh.html
39-712 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JACK REED, Rhode Island
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky EVAN BAYH, Indiana
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kathleen L. Casey, Staff Director and Counsel
Steven B. Harris, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph R. Kolinski, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator
George E. Whittle, Editor
______
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ranking Member
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
Tewana Wilkerson, Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006
Page
Opening statement of Senator Allard.............................. 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Reed................................................. 3
WITNESSES
Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.............................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Response to written questions of Senator Shelby.............. 48
Philip F. Mangano, Executive Director, U.S. Interagency Council
on Homelessness................................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Response to a written question of Senator Reed............... 49
Gail Dorfman, County Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN........... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Steven R. Berg, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National
Alliance to End Homelessness................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Charles W. Gould, National President, Volunteers of America...... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Anthony Love, President/CEO, Coalition for the Homeless of
Houston/Harris County, Inc..................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Dennis Patrick Culhane, Ph.D., Professor of Social Welfare Policy
and Psychology, University of Pennsylvania..................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Response to written questions of Senator Shelby.............. 49
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Letter submitted by Ellen Bassuk, MD, President, the National
Center on Family Homelessness dated March 28, 2006............. 51
Statement of Martha R. Burt, Ph.D., Principal Research Associate
and Director, Social Services Research Program, Urban Institute 54
Statement of Gloria M. Guard, President, People's Emergency
Center Philadelphia, PA........................................ 69
Statement of Carla Javits, President, Corporation for Supportive
Housing........................................................ 83
Statement of Amy Knudsen, Interim Director of the Iowa Coalition
for Housing & the Homeless..................................... 114
Statement of the National Council of State Housing Agencies...... 120
(iii)
MCKINNEY-VENTO REAUTHORIZATION
AND CONSOLIDATION OF
HUD'S HOMELESS PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 3:34 p.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Allard, (Chairman of the
Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. In brief, I will call the hearing to order.
I would like to welcome everyone to this hearing of the
Housing and Transportation Subcommittee hearing on the
McKinney-Vento Act Reauthorization and Consolidation of HUD's
homeless programs. I want to thank all of you also for being
patient while we finished the full Committee action and also
had a chance to go down to the floor to vote, and I am sure
that later on, I will be joined by Senator Reed.
In 1987, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act, now known as the McKinney-Vento homeless
assistance programs. The Act was the first comprehensive law
addressing the diverse needs of the homeless, including
programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Until enactment of this law, the problems confronted by the
homeless were mainly addressed at the State and local level.
The McKinney Act represented a consensus that had developed
that a major Federal commitment was required in order to end
homelessness. Currently, the Federal Government devotes
significant resources to the homeless. In fiscal year 2006,
HUD's homeless grant programs were funded at $1.34 billion.
Yet, despite the enormous Federal resources directed toward
homelessness, the problem persists. We need to bring more
accountability to homeless assistance, increasing funding for
successful programs and initiatives, and replacing those that
are ineffective. There seems to be consensus that the McKinney-
Vento bill has been an important tool to help some of society's
most vulnerable members and that the first step should be
reauthorization of the Act.
There also seems to be consensus that the second step
should be consolidation of the existing programs. I originally
introduced consolidation legislation in the year 2000, and
Senator Reed offered a proposal in 2002. HUD has also advocated
for a consolidated program for several years now.
While we differed in some of the details, including the
funding distribution mechanism for a new program, these
proposals offered consensus on the important starting point of
consolidation. After extensive discussion, Senator Reed
introduced Senate bill 1801, the Community Partnership to End
Homelessness Act, a bill I was pleased to cosponsor. The bill
will consolidate the existing programs to eliminate
administrative burdens, multiple applications, and conflicting
requirements.
The streamlined approach will combine the efficiencies of a
block grant with the accountability of a competitive system.
Localities will submit applications outlining the priority
projects for their area based on outcomes and results. I am
especially supportive of approaches such as this one that focus
on results rather than processes.
In considering reauthorization of such an important
program, especially given the scope of the potential changes, I
believe it is important to solicit a variety of viewpoints.
Thus, I have convened today's hearing to facilitate that
discussion. I would like to hear the witnesses' views as to
what is and is not currently working in the McKinney-Vento
programs as their suggestions for reauthorization, including
their comments on Senate bill 1801 or any other reauthorization
proposal.
We have an excellent lineup of witnesses today. First, we
will hear from Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development. In addition to his
perspective as the second in command at HUD, Secretary Bernardi
has the added advantage of his service as a mayor.
He will be followed by Phillip Mangano, who has provided
excellent leadership for the Interagency Council on
Homelessness, partnering with cities nationwide in developing
10-year plans to end homelessness, and I appreciate your
efforts, Mr. Mangano, with our Denver Mayor, Mayor
Hickenlooper. He tells me that he felt like his working
relationship has been just superb, so we appreciate you helping
us out there.
Our final witness on the first panel will be Gail Dorfman,
County Commissioner of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin
County has been active on the issue of homeless and on Tuesday
announced a commission to end homelessness in the country.
The second panel will begin with Steve Berg, Vice President
for Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to End
Homelessness. The Alliance is a national nonprofit organization
dedicated to addressing the root causes of homelessness.
Next, we will hear from Charles Gould, who is the National
President of the Volunteers of America, an organization that
has been helping people in need for 110 years; Anthony Love,
President and CEO of the Houston Coalition for the Homeless
will be able to give a front line perspective on
reauthorization based on his daily work providing homeless
assistance. Finally, we will hear from Dennis Culhane of the
University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Culhane is known nationwide as
one of the leading experts on homelessness.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today. Your testimony will be helpful as the Subcommittee moves
forward with these issues.
Now, I would like to call on my colleague, Senator Reed
from Rhode Island, to make an opening statement, and then, we
will proceed to the panel.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank you not only for holding this hearing on reauthorization
of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act but also for your leadership
in championing Senate bill 1801, the Community Partnership to
End Homelessness Act. And let me thank the witnesses, all of
them, for their testimony today. We look forward to it.
How we deal with homelessness is not just an issue of
policy. It touches on the values that we cherish as a Nation.
What do we say to children whose parents cannot afford adequate
housing? To women in abusive relationships who have to flee and
find shelter, to veterans who served their country and cannot
find a home, to the mentally ill, who are challenged in finding
adequate places to live, if we cannot respond with adequate and
safe housing?
This is about values as well as about policy. We have to
tackle this complex issue. We have learned a great deal since
the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 20
years ago.
For one, we learned that keeping a chronically homeless
person off the streets saves money. If you look at the medical,
enforcement, emergency shelter, other expenses that these
individuals accrue, it is far more cost-effective to find them
permanent housing. We also know that many people who are
temporarily homeless often experience homelessness as a result
of a job loss, a medical crisis, a discharge from a medical
facility or even a correctional facility. For these people,
allowing communities more flexibility in trying to help them
through assistance in paying utility bills, with planning for
transition is effective and could be more effective.
We know that. We know that coordinating discharge, as I
said, from hospitals and from jails makes sense. We know that
communities are making substantial inroads with limited Federal
dollars they are receiving. Thanks to many of these programs,
households that typically lacked housing stability have moved
into supportive housing environments. Eighty-five percent of
such households have remained in permanent housing 2 years
later, thanks to the services they receive, so we know that
supportive services can make a key difference.
We know giving communities flexibility will allow them to
target the populations that need the most assistance to prevent
family homelessness, provide successful support of housing
programs, and quickly provide transitions for individuals from
homelessness to permanent housing. We also know that the HUD
implementation of the Continuum of Care has stimulated
increased coordination within communities, better programs, and
real results.
As we move forward in this process of reauthorizing
McKinney-Vento, we are in an unusually strong position not only
to reauthorize the Act but also to improve it. And we can
codify the structural improvements that have already been put
in place by HUD and agencies throughout this country.
And by asking communities to provide better documentation
on homelessness, on the steps they are taking to combat it, and
on the effectiveness of these steps, we increase their ability
to share information on what works, enhancing the potential for
future improvements.
Through a collaborative effort with HUD, the Interagency
Council on Homelessness, homeless advocates in communities
throughout the country, and service providers, Senator Allard
and I and 11 other Senators from both sides of the aisle
crafted the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act, S.
1801, legislation--and the Senator has described it before--
consolidates existing homelessness programs into one program;
creates a unified, performance-based process of funding that
would allow more funding to flow to communities that
demonstrate a commitment to ending homelessness and
accomplishing the goals they set; focuses public and private
sector on ending and preventing homelessness, not just simply
warehousing people time and time again; encourages
collaboration and planning; and ensures that multiple Federal
agencies are involved as appropriate for their missions to
serve homeless people.
With limited Federal dollars, our legislation promises to
make significant progress in giving communities the flexibility
and creativity they need to combat homelessness. Tackling this
issue along with the issue of affordable housing are of
paramount importance to the American public. I look forward to
working with Senator Allard on these goals, as we have worked
before, and I thank him again for his cooperation and his
collaboration.
And Mr. Chairman, I have three letters from homeless
service providers I would like to put in the record.
Senator Allard. Without objection.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Again, let me thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
I am going to run a pretty tight hearing. The reason for
that, I have been told that at least on our side, we may have
votes around 5:00, in which case, we are going to have our
clock running here. When we get on 5 minutes, I am going to
start cutting you off, just because I see three witnesses on
this panel and I have four on the other. And by the time we get
into some questioning, we are going to eat it up. I would just
hate to have us break at 5:00, and maybe we have two or three
votes, and you sit around for an hour, and then, we are back.
So, I would like to get this wrapped up within the next
hour and a half if we can. And your full statement is going to
be made a part of the record as a lot of other information. We
are not going to get all of our questions presented to you in
the hearing. I am going to have some that I do not think I will
be able to ask; same thing with Senator Reed.
But the way we handle that is we then request the witnesses
to respond to those questions in writing. So we will give those
to you, and then, if you can get back to us, to the Committee,
within 10 days on your responses to that, we will then make
them part of the record. We will hold the record open that
long.
Okay; having shared that good news with everybody, Mr.
Secretary, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF ROY A. BERNARDI, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bernardi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Reed. I will be brief. I will ask and I know that you will
hopefully allow me to submit my written testimony for the
record.
Senator Allard. We will, without objection.
Mr. Bernardi. Mr. Chairman, it is important to begin by
thanking you for holding this hearing and recognizing you and
Ranking Member Reed for your leadership in the fight against
homelessness. We have been going at this for a number of years.
Each of you has played a pivotal role in this effort, and
it is appropriate to acknowledge that your bill, S. 1801,
introduced last fall, represents a major step forward in the
effort to consolidate the three Continuum of Care programs and
codify them in statute to allow far greater flexibility which
will enable improved performance and effectiveness of the HUD's
homeless assistance grant programs.
I am pleased to report that in the House of Representatives
yesterday, Congressman Rick Renzi introduced the
Administration's bill. As you know, the Administration's
proposal to consolidate our three competitive homeless
assistance programs, our Supportive Housing Program, our
Continuum of Care, and our single room occupancy Section 8
program into a single program is aimed at alleviating
homelessness in this country.
In our view, consolidation would provide more flexibility
to localities; devolve grantmaking responsibilities to local
decisionmaking bodies; fund prevention of homelessness;
dramatically reduce the time required to distribute the funds
to the grantees, which right now is a very onerous process; and
further the Administration's goal to end chronic homelessness.
These two bills are the culmination of several years of
hard work and I am proud to say bipartisan good faith work that
has included input from so many, including some of you who are
going to be appearing on the next panel.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Reed, I would be remiss if
I neglected to recognize two staff members in particular who
have served each of you with great distinction: Ms. Tawanna
Wilkerson and Ms. Kara Stein have worked tirelessly with us to
produce solid legislation that is represented by Senate bill
1801 and the Renzi bill in the House.
These bills are very complementary, and while there are
differences between them, I think the most remarkable feature
is that there is common ground there to really go ahead and do
some wonderful things. Both of these bills consolidate the
three competitive programs into a single program with a single
match, and both affirm the role of local planning entities to
provide for more local decisionmaking authority and
flexibility.
Both bills would greatly simplify how HUD's resources can
be used to effectively and efficiently solve homelessness. Both
bills would greatly compress the time it takes to get Federal
funds into the hands of grantees and the providers.
As I mentioned, while the two bills are similar in overall
design, in a number of areas, there are differences that merit
our attention. The Administration bill ensures broader
participation in the Continuum of Care; that is, we feel,
greater participation by the nongovernmental entities. It
ensures greater accountability in the expenditure of funds for
homelessness by each Continuum of Care by requiring each
Continuum to be a legal entity; focuses more on chronically
homeless persons living on the streets; provides for renewal of
all types of projects, including transitional housing; provides
greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to solve
homelessness; provides greater flexibility in using supportive
program funds to prevent homelessness and we feel better
targets its permanent housing resources for those who are the
most vulnerable, the disabled.
It is my view that if we continue our dialogue and work
together, we can bring these bills to closure, and in closing,
I want to thank you for holding this hearing once again; look
forward to participating and answering your questions.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your brief testimony.
Mr. Mangano.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP F. MANGANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Mangano. Thank you, Chairman Allard and Senator Reed.
Thank you for your opening statements and for having this
hearing committed to homelessness.
Having been committed to the abolition of homelessness for
the past 20 years, beginning then as a full time, bread line
volunteer and now as the Executive Director of the U.S.
Interagency Council on Homelessness, I want to first
acknowledge the historic and heroic role that countless
community and faith-based groups have demonstrated on this
issue. They have been on the front lines and in the forefront
of response to homelessness in our country for 30 years, and
the McKinney-Vento resources have been critical in that effort
for 20 years.
While I know it is unusual and even unorthodox, I want to
report some good news on homelessness. We are now achieving in
this country what we have sought for a quarter of a century:
Results on homelessness, change, progress on our streets, in
our shelters, for our neighborhoods and communities. Visible,
measurable, quantifiable change. Mayors reporting these
results: In Miami, a 30 percent reduction in street
homelessness; in Portland, Oregon, a 20 percent reduction; in
Nashua, New Hampshire, a 26 percent reduction; in Raleigh,
Durham, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a 17 percent
reduction; in San Francisco, a 28 percent reduction; and in
Philadelphia, an 81 percent reduction in Central City street
homelessness.
At a hearing 2 weeks ago, the VA and providers reported a
reduction in the number of homeless veterans.
Why is this new results-oriented mindset and approach
working? For the past 20 years, Federal investment has
increased. From the McKinney Act of 1987 to the President's
record $4.15 billion level of proposed funding for 2007, the
increase is tenfold, 1,000 percent. In that time, homelessness
has increased. Researchers tell us that more than 2 million
Americans experience homelessness in a year.
Increased resources and increased numbers are a frustrating
reminder that while new resources are important, new ideas are
just as important. We cannot simply take the new resources and
expend them on the old status quo. That is why these new
resources and bills are so important, and that is why change is
happening.
We have learned much in the last 20 years. In the past few
years, the Council has encouraged the creation of
jurisdictional plans in States and cities that are informed by
a management agenda that prioritizes results and outcomes.
Informed by GPRA and the President's Management Agenda that
calls for every Federal investment to be research and data
driven, performance based and results oriented, those plans put
new ideas and innovative initiatives to work for homeless
people.
Who benefits when Federal and other public and private
resources are invested for results? Homeless people benefit, as
do our neighborhoods and communities, businesses and police, ER
workers, pedestrians, librarians, and we join with them. We are
changing the verb of homelessness. No longer managing the
crisis but ending the disgrace. We are moving from funding
programs that serve homeless people endlessly to investing in
the result of ending people's homelessness. We have seen it
work in England, and now we are seeing it work here.
And we have discovered that our attention to measurable and
quantifiable outcomes makes common sense to jurisdictions that
measure every other initiative in that way, and dollars and
cents to the taxpayer. Shuffling homeless people between
homeless programs or cycling them through expensive systems of
health and law enforcement is expensive. Studies in a number of
communities around our country indicate what that expense is in
emergency rooms of hospitals, in police and law enforcement, in
court costs.
We have learned through those studies that the old status
quo of ad hoc, siloed crisis interventions is more expensive
and less effective.
Of course, we have learned that what makes the most sense
is to prevent homelessness in the first place. We save the
human tragedy and taxpayer resources in that dollars and cents
strategy.
I am proud to be here today with Commissioner Dorfman, who
this week joined with Minneapolis Mayor Rybak to become the
212th community joining with us in a partnership across the
country that includes 53 governors and 20 Federal agencies.
Thankfully, the Community Homeless Assistance Act,
forwarded by both of you and others is informed by 20 years of
learning. With expansive input from stakeholders in and out of
government, Committee staff is to be commended for their
inductive approach to create added value in emphasizing
housing, prevention, and performance to affirm in the law what
is working and to dismiss what is not.
And the HUD intent to consolidate several HUD homeless
programs into a single initiative makes sense, common sense. It
would be better in the field, for communities, for Continuums,
and for the front lines. I endorse that consolidation and
affirm the common direction in initiatives in both of these
bills.
Finally, our common intent through a national partnership
is to end chronic homelessness in our Nation. The initiative is
a priority, not an exclusivity. We have not forgotten homeless
families. And the research and data is now being created to
inform family policy and investment.
Is everything perfect? No. Is progress being made? Yes. And
the act and the consolidation will forward that progress. We
have much work to do, but we are better prepared and equipped
than ever before.
Thank you.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. Secretary
Bernardi had a minute left over. I just gave it to you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mangano. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Commissioner Dorfman, you are next.
STATEMENT OF GAIL DORFMAN
COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Ms. Dorfman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Reed. I
am honored to address the Committee this afternoon. And I first
want to remember former Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento. He
spent his life dedicated to improving the lives of people
experiencing homelessness. Congressman Vento left us too soon,
but he left behind a legacy of working effectively on behalf of
America's homeless, and that legacy will not be forgotten in
Minnesota or in the Nation.
I applaud you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed for
introducing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act.
Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is absolutely critical if we
are to change the paradigm, as Mr. Mangano said, from managing
homelessness to ending homelessness in our communities.
Yesterday, as has been said, we began an intensive 100-day
effort to develop a blueprint for ending homelessness in
Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Mr. Mangano joined us as
leaders from the public and private sectors, nonprofit and
philanthropic communities and the homeless--and I say that
again, and the homeless--came together to commit to ending
homelessness over the next 10 years. In partnership with the
Federal Government and our State government, we will be
successful, and will do it before the 10 years is up.
In Hennepin County, we well remember what it was like
before McKinney-Vento. Our shelters were overflowing, and we
were vouchering families into hotels and motels, about 100 of
them across the Twin Cities every night. Our average shelter
stays were three times what they are today, and an alarming
number of families were cycling in and out of shelter on a
regular basis. McKinney-Vento dramatically improved upon the
situation by supporting results-oriented programs.
Additionally, through our partnership with the Federal
Government, we have been able to leverage significant amounts
of local dollars, $12.4 million in 2005 alone.
Together, we have ended homelessness for thousands of men,
women, children, and unaccompanied youth in our community. Over
the past two decades, we have learned a great deal in Hennepin
County about what does and does not work to end homelessness.
We no longer look to shelters as the solution. Instead, we
first focus on preventing people from becoming homeless
whenever possible and rapidly rehousing them when they do.
It costs 10 times more to house and resettle a homeless
family than to prevent them from losing their housing in the
first place. Through the support of McKinney-Vento funds, we
have established one of the best family homeless prevention
models in the Nation.
In Hennepin County, we work hard to keep people in the
housing they have. We have learned that prevention is the best
and most cost-effective way to end homelessness. When families
do become homeless, we work with them through our Rapid Exit
program to quickly place them in permanent housing. Rapid Exit
is a supportive services program funded by HUD, McKinney-Vento,
and is listed on the HUD website, as a national best practice.
Through Rapid Exit, Hennepin County contracts with highly
effective, community-based providers who support both clients
and landlords, the landlord piece is really critical, providing
housing stabilization assistance while maximizing mainstream
resources. They provide ongoing case management, help clients
resolve personal issues that are barriers to their housing, and
build relationships and build on the strength of their clients.
As one provider told me, most homeless people are
survivors. They have the innate strength to be successful, and
we encourage them to use that strength. The case managers also
assist landlords in resolving issues when their clients'
housing is in jeopardy, cosign leases, provide financial and
legal assistance. They are the intermediaries with the private
landlords, and that is the single most effective way to recruit
and maintain landlords, who are willing to rent to high barrier
tenants.
Our 2005 results, like past years, far exceed expectations.
During the one year, 588 families, an average of three children
per family, and 48 chronically homeless adults were placed into
housing by Rapid Exit. Of the families, 94 percent remained out
of shelter for the full 12 months. Of the 48 chronically
homeless, we followed them for 6 months; 79 percent remained
out of shelter. Additionally, 30 percent of the families, 60
percent of the single adults who have been chronically
homeless, increased their incomes during that period. Through
the expansion of our prevention efforts in Rapid Exit, we have
seen dramatic reductions, as I said, in the average length of
stays, and the number of parents and children sheltered per
year.
And these kinds of results highlight the importance of
innovative, results-oriented practices and our ongoing
partnership with the Federal Government through McKinney-Vento.
But, you know, the numbers are good, but the personal stories
are the best, like the single mom from Illinois who fled from
an abusive relationship with her four children and showed up in
our county shelter in Minneapolis. She struggled with finding
work, caring for her children, and getting them to school on
time.
Our Rapid Exit worker helped her locate a job and an
apartment she could afford. Now, 10 years later, she owns her
own modest home. Two of her children have graduated high school
and are attending college, and she still calls her case manager
every 6 months to proudly report on her success.
The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act and
McKinney-Vento will bring us another step forward in our quest
to end homelessness and provide stable housing. We support
consolidation of McKinney-Vento programs, renewal of rent
operating subsidies, automatic renewal; the 30 percent
permanent set aside for individuals and families with
disabilities; and the recognition of the critical importance of
prevention.
We are, however, concerned with just one point, the
proposal to curtail certain services after 3 years. It is
critical that services that directly support housing placement,
coordination with the private landlords, and housing
stabilization remain intact.
Last, we support increased flexibility. The more creative
we can be at the local level, the more likely we will be able
to end homelessness for people in our community.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today.
Senator Allard. I would just add that I served with
Congressman Bruce Vento on the Ag Committee when I served in
the House of Representatives, and he was truly dedicated to--at
that time, we served on the Nutrition Committee on the Ag
Committee, so he was truly committed, and I very much enjoyed
working with him at that time on nutritional programs and how
they would impact the homeless.
So now, I am over here on the Banking Committee and taking
a little different perspective, and I could not agree more with
you that having a home to start with is a great starting spot.
And then, things get much easier from that point on.
My first question is to you, Mr. Secretary: What outcome
and performance measures does HUD currently use for grantees?
Given that the Continuum of Care has been rated as an effective
program by the PART analysis, why is HUD proposing to change
these highly effective programs.
Mr. Bernardi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are very pleased with the performance measurement score
that we received from OMB. To end chronic homelessness and move
families and individuals to permanent housing, we want to make
sure that we use GPRA, and we use the measurements that are in
place. We have increased the percentage of homeless persons
staying in permanent housing over 6 months. That was at 70
percent last year, and we are looking for an incremental
increase in 2006; increase the percentage of homeless persons
moving from transitional housing to permanent housing; we also
measure the increase in the percentage of homeless persons
becoming employed by 11 percent.
I would like to state some accomplishments, if I may. In
2005, HUD assisted nearly 125,000 homeless persons in moving
from the streets or other living situations into the HUD
McKinney-funded transitional housing or permanent housing. Of
these, over 27,000 were chronically homeless, over 20 percent.
Only 1 percent of people in HUD McKinney-funded housing fell
back into the streets in 2005.
Persons employed in 2005: Almost 30,000 persons became
employed while in HUD-funded housing, and of those, 5,700, or
approximately 20 percent, were chronically homeless. With our
homeless management information system, of the 450 Continuums,
about 75 percent of them right now have that system in place.
And it is a collection of data; it is working with Mr. Mangano
and the Interagency Council on the Homeless on their effort to
end chronic homelessness. Both of those paths run parallel. And
each and every year, the Continuums are doing more when it
comes to measurement, when it comes to performance and
reporting back to us.
The difficulty that we have and the purpose of this
legislation is that anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the
individuals that are homeless are what we identify as
chronically homeless. And yet, they use up to 50 percent of a
community's emergency resources. Now, that is an incredible
number. So we feel very strongly, this Administration, the
President, Secretary Jackson, and ourselves, that we really
need to address that, and that is what the bill we have been
working for does, with the consolidation of these three
programs.
I will stop there. I would like to go further into how
strongly I feel about this consolidation; hopefully, I will
have the time to do it, but we really need--as a former mayor,
I can tell you, the Continuums of Care in this country, those
450, they represent 3,700 jurisdictions, about 92 percent of
the population.
And with the Interagency Council on the Homeless, with
their 200-plus States and cities that have signed onto their
own individual plans and with the resources, $1.3 billion this
year; a $200 million proposed increase for 2007, we feel we can
do more with the resources that we have; that we can take these
chronically homeless individuals and stop that revolving door;
place them, these disabled individuals, into permanent housing,
and with the supportive services that the Continuums provide
and other agencies, we can bring them back to a productive life
and eliminate that kind of expenditure not only from the
Federal Government but also from the communities.
Senator Allard. Mr. Mangano, I believe that you look
around, and you see what programs are working and what are not,
and those that are working, you try and replicate their
success.
As you look around the world, what countries have taken
approaches to homelessness that have been effective, and what
best practices can you see us adopting?
Mr. Mangano. Well, I appreciate the question, and I was
just at a meeting with 25 European countries who are all
meeting together specifically on the issue of homelessness, and
I would have to say the countries that had results as the
orientation of their investment were England and Ireland. And
there is no question that one of the best practices in the
world is what is known as the Rough Sleepers Initiative in
England, which targeted specifically people who were living on
the streets of England.
That best practice involved modest new resources from
central government in England; had the political will of the
Prime Minister; and was oriented to local planning processes
that themselves were results oriented. The modest new resources
of central government were invested in those results oriented
plans, and in 3\1/2\ years, 3 out of every 4 people who were
sleeping on the streets of England were no longer there, not
through punitive means but through solution-oriented efforts.
We have committed an act of ``legitimate larceny'' on that
effort, and I think what we are doing here in the United
States, thanks to the investment of HUD resources, and the
Secretary mentioned the $200 million additional in the HUD
budget, which is the Samaritan Initiative in the President's
proposed budget; those would be important new resources in the
investment that we are making in ending the homelessness of
those who are the most visible and on the streets of our
country.
We are certainly learning from England and from Ireland
where jurisdictionally based plans that are targeted to end the
homelessness of the most visible. I will finish with this, as
they achieved success in terms of the Rough Sleepers
Initiative, 3 out of every 4 off the streets; people in
Parliament were going home to their districts. There were fewer
people on the streets in Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham;
fewer people as they walked to their offices in London.
That remoralized Parliament, who had been reluctant to
invest in any more, because they had not seen any results or
outcomes. That remoralized them to reinvest in the issue of
homelessness, and now, there is a deeper investment in family
homelessness as a result of the achievements that were secured
in the Rough Sleepers Initiative.
Senator Allard. Success breeds success.
Mr. Mangano. Exactly.
Senator Allard. Okay; Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
ask, if I can, one question to each person and then reserve the
right for additional questions later.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for recognizing Kara Stein and
the staff members. She would be here, but she has about a 3\1/
2\ week-old child to care for, and you understand that.
Mr. Bernardi. That is the priority.
Senator Reed. Indeed.
In 1993, HUD created the Continuum of Care. It is a very
effective program. What additional benefits do you see by
essentially codifying the Continuum of Care in legislation that
we are looking at?
Mr. Bernardi. Well, I think it puts all the Continuums
throughout the country basically in the same situation to be
working together as they presently do. The part of the
legislation that I really like is the prevention that we do not
have now, and we have a little difference in our bills. We want
to allow the Continuums to use 10 percent of the resources, and
your bill, I believe, speaks to 5 percent.
But we need to do more with prevention. If we can do more
with prevention, obviously, I think, in the final analysis, we
can begin to decrease the numbers. The Continuums, our
proposal, as you know, calls for at least a 65 representation
of nongovernmental entities. Those are the not for-profits, the
foundations, the hospitals, the homeless people, people who
have been homeless, and about a 35 percent representation of
local officials.
To codify that, to give them the emphasis that they need,
right now, we at HUD receive--let us see, the notice of funding
availability went out March 8; the 6,000 applications will be
there by May 25, the close of business. We spend 6 months going
over those applications and another 2 or 3 months putting that
all together and making the announcements.
By changing this and by codifying the Continuums, having a
single application with a single match and comprising boards
throughout the country in each one of these Continuums, we push
where we should back to the local level. And then, they will
hold their own individual competitions among their projects
that they will prioritize and that they need the most.
Again, I think this is the legislation that we need. I know
legislation is difficult to come by, but I think we are very
close on it, and with the support in the House and with your
continuous support and the Chairman's, I feel very strongly
that the Continuums, the 450 that we have in the country, I
believe we have met with many of them; they are in favor of
this; this would really address the chronic homeless situation
that we have in this country by providing more permanent
housing and even bonuses for these Continuums as we have these
competitions; if their first priority is the chronically
homeless, they can receive, after the pro rata share for need,
15 percent more in their application, with a maximum of $6
million, so the large cities do not take too much of the money,
but that would provide additional dollars to really address
those individuals.
Now, some people may say to you, well, what about families,
and what about other people that are homeless that are maybe
not disabled? Well, the way the funding works right now, it is
about 52 percent goes toward the chronically homeless and about
47 percent for all the remaining homeless population.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Mangano, I just want to thank you for your over 20
years of dedication to this issue and your help in working with
the staff along with the Secretary and developing this
legislation. And because time is dwindling, let me ask a
question of Ms. Dorfman. Your project, Homeless Connect, is one
that has been noted, and it features one-stop-shopping. I would
hope and assume that the legislation we are talking about would
facilitate these types of one-stop-shopping arrangements. Might
you just briefly comment on that?
Ms. Dorfman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed.
Project Homeless Connect I believe started with Mayor
Newsome in San Francisco, and we thought it was a good idea, so
we took it up last year. And it really is getting all the
resources in one room from our community and broad-based
participation and volunteers. And the way it works, and I will
give you one success story, is we had a guy who was homeless
come in at our last Project Homeless Connect who had serious
and persistent mental illness, and there was a housing provider
there who had a vacancy. But he needed to get on SSI, and he
needed to get a mental health assessment in order to be
eligible.
But the mental health providers and psychiatrists were in
the room, and the Social Security Administration was in the
room, and so, they could fill all of those eligibility slots
and problems that day, and this one individual was moved into
supportive housing that very day. And in addition to that, he
got a haircut before he moved in and a pair of shoes.
And so, that is what it is all about breaking down those
barriers that the chronically homeless have faced in having
access to services. So if we have Project Homeless Connect
combined with the McKinney-Vento supportive housing programs,
it works beautifully, and that is what we are trying to do.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Well, I think we are going to have to move
on to the other panel. I was hoping maybe we might get another
round of questioning. We have used up about 45 minutes or 40
minutes right now, and we have about 45 minutes.
And I do not think we have heard anything different on the
vote schedule, have we? We have not yet, so let us still assume
we have 5:00 votes.
Senator Reed. We have warned everyone that we could send
questions out and ask you to respond, and I think they waited
for awhile before we did CFIUS.
Senator Allard. They have already done a lot of waiting.
Senator Reed. You have paid your time.
Senator Allard. Thanks for your time and showing up here. I
know it is not always easy to break away from your daily
routines to be here, but your participation is very valuable,
and we appreciate your taking the time to be with us.
Thank you.
Mr. Bernardi. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mangano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed.
Ms. Dorfman. Thank you.
Senator Allard. If the second panel would please come
forward.
I would like to welcome the second panel, and we will start
with you, Mr. Berg, and then go right down the line until we
hit Dr. Culhane. You will have the privilege of wrapping things
up.
Mr. Berg, you are on.
STATEMENT OF STEVE R. BERG
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS AND POLICY,
NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Berg. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I am Steve Berg. I am the Vice President
for Programs and Policy with the National Alliance to End
Homelessness. I would first like to thank you for holding this
important hearing, for inviting us to testify and for
introducing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act.
I would like to start by saying that this is a particularly
exciting time to be working on the issue of homelessness. Over
the past few years, people at every level are beginning to see
homelessness as a problem with a straightforward solution and
that undertaking that solution is the right thing to do, and it
is the smart thing to do.
We are at the point where in the past year, a small number
of communities that have been leaders at reforming their
approach to homelessness are beginning to see quantifiable
results in the form of fewer homeless people. Hundreds of other
communities are now working hard to replicate that success and
to end homelessness. We regard the introduction of this bill as
an important step toward that goal, newly awarded we are proud
to support the bill.
To a very large extent, this bill codifies the practices
that have evolved in the HUD Continuum of Care. Given the
positive record of the Continuum of Care, that is completely
appropriate. The most important and far reaching change that
this bill would make is to give to communities that are ready
to accept it the responsibility and the authority to direct
their local efforts more strongly toward an outcome-based
approach that holds the promise of ending homelessness. Now,
this kind of strong leadership at the local level is one of the
key elements in communities that have had positive results.
The bill codifies some important specific provisions that
provide for balancing good results. It ensures that some
attention will be paid to people with severe disabilities, many
of whom tend to remain homeless for the longest periods of
time. Fortunately, the answer for this population is well
known. It is supportive housing, with its strong record of
cost-effectiveness and positive results for people.
The bill would require that 30 percent of the funding
nationwide be used for permanent housing for people with
disabilities. That is something that has been in appropriations
bills for the last 8 years. It has tended to give balance to
the program and achieve good results.
The bill makes important changes involving family
homelessness. For a number of the communities that have had
these quantifiable results, it has been reductions in
homelessness among families with children that have driven
those results. The stakes are huge, because the trauma of
homelessness can affect children for years afterward. The bill
would provide incentives to develop housing stock for families.
It would encourage rental assistance. It would reward
communities that quickly rehouse homeless families, and it
would provide more money for prevention. These are all things
that experience has taught us will be useful in reducing
homelessness among families with children.
Now, there are some issues that I believe are going to
require continued consultation to attempt to resolve. We will
need to continue to work on how to deal with communities that
may not have the capacity to immediately undertake all the
activities that collaborative applicants are expected to carry
out under this bill. We will need to spend time working out the
right approach to matching, since it is the experience of some
providers that a cash match might cause inefficiencies and hurt
communities that need the help the most.
The extent to which HUD would be involved in funding
services as opposed to housing remains controversial, and we
will need to seek the input of people working in communities to
see if the approach in this bill is an approach that would
promote or hamper program effectiveness. I am personally
confident that consensus on these issues, which are somewhat
esoteric and technical, can be achieved and that we will be
able to move forward.
Finally, I would like to note that there are other areas of
Federal policy beyond the structure of the HUD homelessness
programs that have a huge role in determining whether we will
be successful. A strong Interagency Council on Homelessness has
proved to be crucial in moving us forward. Increased resources
and good incentives in other Departments such as HHS, Labor,
and VA are critical, and I would specifically like to note the
Services for Ending Long Term Homelessness Act, Senator
DeWine's bill, which, of course, Senator Reed is the chief
Democratic sponsor and which would provide a much needed
funding stream out of HHS to match up with the HUD funds on
chronic homelessness.
Finally, it is important to have strong programs to address
the larger needs for housing for the most vulnerable Americans
with the lowest incomes. The strong targeting that is in the
affordable housing fund in the House version of the GSE bill
would be an important step in this direction. It is of
incalculable importance to retain the good features of the
Section 8 voucher program, including targeting to the people
who need it the most and in general to have strong support for
HUD programs.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee once again for its
consideration of our testimony and offer to answer any
questions either now or at any point in the future.
Senator Allard. Mr. Gould.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GOULD
NATIONAL PRESIDENT, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA
Mr. Gould. Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, thank you
for inviting me to testify this afternoon, and thank you for
the leadership that you are providing on this vital challenge.
My name is Charles Gould. I serve as the National President for
Volunteers of America. I have submitted a written statement for
the record, and I would like to summarize that.
Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based
organization that is dedicated to helping those in need to
rebuild their lives and reach their full potential. For 110
years now, since 1896, our ministry of service has supported
and empowered America's most vulnerable groups, including
homeless individuals and families. Our interventions both
prevent and end homelessness in urban and in rural communities
across the country. Last year, we provided assistance to about
80,000 homeless children, youth, and adults.
As a homeless service provider, my comments and
recommendations today reflect the views of our staff from
around the country, people who are on the ground every day
working to end homelessness. Volunteers of America believes
that by consolidating current programs, by broadening the lists
of eligible activities, by focusing on homelessness prevention
and by expanding the population to whom housing and services
can be provided, reauthorization of HUD's homeless assistance
programs will allow local communities to take full advantage of
the best practices that have been developed over the past 20
years.
Since 1987, we have learned three key lessons about
homelessness in America: First, McKinney-Vento programs are not
a substitute for mainstream housing and social service programs
or systems of care; second, family homelessness has
significantly increased; and third, both permanent and
transitional housing can be effective tools to end
homelessness.
Each of these lessons has significant policy implications
in the context of the McKinney-Vento reauthorization bill
before the Subcommittee, and my written statement details all
of our recommendations, but I would like to focus on three in
particular. First, we know that McKinney-Vento programs cannot
end homelessness without ensuring that homeless persons are
able to access the far greater resources that are available in
mainstream housing and social service programs.
So we must increase the percentage of McKinney-Vento funds
being spent on homeless prevention and ensure that mainstream
programs do not discharge people into homelessness. Intervening
to end homelessness is considerably more expensive than
ensuring that we prevent it, and preventing homelessness must
be our primary social objective, so no individual or family
spends time on the street or in emergency shelter.
Second, recognizing that family homelessness continues to
increase, any reauthorization of McKinney-Vento programs must
allow local communities the flexibility necessary to assist all
homeless populations. In this regard, Volunteers of America
supports provisions of Senate bill 1801 that permit funds to be
spent on permanent housing for nondisabled homeless families.
We ask, however, that this Committee take additional measures,
such as ensuring that the HUD definition of who is homeless
includes persons who are doubled up or living in hotels or
motels due to the lack of adequate alternative housing and
requiring that the HUD definition of chronic homelessness
include families.
And finally, since we now understand that both permanent
and transitional housing are effective at ending homelessness,
we ask the Committee to provide incentives for both of these
interventions so that every American community may plan to end
homelessness and receive targeted funding to assist local
individuals and families who are most in need. Thank you again
for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to answering any
questions.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Love.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LOVE
PRESIDENT AND CEO, COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
OF HOUSTON-HARRIS COUNTY, INC.
Mr. Love. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Love. I am the President
and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston-Harris
County. Thank you for inviting the Coalition for the Homeless
to testify in support of the reauthorization and amending of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston-Harris County,
known as the Coalition, is a private, nonprofit organization
whose mission is to educate and advocate for the needs of
persons who are homeless through support and the coordination
of services. Founded in 1982 at the request of then City of
Houston Mayor Katherine Whitmayer and then-Harris County Judge
John Lindsay, the Coalition was formed to support those
entities that provide direct support to people that are
homeless through advocacy, education, collaboration, and
community partnerships.
The Coalition currently serves as the lead coordinator for
the local Continuum of Care system. We serve in this role
through the support and partnership with the City of Houston
and Harris County. This collaborative was developed in 1992,
and the foundation of this process is based on two principal
concepts: Implementation and evaluation. Under the guidance and
coordinating efforts of the Collaborative Continuum of Care
Approach, Houston-Harris County's strategy became a model that
HUD used to encourage other jurisdictions to develop.
Last year, our local Continuum of Care provided funding for
27 agencies, representing 62 programs and/or projects that
spanned the spectrum of outreach, emergency shelter,
transitional housing, and, of course, permanent supportive
housing.
In Houston-Harris County prior to Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, there were 12,000 to 14,000 men, women, and children
without a place to call home on any given night. Last year,
approximately 34,000 individuals accessed homeless services in
our community. All of these services represent McKinney-funded
agencies that function as the existing system to exit
homelessness in Houston-Harris County.
Since 1992, McKinney-Vento homeless assistance funding has
been the major source of funding for the majority of homeless
service agencies in Houston and Harris County. This funding has
provided housing, employment, and other essential services to
tens of thousands of individuals who have experienced
homelessness in our community.
McKinney-Vento for years has served as the impetus for
collaboration and community solutions to ending homelessness.
McKinney-Vento has enabled many communities to leverage
millions of dollars in private funding and investment while
also providing housing opportunities to thousands of low-income
Americans who otherwise might not be able to afford housing of
any sort.
On the other hand, the current bill being considered would
enhance the Act's ability to serve more people who are at risk
of being homeless, realize that any reduction in HUD service
dollars will not take place until adequate alternative funding
is provided and expand who qualifies as chronically homeless.
The Coalition supports this bill, especially the following
three items: Provision of funding for preventing homelessness.
By allowing communities to use up to 5 percent of their grant
funding to prevent homelessness, a huge barrier to ending
homelessness is significantly reduced. This provision truly
provides a means of closing the front door to homelessness. The
Continuum is incomplete without prevention as part of the
collaborative process to create a seamless system of service.
Involvement of more Federal agencies: One agency should not
be expected to do it all or bear the burden of ending
homelessness in our country. This measure ensures that multiple
Federal agencies are involved in the provision of housing,
health care, human services, employment, and other services as
necessary and appropriate.
Adjusting the role of the Interagency Council on
Homelessness provides a nationally coordinated effort to
complement local and State efforts. It also makes the issue of
homelessness a national priority and serves as encouragement to
local communities that this issue will remain important
nationally.
A broader definition of chronically homeless: The current
definition of chronically homeless is restrictive and disallows
much needed services to individuals and families, who also
demand much from the current homeless assistance system. This
new definition is more inclusive than the current definition,
because it includes families who have an adult head of
household with a disabling condition and people who are
homeless other than only those who are sleeping in an emergency
homeless shelter or in a place not meant for human habitation.
This definition provides a more accurate picture of the
individuals and families that are served by these community
agencies every day.
Again, the Coalition supports this legislation. However, we
are concerned about the 25 percent match requirement and its
possible effect on smaller nonprofits and their ability to
apply for these funds. We are not opposed to this provision,
but we are uneasy about the possible consequences and wonder
aloud what type of barrier does this requirement create for
smaller agencies that perform at a high level but with a
smaller budget?
Once again, I thank you for your invitation and this
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Coalition. The Coalition
supports your efforts to reauthorize and amend the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the critical resources it
will provide to communities in their efforts to end
homelessness.
Senator Allard. Dr. Culhane.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS PATRICK CULHANE, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY AND PSYCHOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Culhane. Thank you, Chairman Allard, Ranking Member
Reed, and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to
come here today.
Like the others, I want to commend you for your leadership
in bringing this bill up, bringing some consolidation to these
programs and codifying, as people have said, some of the best
practices and knowledge that have developed over the years.
I am going to speak to a few of the provisions in the bill
that I support and a couple of the concerns that I may have,
and then, I would be happy to answer any questions.
The permanent housing setaside for the chronically
homeless, of course, is something that I feel that research
strongly supports. There has been a lot of research to show
that a significant percentage of the shelter beds, more than
half of them in the single adult population, are being used by
people who are chronically homeless. They are effectively
living in the shelter system, and they bounce around between
jails, hospitals, and other very expensive systems of care at
great cost, and research has shown that placing people in
permanent supportive housing actually reduces their use of
those services and saves money. So the setaside, I think, makes
ample sense with regard to the single adult population.
I did have a couple of concerns about the specifics in that
area. One was that the language did not at present include a
disability requirement among the single adults. Nearly all of
the chronically homeless adults do have a disability, but I
think we would want to be careful not to incentivize long stays
in shelters as the sole means of accessing this rather limited
resource.
A second concern I have is about the inclusion of families
in the category of chronically homeless. I go in greater detail
in my written testimony on this, but to my knowledge of the
research literature families are not considered within the
category of chronically homeless people. While there are
families who experience long shelter stays, and that is a
problem that deserves to be addressed, they really have not
been considered within the whole theory and research about the
population who, without shelters or permanent supportive
housing, would be living and even dying on our streets.
Now, I think as a matter of principle, what we should be
working toward is that no family should stay in a shelter long
enough to qualify as chronically homeless. The fact that
families are staying in shelters or transitional housing for up
to a year is the problem, and that is what we need to address.
I think that Ms. Dorfman from Hennepin County, who was on the
last panel and described the work of that county and all that
they are doing with the Rapid Exit programs and prevention,
this is the direction to go.
Recent research we have done shows that those long stay
families in shelters are using about $22,000 each in shelter
resources. That is the equivalent of 3 years of a Section 8
vouchers in the City of Philadelphia. So you can either get 270
days of shelter, 9 months, or you can get 3 years of housing
for that same resource. So, I think it makes a lot of sense for
us to be thinking about taking the resources that are going
into long stays in shelters and into transitional housing and
focusing on the Rapid Exit component. And I think that the
evidence supports the fact that indeed, for families who linger
in shelters, it only works to their detriment.
If indeed there is going to be permanent supportive housing
that is targeted for families, I would suggest that you
recommend that the transitional housing stock is converted to
that purpose, because right now, those transitional housing
units are not targeted to special needs populations, and they
do not have a demonstrable benefit for those families. We do
not see in the literature that there is a benefit to longer
stays in transitional housing as opposed to being in housing in
the community.
Another point is that I think that including families in
the set aside could potentially dilute the intent of the bill,
which is to codify what we have learned about targeting the
chronic homeless initiatives for single adults.
Another provision that I very much support is all the
accountability measures in the bill, particularly the support
for the homeless management information systems. We know that
data and research has been critical to informing decisionmaking
at the local level, and having these data systems is going to
be the most important thing going forward.
Many of the people coming into the homeless system are
coming from other places, whether it is jails, prisons, or
hospitals, and the only way we can put that fact on the radar
screens of these other agencies is by having data which is
tracking that and which we can show to these other entities,
``Hey, you are not only having an impact on homelessness, but
also these people end back up in your institutions if we do not
do something about this.'' So really, I think it is critical in
terms of the whole prevention agenda to have that kind of
information infrastructure.
Last, I just want to credit the 10-year planning processes
that have been started and the way that the Interagency Council
on Homelessness has really galvanized communities and changed
the nature of the discussion about homelessness in this
country.
Finally, I am just a little concerned, I want to note,
about the local planning boards described in the bill. One of
the things I think we have learned from the Continuum of Care
is that local government really needs to have a majority say in
how these decisions are made, because they control all the
policy levers; they control most of the resources in these
communities; and only they have the public authority and
accountability, I think, that can be driving consistency with
the Federal agenda.
Thank you.
Senator Allard. Thank you all for your testimony.
My first question is both to you, Mr. Berg and Mr. Gould.
What is your opinion on the matter of a required setaside of
Federal funding for permanent housing? We have heard from Dr.
Culhane on that matter, and then, while you are answering the
question, kind of share with us what you think might be an
appropriate level for a setaside.
Mr. Berg.
Mr. Berg. Thank you.
We have found over the last 8 years that the 30 percent
setaside that has been included in appropriations bills has
provided a balanced approach. It has directed new resources to
practices; really driven a lot of the serious progress in a
number of communities about that. And the bill, of course,
retains that requirement, so that is the level we would
support.
Senator Allard. Mr. Gould.
Mr. Gould. We also support the 30 percent setaside.
Volunteers of America provides a great deal of permanent
housing, and we think that the 30 percent level is an
appropriate balance as well. However, we also find that
transitional housing is a very important program to provide,
and the bill would go further in providing additional
incentives for permanent housing.
We would prefer to see those same sorts of incentives
provided for transitional housing to really balance out those
needs.
Senator Allard. Mr. Love, I have a different question for
you. Please share with us your opinion of the requirement for
State and local matching funds. Under a consolidated approach,
what do you believe would be a reasonable matching fund?
Mr. Love. Thank you; I do agree with the idea of having a
matching fund, because that demonstrates the local level of
investment in ending this condition of homelessness. I think an
appropriate level would be 20 percent as opposed to 25 percent.
In HUD's supportive services, there is a 20 percent
requirement, and I know in our community, that level of match
has been a lot easier to attain than the 25 percent level.
Senator Allard. Okay; and then, on to you, Professor
Culhane: Based on your research, what are the common elements
among successful approaches toward ending homelessness?
Mr. Culhane. Well, of course, common to all of those would
be having some kind of housing, and usually, that is in the
form of some kind of subsidized housing. That is a common
component. And for people who need supportive services in order
to maintain that housing, that is also a critical ingredient.
But I think, yes, that is pretty much it.
Senator Allard. Okay. I have a question for all of you.
Now, we have heard a great deal about collaborative
approaches and how that can approach, you know, promote
coordination within the city. I believe also, it is important
to have some coordination between jurisdictions, from neighbor
city to another city down the road. And let me give you an
example: One city has an excellent program; another one does
not. Then, you know, you have a migration of homelessness from
one part of the country to another.
How much coordination currently happens between
jurisdictions, and what can be done to promote greater
coordination, and we will start with you, Mr. Berg, and just go
right down the line if you want to respond.
Mr. Berg. I think current practice, it very much varies. As
you know, the current HUD program allows jurisdictions to come
together to apply for the HUD programs. In many places, cities
and counties, several cities in a county along with the county
will apply for funding. Rhode Island, of course, the whole
State applies as one entity. Other places, it is very much
individualized, and each little town has its own Continuum of
Care.
I agree. I think the importance of consolidation of
cooperation and collaboration across governments, between
levels of governments, is very important. I think HUD has tried
to encourage places to form larger Continuums just because they
tend to get a little better results in terms of the score they
get on their results, but I think there is probably some more
that could be done there.
Senator Allard. Mr. Gould.
Mr. Gould. I would simply support that as well. Anything
you can do to incent larger Continuums or that kind of
collaboration, we would certainly support. I think it is very
much across the board in a community by community experience.
Senator Allard. Mr. Love.
Mr. Love. I would also support that, and at the same time,
I think when you have smaller communities that are surrounding
a larger community, it is critically important for that smaller
community to maintain their sense of identity and not feel
that--I will give you an example. There are smaller communities
around Houston. They seem to feel that Houston should be the
sole source or the sole provider of coordinating services for
individuals that are homeless. If they decided, as smaller
communities, to take that mantle, they feel that they would
draw people who are homeless to their communities.
So a great deal of education would first and foremost have
to take place, and then, I think increased incentives for those
smaller communities to want to participate in that form of a
collaboration would be necessary.
Senator Allard. Dr. Culhane.
Mr. Culhane. Yes, I would only add that I think that the
10-year planning processes which have unfolded around the
country have probably done more than anything to share
information and collaboration across these regions. I think, in
fact, there are some areas of the country where there are
regional 10-year plans. And the State interagency councils on
homelessness that have also emerged I think also have a role to
play, where they can do the kind of information sharing and the
kind of brokering of relationships among these localities.
Senator Allard. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
gentlemen, thank you not only for your excellent but also
succinct testimony. I appreciate that very much and thank you
also for the dedication over many years to this issue of
homelessness.
Mr. Berg, could you just comment briefly on how the
proposed legislation would help underserved homeless
populations?
Mr. Berg. Well, I think it provides incentives. It provides
incentives to communities that I think are doing the most
outreach and dealing with the problem. I mean, the current
system does this a lot. I think this bill moves a little
further in terms of rewarding communities that have a very
comprehensive approach, including addressing all aspects.
I think the underserved populations include the people who
have lived on the streets for years and years; there is
definitely a push there. One of the things I would mention is
that we have to make some more progress in the area of
homelessness in rural areas, and I think by opening up the
process a little bit, this bill does that, but we are
definitely going to have some work to do there. I think we are
starting to see some progress.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gould, you made a very good point, I think, in your
testimony about the homelessness programs do not operate in a
vacuum. If we do not support CDBG and Section 8, we are going
to have a real difficult problem, and you might elaborate on
that, if you could.
Mr. Gould. Well, it is a real concern that we not create a
system here that requires that people be discharged from those
programs into homelessness in order to access these funds. This
bill would do a great deal of good. But if we focus too much at
one end and force people to really become chronically homeless
before we help them, we really are going to increase the cost
on the other end, and that is a very real concern for us in
this bill.
Senator Reed. Good.
And Mr. Love, you have had extensive experience over 10 or
more years in dealing with homelessness issues, and you
actually run the Houston Continuum of Care, I think, through
your office.
Mr. Love. Yes.
Senator Reed. And I will ask you the same question I asked
the Secretary, how codifying this Continuum of Care, we
presume, in the legislation, will be very helpful from your
perspective.
Mr. Love. Yes.
Senator Reed. What do you hope will happen?
Mr. Love. Absolutely. In particular, certain provisions
within the legislation that the Continuum has not been able to
access; in particular, the prevention measure. Usually,
prevention funds came from ESG, which kind of sat outside of
the Continuum of Care. By making it a part of it, when you look
at the Continuum of Care chart, all of it functioned based upon
the person actually becoming homeless and then going through
the system. Adding this prevention measure, in my opinion,
expands the Continuum of Care and creates a real system in
terms of addressing the issues of homelessness.
Senator Reed. I think we have heard from everyone that the
prevention issue might be one of the key aspects of this new
legislative approach if we can codify it and support it with
real resources.
And Dr. Culhane, again, thank you for your extensive
academic expertise on this issue and your presence here today.
Part of the legislation we are proposing would have a
collaborative applicant panel and would serve under our bill to
look at some of these proposals, and I wondered if you have any
comments about the composition of that. I think you referred to
it before about making sure that there is a heavy government
presence, and might you elaborate?
Mr. Culhane. Yes, I think one of the things that we learned
from the Continuum of Care process in a number of the
communities that I have had the opportunity to work in is that
local government has been frustrated that they have not always
had a significant enough decisionmaking power on those local
Continuums, so even though they may control most of the policy
levers, and they may spend most of the money on emergency
shelter. In a place like Philadelphia, for example, they pay
for the entire shelter bill or in New York City, they pay the
entire shelter bill. But yet, they do not control the Continuum
of Care process.
Now, I am not saying that partnership and collaboration is
not valuable. We need the input of the provider community, the
advocate community, et cetera, but only local government really
has the authority, really has the resources, has the policy
levers to pull all of this together to meet a specific, set of
policy objectives.
And so, I would encourage you to think about making sure
that there was some kind of majority composition of those
boards that was local government.
Senator Reed. Mr. Love, since you are right there in the
middle of it all, your comments on this issue.
Mr. Love. Yes, in Houston, in particular, we serve as the
lead agency, but it is a collaborative process, and the
collaboration is made up of the Coalition for the Homeless as
the lead agency; representatives from the City of Houston and
representatives from Harris County, and we operate as that
collaborative, meaning that there has to be two votes before
anything is done or any initiatives are moved forward.
One of the reasons that the Coalition was made as the lead
agency because of the flexibility and the lack of bureaucracy
entailed within a 501(c)(3).
Senator Reed. So essentially, how your operation works, you
have three voters.
Mr. Love. Yes.
Senator Reed. The county, the city, and the Coalition.
Mr. Love. And the Coalition.
Senator Reed. You are the lead agency; you develop the
ideas, but if they both dislike it, then, you cannot do
anything.
Mr. Love. Absolutely.
Senator Reed. Good.
Mr. Berg, Mr. Gould, any comments on this issue?
Mr. Berg. I would agree. This is done different ways in
different places, but when we look at the places that are
really having success, they all have a very strong role by the
public sector, for the reasons that Dr. Culhane spelled out. We
need to ensure that the process will work in a community where
the public sector is not particularly interested, and there are
those communities. That is the only caveat to that.
Senator Reed. Good point.
Mr. Gould. And just that the collaborative effort among the
nonprofit organizations I think is also an essential component
to that that really brings a lot of value to it.
Senator Reed. Indeed.
Mr. Chairman, do you have another round?
Senator Allard. Do you want to do another round?
Senator Reed. It is up to you. I think we have----
Senator Allard. I think we have pretty well covered
everything that we need to. I think you have all given us very
good testimony. You have given us good responses to the
questions, and I hate to tie your day up any more than what we
already have. I think maybe if you had any flights later on
today, you may have already missed them; I do not know. If you
have not, we want to give you an opportunity to catch them.
And so, I just remind you again that the record is going to
stay open for 10 days. There might be some questions that
Members on the Committee or from the Committee itself will
submit to you, and if you would expedite responding to those
questions and get your answers back in 10 days, we would
appreciate that very much.
And so, with that, we will go ahead and adjourn the
hearing, and thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, response to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY A. BERNARDI
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
March 30, 2006
Introduction
Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here to discuss the proposed
consolidation of HUD's 3 competitive Homeless Assistance Grant programs
into a single program aimed at alleviating homelessness in this
country. Consolidation would provide: (1) more flexibility to
localities; (2) grant-making responsibility with local decisionmaking
bodies; (3) funds for prevention of homelessness; and (4) dramatic
reduction in the time required to distribute funds to grantees. The
proposal would also further the Administration's goal to end chronic
homelessness.
HUD has been providing funding for homeless programs since 1987.
Through its programs, HUD has awarded billions of dollars to
communities across the country. Approximately 5,000 projects each year
receive funds to alleviate homelessness in their communities.
In 1994, HUD developed the Continuum of Care planning and grant
process, which calls for communities to develop local plans for solving
homelessness. It is a community-led effort that involves a diverse
group of organizations, including State and local government, public
housing agencies, nonprofit providers, foundations, and homeless and
formerly homeless persons. The Continuum identifies the community's
housing and service needs, as well as the existing inventory to address
those needs. The Continuum then assesses remaining needs and determines
how to best address them, proposing an overall plan and specific
project requests for HUD funding. Since 1994, the Continuums have
proven to be effective as a coordinating body for fighting
homelessness; among the reasons for their effectiveness are the broad-
based partnerships they have forged at the local level.
The Continuum of Care program is made up of three programs:
Supportive Housing Program; the Shelter Plus Care Program; and Section
8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Dwellings for Homeless
Individuals, or SRO. Senators Reed and Allard have introduced a bill
that would affirm the role of local planning entities, bring HUD's
three competitive programs into one program, and provide for even more
local decisionmaking authority and flexibility. I want to recognize the
two Senators for their longstanding commitment to alleviating
homelessness. I also want to acknowledge their hard work in developing
this very worthwhile proposal. Their bill would greatly simplify how
HUD's resources could be used to effectively and efficiently solve
homelessness.
I also want to thank Congressman Rick Renzi who has introduced the
Administration's bill. Our bill is similar in many ways to the
legislation introduced by Senators Reed and Allard. For example, both
bills would decentralize the Federal role in selection of applications
for funding and speed up the award process. Currently, staff at HUD
headquarters reviews nearly 6,000 individual project applications each
year. This is one of the largest and most intensive grant competitions
in the Federal Government. It takes the Department nearly 6 months to
review the applications; once selections are made, 3-6 additional
months are needed to finalize the nearly 5,000 awarded contracts. Both
bills would greatly simplify this process by reviewing an overall
application from each community and then having the communities award
local projects for funding. Rather than taking up to a year to review
and execute contracts, the proposals would reduce the timeframe to a
few months. This would result in the timely obligation of funds and
assistance to those who literally have no place to live.
The bills would also greatly simplify the match requirements.
Currently, one of the programs, the Supportive Housing Program, has, by
statute, a 100 percent match requirement for capital costs such as
acquisition and rehabilitation, a 25 percent match for operating costs,
a 20 percent match for supportive services and no match requirement for
leasing. Both bills would establish a single match requirement of 25
percent for all activities.
HUD's Continuum of Care programs maintain a unique and
comprehensive public-private partnership for ending homelessness. The
programs work within broad national goals. We have established through
the Continuum concept a resource-driven planning and allocation system,
with emphasis on local decisionmaking processes. The Continuum also
provides a focus on performance as a key element of local planning
outcomes. The proposed consolidation starts with all of these strengths
and expands on them, by decentralizing Federal processes and moving
community planning to the local level. This way, decisionmakers can
more effectively work to solve homelessness and end chronic
homelessness in their communities.
Unique and Comprehensive Program
The Continuum of Care is a unique and comprehensive public-private
partnership. It calls for all stakeholders within a community to be
involved in shaping solutions to homelessness. They identify the needs,
assess existing resources, and prioritize projects needing funding.
State and local government officials, nonprofit homeless providers
including faith-based and other community organizations, foundations,
businesses, hospitals, law enforcement, schools, and homeless and
formerly homeless persons are all part of the Continuum of Care. Over
3,700 jurisdictions participate in the Continuum of Care process,
representing over 92 percent of the U.S. population. The skills,
abilities, and resources of each stakeholder are maximized and
leveraged to make a visible difference within their community. Both
bills would codify this concept, which was created by HUD through
administrative means.
A significant enhancement in these bills would add prevention as an
eligible funding activity. Prevention is a key part of solving
homelessness, and is an important element in both bills. The proposed
legislation would allow projects to spend HUD funds on prevention
activities, such as utility payments or rental assistance, for persons
at risk of becoming homeless. This way, HUD can help keep people in
their homes and prevent people from actually becoming homeless. Not
only would this reduce additional, unnecessary costs on a city's
homeless system, but it would improve continuity of housing for
individuals and families, improving their ability to function as
productive members of society.
In HUD's current competitive grant programs, applicants must
explain and document their efforts to prevent homelessness. By allowing
the Continuum programs to fund homelessness prevention, both bills
would place greater emphasis on its importance.
Targeting Most In-Need Populations
In addition to preventing homelessness for those at risk, HUD's
homeless programs are addressing another portion of the population: The
chronically homeless. These are the hardest-to-serve individuals; they
have been in and out of homeless shelters and on the street for long
periods of time. In 2002, the Administration set a goal of ending
chronic homelessness for this population. Through the Continuum of Care
grants, HUD funds have been working to effectively achieve this goal.
In fact, while representing just 10 to 20 percent of the homeless
population, they consume up to 50 percent of emergency resources in a
city. Instead of having these individuals cycling through the various
public systems and using these emergency resources, this Administration
has focused on providing permanent housing as a way to improve cost
effectiveness for the community and quality of life for the individual.
In fact, $365 million, or 30 percent of HUD competitive homeless
assistance funds, were awarded to projects targeting the chronically
homeless in 2005.
While this Administration has not shied away from serving this
difficult population, it has also not forgotten about the needs of
homeless families with children. In fact, 70 percent of funds awarded
this past year went to projects that targeted persons who were not
chronically homeless, especially homeless families.
A Results-Oriented System
The Continuum of Care approach is also a resource-driven planning
and allocation system. Prior to the Continuum of Care, individual local
projects independently applied in separate HUD competitions for a
particular homeless assistance program. This previous approach did not
promote local coordination or strategic planning. The Continuum of Care
requires thoughtful, strategic planning across a community so that the
needs are identified and prioritized. The community then chooses from a
menu of existing HUD homeless resources, including the Supportive
Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and the Section 8 SRO programs.
Moreover, the Continuum of Care ensures that the community links
its efforts to other plans and funding sources. For instance,
Continuums are scored on whether they are part of HUD's resource-driven
Consolidated Planning process. This helps ensure linkages and resources
from other parts of HUD such as the Community Development Block Grant,
HOME, the Emergency Shelter Grants, and the Housing Opportunities for
Persons With AIDS Programs. The Continuum also encourages active
linkages with existing jurisdictional 10-year plans to end chronic
homelessness.
The consolidation bills would enhance the existing resource-driven
and allocation system of the Continuum of Care by providing a modest
amount for administrative costs, including strategic planning and
monitoring. The bills would also provide a more efficient resource-
driven system by consolidating and greatly simplifying the various
homeless assistance programs into a single program.
A Performance-Based System
The Continuum of Care approach is performance based. The
application contains a performance section that represents 30 percent
of the score in the annual Continuum of Care competition. The core of
this performance section is the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) indicators by which Congress assesses HUD for the area of
homelessness. Our GPRA goal is to end chronic homelessness and help
families and individuals move to permanent housing. The specific
indicators with which we measure a community's progress in achieving
this goal include: The percent of homeless clients who move to
permanent housing; the percent of clients in permanent housing who
remain stably housed; and the percent of homeless clients we serve who
become employed. In addition, creating permanent housing units has been
another important aspect of achieving this goal. Finally, we measure
the extent to which the Congressional directive to implement and use a
Homeless Management Information System is achieved in each community.
By connecting HUD's performance with that of our grantees and
ultimately homeless clients we are seeing success.
HUD's GPRA efforts have been touted by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as exemplary for other Federal programs to emulate. HUD's
Continuum of Care programs were recently rated ``Effective'' when
assessed by the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
That rating underscores the efficacy of the Continuum of Care approach.
Key Differences
While the two bills are similar in the overall design and a number
of specific areas, there are also some differences between the bills.
For example, the Administration bill:
Ensures broader participation in the Continuum of Care Board
(that is, greater participation by nongovernmental entities);
Assures greater accountability in the expenditure of funds for
homelessness by each Continuum of Care by requiring each Continuum
to be a legal entity;
Focuses more on chronically homeless persons living on the
streets;
Provides for renewal of all types of projects, including
transitional housing;
Provides greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed
to solve homelessness;
Provides greater flexibility in using program funds to prevent
homelessness; and
Better targets its permanent housing resources for those who
are most vulnerable: The disabled.
Overall, consolidating the three Continuum of Care programs and
codifying it in statute would allow far greater flexibility, which will
enable improved performance and effectiveness of HUD's Homeless
Assistance Grant programs. Thank you very much for inviting me to be
here. I am looking forward to more discussions on this issue that is so
critical to the future of our nation.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP F. MANGANO
Executive Director, U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
March 30, 2006
Chairman Allard, Senator Reed, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, I appreciate the commitment you are expressing to
homelessness in today's hearing.
I appreciate the work of Senators Reed and Allard to bring this
bill before the Subcommittee, knowing its long development and
thoughtful integration of the experience of the last 19 years. The
inclusive process that Committee staff employed in creating the bill is
appreciated. The input from stakeholders across the country in and out
of government assured that the bill represented a broad constituency.
I am pleased to endorse the Administration's proposal to
consolidate the Homeless Assistance competitive grants at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to more effectively assist
individuals and families in leaving homelessness and moving to
permanent housing and self-sufficiency. Consolidation of these programs
would also give localities more decisionmaking power over their funds
and provide a greater focus on prevention of homelessness.
I have been the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council
on Homelessness since March 2002. The Council is an independent Federal
entity with a mission to coordinate the Federal response to
homelessness and to create a national partnership at every level of
government to reduce and end homelessness in the Nation and forward the
Administration's goal of ending chronic homelessness. Since
revitalization by the President in March 2002, the U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness (USICH) has fostered interagency,
intergovernmental, and intercommunity partnerships in the creation of
an unprecedented national partnership focused on homelessness. Over the
past 3 years, the Council has worked with Governors to create State
Interagency Councils on Homelessness to mirror the work we are doing in
Washington in the Federal Council. These State Councils make State
resources more available and accessible. Fifty-three Governors are now
partnered in the creation of such Councils.
There are 20 Federal agencies which make up the Council membership,
meeting regularly in Washington and 53 State level Councils, but the
frontlines of homelessness are in local communities. Building on the
10-year planning process set in motion by the National Alliance to End
Homelessness, the Council has been active for the past 3 years through
its Regional Coordinators and the encouragement of HUD through its
Continuum of Care grants to foster local 10-Year Plans to End Chronic
Homelessness. Two hundred twelve localities are now committed with the
full support of their Mayors and County Executives to ending chronic
homelessness. As part of the partnership, the Council has provided
technical assistance to cities to ensure results in their communities
in ending chronic homelessness.
These local planning processes have created unprecedented local
partnerships that have brought together the nonprofit sector, business
sector, faith and community-based organizations, in results oriented
business plans to achieve the outcome of reducing and ending chronic
homelessness.
Introduction
Having been involved in the response to the problem of homelessness
for a quarter century now, I want to first express my appreciation and
solidarity with those who have been on the frontline of response, in
the forefront of local efforts.
A decade before the McKinney Act came into existence, countless
faith and community-based nonprofit groups, as well as the
philanthropic and business community joined by concerned citizens
provided extraordinary and heroic work to our homeless neighbors.
Unfortunately, the need and numbers grew despite these efforts.
McKinney-Vento Importance
In 1987, the passage of the McKinney Act contributed a range of new
resources and restored morale to the work that local groups were doing
to assist those who had fallen into homelessness.
I was Director of Homeless Services in the City of Cambridge that
summer in 1987, and I can assure you that all across that city, the
State, and the Nation there was relief that reinforcements and
resources had arrived.
Thankfully, over the last two decades the McKinney-Vento programs
at a range of Federal agencies have supplemented other public and
private resources all across the Nation. Without that Federal funding
there is little question that homelessness would be even more pervasive
than it is now.
In the nearly 20 years since then, the McKinney-Vento programs have
been an important source of resources for our local and national
responses.
The Role of Federal Agencies
Much credit must go to the important role that HUD and a number of
other Federal agencies has had in prioritizing homeless people and
focusing both targeted homeless funds and mainstream funding to assist
in the national effort. HUD, along with other Federal agencies, has
been central in the national quest to reduce and end homelessness by
funding vital research, direct services, employment resources, and
permanent housing, Through HUD's Continuum of Care grant process, local
Continuum of Care boards--in nearly every locality across the country--
receive funds to help end the problem of homelessness in their
communities.
Through collaborations and initiatives by Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Department of Health and Human Services, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Department of Labor, Department of Education,
General Services Administration, Department of Justice, and the Social
Security Administration significant investments over the last several
years have made a difference for our most vulnerable and disabled
citizens.
Increased Federal Investment
In the past 5 years, targeted Federal resources have increased to
record levels each year, including the President's proposed budget for
2007 which includes an increase to bring total targeted Federal funding
to a record level of over $4.1 billion.
That increase includes the Samaritan Initiative at HUD which
targets $200 million to help those who are chronically homeless--those
who are on the streets and long term in our shelters. Samaritan is an
important resource to continue efforts to spur the Administration's
goal to reduce and end chronic homelessness, now a national initiative
supported by Governors, Mayors, County Executives, nonprofit providers,
and private sector partners all across the Nation.
If the President's proposed funding level for 2007 is approved,
there will have been nearly a tenfold increase in targeted resources
for homelessness since the McKinney Act first passed in 1987. In fact,
just in the past 4 years, McKinney Act programs have increased more
than 20 percent. Overall targeted homeless funds have increased by over
30 percent during that time.
Homelessness remains a significant problem across the United
States. Researchers tell us that on any given night, there are between
600,000 and 800,000 Americans who are homeless. A recent USA Today
article indicated over 700,000 on that night. In the course of a year,
researchers tell us that more than 2 million of our neighbors
experience homelessness.
Increased resources and increased numbers are a frustrating
reminder that, while new funding is important, new ideas are just as
important. We cannot simply take the new resources and expend them in
the status quo.
Twenty Years of Experience and Learning
We have learned a great deal to inform policy and investment over
the past 20 years and those insights need to inform any changes to
McKinney-Vento.
Here are a few of those insights:
1. No one level of government, no one element of the private sector
can get the job done alone. We need to be partnered in every facet of
the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. And the entire community
must be partnered from the jurisdictional CEO--whether Mayor, County
Executive, or city manager--to those nonprofit providers who are on the
frontlines to business, academia, philanthropy, advocates, formerly and
currently homeless people, to each level of government, all partnered
together as stakeholders on this issue.
2. Federal resources must be invested in the result of ending
people's homelessness. Resources should be aimed at creating
opportunities for individuals and families to rebuild their lives by
funding case management, employment services, benefits coordination,
and permanent housing.
Public and private sector partners have also joined us in moving
beyond managing the crisis to reducing and ending homelessness. The
National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
League of Cities, National Association of Counties, United Way, the
International Downtown Business Association, National Alliance to End
Homelessness, The National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, and others are
partnered with us nationally. And they have committed to join with us
in beginning that effort to end the homelessness of those who are the
most disabled and most vulnerable, people experiencing chronic
homelessness.
3. Federal resources should be invested according to what works.
Investments should be data and research driven, performance based, and
results oriented.
4. People experiencing chronic homelessness are expensive. Research
tells us that, while they number only between 10 and 20 percent of the
homeless individual population, they consume half of all emergency
shelter resources. And recently through research conducted in local
communities across the country, we are learning that chronic
homelessness is costly in expensive mainstream health and law
enforcement systems. Funding of housing, treatment and services and
planning for these individuals must be coordinated across all sectors
in local communities.
5. 10-Year Plans to End Chronic Homelessness encouraged by the
Council bring the entire community together in a stakeholder informed
planning process focused on results. When those strategies are business
plans driven by the political will of the local jurisdictional leaders,
change happens, results are quantifiable.
HUD has encouraged its local Continuums of Care to partner in
jurisdictional 10-Year Plans. These plans not only ensure that all
levels of government are partners in the community-based strategies and
include resources from a variety of Federal agencies, they importantly
provide a place for all stakeholders--from the Chamber of Commerce to
downtown business associations, law enforcement, hospital
administrators, providers, librarians, and all others who are concerned
and impacted.
6. Perhaps most importantly, jurisdictional plans are creating
inclusive local partnerships that are achieving results and leveraging
resources. Two hundred eleven communities are now partnered with the
Council through their Mayors and County Executives. Jurisdictionally
led planning infused with local political, social, and civic will are
achieving visible and measurable outcomes in implementing their 10-Year
Plans.
In a 40 city survey conducted by the Council, jurisdictional plans
and our increase in Federal resources have leveraged more than $2
billion in State, local, and private funds in the past 3 years.
7. We know that permanent supportive housing works for vulnerable
and disabled populations. When McKinney-Vento was first passed, this
technology developed in the mental health system of response was not in
common use. Today, communities across the country are targeting this
technology to those experiencing chronic homelessness and achieving 80-
85 percent retention rates on average. And another technology borrowed
from the mental health system, Assertive Community Treatment Teams,
known as ACT, is making a significant difference on the streets,
engaging those who were thought to be intractably homeless there and
providing the clinical and multidisciplinary strategies to end their
street homelessness and support them in housing. A consumer-centric
response rooted in opportunities for housing, services, benefits, and
employment is working.
8. We now understand the priority that needs to be placed on
prevention. For too long we bailed the leaking boat of homelessness,
some moved out, more moved in.
Again, research helped us understand that, without prevention
strategies, especially focused on effective discharge planning
protocols from mainstream systems of care and incarceration and
services, our intervention efforts would not create the results we
expect.
9. Employment must be part of the strategy to reduce dependency and
increase self-sufficiency.
10. Research and innovation investments have shaped initiatives
that are evidence-based and produce results. Both have been essential
in advancing policy in this Administration.
Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento and Consolidation of HUD's Homeless
Assistance Grants
The Administration's proposal as well as the Bill introduced by
Senator Reed would reauthorize McKinney-Vento and consolidate HUD's
competitive Homeless Assistance Grants. Both of these proposals would
provide: (1) more flexibility to localities, (2) grant-making
responsibility to local boards, (3) provide a significant amount of
funds for prevention of homelessness, (4) continued support for the
creation of permanent housing opportunities, and (5) dramatically
reduce the time required to distribute funds to grantees. The
Administration's bill would also further the goal of ending chronic
homelessness.
The proposals to consolidate the Homeless Assistance Grant programs
would address the needs identified by the lessons learned over the past
20 years.
1. An increased focus on prevention activities including the
development of discharge planning protocols, research, and innovations
will forward the national objectives on homelessness. Prevention stops
the human tragedy before it begins and is less costly than
homelessness.
2. The focus on permanent housing and the targeting by HUD and the
Congress is the right direction to reduce and end homelessness.
Prioritizing McKinney resources to create and access permanent
supportive housing makes sense.
3. Cost benefit analyses continue to demonstrate that housing and
supportive service solutions for chronic homelessness may be less
expensive than this population randomly ricocheting through the
homeless system and expensive mainstream health and law enforcement
systems.
4. Coordination at the local level of all relevant local
government, nonprofit, and private sector players is key to making
Continuum of Care funding and 10-year jurisdictional plans successful.
5. Coordination of Federal investments ensures that each agency
initiative is supporting a national strategy. Cooperation of Federal
agencies ensures that such investments are monitored for evidence based
results.
Conclusion
Across the Nation, localities in partnership with all stakeholders,
public and private, have been reenergized on the issue of ending
homelessness in their communities. The mind set across our country has
changed in the past few years. The creation of State Interagency
Councils on Homelessness and jurisdictional 10-Year Plans have
stimulated this new sense and provided a nexus point for their joint
impact. The commitments of Federal agencies to new initiatives and new
investments have provided inspiration. HUD's partnerships in the field,
especially through the Continuum of Care, have offered resources and
coordination among providers. The Continuum of Care process would be
strengthened by consolidation of programs with an even greater focus on
local collaborations and prevention of homelessness.
There is now a national intent to end the disgrace of homelessness
beginning with chronic homelessness, visible on our streets and in our
shelters. We have much work to do, but we are better prepared and
equipped than ever before.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAIL DORFMAN
County Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN
March 30, 2006
Chairman Allard, Senator Reed, and Members of the Committee, I am
Gail Dorfman, County Commissioner from Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
the City of Minneapolis. I am honored to address the Committee this
afternoon on the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento and the
consolidation of HUD programs for the homeless. I first want to
remember former Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento, who throughout his
life of public service was dedicated to improving the lives of people
experiencing homelessness. Congressman Vento left us too soon, but left
behind a legacy of working effectively on behalf of America's homeless,
a legacy that will not be forgotten.
I applaud you, Mr. Chair and Senator Reed, for introducing the
Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2005. Reauthorization
of McKinney-Vento is critical if we are to change the paradigm from
managing homelessness to ending homelessness in our communities.
Yesterday, we began an intensive 100 day effort to develop a Blueprint
for Ending Homelessness in Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Mr. Mangano
joined us as leaders from the public and private sectors, nonprofit and
philanthropic communities and the homeless came together to commit to
ending homelessness over the next 10 years. In partnership with the
Federal Government and our State government, we will be successful, and
we will do it before the 10 years is up.
In Hennepin County, we well remember what it was like before
McKinney-Vento. Our shelters were overflowing and we were vouchering
families into more than 100 hotel and motel rooms across the Twin
Cities every night. Our average shelter stays were three times what
they are today and an alarming number of families were cycling in and
out of shelter on a regular basis. McKinney-Vento has helped to
dramatically improve upon this situation by supporting results-oriented
programs. Additionally, through our partnership with the Federal
Government, we have been able to leverage significant amounts of local
dollars--$12.4 million in 2005 alone. Together, we have ended
homelessness for thousands of men, women, children, and unaccompanied
youth.
Over the past two decades we have learned a great deal in Hennepin
County about what does and does not work to end homelessness. We no
longer look to shelters as the solution. Instead, we focus on
preventing people from becoming homeless whenever possible and rapidly
rehousing them if they do. It costs 10 times more to house and resettle
a homeless family than to prevent them from losing their housing in the
first place. Through the support of McKinney-Vento funds, we have
established one of the best family homeless prevention models in the
country. In Hennepin County, we work hard to keep people in the housing
they have. We have learned that prevention is the best and most cost-
effective way to end homelessness.
When families do become homeless, we work with them through our
Rapid Exit program to quickly place and support them in permanent
housing. Rapid Exit is a supportive services program funded by HUD and
is listed on HUD's website as a national best practice for its
excellent results and low cost. Through Rapid Exit, Hennepin County
contracts with highly effective community-based organizations to
support both clients and landlords, providing housing stabilization
assistance while maximizing mainstream resources. They provide on-going
case management to help clients resolve personal issues that are
barriers to housing while also building on the strengths of their
clients. As one provider told me, ``Most homeless people are survivors!
They have the innate strength to be successful and we encourage them to
use that strength.'' The case managers also assist landlords in
resolving issues that place the client's housing in jeopardy, cosign
leases, and provide financial and legal assistance. Providers serving
as intermediaries with private landlords are the single most effective
way to recruit and maintain landlords willing to rent to high-barrier
tenants.
Our 2005 results far exceeded expectations. During this 1 year
period, 588 families and 48 chronically homeless adults were placed
into housing by Rapid Exit. Of the 588 families, 94 percent remained
out of shelter for at least 12 months. Of the 48 chronically homeless,
79 percent remained out of shelter for at least 6 months. Additionally,
30 percent of the families and 60 percent of the individuals increased
their incomes during the first 6 months in their new housing.
Through the expansion of our prevention efforts and the Rapid Exit
program, we have also seen dramatic reductions in the average length of
stays in our family shelters and the number of parents and children
sheltered per year. Between the years of 2000 and 2003, we saw a 47
percent decrease in length of shelter stays for families, a 42 percent
decrease in the number of parents and children sheltered, and a 70
percent decrease in the number of shelter beds purchased per year.
These kinds of results highlight the importance of innovative, results-
oriented practices and our on-going partnership with the Federal
Government through McKinney-Vento.
The numbers are good, but the personal stories are the best, like
the single mom from Illinois who fled from an abusive relationship with
her four children and came to our county shelter. She struggled with
finding work, caring for her children, and getting them to school on-
time. Our Rapid Exit worker helped locate a job and an apartment she
could afford. Now 10 years later, she owns her own modest home, two of
the children have graduated high school and are attending college, and
she still calls her case manager every 6 months to proudly report on
her success.
The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act will bring us
another step forward in our quest to end homelessness and provide
stable housing for every member of our community. We support the
consolidation of McKinney-Vento programs, the noncompetitive renewal of
rent/operating subsidies for permanent housing, the 30 percent
permanent set aside for individuals and families with disabilities, and
the recognition of the critical importance of prevention. We are,
however, concerned with the proposal to curtail certain services after
3 years. It is critical that services that directly support housing
placement, coordination with private landlords, and housing
stabilization remain intact. Our Rapid Exit program depends on
McKinney-Vento to ensure our continued success--and this, our most
effective McKinney-Vento program, would be at risk of termination.
Last, we support increased flexibility within McKinney-Vento funding
streams. The more creative we can be at the local level, the more
likely we will be able to end homelessness for people in our
communities.
We know what works to end homelessness in our communities.
Prevention, Rapid Exit, and supportive housing are key ingredients to
keeping people in housing rather than in shelters and on the streets.
Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is critical to our success. I am
confident that we will end homelessness in Hennepin County by
continuing our strong local, State, and Federal partnership.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. BERG
Vice President for Programs and Policy,
National Alliance to End Homelessness
March 30, 2006
The National Alliance to End Homelessness would like to thank
Chairman Allard and Senator Reed for holding this hearing, for inviting
us to testify, and for introducing S. 1801, the Community Partnership
to End Homelessness Act. We are looking forward to continuing our
cooperative work with this Subcommittee.
We are beginning to change the terms of the conversation about
homelessness in the United States. Since the summer of 2000, when the
National Alliance to End Homelessness made public its Ten Year Plan to
End Homelessness, many people around the country who for years had
viewed homelessness as endemic are beginning to see that it is a
problem with a solution. Over 220 cities, counties, and States have
publicly committed the energy to adopt local and State plans to end
homelessness. Congress and the Administration have established goals of
solving important pieces of this problem. Major national media outlets
have covered the issue, stressing the solution-oriented approaches that
communities have adopted. And a small number of leading communities,
those that over several years have carried out commonsensical reforms
to their approach, are showing quantifiable declines in the number of
homeless people, even while the numbers go up in most places.
In this context of change and opportunity, we will discuss the most
important lessons we have learned about homelessness in recent years,
the kinds of responses that lead to solutions, and the importance of
this bill in moving to the next level of progress.
What We have Learned about Homelessness
Over the past 20 years of concerted efforts to address
homelessness, and particularly over the past 5 years as we have worked
to change our approach to the issue, we have improved our understanding
and programmatic know-how. The following are our most important
insights.
HUD McKinney-Vento programs are effective and useful. Often when
Congress sets out to reauthorize a program, it is because of a
perception that something is broken. That is not the case here. As they
have evolved over the past decade under both Republican and Democratic
leadership, the HUD homelessness programs are effective tools in
helping communities. In reauthorizing the programs, Congress, instead
of fixing a broken system, is in a position to take an already strong
program and jumpstart a new phase of development, looking toward using
these programs to drive a widespread effort to solve the problem of
homelessness.
Managing homelessness and taking care of homeless people is
essential. Homelessness is damaging to people and communities. It must
be regarded as an emergency situation that requires a strong response.
The basic survival needs of homeless people must continue to be met.
At the same time, we now have the know-how to do more, to end
homelessness--it is a problem with a solution. The solution to this
expensive and dispiriting problem is more apparent. It involves four
elements: Outcome-based planning using reliable data; preventing at-
risk people from becoming homeless; more quickly moving homeless people
back in to housing; and making some progress on housing affordability,
incomes and the availability of support services to all low-income
people.
We are now at the point where a small number of leading communities
have put these principles into action over the course of several years,
and have achieved excellent outcomes in the form of reductions in
homelessness. In Columbus, OH, family homelessness declined 53 percent
between 1997 and 2004. In Hennepin County, MN (including Minneapolis),
family homelessness declined by 43 percent between 2000 and 2004. In
San Francisco, chronic homelessness declined by 28 percent from 2002 to
2005. In Westchester County, NY, family homelessness declined by 60
percent in 2 years. And in New York City, the number of homeless
children declined by 19 percent in 1 year. As more cities develop
reliable data systems tracking the number of homeless people, we expect
to find similar results elsewhere.
Solutions require aggressive steps by local communities, and
Federal leadership in providing resources and incentives. Communities
that have made the most progress have had strong leadership on the
issue from elected officials, in order to develop a community-wide
commitment to solving this problem. These communities have responded to
Federal funding opportunities and incentives to use their funding in
new ways. To bring these solutions to scale around the country, this
national leadership is indispensable. The U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness has played an indispensable part in coordinating the
Federal role and building strong collaborations between the Federal and
other levels of government.
The solution is about getting people housed as quickly as possible
and keeping them housed. ``Housing First'' has become a watchword for
many of the reforms. Many homeless people have problems, some of them
extremely severe. Yet, in nearly all cases, the problems are better
solved after people are provided with housing, whether they be
stabilizing a mental illness, conquering an addiction, improving
earning power, or strengthening family relationships. Trying to solve
these problems for people while they are homeless is extremely
difficult.
Interestingly, Housing First is responsive to the expressed desires
of homeless people. When asked in a major Federal survey what would be
most helpful to them, the most common responses by far from homeless
people were help finding housing, and help finding a job so they could
afford housing.
The homeless system cannot do it by itself. Mainstream systems and
indeed the entire community need to make it their project.
Collaboration is key. The homeless system does not have the ability by
itself to prevent people from becoming homeless on a large scale.
Fortunately, by far the majority of people who become homeless are
eligible for help from extensive systems of care directed toward low-
income people in general. In fact, many who become homeless were
previously residents of government-funded institutions--hospitals for
people with mental illness, child welfare, and foster care agencies,
jails and prisons. This provides the opportunity for government to do a
better job of ensuring stable housing.
The homeless services system also does not have the capacity to
provide large quantities of new housing, at the scale necessary to end
homelessness. The small amount of permanent housing that the homeless
system can afford to fund must be directed toward those least likely to
be housed in any other manner. Meanwhile, market-based approaches and
mainstream housing programs must be used more aggressively and targeted
toward those least able to afford housing without intervention.
Homeless people are a diverse group and there need to be
interventions appropriate to all. This is especially the case regarding
how much supportive services are needed to get and keep people housed.
The stereotype of a homeless person who lives on the streets year after
year at the mercy of severe mental illness often combined with
addiction is only too accurate for many people. Supportive housing,
discussed below, is crucial for people who fit this pattern, and has
excellent results. On the other hand, most people who experience
homelessness have problems that are largely economic in nature,
combined with thin social supports. The help they need to achieve
housing stability is relatively modest--communities have had very good
results with programs that build relationships with local landlords,
help people fix credit problems, and perhaps provide a small amount of
financial help for security deposit and initial rent, with referral to
mainstream programs that help with employment stability.
The hardest to serve often do not get served. For most of the time
the HUD McKinney-Vento programs have been in effect, a certain portion
of the funding was explicitly directed by the Federal Government to
permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities. The exception
was a 5-year period in the late 1990's, when HUD developed the
``Continuum of Care'' model allowing communities to exercise more
centralized control over what projects would be funded. The Continuum
of Care improved the system in many ways; but during this short period,
spending on permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities
fell precipitously. While it is unclear why this occurred, the
possibilities include the difficulty of carrying out supportive housing
projects, particular the difficulties siting permanent housing for
people with mental illness, a well-documented phenomenon. The
bipartisan enactment by Congress of a floor of 30 percent on spending
for permanent housing brought the system back into balance.
The Right Models are Proven Cost-Effective Interventions that Work
Leading communities are already answering the question of the right
kinds of models that flow from these lessons. The following describes
the most effective approaches.
Supportive Housing. ``Supportive housing'' is a generic term
describing housing where the rent is subsidized, and where treatment
and support services are provided to those who live in the housing.
This kind of housing can include everything from large apartment
buildings dedicated to this use, to scattered site programs where rent
subsidies are paid to for-profit landlords and visiting teams provide
services and treatment.
This model is particularly designed for homeless people with the
most severe problems, including mental illness and addiction. Careful
research has demonstrated that such housing can be provided to homeless
people with mental illness at virtually no cost to the taxpayer,
because people who leave the streets in favor of supportive housing
reduce sharply their use of expensive emergency services such as
psychiatric emergency hospitals and detoxification facilities, as well
as jails and shelters.
The proven success of permanent supportive housing has driven the
campaign to end chronic (long-term) homelessness. The research on
homelessness and housing for people with mental illness has provided
strong incentives to State mental health systems to prevent
homelessness among their clientele. A push to rehouse those who are
already homeless can reduce the incidence of homelessness among people
with severe mental illnesses to minimal levels.
Emerging conclusions on families. Approximately half a million
families with children become homeless in the United States each year,
and a similar number leave homelessness each year and reenter housing.
But at any given time approximately 100,000 families are homeless,
staying in shelters, ``welfare hotels,'' cars, abandoned buildings and
outside. Because of the greater numbers and the wider range of
circumstances, a scenario for ending family homelessness has been more
difficult to develop than has a solution for chronic homelessness.
Thanks to the leadership of communities like Minneapolis, Columbus, and
New York, however, the scenario is becoming increasingly clear.
Because of high rates of entry into and exit from the homeless
system among families, prevention is especially important. Successful
prevention programs involve outreach to find families that are on the
brink of homelessness; work with landlords and short-term financial
assistance to stave off evictions; and social and employment services
to stabilize circumstances and improve incomes and the ability to pay
rent. Some communities target these resources to neighborhoods from
which homeless families most often arrive in the shelter system. In New
York City, shelter entry data is fed back to prevention programs to
help tailor outreach and services to the kinds of families that are
being missed.
Housing First is a key element for progress on ending homelessness
for families. It involves developing close working relations with
landlords, combined with financial assistance so that homeless families
can be quickly placed into housing. The vast majority of families that
experience homelessness are facing problems of an economic nature--they
are those with the lowest incomes, and probably those that lack strong
social support networks. Interventions that focus on these barriers are
the most effective.
Services after placement in housing are another piece of the puzzle
for families. Services must be evaluated based on their impact on
housing stability. Intensive employment services are used in the most
successful communities, so that families can afford rent. The ability
to intervene if there are landlord-tenant problems is effective.
Finally, data and planning are essential in communities that are
succeeding at ending family homelessness. Data systems identify cost-
effective solutions, help fine-tune interventions, and allow a focus on
performance.
Recognizing different issues in rural areas. There are significant
problems of homelessness in rural areas. While the basic approaches of
prevention and rapid rehousing apply in rural areas, they will take
different forms. Few rural communities will be able to support programs
dedicated exclusively to addressing homelessness--many will rely on
structures that address poverty or development more generally. Market-
based approaches to housing the lowest-income people will be
particularly important.
System-level outcome orientation. The most important reforms are
taking place at the level of local systems. Leaders have put into place
outcome-based systems that reward individual programs for achieving the
best results. A key intervention has been a system of matching
individual homeless people and families to programs that provide a
level of support services that is appropriate--enough to overcome
barriers to housing stability, while not so much as to hamper cost-
effectiveness or delay exit from the homeless system.
This Bill is a Positive Reaction to this Know-How
The approach to McKinney-Vento reauthorization that is adopted by
the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act would have a positive
impact.
The existing program combines the best aspects of a block grant and
a competitive program, and the bill improves both parts. As noted
recently by the Office of Management and Budget, the HUD homelessness
programs combine the best aspects of a block grant and a competitive
program. This bill would improve both aspects.
The bill simplifies the system by consolidating three programs. It
provides communities with more flexibility. It gives communities the
resources and authority to move their homeless system in the direction
it needs to go in order to get better results.
At the same time, the bill makes the overall program more outcome-
oriented. It provides financial rewards to communities that work most
effectively and achieve the best results.
The bill provides the necessary incentives to meet the needs of the
hardest to serve. The bill retains the approach adopted through the
appropriations process for the past 8 years, requiring that 30 percent
of appropriated funds nationwide be used for permanent housing for
people with disabilities. This is a balanced approach that ensures that
the most severely disabled homeless people will secure what they need,
while leaving substantial resources for other parts of the homeless
population.
The bill includes an appropriate balance between getting people
housed and meeting emergency needs. As has been HUD's practice in
recent years, the bill allows 15 percent of appropriated funds to the
Emergency Shelter Grants program; and allows the use of bonuses to
communities that develop permanent housing. For the first time, the
bill allows program funds to be used for permanent housing for homeless
people without disabilities.
The bill includes strong incentives for collaboration and
involvement of mainstream funding. The criteria for competitive awards
includes the ability to involve mainstream systems in planning and
coordination, and to leverage mainstream dollars as part of the
homelessness system. This approach, already used by HUD in its
administration of the current programs, has a great impact on improving
the quality of the system.
The bill allows additional investment in prevention. It retains
prevention as an eligible activity for the Emergency Shelter Grants
program, while allowing a small portion of the competitive grant
programs to also be used for prevention. It is extremely important
nonetheless to avoid encouraging communities to see preventing
homelessness as the exclusive responsibility of homelessness programs,
rather than mainstream programs.
There are Issues that will Require Further Exploration
Does the capacity exist at the local level to undertake the
planning, evaluation, and other functions? Is the funding for those
activities appropriate? The bill increases the expectations places on
those entities that run the local homeless systems, and provides
additional administrative funding. Consultation with local communities
should focus on whether capacity exists for immediate implementation of
these expectations, and whether the amount of administrative funding is
sufficient.
Does the bill have appropriate expectations regarding leveraging
other resources? Matching requirement in the current system are a
hodgepodge of different requirements. The bill simplifies this system
with a uniform requirement of a 25 percent cash match for each program
operator. The important thing is to ensure that clients have access to
mainstream services. It is less important that the cash to pay for
those services pass through the bank account of the entity operating
the HUD-funded program. There has been support in Congress for a
provision allowing the value of in-kind services to count toward a
match requirement where there is a memorandum of understanding with the
entity providing the services. Solutions such as this should be
explored.
Does the bill take the right approach to the need for capital,
housing operating funding, and services including rehousing services?
The provision of the bill limiting program funding of support services
after 3 years has proven to be controversial, especially in light of
growing understanding of how support services stabilize housing for
homeless people. The percentage of HUD homeless funding going toward
support services has declined since earlier versions of this bill were
introduced. Meanwhile, there have been no new Federal initiatives to
provide new funding for support services for homeless people.
Revisiting these provisions may be appropriate.
It is important to note that a bipartisan bill, the Services to End
Long-Term Homelessness Act, has been introduced. This bill would
partially solve the problem of insufficient resources for support
services for homeless people, by creating a funding stream from the
Department of Health and Human Services that would match up well with
the HUD services that are the subject of this bill. The National
Alliance to End Homelessness strongly supports SELHA.
Conclusion
The National Alliance to End Homelessness is proud to support the
Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. We look forward to
continued debate to allow all affected interests to be heard. We
believe that such a consensus-oriented approach can produce a final
product that would move our collective efforts on homelessness forward,
while attracting support from a wide range of interests. A real
opportunity exists to make progress.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GOULD
National President, Volunteers of America
March 30, 2006
Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. My
name is Charles W. Gould, and I serve as the National President of
Volunteers of America.
Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based
organization that is dedicated to helping those in need rebuild their
lives and reach their full potential. Through thousands of human
service programs, including housing and healthcare, Volunteers of
America helps nearly 2 million people in over 400 communities. Since
1896, our ministry of service has supported and empowered America's
most vulnerable groups, including at-risk youth, the frail elderly, men
and women returning from prison, homeless individuals and families,
people with disabilities, and those recovering from addictions. Our
work touches the mind, body, heart--and ultimately the spirit--of those
we serve, integrating our deep compassion with highly effective
programs and services.
In the context of today's hearing, our interventions both prevent
and end homelessness, in urban and rural communities across the
country. Last year, we provided assistance to over 80,000 homeless
children, youth, and adults. We are working to end homelessness in
almost every State represented by a Senator on this Subcommittee--and
on the full Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Appendix for a summary description of Volunteers homeless
programs in States represented by Members of the Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the only representative of a homeless service provider
testifying today, my comments and recommendations reflect the views of
our staff from around the country--the people who are on the ground,
every day, working to end homelessness. I will begin with lessons
learned in the 20 years since the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act,
and from those lessons will draw a series of recommendations for how to
most effectively reform the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD's) homeless programs. We have a significant
opportunity before us--the opportunity to closely reexamine every
portion of the McKinney-Vento programs, and of the Federal, State, and
local partnership to prevent and end homelessness. We should take
advantage of that opportunity.
McKinney-Vento's housing programs have not been reauthorized since
1994. Since that time, Volunteers of America has significantly
broadened our understanding of how to provide cost-effective housing
and supportive service interventions to prevent and end homelessness
for all populations. Based on this understanding, the time is right for
a complete reauthorization and streamlining of HUD's McKinney-Vento
programs. By consolidating current programs, broadening the list of
eligible activities, focusing on homelessness prevention and expanding
the population to whom housing and services can be provided,
reauthorization will allow local communities to take full advantage of
the best practices developed over the past 20 years.
Reauthorization will also ensure that Congress makes important
decisions about the structure and emphasis of Federal homeless
programs. Over the past 12 years, lack of input from Congress has led
to HUD making significant policy changes through the annual Notice of
Funding Availability (NOFA) process. Volunteers of America has not
always been comfortable with this approach, which has often appeared to
be ``legislation by NOFA.'' Making abrupt policy changes in a February
or March NOFA, with applications due in May, does not allow communities
the certainty and consistency they need to implement long-term plans to
end homelessness.
Twenty Years of McKinney-Vento--Lessons Learned
I want to highlight three important lessons that Volunteers of
America has learned in the 20-year period since McKinney-Vento was
first passed: (1) McKinney-Vento programs are no substitute for
``mainstream'' housing and social service programs or systems of care;
(2) Family homelessness has significantly increased; and (3) Both
permanent and transitional housing can be effective tools to end
homelessness. I will follow my discussion of these ``lessons learned''
with Volunteers of America's policy recommendations for S. 1801--the
reauthorization bill that is currently before this Subcommittee.
McKinney-Vento Programs are no Substitute for ``Mainstream'' Housing
and
Social Service Programs or Systems of Care
Americans are homeless for many reasons. However, over the past 20
years it has become clear to Volunteers of America that many people
become homeless due to the failure of Federal and State ``mainstream''
programs or systems of care to meet their needs. These ``mainstream''
programs and systems can be defined as interventions designed to assist
all low-income Americans--not just persons experiencing homelessness.
In recent years, we have discovered just how these programs can
contribute directly to homelessness. Here are some examples. When
funding for Section 8 and other affordable housing programs is reduced,
and affordability requirements on other housing units are allowed to
expire, individuals and families will not find alternative affordable
housing in their communities, and many will become homeless. When
eligible low-income persons are incorrectly denied Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) ``welfare'' or Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) disability benefits, they lose their ability to afford housing,
and many will become homeless. When people are discharged from mental
health or substance abuse treatment facilities, jails, prisons, or
foster care, and no provisions are made to ensure that they receive
appropriate housing and healthcare, many of them will become homeless.
And when people cannot access mental health or substance abuse
treatment, they lose jobs and other social supports. Many of these
people will become homeless.
Unfortunately, none of these statements are hypothetical. Over the
past 20 years, we have repeatedly seen funding cuts for affordable
housing programs, incorrect denials of eligibility for public
assistance, lack of discharge planning, and inability to access
community based services--and these failures of ``mainstream'' programs
have directly resulted in homelessness.
Ensuring access to public benefits and treatment, and ensuring
adequate discharge planning, is costly and complicated--there is no
question about it. However, the moral and economic cost of not doing so
is far greater. Intervening to end homelessness is considerably more
expensive than ensuring that we prevent it, and preventing homelessness
must be our primary social objective--so no individual or family spends
time on the street or in emergency shelter.
Family Homelessness has Significantly Increased
When the McKinney-Vento Act was first passed, homelessness was
viewed mainly as an urban issue--a problem of people, mainly single
individuals, living on the streets. And as all of us who live here in
Washington, DC know, we do not have to go more than a block or two away
from the Dirksen building to see that street homelessness continues to
exist. There is no question that we must do a better job of ending
homelessness for people who live outdoors.
But what we have seen over the last 20 years is that there is
another face of homelessness--both in cities around the country, and in
suburban and rural areas. Much of this population consists of homeless
families with young children. We now know that each year, over one
million children are homeless. Homeless children lag behind their
housed peers in almost every significant indicator of child well-being,
including early childhood development, educational performance, health,
and well being. As a result, many of these children are likely to grow
up to be the next generation of low income, poorly housed, and homeless
adults. We must reform HUD's homeless programs to take better care of
our Nation's homeless families, while continuing to seek an end to
street homelessness.
Many of these families enter emergency shelters, and eventually
receive transitional housing or other assistance. However, too many
homeless families remain on the margins. In rural areas and many
suburbs, emergency shelters may not exist or may be full. In urban
areas where shelters do exist, parents often do not want to subject
their children to overcrowded congregate living facilities. These
families are doubled up with friends or family, or living in short term
inexpensive hotels or motels. Nobody would choose to live in these
hotels or motels--whole families must coexist in one room, with no
cooking facilities, no access to public transportation, and no place
for children to play. Families move back and forth between these
settings, making it almost impossible to keep children in school. Make
no mistake about it--these living situations are involuntary, and these
families are homeless. HUD's homeless programs must assist them.
Both Permanent and Transitional Housing can be Effective Tools to End
Homelessness
In 1987, many people believed that homelessness could be ended by
providing emergency shelter that would allow people to ``get back on
their feet.'' Today, Volunteers of America understands that this
generalization does not apply to most homeless populations.
There is no question that 10 to 15 percent of homeless persons have
severe disabilities, due to physical, mental, and substance use
impairments. Both single adults and families with children can be found
among this population. Many members of this group have spent
significant time living on the streets or in emergency shelters, and
under today's terminology are identified as ``long-term'' or
``chronically'' homeless. The ``chronic'' homeless population needs
permanent supportive housing--a combination of housing and intensive
services where individuals and families are not time limited, and can
remain for as long as they need to.
Volunteers of America is a major provider of permanent supportive
housing. And in response to the Federal initiative to end ``chronic''
homelessness, we are working to produce more--in partnership with
groups like the Corporation for Supportive Housing. This initiative
must continue. However, permanent supportive housing addresses the
needs of no more than 15 percent of the homeless population. Volunteers
of America is equally committed to intervening on behalf of the other
85 percent of homeless Americans, and our reauthorization
recommendations will detail ways in which HUD's homeless programs can
be realigned to best serve this large and ever growing group.
Although some members of every homeless sub-population will need
permanent supportive housing with intensive services, a large group
will not. Many single homeless adults and homeless families with
children fall into this category. Still others are runaway youth, or
youth aging out of foster care. It is easy to say that all these
individuals and families need is access to ``affordable housing''--
although such housing does not exist in most communities. And indeed,
in some cases, this is accurate.
Volunteers of America is a leading provider of quality affordable
housing, and we have made affordable housing development and
preservation our top organizational priority. We urge the Banking
Committee to help us make good on this commitment, by supporting the
creation of an ``Affordable Housing Fund'' through the GSE reform
bill--S. 200. By helping Volunteers of America and other nonprofits
provide new units of affordable housing, passing this legislation would
result in a decrease in homelessness.
But many of these homeless individuals and families can benefit
from a shorter-term intervention that comes with supportive services.
That intervention, in most cases, is transitional housing. Transitional
housing is limited to 2 years, and focuses on providing individuals and
families with the support they need to become self-sufficient.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the Administration and many advocacy
organizations have been critical of transitional housing, asserting
that it amounts to managing homelessness--not ending it. This assertion
could not be more incorrect.
Transitional housing, in fact, is an extremely successful and cost-
effective way to provide individuals and families with the helping hand
they need to obtain stable permanent housing through the private market
or through mainstream HUD subsidized housing programs. Given the
limited funds available to homeless assistance programs, reducing the
role of transitional housing in ending homelessness is unwise.
It is important to understand that transitional housing has
significantly evolved since 1987. Years ago, transitional housing meant
congregate living without as many supportive services as are provided
today. Individuals or families with different needs were put into the
same programs. As a result, many people ended a 2-year housing
placement having no more ability to secure permanent housing than they
did upon program entry.
Now, however, ``best practice'' transitional housing looks
different. If housing is provided at a single site, it is usually in
the form of individual apartments, with their own living and cooking
facilities. And transitional housing providers have specialized
services interventions for different populations--families fleeing
domestic violence, families with a parent who is returning from
incarceration or from mental health or substance use treatment,
homeless veterans needing job training, or youth who have either run
away from unstable family situations or aged out of foster care.
In many cases, transitional housing is provided in scattered site
apartments where tenants remain permanently housed without McKinney-
Vento funded subsidies after 2 years--a model called ``transition in
place.'' This model is successful at ending homelessness, and when
rental subsidies move to a new individual or family at least every 2
years (often much more frequently), it is cost effective for HUD by
allowing limited funding to benefit more people. A consolidated
homeless program must incentivize this efficient housing intervention.
Volunteers of America Policy Proposals for S. 1801--The Community
Partnership To End Homelessness Act of 2005
I wish to thank Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and other
Members of the Subcommittee for the hard work they have put into the
drafting of S. 1801--the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act
of 2005. Volunteers of America believes that S. 1801 provides a strong
framework for the reauthorization discussion that we have engaged in
over the past several years, and continue to engage in today. The
following policy proposals are indicative of our strong support for
particular provisions of S. 1801, while also offering recommendations
for significant improvements to the bill.
Support Cost Effective Homelessness Prevention Initiatives
Volunteers of America strongly supports the provisions of S. 1801
relating to homelessness prevention. The first of two provisions would
continue to allow up to 5 percent of Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
(distributed to States and localities) to be used for homelessness
prevention by providing short-term rental assistance to avoid
evictions. The second provision would allow 5 percent of CHAP funds to
be spent on a broader array of prevention activities--including
eviction prevention, relocation assistance for people being discharged
from public institutions, assistance in reunifying homeless youth with
their families, and aid to help reconnect homeless children in the
child welfare system with their parents and guardians.
Homelessness prevention is both better for people and financially
less costly than allowing individuals and families to live on the
streets or in emergency shelter--we are pleased to see that this
understanding has been adopted in the drafting of S. 1801.
Prevent Discharges into Homelessness
HUD funded permanent housing has long served applicants coming from
the streets, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and treatment
programs or other institutions. However, in the 2005 NOFA HUD announced
that future permanent housing renewal projects would only be able to
accept residents coming from transitional housing if they originally
came from emergency shelter or from the streets. This prevents
permanent supportive housing projects from housing individuals who may
have become homeless after being discharged from jails, prisons,
alcohol or drug treatment programs, or other public institutions. In
order to receive permanent housing assistance, people leaving these
settings would first have to suffer the indignity of becoming homeless,
by living on the streets or in an emergency shelter--even if a
permanent housing bed was immediately available.
Volunteers of America believes that this policy change is unwise--
particularly since HUD has recently released an exploratory study on
homeless prevention which found that one of the most effective
strategies was ``supportive services coupled with permanent housing,
particularly when coupled with effective discharge from institutions.''
We know that reentry housing prevents homelessness--HUD should
encourage it, not disfavor it.
In addition, this HUD policy weakens community control over who can
be assisted through local homeless programs. Since local service
providers and advocates best understand who is homeless and in need of
assistance in their cities and towns, a policy that ties their hands
contributes to inefficient use of scarce homeless program resources.
Provide Service Providers with the Flexibility Needed to Assist All
Homeless
Populations
In keeping with our strong support for keeping homeless individuals
and families from ever having to live on the streets or enter emergency
homeless shelters, Volunteers of America has long believed that
McKinney-Vento's definition of who is homeless should be expanded to
include people who are living in doubled up situations, or in hotels or
motels, solely due to the lack of adequate alternative housing. We
support this change by virtue of what our local office staff from
around the country tell us. They report that their Continuums of Care
would like to provide assistance to individuals and families living in
these precarious situations--before they are forced onto the streets or
into a shelter. However, under the current definition of homelessness,
they must wait. S. 1801, as currently drafted, does not address this
issue.
It is important to realize that living doubled up or in a hotel or
motel is not a safe or stable situation, where an individual or family
might choose to remain for lengthy periods of time. Instead, doubled up
families often bounce between the homes of various friends and
relatives--never staying in one place for more than a month or two--
before they wear out their welcome and are forced to move on. This
highly mobile and unstable lifestyle is particularly difficult for
children--it leads directly to poor educational achievement and
behavioral problems. Expansion of the definition of homelessness would
allow communities who have large numbers of these highly mobile
families to provide them with the assistance necessary to enter stable
housing.
Include Homeless Families in the Definition of ``Chronic'' Homelessness
HUD's current definition of ``chronic'' homelessness permits only
single individuals to be considered under that category. This
definition, however, does not appear in McKinney-Vento--it was created
by the Administration. Volunteers of America strongly urges Congress to
codify an amended definition. Such an amendment would expand the
definition of ``chronic'' homelessness to include families where either
the head of household or a child in the household is disabled.
As currently worded, S. 1801 would only include families with
disabled heads of household. Volunteers of America supports this
language, as does almost every homeless advocacy or service
organization. When an adult meets the criteria for being
``chronically'' homeless, why should that person not be able to receive
permanent housing assistance, simply because they are living with one
or more minor children. If anything, the presence of a child in the
household creates an additional reason to provide that family with
permanent housing.
Volunteers of America would also go slightly farther, to include
families where the disabled individual is a child. Like other families
who have been homeless repeatedly or for one lengthy stretch, these
families need long-term housing and supports. We should give
communities the flexibility to provide them with permanent housing, if
the need for such housing can be demonstrated.
Incentivize Successful Permanent and Transitional Housing
Volunteers of America believes that HUD homeless programs should
incentivize a range of housing interventions that are successful at
ending homelessness. Currently, HUD has administratively chosen to
provide significant incentives for the development of permanent housing
through McKinney-Vento. The permanent housing ``bonus'' essentially
diverts all new funding for the homeless programs into a bonus for
communities who develop permanent housing for ``chronic'' homeless
individuals.
We support S. 1801's continued incentives for permanent housing,
which maintain the current bonus, while adding a bonus for permanent
housing to assist non disabled homeless families. However, Volunteers
of America would add an additional activity that is eligible for bonus
money--cost effective transitional housing targeted to particularly
vulnerable populations. These populations could include families
leaving domestic violence situations, parents reuniting with children
leaving foster care, or families with extremely young children. In
addition--Volunteers of America believes that receipt of bonus money in
a community, for a particular type of housing, must be conditioned on
the community's ability to demonstrate, through their required gaps and
needs analysis, that there is a need for such housing.
These changes will balance the current bonus structure, where
permanent supportive housing for single ``chronic'' homeless
individuals is the only eligible activity. Because every community can
use additional homeless program funding, this structure pressures
communities that do not have a significant ``chronic'' homeless
population to ``write to the grant'' and devise projects to serve that
population, simply to get bonus money. It would be a far more effective
use of Federal funds to provide bonus money that meets demonstrated
local needs.
Ensure Continued Access to Supportive Services
It is well established that ending homelessness requires a
combination of housing and supportive services. This is why in 1987
McKinney-Vento authorized HUD to fund services, and why HUD has
consistently done so. In recent years, HUD has undertaken significant
efforts to fund more housing, and fewer services. Provisions contained
in S. 1801 would go too far in continuing this trend.
S. 1801 would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
make a determination, 3 years after enactment, that certain Federal
mainstream services programs (such as the Substance Abuse and/or Mental
Health Block Grants) were receiving additional funds. If that
determination occurred, the HUD Secretary would have discretion to stop
funding supportive services not directly tied to maintaining housing--
potentially to include mental health and substance abuse services.
Volunteers of America does not believe that this is a wise policy.
As I referenced earlier, mainstream programs do not serve homeless
persons well. So additional funding for these programs does not mean
that additional funds will go to homeless persons. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to condition homeless program funding for services on how
mainstream programs are funded.
Volunteers of America would prefer to see HUD and HHS work together
to determine an efficient way for HHS to fund additional supportive
services for homeless programs. This solution would require additional
resources, but would best achieve the goal of having HUD--the Federal
Government's housing agency--fund more housing. We regret that HUD and
HHS have yet to reach agreement on this matter, and hope that the U.S.
Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) will be able to facilitate
an accord.
Require Coordinated Federal, State, and Local Planning to End All
Homelessness
Over the past 4 years, the USICH has strongly encouraged State and
local governments to create plans to end ``chronic'' homelessness in 10
years. And in the just released HUD NOFA, Continuums of Care must
coordinate their plans with these State and local plans if they want to
receive the maximum number of points for strategic planning.
Volunteers of America supports the idea of planning to end
homelessness. We believe, however, that this planning must start with
the creation of a Federal strategic plan to end homelessness--not just
``chronic'' homelessness but all homelessness. We are pleased that the
development of such a plan, by the USICH is required under S. 1801.
Similarly, we believe that it is a mistake for the USICH to insist
that State and local plans focus only on ``chronic'' homelessness. If
all levels of government are going to engage in planning around the
issue of homelessness, then the resulting plans should focus on ending
homelessness altogether--with specific strategies for ``chronic''
homelessness, family homelessness, and youth homelessness, or
homelessness among any other subpopulation found in that State or
locality.
This would allow State and local plans to be in alignment with the
gaps and needs analysis that each Continuum of Care is required to
prepare every year, and would alter the current inequitable system--
under which communities with little to no ``chronic'' homelessness are
still forced to plan for ending it, even as they receive little credit
for demonstrating a need to assist other homeless populations and
putting together a comprehensive strategy to meet that need. Volunteers
of America strongly supports the provision in S. 1801 that would
instruct the USICH to encourage these broader State and local plans to
end all homelessness.
We would also note that plans to end homelessness are only as good
as the resources available to implement them. So while we are pleased
that many local plans are succeeding in encouraging State, local, and
private investment, we believe that the Federal Government must set an
example by providing adequate funding for McKinney-Vento programs and
``mainstream'' housing and supportive services programs.
Consolidate HUD's Homeless Assistance Programs
I will not devote significant time to this recommendation, as it
appears to have nearly unanimous support--both in Congress and among
service providers and other homelessness advocates. But, in brief, HUD
now operates three competitive homeless assistance programs--Shelter
Plus Care (SPC), which provides permanent housing for individuals with
disabilities and families where the head of household has a
disability--Supportive Housing Program (SHP), which provides both
transitional and permanent housing, as well as supportive services--and
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, which provides funds to nonprofits.
Nonprofits then combine these resources with Low Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) or some other source of housing production dollars, and
rehabilitate buildings to be used as Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
housing.
Since both SPC and SHP have five sub-programs, program
consolidation would take a total of 11 programs and turn them into one
program--the Community Homeless Assistance Program (CHAP). This single
program would have a lengthy list of eligible activities, allowing
funds to be used for all current activities, and several new ones--
including permanent housing for homeless families without a disabled
head of household. Volunteers of America strongly supports this
initiative, as proposed in S. 1801.
Include Administrative Provisions to Help Service Providers
I want to conclude by offering our strong support for several
administrative changes to McKinney-Vento. S. 1801 as currently drafted
requires a 25 percent cash match for almost all housing and supportive
services programs funded through McKinney. As service providers, we
would prefer that there be no match requirement. However, we understand
the importance of having a match, in order to most efficiently leverage
funds. But in order to make the match requirement less onerous, we
recommend that a service provider be allowed to satisfy it either with
cash or in-kind resources. In-kind contributions such as mental health,
substance abuse, or other supportive services are of equal value to
cash, and are often significantly easier to obtain.
We also recommend that, as S. 1801 mandates, HUD be required to
create a formal appeals process for communities who believe that the
scoring of their NOFA applications was incorrect. Mistakes do happen,
and there should be a formal process in place to correct them. The
current system does not specify any appeal procedure, which means that
appeals are made on an ad hoc basis, and there are no specified
standards for evaluating them.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LOVE
President/CEO, Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County,
Inc.
March 30, 2006
Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the Coalition for the
Homeless of Houston/Harris County to testify in support of the
reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, known as
the Coalition, is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to
educate and advocate for the needs of persons who are homeless through
support and the coordination of services. Founded in 1982, at the
request of then-City of Houston Mayor Katherine Whitmire and then
Harris County Judge Jon Lindsey, the Coalition was formed to support
those entities that provide direct support to people that are homeless
through advocacy, education, collaboration, and community partnerships.
The Coalition currently serves as the lead coordinator for the
local Continuum of Care system. We serve in this role through the
support and partnership with the City of Houston and Harris County.
This ``Collaborative'' was developed in 1992. The foundation of this
process is based on two principle concepts, implementation and
evaluation. Under the guidance and coordinating efforts of the
Collaborative Continuum of Care approach, Houston/Harris County's
strategy became a model that HUD used to encourage other jurisdictions
to develop. Last year, our local Continuum of Care provided funding for
27 agencies representing 62 programs/projects that span the spectrum of
outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing and, of course,
permanent housing.
In Houston/Harris County, prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
there were 12,000-14,000 men, women, and children without a place to
call home on any given night. Last year, approximately 34,000
individuals accessed homeless services in our community. All of these
services represent McKinney funded agencies that function as the
existing system to exit homelessness in Houston/Harris County. Since
1992, McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Funding has been the major
source of funding for the majority of homeless service agencies in
Houston/Harris County. This funding has provided housing, employment,
and other essential services to tens of thousands of individuals who
have experienced homelessness in our community.
McKinney-Vento for years has served as the impetus for
collaboration and community solutions to ending homelessness. McKinney-
Vento has enabled many communities to leverage millions of dollars in
private funding and investment while also providing housing
opportunities to thousands of low-income Americans who otherwise may
not be able to afford housing of any sorts. On the other hand, the
current bill being considered, would enhance the Acts' ability to serve
more people who are at risk of being homeless, realize that any
reduction in HUD service dollars will not take place until adequate
alternative funding is provided and expand who qualifies as chronically
homeless.
The Coalition supports this bill in its entirety, especially the
following three items:
Provision of Funding for Preventing Homelessness: By allowing
communities to use up to 5 percent of their grant funding to prevent
homelessness, a huge barrier to ending homelessness is significantly
reduced. This provision truly provides a means of ``closing the front
door'' to homelessness. A continuum is incomplete without prevention as
a part of the Collaborative process to create a seamless system of
service.
Involvement of More Federal Agencies: One agency should not be
expected to do it all or bear the burden of ending homelessness in our
country. This measure ensures that multiple Federal agencies are
involved in the provision of housing, healthcare, human services,
employment, and other services as necessary and appropriate. Adjusting
the role of the Interagency Council on Homelessness provides a
nationally coordinated effort to complement local and State efforts. It
also makes the issue of homelessness a national priority and serves as
encouragement to local communities that this issue will remain
important nationally.
Broader Definition of Chronically Homeless: The current definition
of chronically homeless is restrictive and disallows much needed
services to individuals and families who also demand much from the
current homeless assistance system. This new definition is more
inclusive than the current definition because it includes families who
have an adult head of household with a disabling condition, and people
who are homeless other than only those that are sleeping in an
emergency homeless shelter or in a place not meant for human
habitation. This definition provides a more accurate picture of the
individuals and families that are served by these community agencies
every day.
Again, the Coalition supports this legislation; however we are
concerned about the 25 percent match requirement and its possible
effect on smaller non profits and their ability to apply for these
funds. We are not opposed to this provision, but we are uneasy about
the possible consequences and wonder aloud, what type of barrier does
this requirement create for smaller agencies that perform at a high
level with a smaller budget?
Once again, I thank you for your invitation and this opportunity to
speak on behalf of the Coalition. The Coalition supports your efforts
to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the
critical resources it will provide to communities in their efforts to
end homelessness.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS PATRICK CULHANE, Ph.D.
Professor of Social Welfare Policy and Psychology,
University of Pennsylvania
March 30, 2006
Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished Members of
the Committee, the Committee is to be commended for the proposed bill
reauthorizing of the McKinney-Vento Act. As you are aware, tremendous
strides have been made in recent years, through both the appropriations
process and HUD's competition in orienting the McKinney-Vento programs
toward meeting the goal of reducing homelessness through the creation
of permanent housing opportunities. Many thoughtful changes have been
made to these programs which have collectively moved communities away
from mere expansions in providing services to people in a state of
homelessness, and toward a goal of reducing the number of people who
experience homelessness. The bill under consideration is a significant
milestone in meeting the nation's obligations to the poorest and
neediest among us.
I am particularly supportive of the bill's codifying into law the
emphasis of using the McKinney-Vento programs to advance efforts to end
chronic homelessness among single adults with disabilities. Research on
the dynamics of homelessness among single adults has consistently shown
that people experiencing chronic homelessness are costly users of
emergency shelter, and costly users of acute care systems in health,
public safety, and corrections. While adults who become chronically
homeless may represent only 15 percent of adult shelter users over
time, research indicates that they occupy more than half of the
emergency shelter beds for adults in our cities, and account for a
substantial majority of the people who live--and in some cases die--on
our streets and in other public spaces.
Research has further shown that investments in supportive housing
targeted to this population in many cases can be fully offset by the
reduced use of shelters, hospitals, emergency rooms, and jails. In the
face of such evidence, it is difficult to justify a policy that spends
so many resources essentially maintaining people in a state of
homelessness, when those same resources can be leveraged for a solution
to their plight. The bill's provision for setting aside 30 percent of
the McKinney-Vento resources for permanent housing programs for people
who are chronically homeless makes moral and economic sense in light of
these data, and the Committee is to be commended for requiring that
communities continue to target significant Federal resources for this
purpose.
I have just a couple of concerns with the nature of the targeting
suggested in the bill. The bill should include a requirement that
adults who are chronically homeless also have to have a disability in
order to qualify for the set-aside resources. Previous Federal efforts
in this area, including priorities established through the
appropriations process and HUD's competition, have included a
disability eligibility criterion for homeless adults. This targeting is
based on the fact that the evidence of cost-effectiveness is strongest
for people with disabilities, and because research suggests that nearly
all adults who experience chronic homelessness also have a disability.
Without this further criterion, the bill could unintentionally
encourage lengthy shelter stays alone as a means of accessing this
limited housing benefit.
My second concern centers on the inclusion of ``chronically''
homeless families in the eligible population for permanent supportive
housing funded through this legislation. I am not aware of a research
literature on family homelessness that supports the designation of
``chronicity'' among homeless families. Indeed, there are families who
are homeless for long periods of time, and that is an issue deserving
of redress. But it is not at all clear that long-term homelessness
among families is best understood through a theoretical framework that
was primarily intended to characterize a population of single adults
who are so disabled and disenfranchised that--were it not for emergency
shelter or supportive housing programs--they would live and even die on
the streets. Without a doubt there are families among the homeless who
have special needs, and who have disabled members, but segmenting this
population from the larger population of homeless and near-homeless
families, as is done in the proposed bill, could have unintended and
long-term negative consequences, for both homeless families and the
chronic homeless adult population.
Research on family homelessness has not found that homeless
families in general are significantly different from other poor
families. This is not surprising, given that we now know that
homelessness among families is fairly common--10 percent of poor
children will experience homelessness each year, with a rate that is
certainly much higher (perhaps twice as high) among families from
disadvantage minorities, such as African-Americans. The extent of
family homelessness, and its disruptive impact on children and their
educations--irrespective of whether they are from a family with a
disabled family member--cries out for a broader and more substantive
policy solution than can be found within the very limited resource
represented by the 30 percent set-aside of McKinney-Vento spending.
Research has found that homeless families nearly universally
respond positively to the receipt of rental assistance. Despite the
many challenges a given family may face, nearly all homeless families
end their homelessness, and do not recur into homelessness with the
support of rental assistance. Current research in which I am engaged
indicates that long-stay families reside in shelters for an average of
9 months, at a cost of approximately $22,000 per family in
Philadelphia. The same resource that provides 9 months in a shelter
could provide those same families with the equivalent of 3 years of
Federal housing assistance through the Section 8 program. Even the
majority of families who's average stay in shelters is less than 2
months consume nearly $4,000 in emergency shelter resources, resources
that could be much better spent providing families with an expedited
exit out of homelessness and into housing.
In many small and even quite substantial program and policy
experiments around the country, communities are exploring the value of
such ``Housing First'' programs as an alternative to shelter among
homeless families (as well as singles). These programs embody the
principle that no family should be chronically homeless, and, indeed,
no family should be homeless for more than a brief period of time (that
is 30 days). To the extent that this Committee can do so, it should
seek to encourage communities to explore how they can use these current
resources, as well as their TANF programs and other Federal and local
resources, to relocate families presenting as homeless as soon as
possible, either through emergency relocation grants, or transitional
rental assistance.
The subsegment of families who need additional support services to
maintain their housing, could and should receive those support services
from mainstream child welfare and behavioral health systems. To the
extent that permanent supportive housing is identified as necessary to
prevent recurrent or long-term homelessness among some families,
communities should be encouraged to convert their existing transitional
housing programs--most of which are currently not targeted to families
with special needs--to this purpose. In their current untargeted form,
transitional housing programs have not provided a demonstrated benefit
associated with their lengthy stays and high costs. In many
communities, those units represent a significant resource that could be
put to this purpose. And for those families in need of more sustained
rental assistance without services, it is imperative that our Federal
housing programs expand to meet that need.
The 30 percent set aside is not going to be sufficient for
accomplishing any of these goals. Moreover, without any strict limits
on the use of this set aside for families, we may well undermine the
primary consensus principle that this legislation seeks to codify--the
reduction of chronic homelessness among single adults through the
targeting of permanent supportive housing resources.
The proposed bill also makes some significant progress in codifying
into law some mechanisms for accountability that had been lacking in
previous legislation for homeless programs. The provisions for
supporting Homeless Services Management Information Systems, or HMIS,
promises to give local communities, as well as States and the Federal
Government, increased information to make informed policy decisions.
Sound data collection can yield important information for governments
and other planning bodies as they attempt to steer their systems toward
reducing homelessness, either through housing placement or prevention.
As the bill acknowledges, in addition to ending chronic
homelessness, preventing future homelessness is going to be a critical
objective to achieving the goal of reduced homelessness. Research
suggests that as many as half of the single adults entering public
shelters have recently exited other public systems of care. The HMIS
data can be used to hold these mainstream systems accountable for the
number of people they are sending to homelessness, and who in turn get
sent back to these institutions. As long as we operate without data,
this revolving door is invisible to these institutions, who choose to
recognize the problem only when it appears inside their corridors. This
is true whether it is acute hospitalization, detoxification, or
correctional systems. HMIS can and should hold a mirror to these
systems so that they can measure and reduce the traffic through these
revolving doors. Doing so will require that local and State governments
use their data effectively. The McKinney-Vento legislation could
encourage States and localities to engage in systematic data analysis
to identify how institutional discharges are contributing to
homelessness, and, in turn, resulting in further reinstitutionalization
and homelessness.
In further support of such collaborations, I encourage the bill's
support of the 10-year plans to end homelessness that have become
commonplace around the country. Many of these plans are the result of
new and potentially powerful collaborations among local and State
governments, as well as service providers and less traditional
stakeholders in these communities. These partnerships are essential to
advancing a local agenda, and for leveraging the multiagency and
multisectoral resources that will be necessary to develop and support
housing, as well as programs for prevention and diversion from shelter.
These partnerships are a reflection of the collaboration that has also
been embodied in the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which
has brought together many Federal partners for this purpose and brought
new resources from other Federal programs to this population. Indeed,
it is to the credit of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
that the current national conversation has changed, and has now focused
a variety of agencies at all levels of government on the objective of
reducing and ultimately ending homelessness in our country.
If the bill could learn from our previous experience with the
Continuum of Care, it would be to assure that local governments have a
majority position in the local planning boards called for in the
legislation. Local governments control most of the policy levers that
are required to develop and support housing, and to deliver social
services and prevention. Only government has the legal authority and
the public accountability that is necessary to achieve public aims.
Therefore, local governments should be assured through their
representation on local planning boards that their efforts can work in
a common direction with the intended use of Federal and State
resources.
Much progress has been made on behalf of people who are homeless or
threatened with homelessness. However, the problem remains a stubborn
fixture in our communities. Federal resources can and should help in
redirecting homelessness policies away from maintaining or even
enhancing a makeshift private welfare system. Instead, our goal should
be to strengthen the capacity of our social welfare system to protect
people from homelessness in the first instance, and to prevent
unnecessarily long shelter stays in the second. Chronic street
homelessness should be addressed directly with housing programs that
provide a solution to homelessness. This bill, properly modified, can
make substantial progress in committing our Nation to these goals, and
in pushing us even further in expanding access to housing and services
that will truly prevent homelessness and away from the
institutionalization of this unacceptable and unnecessary social ill.
Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
FROM ROY A. BERNARDI
In your testimony, you stated that, while our bill (S.
1801) and the proposed HUD bill are similar, the bills differ
in some respects. Please specify provisions in the HUD bill and
provisions in S. 1801 that support your assertion that the HUD
bill provides the following:
Q.1.a. A greater focus on chronic homelessness;
A.1.a. The Administration's bill would continue to define
chronic homelessness to include disabled individuals who are
often literally living on the streets. The Administration's
bill, unlike S. 1801, would not expand the definition of
chronic homelessness by including disabled families with
children, most of whom are housed in shelters. Given limited
resources, HUD wants to help ensure those who literally have no
roof over their heads can access housing.
Q.1.b. Greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to
solve homelessness;
A.1.b. The Administration's bill permits funding of supportive
services and does not include the 3-year phase out provisions
that are outlined in S. 1801. Under the Administration's bill,
communities are afforded the opportunity to fund the supportive
services that are needed in their specific communities. This
concept allows for local decisionmaking and greater flexibility
by communities.
Q.1.c. Greater flexibility in using program funds to prevent
homelessness (particularly in light of the bonus funding under
the Samaritan Initiative); and
A.1.c. S. 1801 and the Administration's bill both address
prevention; however, the Administration's bill provides more
flexibility because it would allow up to 10 percent of program
funds to be spent on prevention activities and S. 1801 allows
up to 5 percent.
Q.1.d. Better targets its permanent housing resources for the
disabled.
A.1.d. The Administration's bill would continue to target
housing resources to disabled individuals and families. S. 1801
would allow these scarce resources to also and for the first
time be accessed by nondisabled families.
Q.2. The Administration's bill and S. 1801 would consolidate
several competitive grant programs in order to maximize the
impact of Federal dollars by eliminating duplication, reducing
administrative burdens and the accompanying costs, and
maximizing flexibility. As each program is targeted to a
specific need, how do we best ensure that none of the target
populations' needs is overwhelmed by the others?
A.2. The Administration's bill and S. 1801 allow communities to
assess their various local needs and then decide which projects
to fund. This will help ensure that each community will be able
to address their respective needs.
RESPONSE TO A WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR REED
FROM PHILIP F. MANGANO
Q.1. Among the community of homelessness assistance providers,
some have raised concerns about the provision that allows HUD
to phase out certain services, like healthcare, over a 3-year
period, with responsibility for these services going to other
agencies. Others argue that the transfer of responsibility for
these services to other agencies is necessary to make the best
use of resources available to combat homelessness. What steps
will be necessary, both at the Federal and the local level, to
facilitate this transition?
A.1. The Administration's proposal (H.R. 5041) to consolidate
its HUD homeless assistance programs and to codify the
Continuum of Care concept would not phase out supportive
services. The Administration's proposal would continue to
provide communities with maximum local flexibility to confront
the local housing and service needs of homeless persons. The
referenced phase-out provision is contained in S. 1801.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
FROM DENNIS P. CULHANE
Q.1. Among the community of homelessness assistance providers,
some have raised concerns. What steps will be necessary, both
at the Federal and the local level, to facilitate this
transition? Would S. 1801 strengthen or weaken the ability of
community to provide supportive services to the homeless?
A.1. At the Federal level, the Heath Care for the Homeless
(HCFH) program should be directed to provide health services in
place of those that will be defunded under the HUD program.
Ideally, HCFH will be provided with the additional funds to do
so. Alternatively, local providers should access local health
departments and/or Medicaid and/or Medicaid HMO's to provide
clinical services in place of the defunded services.
S. 1801 will require communities to find alternative
sources of funding for some supportive services, but it will
also continue many of the supportive services that HUD has
determined are not likely to be provided by other public
agencies (that is case management). This strategy makes sense
from the perspective of maximizing the utility of HUD's
resources. If communities do not identify alternative sources
of funding for the defunded services, this will results in
fewer services at those sites.
Q.2. As you know, some controversy has surrounded the
definition of homelessness. What is your impression of the
definition of homelessness included in our bill?
A.2. My opinion is that the definition of homelessness in S.
1801 is sufficient. Efforts to broaden the definition beyond
literal homelessness could have unintended negative
consequences. First, people who are not literally homeless and
who are ill-housed--a group that is far larger than the literal
homeless--could consume many of the resources intended for the
literal homeless, to their detriment. Second, from a targeting
and accountability perspective, our ability to measure
homelessness and the impact of targeted programs on reducing
homelessness would be greatly compromised, as the broader
population of poorly housed persons, including those doubled
up, is very difficult to measure. Finally, I would note that
there is some variability in Federal definitions that seems to
fit the specific intent of those various Federal programs, and
that variability makes sense.
Q.3. In balancing the needs of the chronically homeless
population and the needs of those who are temporarily homeless,
how could we best address the goals of ending chronic
homelessness, while addressing the needs of the temporarily
homeless?
A.3. The temporary homeless should continue to have access to
emergency assistance, in the form of emergency shelters.
However, the temporarily homeless would also benefit from a
broader array of emergency assistance than shelter alone. I
would encourage the Committee to consider ways in which it can
support emergency relocation grants and other rehousing
strategies that would expedite persons' exits from
homelessness.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]