[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] REAUTHORIZATION OF THE McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT, PART II ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 16, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 110-70 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 39-908 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Carolina RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California JOE BACA, California SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Virginia BRAD MILLER, North Carolina TOM FEENEY, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia JEB HENSARLING, Texas AL GREEN, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire TOM PRICE, Georgia KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky RON KLEIN, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina TIM MAHONEY, Florida JOHN CAMPBELL, California CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio ADAM PUTNAM, Florida ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois JOE DONNELLY, Indiana THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan ROBERT WEXLER, Florida KEVIN McCARTHY, California JIM MARSHALL, Georgia DAN BOREN, Oklahoma Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West JULIA CARSON, Indiana Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PETER T. KING, New York AL GREEN, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio JOHN CAMPBELL, California CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan JOE DONNELLY, Indiana KEVIN McCARTHY, California BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: October 16, 2007............................................. 1 Appendix: October 16, 2007............................................. 69 WITNESSES Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Bassuk, Ellen L., M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, and President, National Center on Family Homelessness............................................ 54 Burt, Martha R., Ph.D., Senior Principal Researcher, Urban Institute...................................................... 59 Carter, Nancy, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Urban Los Angeles........................................................ 57 Culhane, Dennis, Ph.D., Professor of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania..................................... 28 Gallo, Dora, Chief Executive Officer, A Community of Friends, Los Angeles........................................................ 50 Gomez, Elizabeth, Executive Director, Los Angeles Youth Network.. 35 Johnston, Mark, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development..... 3 Loza, Moises, Executive Director, Housing Assistance Council..... 52 Mangano, Philip F., Executive Director, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness........................................ 5 Marquez, Mercedes, General Manager, Los Angeles Housing Department, City of Los Angeles................................ 30 McNamee, Arlene, LCSW, Executive Director, Catholic Social Services, Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts................. 32 Nilan, Diane, President/Founder, HEAR US, Inc.................... 56 Roman, Nan, President, National Alliance to End Homelessness..... 37 Van Leeuwen, James Michael, Ph.D., Project Manager, Denver's Road Home........................................................... 25 Yaroslavsky, Zev, Chairman, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.................................................... 8 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Bassuk, Ellen L.............................................. 70 Burt, Martha R............................................... 77 Carter, Nancy................................................ 92 Culhane, Dennis.............................................. 98 Gallo, Dora.................................................. 104 Gomez, Elizabeth............................................. 111 Johnston, Mark............................................... 123 Loza, Moises................................................. 128 Mangano, Philip F............................................ 141 Marquez, Mercedes............................................ 152 McNamee, Arlene.............................................. 161 Nilan, Diane................................................. 182 Roman, Nan................................................... 189 Van Leeuwen, James Michael................................... 201 Yaroslavsky, Zev............................................. 208 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Waters, Hon. Maxine: Statement of Family Promise.................................. 213 REAUTHORIZATION OF THE McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT, PART II ---------- Tuesday, October 16, 2007 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Waters, Cleaver, Green, Sires, Murphy; Capito, Biggert, Shays, Neugebauer, Davis of Kentucky, and McCarthy. Ex officio: Representative Frank. Mr. Green. [presiding] Good morning, friends. I would like to call this hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity to order. I would like to thank the ranking member, Ms. Capito, who will be joining us shortly, for her efforts to help us--she is here now--have this hearing this morning. I would also like to thank the chairwoman, the Honorable Maxine Waters, who is not with us. She has another hearing. We know that wherever she is, she is not only doing the work of the House, but she is also doing God's work. She is truly a person who is committed to the homeless in this country. I would like to also thank all of the witnesses who are here with us today. At this time, I will make a brief opening statement, and then we will hear from the ranking member, and we will proceed in this fashion, and then hear from the witnesses. Friends, this is the second of two hearings on the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This year marks the 20th anniversary of this Act. When Congress passed it 20 years ago, the legislation was thought to be the first step to help us end homelessness in America. We are here today to examine some additional steps that should be taken to end the plight of homelessness in America. With limited funding, the homeless assistance program has not been as beneficial as it can be, although some good things have happened. We will hear from witnesses today who will give us both sides of the story, and help us to make intelligent decisions about how we should proceed with ending homelessness in America. I would like to share some information with you about homelessness in America. Right now in this country, where 1 out of every 110 persons is a millionaire, we have approximately 3.5 million people, 39 percent of whom are children, who are likely to experience homelessness in the course of a year. In our country, where we have houses for our cars--we call them garages, of course--on any given night, between 700,000 and 800,000 men, women, and children are without homes or do not have shelter. We live in a country where we are spending $229 million per day on the war, and we have approximately 200,000 veterans on any given night who are homeless. In my county, Harris County, Texas, 28 percent of the homeless persons are veterans: 66 percent have no income at all; 59 percent are homeless because they have lost a job; 57 percent have a history of substance abuse; 55 percent have a history of some sort of mental health problem; 11 percent have experienced domestic violence; and 24 percent have been incarcerated. Obviously, these numbers do not add up to 100 percent, which means we have overlapping. We literally have persons who are veterans, who may have some mental concerns to be dealt with. Persons who are suffering domestic abuse, who may have also a substance abuse problem. The problem is pervasive and merits our consideration. Today, as we look at the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, there are four programs that are authorized by this Act: The emergency shelter grants, known as ESG; the supportive housing portion of the program; the shelter plus care program; and the Section 8 moderate rehabilitation assistance for single room occupancy dwellings. All four of these are parts of the Act that we will be looking into. There are two bills that we are considering. HUD has indicated that there may be a third bill. We have not seen evidence of it thus far, but there is an indication that it will be introduced. We have H.R. 40, which is the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2007. This is being sponsored/introduced by Representative Carson and Representative Davis. We also have Senate Bill 1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007, introduced by Senators Reid and Allard. These two bills are the subject of discussion today. We look forward to hearing from the witnesses. At this time, I will yield to Ranking Member Capito, who is doing an outstanding job. She will be recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Capito. I want to thank Mr. Green for recognizing me and for chairing this committee today, and for his steady hand and great guidance in this area and other areas of housing. Thank you for that. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. McCarthy from the full Financial Services Committee to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. He has just joined us. He is a good California Representative; welcome to your first Subcommittee on Housing hearing. I just briefly want to say that we learned 2 weeks ago many of the issues concerning the reauthorization of the legislation before us. I look forward to the many witnesses who are going to be before us today. I thank you all for traveling to Washington. I look forward to the hearing. Thank you. Mr. Green. I will now recognize Mr. Cleaver for 3 minutes. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and Ranking Member Capito for having this hearing. Very quickly, I would just say that I am very much concerned about this issue because of the de- institutionalization. We are finding that there are any number of men and women on the streets, sleeping under bridges, or sleeping along--in my State--the Missouri River. Each August, we do a stand down and miraculously, this year, we had about 600 homeless veterans show up--600. There was nothing in the newspapers. Nothing on television. Of course, they do not have either. Somehow, the word is able to circulate and they show up. We give some of them their one haircut of the year. We give them a breakfast. They see a dentist. They spend most of the day out there getting services. That is stop-gap. That is something that we do, and maybe it makes us feel better than the service we provide. The truth of the matter is we have to do something about this problem. This is the most powerful nation on the planet, and I think it is embarrassing that we have millions of Americans, particularly those who have gone out and fought for this country, sleeping under bridges and in cardboard boxes. I would reserve the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman, to raise questions with our witnesses. Thank you. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. At this time, we will hear from the first panel. We would like to welcome you. Our first witness will be Mr. Mark Johnston. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Welcome, sir. The second witness will be Mr. Philip Mangano, the executive director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. The third witness will be Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky, the chair of the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County. We will now start with Mr. Johnston. We will recognize you for 5 minutes, and will proceed with the witnesses as announced. STATEMENT OF MARK JOHNSTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SPECIAL NEEDS PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Mr. Johnston. Congressman Green, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Mark Johnston, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs Programs at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is a privilege to represent the Department at this hearing today. I ask the subcommittee to accept the Department's written statement for submission to the hearing record. Mr. Green. Without objection. Mr. Johnston. Thank you. I am pleased to be here to discuss the Administration's proposed consolidation of HUD's three competitive programs into a single Continuum of Care program to alleviate homelessness in this country. I also want to thank the members of the Financial Services Committee for introducing the HEARTH Act, which includes a number of provisions supported by the Administration. We look forward to working with the committee on this important effort with the ultimate goal of getting a bill to the President's desk. Consolidation of these three programs would provide more flexibility to localities, give grant-making responsibility to local decisionmaking bodies, allow more funds for the prevention of homelessness, and dramatically reduce the time required to distribute funds to communities. HUD developed the Continuum of Care planning and grant making process in 1994. The continuum is an unique and comprehensive public/private partnership. It calls for all stakeholders within a community to be involved in shaping solutions to homelessness. These stakeholders include local government, nonprofit providers, businesses, foundations, and homeless persons themselves. The over 3,900 jurisdictions which participate in the Continuum of Care process represent over 95 percent of the U.S. population. Our bill would codify this approach, which was created by HUD through administrative means. A significant enhancement in this bill would add prevention as a new eligible activity under the statute. Prevention is a key part of solving homelessness and is an important element in our bill. In addition to preventing homelessness for those who are at risk, HUD now addresses, and would continue to address in the new program, the needs of persons who are already homeless, including the chronically homeless. The Administration set a goal of ending chronic homelessness. Through the Continuum of Care grants, HUD funds have been working to achieve this goal. The congressional requirement that 30 percent of HUD funds be used to provide permanent housing has contributed to these efforts. Through the consolidation process, HUD remains committed to targeting its homeless assistance resources to homeless families and individuals who are in most need of housing and services. HUD's preliminary review of proposals to expand the definition of ``homelessness'' indicates that the number of people who would become eligible for HUD's programs would increase significantly. Expanding the definition of ``homelessness'' beyond the current statutory definition would cause HUD's homeless programs to lose their focus on reaching those who literally have nowhere to sleep tonight. Further, the definition need not be expanded because with homeless prevention as a new eligible activity, communities could for the first time use Continuum of Care funds to serve those at risk of homelessness. The Continuum of Care approach encourages local performance. The grant application continues to have a performance section, the core of which is the Government Performance and Results Act indicators, by which Congress assesses HUD for the area of homelessness. HUD's GPRA efforts related to the Continuum of Care program have been touted by OMB as exemplary for other Federal programs to emulate. HUD's Continuum of Care program was rated ``Effective,'' which is the highest possible rating by the Program Assessment Rating Tool or PART. That rating underscores the efficacy of the Continuum of Care approach embedded in the HEARTH bill and the Administration's proposal. Performance will continue to be a key element of the new consolidated and more flexible program. Overall, consolidating the three Continuum of Care programs into one and codifying it in the statute will allow for greater local flexibility, which will enable improved local performance and effectiveness in using HUD's homeless programs. Thank you very much for inviting me to be here today. I look forward to more discussions on this critical issue. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnston can be found on page 123 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Philip Mangano. STATEMENT OF PHILIP MANGANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS Mr. Mangano. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here with so many who have done so much for homeless people, and pleased especially to be here on this panel with Mark Johnston, who has a long and distinguished career on this issue at HUD, and with County Chair Yaroslavsky, whom I have gotten to know in recent years. His deep and deliberate commitment to see change and results in Los Angeles County is commendable and needed. I bring you greetings from the full Council, 20 Federal agencies, and specifically from HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, who is the Cabinet Chair of the Council this year in the rotation recommended by Congress. In my 27 years of involvement in this issue, I have never been more confident that Dr. King's great insight is applicable to homelessness, that the long moral arc of the history of our American experience, as he reminded us, bends toward justice, righting social and moral wrongs. He had seen that in his own lifetime as segregation was overcome and in the history of our country's abolition of slavery and the expansion of suffrage. That is our context, moving that arc into the lives of our homeless neighbors. The reauthorization of McKinney-Vento offers us an opportunity to move beyond what we were satisfied with 20 years ago to appropriate new ideas, resources, and results in bending that arc. Over the past 5 years, the United States Interagency Council has been ``constellating'' a national partnership with one goal, one objective, and one mission: ending the homelessness of our poorest neighbors. When the President set a new marker in front of the country asking us to end the homelessness of those who were the most vulnerable and disabled, those the researchers identified as experiencing chronic homelessness, the Council set out to bring Federal and State agencies together, along with local communities and the private sector. When we did that, some were skeptical. Now 4 years later, 20 Federal agencies meet regularly in Washington; 49 Governors have created State Interagency Councils on Homelessness; and more than 300 local communities are partnered through their mayors and county executives in Ten Year Plans to End Homelessness, a partnership supported both by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties. With 6 consecutive years of increased Federal resources and more State and local resources, investments are being made to create results. That has precipitated an unprecedented involvement of the private sector in those local plans, and most importantly, more than 30 cities across our Nation, coast to coast, large and small, are reporting decreases in street and long term homelessness for the first time in 20 years. We are at a new place; the arc is bending. There is much more work to do for both individuals and families, but we have learned a lot in the past 20 years that is informing us as we move forward with reauthorization. We have learned that no one level of government and no one sector can do it alone. That if good intentions, well-meaning programs, and humanitarian gestures could get the job done, homelessness would have been history long ago. That field tested, evidence-based innovations can end homelessness, especially permanent supportive housing, along with employment and appropriate services. That jurisdictional leadership in business-oriented community based Ten Year Plans creates results. That cost benefit analysis reveals the economic impact and consequences of chronic homelessness. Crisis interventions, emergency rooms, or police sweeps are not the solution. They are expensive and ineffective in solving the problem. Prevention of homelessness is cost effective and requires many approaches for both individuals and families, and consumers have a role in planning and partnership. In the reauthorization, we support the following in the Administration: One, the Administration proposal along with the two congressional bills support the consolidation of homeless assistance competitive grants at HUD. That would provide flexibility for local communities, more focus on prevention, and customer friendly applications for the field. That just makes sense. Two, we should maintain and increase our emphasis on homeless veterans in every activity of the reauthorization. They deserve our priority. Three, we are close to completing the research on homeless families, which will become the basis for policy development and investment. Policy should wait for research and data. Secretary Leavitt opened the Council's mission and priorities in his call for renewed attention to families and youth, beginning with research and an inventory of current Federal resources. Four, as the central anecdote to end homelessness, the 30 percent set-aside of HUD's resources for housing instigated the creation of tens of thousands of housing units specifically targeted to homeless people. That set-aside should be maintained. Five, and finally, having worked on behalf of homeless people, including in street outreach and shelters in a city creating initiatives for homeless families and advocacy, the definition of ``homelessness'' as it now stands at HUD, has been instrumental in targeting our finite resources to those who are the most vulnerable and disabled. That targeting and focus has not included doubled-up families, not under Secretaries Kemp, Cisneros, Cuomo, Martinez, or Jackson. There are needs there, but as Senator McKinney said last week, ``While it is admirable to want to address all people who are in need, I am concerned that this could lead to a thinning of resources.'' We should instead be examining the use of mainstream resources of the Federal and local governments to respond to the needs of doubled-up families. In doing so, many more billions of dollars are available, as indicated in an 1999 GAO report on homelessness. We would also avoid the stigma of homelessness being applied to more mothers and their children. Finally, we are seeing results in our investments through Ten Year Plans. Again, 30 cities across our country have seen decreases on their streets and in their shelters. That is the trajectory of our national goal, to put to work for homeless people jurisdictional leadership, innovative ideas, and increased resources to the mission of reducing and ending homelessness in our country, beginning with those on our streets long term and in our shelters. What seemed intractable at the beginning of this decade is now yielding to strategic solutions and informed investments. McKinney-Vento reauthorization offers a new opportunity to re-evaluate and re-invest in what works. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Mangano can be found on page 141 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Our next witness is a friend and a colleague from Los Angeles. He is listed as a member of the Board of Supervisors, but he actually is the chair of the Board of Supervisors. I have known Zev Yaroslavsky for many years. When I served as chief deputy to a city councilman, he was elected to office. He served on the City Council for a number of years before going to the Board of Supervisors, and has a great reputation for dealing with the homeless issue in the greater Los Angeles area. I am delighted that you could be here today, Zev. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF ZEV YAROSLAVSKY, CHAIRMAN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Yaroslavsky. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking Member Capito, thank you for the invitation to testify before your subcommittee. Members of the subcommittee, I will just abbreviate my prepared remarks and give you a little taste of one county in the United States and how homelessness impacts it. It happens to be the biggest county in the United States, with over 10.3 million people and an annual budget of $23 billion. On any given night in Los Angeles County, the overall homeless population is approximately 73,000. If the homeless were their own city in our county, they would be one of the largest cities in our county. There are three overarching factors contributing to homelessness in Los Angeles: First, a pervasive lack of permanent affording housing, not only a lack of supply but a diminution of supply, as we see an epidemic of demolitions of affordable housing taking place; second, insufficient resources and funding to help clients achieve and sustain self- sufficiency; and third, severe psycho-emotional impairment of clients related to and exaggerated by substance abuse and/or mental illness. In recognition of these serious issues, our county has invested an additional $100 million this past year, over and above the many tens of millions we already spent on human services in a new homeless prevention initiative intended to strengthen homeless and housing services in our county. The goal is to enhance the regional system of care, connect all of the county's homeless programs, establish comprehensive services to prevent homelessness, and move homeless individuals and families to safe, permanent, affordable housing. In Los Angeles, approximately 22,000 persons are chronically homeless--22,000. Unfortunately, chronic homelessness is a complex, persistent, and long term problem. Perhaps the greatest barrier in addressing chronic homelessness is a lack of permanent supportive housing to address multiple issues of the chronically homeless. Studies show that supportive housing programs which link permanent affordable housing with supportive services to chronically homeless persons in need of public assistance and/ or services effectively reduce homelessness. This housing model improves housing stability and reduces the use of high cost public services. Additionally, placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in permanent supportive housing is associated with reductions in hospitalizations, incarcerations, and subsequent use of shelters, emergency rooms, psychiatric, and detoxication programs. At the end of the day, this saves the public taxpayer a lot of money. In Los Angeles County, there is a growing interest in and commitment to the establishment of permanent supportive housing as a key strategy to reduce regional homelessness. The linkage of housing and supportive services requires partnerships which facilitate collaboration and coordination between housing development efforts in the 88 cities that make up our county, supportive services of the county, and resources of other governmental agencies and private entities. The complexities of pulling together housing developers, capital funders and organizations that can supply and finance the provision of permanent housing with supportive services will require extensive coordination and integration among the entities involved. One of the county's mandates is to promote State and Federal legislative and regulatory policy change that enable the creation of adequate funding streams for permanent supportive housing, to include but not limited to, pre- development and operational expenses, and additional resources for county supportive services for homeless individuals and families, and those at risk for becoming homeless. For these reasons, Los Angeles County strongly supports the inclusion of resources to advance the development of permanent supportive housing, which incorporates funding for ongoing support of services for chronically homeless persons, including those who are elderly, disabled, and mentally ill, in the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. The county strongly supports provisions that would expand the use of grants to fund homeless assistance and homeless prevention services, increase resources to advance the development of permanent supportive housing, including ongoing funding for supportive services, and appropriate $2.5 billion for homeless assistance grants in Federal Fiscal Year 2008. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just take one more second on a personal note. Chairwoman Waters. Yes. Mr. Yaroslavsky. I got really focused on this issue several years ago, viscerally as opposed to intellectually focused, when my daughter, who was in a summer between the years at the Kennedy School getting her master's was working for the City of Oakland in the Department of Human Services. She called me one night and she said, ``Dad, an interesting thing happened to me today, I wanted to share it with you.'' I asked what it was. She replied, ``I was walking up Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley and there was a homeless person sitting on the curb. I sat down next to him and I talked to him for 20 minutes, and we talked about issues and what was troubling him, the whole 9 yards. ``At the end of 20 minutes, I opened my purse, dad, and I was going to give him a couple of bucks, and he said, `I do not want your money. You have given me something far more valuable. You have given me respect and dignity, for which I am appreciative.' '' Then she said, and this is what lowered the boom on me, she said, ``Dad, we sat there for 20 minutes and not one person of the dozens and dozens who walked by ever made eye contact with either him or me.'' The reauthorization of this bill, Madam Chairwoman, is America's way of saying we are going to make eye contact with this issue and with these people. These are individuals, people. We have 73,000 homeless in Los Angeles County. Let us start with one. Each one is God's creation. Each one is a human being with a story about whom a book could be written. This is our opportunity to make eye contact with each and every one of them. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Yaroslavsky can be found on page 208 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very, very much. That was powerful testimony. I would like to thank each of you for the testimony that you have given today, and I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. It has struck me as I have observed effective programs, especially permanent supportive housing, that one of the keys to success is the provision of flexible, accessible supportive services. However, it seems that a particular homeless individual or family often requires a range of services, and further, does not always fit into the neat categories that public administrators of services fund and construct in distributing their funds. I wonder if I might hear about any lessons learned or keys to success in overcoming these sorts of bureaucratic and administrative obstacles to efficient services funding? This is kind of a convoluted, almost question. Let me just say to Zev, we are confronted with this homeless problem in Los Angeles, which you have so adequately described. Go to downtown Los Angeles, right near City Hall, onto some of the side streets, and it just blows your mind. I know both county elected officials and the city elected officials have done a number of things to try to eliminate homelessness and to provide services to get people off the streets. It seems to me there is a discussion going on about resources being provided to the temporary facilities, because people need some place to sleep at night, as opposed to resources going to permanent housing for the homeless. There seems to be a debate going on somewhere underneath all of this. Can you share with me and unfold for me what is happening? Even though we are talking about the entire country, right now, I am focused on Los Angeles, Los Angeles County. What is going on with this debate? Mr. Yaroslavsky. Madam Chairwoman, I think there are a lot of people in recent years who focused on shelter, if I can steal a line from Mr. Mangano. It was really in the spirit of managing rather than solving the problem. I think we need to make the distinction between managing and solving the problem. Shelter is managing the problem. Permanent housing is solving the problem. If you want to end homelessness, you have to take the ``less'' out of ``homeless.'' You have to provide a home, then you are not homeless. If you do not provide a home for the homeless, they are going to be homeless. It is just that simple. The goal has to be--I think our county's thinking has evolved very rapidly, thanks to seeing what is going on in other parts of the country and even in our own county has evolved very rapidly into believing that our focus needs to be on permanent supportive housing. That is the only way to solve the problem. That is not to say that in the short term that we are not going to have winter shelter programs, for sure, we will. It is not to say that between now and the time we wrap up more supportive housing in some of the 88 cities of our county, starting with the City of Los Angeles, which is our biggest city, but there are others that are quite large, as they ramp up their supportive housing construction and hopefully stop the demolition of affordable housing so that we do not compound our problem, while that is being ramped up, that we will provide temporary or transitional housing. Our goal has to be and I think our thinking is permanent supportive housing. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Zev. I really appreciate that. Now Ranking Member Capito, for 5 minutes. Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Johnston a question. You talked about consolidating programs within HUD and how that will make the process much more fluid, and easier to access. We had a penel 10 days ago, with someone from my district, West Virginia, representing rural America and rural homelessness. It is a lot different from Los Angeles. How will this consolidation help those folks who are trying to meet the challenge of rural homelessness? Mr. Johnston. A very good question. A couple of observations. The first is that we recently did an analysis to look at rural America in terms of how well do with getting HUD competitive homeless funding. We looked at all continuums across the country versus those continuums that are rural. The same percentage of rural continuum applications that score high enough to get our funding is essentially exactly the same as the percentage of all continuum applications that score high enough to get our funding. We have a very high scoring level to receive this funding because there is so much demand. I was very impressed that in rural areas, they compete frankly very, very well. I think one of the benefits of the proposal, both in the HEARTH Act as well as the Reid Bill and the Administration's proposal, is to add prevention as an eligible activity. In many rural communities where there are not shelters and certainly people are not on the streets, there certainly is still a need to be addressed. We think adding prevention as a new eligible activity, which is not allowed currently under law, would go a long way to address the needs within rural communities. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. Mr. Mangano, you represent an interagency outlook, a more overarching outlook on homelessness. It seems the crux of a lot of the debate that we are going to be having as we move through this legislation is the definition of ``homelessness'' and whether to expand it and include other forms of homelessness or other definitions. When you look at the different agencies, like the Department of Education has a different definition than HUD, do you see this as a problem having conflicting definitions within very large Federal agencies? Mr. Mangano. As this issue became more pointed in our country, actually the Council convened its member agencies, the 20 Federal agencies, and we looked through the various definitions that are available at the different Federal agencies. What we discovered was actually the majority of Federal agencies, including Veterans' Affairs, HUD, FEMA, and a variety of other agencies, the majority of Federal agencies use the definition that HUD uses, and there are other Federal agencies, Agriculture, the Health Care for the Homeless program at HHS, Justice, and Education, that use other definitions. In fact, in terms of the conversation on this, the definition that HUD uses is the most commonly used definition with Federal agencies. I think we are faced with the notion of finite resources targeted to those people who are the most vulnerable, and the efforts that have been made across Administrations for many, many years, from my earliest involvement in this issue back in 1980 to today, every HUD Secretary has had the exact same position on this, which is the definition of HUD is the appropriate definition for the investment of HUD resources. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. One final question. You had mentioned in your remarks that you are doing a survey. I think you said, do not let the policy get in front of the facts or something of that nature. Are you all conducting right now a survey of homelessness? Is my understanding correct? Mr. Mangano. That was specifically on family homelessness, part of the effort that we have been making on the issue is to conform the creation of policy to the President's management agenda, which asks that any Federal investment be data and research-driven first, performance-based, and then results oriented. We need to start with the data and the research. We had very good data and research on people experiencing chronic homelessness which led to the President prioritizing that as one of our objectives. Now we are gathering the data and research under the leadership of Secretary Leavitt, who is the chair of the Council this year. We are gathering that data and research on families. In fact, outside of government. Dr. Culhane, who will be on a panel coming up, has completed some research specifically on homeless families, and there is a federally funded research effort going on specifically on homeless families as well. I think our sense is we need to gather together that research and the data that is associated with it, and what investments are already being made from the Federal Government with regard to homeless families, take a look at all of that, and then out of that, create policies, and then make the investment in those policies. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. One of my concerns is frankly HUD has not, in my estimation, been as strong an advocate in many areas as many of us would have liked. Whenever I hear HUD talking about consolidation, I tremble. As you know, we had to fight off consolidation last year, 18 department heads into the Department of Commerce. That creates some paranoia, Mr. Johnston. Is there a word of comfort? Mr. Johnston. There is. There are several words of comfort, actually. Mr. Cleaver. I would like a word. [Laughter] Mr. Johnston. All right. If you look at HUD's request, that is the Administration's request for homeless funding over the last 5 years, you are going to see increases every year. We have had a 41 percent increase in funding for HUD homeless programs since 2001. Just in the last 2 years, we have had a 20 percent increase. We put our money where our mouth is in a sense. If you look at our 2008 proposal, which would consolidate these programs, it came attached to a budget that will increase significantly the homeless budget at HUD. The 2007 level is at $1.44 billion. We are asking for nearly $1.6 billion. We do not look at consolidation as a way to save money. We are looking to put more money into this very good investment. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. We are friends. Thank you. [Laughter] Mr. Cleaver. The final question is, would you agree that there is some confusion in the Federal Government about what the word ``homeless'' means? We have homeless programs in a number of Federal agencies. I am not sure that we know what it is. I am not sure that there is a definition used by the United States Federal Government to define ``homelessness.'' We have the Department of Education. We have Veterans' Affairs. We have Labor, Homeland Security, and FEMA. Is there something that all of us can agree on, and if not, do we need this committee to define ``homelessness?'' Mr. Johnston. From my vantage point, there are essentially two Federal definitions of ``homelessness.'' Both are provided by Congress. One is provided to the Department of Education and is also used by Health Care for the Homeless at the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes persons who are living outside, persons who are in homeless facilities, and most significantly, persons living doubled-up with others. The definition that is provided to HUD in statute and is also given to the other agencies that Mr. Mangano referred to, is a little bit narrower than that. It includes number one and number two but not number three. That is persons living outside, and persons living in homeless facilities. It does not add persons living doubled up. I think it was intentional that Congress did that, that expanded the definition for Department of Education, for instance, and not for HUD. From my perspective, at the Department of Education, the mandate is a very important and narrowly targeted focus of helping ensure that children attend school. For HUD, the definition implies and requires HUD to have a very broad mandate, that is to provide emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and a whole array of supportive services, such as mental health treatment, drug treatment, day care, food, etc. We are also charged by law to not just serve one narrow slice of the population but all homeless persons. I think from my perspective, it is intentional, and I think it makes sense, that there are two essentially different definitions of ``homelessness.'' I think the bridge to narrow that gap is homeless prevention. If in the consolidation bill, you were to add homeless prevention as an eligible activity, then those persons who are doubled-up, who are not homeless, could still get the assistance they need. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Waters. You are welcome. Mr. Shays, the gentleman from Connecticut, for 5 minutes. Mr. Shays. Thank you. I would like to ask all three of you about this issue which we sometimes do not seem to want to talk about. I really wrestle with how I integrate my concern for the homeless and what I feel my obligations are for the homeless, and that is illegal immigrants. It astonished me. One of you mentioned all the reasons for homelessness, and illegal immigration never came up. Is that because it is a topic we do not talk about or is that because you think it is irrelevant? I would like to ask each of you. Mr. Johnston. I guess I will begin. It certainly is not an irrelevant topic. We do not have great data on illegal immigrants, for instance, using systems. We do hear anecdotally in a variety of emergency shelters in this country, especially near the border, that illegal immigrants are likely being assisted. I do not really have specific hard information to provide you. Mr. Shays. Why did it not come up in your dialogue? Let me go to the next witness, please. Mr. Mangano. In my travels around the country and in my conversations with people who operate homeless programs across our country, this is not an issue that has been one of the most pronounced or visible issues in their experience. There is not good data on this issue. There have been certainly reports more in border areas of our country that this is more of an issue in homeless programs. In general, this is not a highly reported activity in shelters and homeless programs across our country. Certainly, it exists. It is not one of the more visible expressions of homelessness. Mr. Yaroslavsky. Let me just speak anecdotally because we do not have any statistics per se on that issue. Anecdotally, in Los Angeles, even in Los Angeles, I might say, I think the percentage of homeless who are illegal immigrants, my bet is it would be a relatively small number. Mr. Shays. What is a small number? Mr. Yaroslavsky. I do not know. Fifteen percent or less. Mr. Shays. Your point would be that the homeless in California and parts of California-- Mr. Yaroslavsky. I said Los Angeles. Mr. Shays. Los Angeles, would be less than 15 percent. Why would you make that statement? Mr. Yaroslavsky. Because I know my city and I know my county, and I spend a lot of time on the streets of my county. I see who our folks are. I see who comes in for services. Mr. Shays. Municipal hospitals, what is the number of homeless? Mr. Yaroslavsky. That is a different issue. Mr. Shays. What is it? Mr. Yaroslavsky. What is what? Mr. Shays. What is the number of illegal immigrants in municipal hospitals? Mr. Yaroslavsky. I am not sure I could give you an accurate figure, but it is much higher than 15 percent. Mr. Shays. Why would this be anecdotal? Why would we have to ask a question like--none of you mentioned it. Is it because it is just a taboo subject? Is it just because it is irrelevant? I need to understand why. Mr. Yaroslavsky. If I can be blunt, the reason it is not raised is because it really is not relevant. Mr. Shays. Tell me why it is not relevant. Mr. Yaroslavsky. Because it is not a significant portion of the problem. Mr. Shays. How do you know that? Mr. Yaroslavsky. I want to be responsive. I am just trying to collect my thoughts so I can be directly responsive. Mr. Shays. Sure. Mr. Yaroslavsky. Almost 25 percent of the homeless on the streets of our county are veterans--veterans. I would take that 25 percent and put them aside. We see through the number of people who come through our service agencies all over the county, not our hospitals, but our homeless service agencies, our human services agencies, some of our mental health facilities, they are local people. Many of them are citizens. Most of them, I would suspect, are citizens. They have served their country. Mr. Shays. Do not get on a separate topic. It is like distraction here. We know that we have a primary problem with veterans, but do not use veterans to disguise the fact that it is an anecdotal comment, because we do not understand, and I want to understand why we do not try to understand what the problem is. I am not saying that we will not deal with it. We are saying--it is like we do not want to know, my feeling is, because it is a bigger problem than we want to admit. That is where I come down. Mr. Yaroslavsky. I understand. Congressman, I think the reason--it is very hard to get information and statistics about homeless in general. We just completed our second census of homeless in Los Angeles County, just announced last week. That is where the 73,000 figure comes from. I am not sure the 73,000 figure is accurate. It is based on extrapolations and assumptions and formula's. We do not know the number of homeless, let alone what the demographics of the homeless are. We do know this, that when we have homeless come into our agencies, a good percentage of them have mental issues. A good percentage of them have substance abuse issues, etc. A good number of them have issues relating to serving in combat. I have honestly, Congressman, served in public office in Los Angeles County for 32 years, and this is the first time that the question of homeless illegals has ever come up. It has come up in emergency rooms and it has come up in a lot of other contexts. It has never come up in the context of homeless. Mr. Shays. It seems to me like a very logical question to ask and then to confront, and hopefully, with humanity and caring. Thank you. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Let me just say I would dare say if that question was asked of anybody from any city, they would not know what that number will be. We do not inquire of individuals who are seeking homeless services whether or not they are legal. It is not documented, in California or Connecticut. The other thing is anecdotally, we do know that in many of our communities, illegals/undocumented double up an awful lot. We have cases of not only several families living together, but even in the garages on the property where the front house may be full. I think doubling up is more of a response to the family members who do not have homes rather than going to a public shelter, if that helps you at all, Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. I agree. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Sires, for 5 minutes. Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Johnston, I share Congressman Cleaver's concern, when you say consolidating and restructuring. I guess it must come from the fact that we were both mayors of cities, and when we hear that word, we find out that only means that you dump it on the municipalities, on the local municipality. You talk about restructuring. You talk about consolidating. Do you have any guarantees that this is not going to happen, where all these problems are going to be turned over to the municipalities and just abandoned? I have past experience. That is why. Mr. Johnston. Let me give a little bit of perspective on our proposal. When the McKinney programs were created in 1987, they were separate independently appropriated programs. HUD on its own initiative administratively collapsed them in a Notice of Funding Availability, three of these programs, the programs that we seek here to consolidate. The communities would no longer have to apply three different times to get some funding. They would not have to choose from one program if they did not really want it. We are simply trying to codify what we are doing on a regulatory basis and have been doing for about 12 years. In addition to making it simpler, to simply apply to one program, we would be eliminating the eight or nine different match requirements that are currently in the law, that are all at different levels. In just the Supportive Housing Program, there is a match requirement of 100 percent, if you want to build something. There is a 25 percent match requirement for operating costs. There is a 20 percent match requirement for services. We would love to eliminate all the complexity in these programs and simplify it with a simple 25 percent match requirement. This proposal is simply furthering what we have been trying to do for many years administratively and change the law to make it much more flexible for communities. Let me just throw out one example. Back in 1987, the law did and still does say that if you want to develop a housing project, you can only use $400,000 from HUD to do it. To do that today in Los Angeles or any other city would be an impossibility, and is an impossibility, to develop an entire project with $400,000 from HUD. We do not want to disincentivize housing. We want to encourage housing. We would eliminate a number of disincentives that were not intentional but now that we are here many years later, since 1987, we would like to improve upon. The other point I wanted to emphasize, which was discussed a little bit when Mr. Cleaver asked his question, if you look at our history on this program in the last 6, 8, or 10 years, this is a bipartisan issue. This is not a partisan issue. Helping homeless people is something everybody wants to do. If you look at this Administration's request, from the very first one forward, we always ask for increases, and we have proposed a consolidation for 3 years now, and every year, we have asked for an increase. This year, we will be going up well over $120 million above the current funding level. We are committed to making good change and providing the resources to do it with. Mr. Sires. I also had the experience where a large percentage of the homeless were veterans, and the problem with housing is certainly a big problem since HUD walked away, I think, from the housing for veterans, and they just turned that over to the local housing authorities years ago. I do not know if you are aware of that. Mr. Johnston. I have been at HUD since 1989. I am certainly aware of HUD's policies on the issue of homelessness. Mr. Sires. And you did not use any of the money from housing authorities to fix up veterans' housing that was built after the war? This is the experience I had. Mr. Johnston. In our homeless programs, the homeless programs that we are referring to today for consolidation, we have always used these programs to help all homeless populations, including veterans. We highly value the need to provide housing and services to homeless veterans. We have a great relationship with the VA. I am talking with my counterpart at VA on a weekly basis. We have done joint initiatives with the Interagency Council on Homelessness, where we provide the housing and the VA provides the services. We provide tailored kinds of programs to accommodate the special needs of veteran specific projects. We are very committed and have been for a long time in providing resources to homeless veterans, whether it is a project specifically just for veterans, and we fund many, many dozens of those, or if it is a program that will serve veterans among another population, we serve those as well. Mr. Sires. I am concerned, we are getting a lot of veterans back. We are going to have to really look at that in the future. Most of the problems with the veterans is mental in many cases. We need to address that. Mr. Johnston. I represent HUD on the Secretary of the VA's Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, and work with them on a regular basis. That is certainly an issue that is coming up. At this point, the data that the VA has indicates the numbers are very, very small, but no doubt, that number is going to increase somewhat. Mr. Sires. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I would now like to recognize our newest member, Mr. McCarthy. I understand you were welcomed to the subcommittee earlier by Ms. Capito, and I welcome you also, and recognize you for 5 minutes. Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Johnston, you struck me, not in your written statement, but something you said off the cuff on an answer about something that is missing is preventive, ahead of time. I would like you to elaborate on that, but also I would like you to answer, from your perspective, since you have been there since 1989, what assistance do you find the most effective to this population, and what do you find as assistance that is the least effective in this population that we are assisting? Mr. Johnston. In terms of prevention, currently under the statute through the emergency shelter grants program, prevention is an eligible activity. The statute, however, limits it to just 30 percent. That program is funded at about $160 million, so relatively little of that set of funding can be used for prevention. We would like to open up prevention in the much bigger consolidated program. For instance, the combination of these three programs that we would like to consolidate this year represent about $1.3 billion. We would allow up to 30 percent of those funds to be used for prevention. As I go around the country and I know Mr. Mangano has done the same, we see time and time again where people have slipped into homelessness for a whole variety of reasons. If they could have been assisted before then, through mediation in the courts, through paying the utilities, through helping on the rent for a couple of months, and that person would not have slipped into homelessness, it would have cost HUD a lot less, just in terms of pure budget. Of course, for that person, it is a very traumatic effect, to slip into homelessness, to live on the streets for just one night is horrific. We would very much like to expand the eligible activities of prevention because it would be very humane for people not having to come into a shelter and also it would reserve our funds to address it in a much more effective way, both through prevention and through permanent supportive housing. In terms of your second question as to what is most effective, HUD realized many years ago that emergency shelter is absolutely not the solution to homelessness. If you look at how HUD allocates its funds now through the homeless programs, only about 10 percent of our entire homeless appropriation goes to emergency shelters, because we realized that long term solutions are really needed to solve the problem. The vast majority of funds go to long term housing as well as supportive services. I was looking yesterday in preparation for this hearing at what percent of our new awarded funds go to permanent housing versus other activities, and it was about 87 percent, as I recall, of all of our new funds go to permanent supportive housing. I do want to emphasize ``supportive.'' We recognize that HUD, while we want to be the houser, we recognize there are services that are very difficult to get from other Federal agencies, so a significant portion of our budget is used for vital services that providers cannot readily get somewhere else. Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. Chairwoman Waters. You are certainly welcome. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing today. Mr. Johnston, sir, your comment caught my ear, emergency shelters are not a solution to homelessness. I concur with what you said. However, for that one person who receives the emergency shelter, for that person, for that period of time that he or she would be without shelter, it is a solution to the problem at hand. My assumption is that you would not want us to eliminate emergency shelters. You were just emphasizing that for some reason, and it may have escaped me, so would you kindly emphasize why you were emphasizing that point? Mr. Johnston. Certainly. We absolutely value the need for emergency shelter. As the representative from L.A. County mentioned, in the winter times, when you have an influx of persons that need shelter, you need immediate assistance there. You have to have facilities ready to accept them. My emphasis was, however, that emergency shelter, while it will be the solution for the short term, for that 30 days or so that they are in a shelter, it is not a long term solution for that individual. They need long term housing and long term care to address their issues, such as helping them with job training, helping them get off the drugs, helping with their mental health issues. While many of those services can be provided in emergency shelters on a short term basis, it is very difficult to transition right out of an emergency shelter into full self sufficiency. Mr. Green. HUD is proposing a bill, but the bill has not been presented; is that correct? Mr. Johnston. We transmitted the bill this summer. We realized that the House and the Senate both have active bills on the same issue. We have been working closely with the Senate on their bill, and we would love to work closely with the House on your bill, and frankly, work with what is already there, rather than introducing a third competing bill. We do think there are some strong provisions in our bill that would strengthen the provisions in the Senate and House bills. Mr. Green. Your position is that you will not be introducing a bill? I question you on this because you say some provisions in our bill, but at the same time, you say that you would want to help us with the two bills that we have before us. Are we to expect a bill or are we to expect a proposal? Mr. Johnston. We transmitted the bill. It has not been introduced. At this point, we are not actively pursuing to introduce it. We would rather work with the committee. Mr. Green. HUD has at some point indicated that there would be a long term plan for ending homelessness; is this correct? A 10 year proposal, I believe. Mr. Johnston. I will begin this response and then I know Mr. Mangano will also want to insert himself here. The Continuum of Care, which I refer to as our process for allocating grants and for planning at the local level, has a Ten Year Plan to end chronic homelessness. That is married with an initiative that the overall Interagency Council under the leadership of Secretary Leavitt and Executive Director Philip Mangano have espoused and have worked very closely with elected officials. I am going to turn now to Philip for any additional comments that he would like to make. Mr. Mangano. We have been working together again with States and local communities around the country. Forty-nine Governors have moved forward with State Interagency Councils, many of them are moving forward with Ten Year Plans. Local communities are making their partnership with us tangible in the creation of Ten Year Plans. Part of that effort is to find out what is happening in communities to more inductively understand what the Federal response should be. Even thinking about Congressman Shays' question earlier in terms of the issue of illegal immigrants, which has not come up in any of the 300 plans, the notion is to gather information from both States and localities so that in fact Federal resources are invested and targeted into inductive plans which actually begin at the community level. Part of the effort that is being made in Washington among the Federal agencies in the Interagency Council is to use that information to come up with a national plan that will be part of a national partnership, a national Ten Year Plan, but that plan would be informed and part of a larger effort at every level of government, no one level of government can do this, no one plan will effect what we want to see in this country. Every level of government is moving forward with planning. Mr. Green. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes, for questions. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have a question first for Mr. Johnston. I just have one question for you. Can you provide the committee with recent statistics proving that chronic homelessness has decreased? Mr. Johnston. We could. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. I would appreciate that, if you would share that with us. We might have a difference of opinion from our perspective here versus what we see out in our districts and on the street versus the numbers. Also with those numbers, I would appreciate it if you would share the criteria for calculating those metrics, what defines somebody who is decreasing, which leads me to my next question for Mr. Mangano. You mentioned you had concerns about the proposal of expanding the HUD definition of ``homelessness,'' in terms of including long term voluntary arrangements of people living together for cultural preferences. I am coming to this not simply as a co-sponsor of legislation with other members sitting here, but having worked with families in crisis since the early 1980's. One thing that I have to say candidly that I have personally seen is most of the homeless that we would see or we would deal with, for example, we had one of our agency leaders from Kentucky testifying week before last, a single parent, oftentimes a woman coming from a battered or abusive relationship, with no means of support, and small children, versus the traditional image that we have with folks on the street. The Departments of Education, HHS, and Justice define ``homelessness'' to include people in doubled-up situations, some of these unconventional situations, as long as it is not fixed, regular, a voluntary choice, for example, to reduce rent, not on a long term basis. The definitions, I think, that we are discussing that we would like to see changed in legislation do not really reflect a cultural preference decision or something that would be long term. Are you aware of this distinction in definitions between what we would like to see and what I think the break in dialogue might be? Mr. Mangano. Certainly, both in my written testimony and earlier in my oral testimony, I spoke to the definition issue. One of the things that the Interagency Council did was bring together all of the Federal agencies to talk specifically about this issue. What we discovered was that the majority of Federal agencies actually use the same definition, and there are several other definitions that are used, one at Agriculture, one in Health Care for the Homeless program in HHS, Justice, and one at the Department of Education. In that dialogue with those Federal agencies, I think the common consensus was there were appropriate reasons for the expanded definition at Education, specifically as Mr. Johnston mentioned earlier, for the well being of those children, and in Agriculture and Health Care for the Homeless, for very specific reasons. Again, the majority of Federal agencies, including the primary agencies that devote McKinney resources to the issue of homelessness, Veterans' Affairs and HUD and most of HHS, actually utilize the definition that is currently used by HUD. I think there are other reasons to be assembled on this issue. I think the Mayors have indicated at the U.S. Conference of Mayors when this issue came up, they felt it was an issue that needed to be tabled, primarily because no analysis has been done with regard to the cost. No analysis has been done with regard to how many people that would actually mean coming into the system. What State Senator McKinney from Connecticut talked about last week was in fact the idea of diminishing the current resources that are used, all of them are accounted for, all of them are already invested, so if there would not be a substantial increase, and we do not understand what that substantial increase would be because the analysis and the research has not been done, then we would actually be diminishing the resources that are already targeted. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. If I could reclaim my time, I would suggest politely that the Mayors who were making that recommendation probably have not spent a lot of time working down on the front lines. We do not have an organization in our State that I have met with or groups I have volunteered with that did not recognize this as a very substantial problem. I grew up in a single parent household myself and came to the edge a couple of times. I think the perspective here that is getting missed is by saying that in effect what we are saying is somebody who is escaping an abuser or some other type of what ought to be a transitory recovery situation, that we are not going to provide the Continuum of Care and we are going to invest in folks that frankly do not have a high likelihood, and I am not saying we do not take care of them, but we would invest money in folks who statistically do not have a likelihood of recovery and we are leaving out what I would consider, at least for my small piece of the pie, the largest single population of homeless are not going to be affected by this. I think you do not have any choice but to change this definition. Mr. Mangano. I think in our discussions with all of the Federal agencies, there was a real care and concern about those families. It is not that there are not needs there. It is not that there is not a response that is necessary. The concern was that the Federal resources targeted to homeless people are very limited, and in the GAO report of 1999, for example, it talked about the much deeper resources of the Federal Government being available and accessible and to be targeted anew to people experiencing homelessness, I think the consensus among those Federal agencies was that it is the deeper Federal resources that should be matched up with the needs of people who are doubled up, not trying to bring those doubled up people into homelessness with all of the stigma that might associate with that, but in fact to invest mainstream resources in those lives. It is certainly an issue that needs to be responded to. It certainly requires resources. I think part of the concern was that there were deeper resources that could attend to that issue. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Madam Chairwoman, with your indulgence, if I could just continue for one more minute. Coming back to the statement that Mr. Johnston made, that I think is a corollary to this when we are talking about resources. You made mention that the overwhelming majority was put into permanent housing facilities. Mr. Johnston. Of the new money. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Of the new money. You said 87 percent. In relation to this, and I think it is fine to do inductive studies among the agencies, but I think the providers, particularly the successful public/private partnerships that are working at a community level who, I think, have generally been very good stewards of the resources that they receive, have found a lot of disconnects. You can pay for permanent housing but we cannot have counseling support or job training or some of the other things providing for the Continuum of Care. I just want to say in closing, as a priority for me personally, and I think probably speaking for other members of the committee as well, what we want to see enacted in this legislation is making sure that the Continuum of Care is there for flexibility in use of the resources, and also specifically coming about with this re-definition, so it really gets to the root of the problem. I think it is both compassionate and also conservative because what we are going to do is help people get a leg up, become productive in the community, and be able to support their families, which is what the overwhelming majority want to do, be successful and build a future for themselves. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I understand, Mr. Sires, you would like to have 30 seconds to bring up an issue that is very important to you. Mr. Sires. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you very much. I was just wondering the percentage of homeless women, do you see that as a trend that is increasing? I noticed that when I served--do you have any statistics? Mr. Mangano. In the research that has been done from 1987 until recent research done by HUD, the percentage of homeless families has remained fairly fixed as a percentage of the total number of homeless people. There will be three of the Nation's leading researchers who will be testifying in further panels. They have conducted some of that research that indicates what the percentages are of homeless families versus homeless individuals. I am sure they will be able to respond. My understanding from the research is that while the numbers may have increased on the family side, the reality is that percentage remains the same percentage as it was years ago. Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Yaroslavsky. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just shed light on that question. In a recent census that I referred to earlier, my staff just handed me the sub-demographics, adult women in 2005, I would not hold these numbers to be etched in stone, but on an order of magnitude, you can get an idea, 11,200 adult women in the 2005 census; 9,598 in the 2007 census. If the trend is an indicator, it has diminished somewhat. I would caution one thing, and again, this is anecdotal, it is more than anecdotal, I do not know what is happening in your parts of the country, but in Southern California, notwithstanding the housing market situation, we are seeing a rash of demolitions of older units that are rent controlled and are relatively affordable, and in their place are coming market rate, either market rate apartments that are very expensive, or condominiums. The people who are being evicted from those affordable or rent controlled units are vulnerable. They are on the bubble. In the conference that Mr. Mangano co-sponsored with me in Los Angeles 2 weeks ago, I asked our deputy director of welfare for the county how many homeless people have come in and out of the system in the last year that touched his department? He said 3,500 had left homelessness, but 3,200 had come into homelessness in that same period of time. I asked who were those 3,200? He said those 3,200 were largely people who were either the reasons indicated earlier, spousal separation, in which case, the spouse may have taken the kids with them, or they were evicted from their units because they were going to be demolished for some other development, and the overwhelming majority of those 3,200 new homeless people in our county that came through the Welfare Department were as a result of that. It is something we need to watch. It will affect people who otherwise--this is on the prevention side--one of the ways you can prevent homelessness is not to lose a considerable portion of your affordable housing stock. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all of our witnesses who have served on this first panel, and the Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses, and to place their responses in the record. Thank you. This panel is now dismissed. I would like to welcome our second panel. Thank you very much. I am going to start with the second panel introductions of some witnesses who are here from my City. I am going to leave for a short period of time. My colleague, Mr. Green, will be chairing. Allow me to introduce Ms. Mercedes Marquez, general manager, Los Angeles Housing Department, City of Los Angeles. I want to recognize Ms. Marquez, with whom I and my staff met in Los Angeles during the August recess. I was very impressed by her dynamic efforts to engage the Los Angeles Housing Department in the fight to remove the City's and County's dubious distinction as the homeless capital of the country. In particular, the Housing Department is partnering with the City's Housing Authority to create a real permanent supportive housing pipeline. I expect when Mayor Villaraigosa rolls out this affordable housing plan, Ms. Marquez will be at the center of other innovative initiatives. I thank you for being here today, Ms. Marquez. I would also like to introduce Ms. Elizabeth Gomez, executive director of the Los Angeles Youth Network. The Los Angeles Youth Network is a private nonprofit organization providing services to runaways homeless, and foster care youth. Ms. Gomez has worked with youth since 1980 and her specialized training includes comprehensive program development for runaway, homeless and foster youth. She serves on community advisory boards as well as private and state boards, and has presented frequently at national conferences regarding youth issues, youth development prevention, crisis intervention, suicide intervention, strength management, and program development. I thank you very much. I am going to ask Mr. Green if he will take the Chair while I go to another committee that I am serving on, and I will return shortly. Mr. Green. [presiding.] Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Continuing with the introductions, we have Dr. Dennis Culhane. He is a Ph.D. professor of social policy and practice at the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Arlene McNamee, executive director of Catholic Social Services, Diocese of Fall River in Massachusetts. Next we will have Dr. Jamie Van Leeuwen, Ph.D., project manager for Denver's Road Home, City and County of Denver. Finally, we have Ms. Nan Roman, who is the president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. I believe I covered everyone. Did I miss anyone? Because I am told that we may have some scheduling concerns with Dr. Jamie Van Leeuwen, we will hear from Dr. Van Leeuwen first. I beg the others to indulge us given that we have these concerns, and then we will go back to the regular order announced. Doctor, if you would, please. You will be recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JAMES MICHAEL VAN LEEUWEN, PH.D., PROJECT MANAGER, DENVER'S ROAD HOME Mr. Van Leeuwen. Thank you, Congressman Green. Mr. Green. Excuse me just a moment. Pardon my interruption. The chairman of the full committee has arrived, Chairman Barney Frank, and he will be recognized. The Chair recognizes him for 5 minutes. The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my lack of etiquette, but you get what you can, you know. I did want to thank you for being here and thank so many old and new friends who are here. I do want to emphasize it is very important that we go ahead with this. I really take pride in the fact that we are going ahead and dealing with the homeless in an integrated way, and we are including in that places where people can live. We are remembering that we cannot resolve the problem of homelessness or diminish it without building some homes. I want to thank so many friends, and in particular say I am very delighted that Arlene McNamee is here, who has been in the southern part of my district where the economic issues are the greatest, representing the Diocese of Fall River, a great advocate for dealing with housing problems or social service issues in an integrated way. I just wanted to welcome Arlene McNamee and Nan Roman and all the other friends, and say thank you. I have other duties, but I did want to make clear how important this is, and to promise people that this will be on the agenda, and I know that Chairwoman Waters is dedicated to this, and this bill will be coming to the Floor as part of the package. I just welcome everybody here. I would say as long as you are up here on the Hill, if you get a chance, please go talk to the Senate. [Laughter] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green. Thank you. The chairman is always recognized upon his arrival. We will now continue with Dr. Van Leeuwen. Mr. Van Leeuwen. Thank you, Congressman Green, Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to testify in support of the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. In this testimony, I want to provide an overview of the work that we are doing in Denver as it relates to our Ten Year Plan on homelessness, and our well-established partnership with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. This testimony is also supported by the National Community Development Association. I want first and foremost to acknowledge the leadership and partnership that Denver shares with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in our efforts to forge collaboration and build strategic alliances allowing us to more effectively respond to the homeless in Denver. This overview assesses both our progress as well as the cost savings we are experiencing as a result of our coordinated responses to assist the homeless in Denver. Denver's Road Home, which is our Ten Year Plan in homelessness, began in 2003 in response to an increasing rise in homeless persons in the City and County of Denver. Through that, we developed a strategic and comprehensive plan with eight measurable goals, objectives, and outcomes, combining accountability with compassion. The plan was approved by the Denver City Council and Mayor Hickenlooper in 2005 and went into implementation as of July 1, 2005. From the beginning, the citizens of Denver were promised a plan with achievable and sustainable goals, with measurable action steps as well as a plan that emphasizes collaborative efforts and accountability. What this translates to is we are 2 years into our implementation in Denver. Through our point in time count, through the Metropolitan Denver homeless initiatives, we have experienced an 11 percent reduction in overall homelessness, and a 36 percent reduction in chronic homelessness in the City and County of Denver. This translates to about 789 new units of housing, 2,455 homeless have been assisted in finding work, 2,003 individuals have had increased access to public benefits and treatment services, 563 families receiving eviction assistance, 132 homeless persons entering housing through our street outreach collaboration, and 233 families being partnered with our faith based mentoring teams. While our accomplishments are significant, we also know there is a lot more work that needs to be done. We have 3,900 men, women, and children in our City who remain homeless at the time of this testimony. There are over 600 homeless households with children totaling 1,563 individual people. Of these households, 465 are single parent families. The most commonly reported reason for homelessness in Denver was loss of a job followed by relationship or family break-up and substance abuse. In terms of the cost savings, I want to spend just a brief moment on that. We know that permanent supportive housing is demonstrating proven outcomes in our ability to transition the homeless off the streets and into housing. It costs Denver taxpayers over $40,000 per homeless person per year to live life on the streets. To operate one bed at a shelter, it is costing Denver $18,000 annually versus $15,000 to maintain one unit of permanent supportive housing. When taking into consideration Denver Cares, the primary detox center for the City and County of Denver, the 25 highest users logged an accumulative total of 2,657 admissions last year, an average of 100 nights per homeless individual in our detox facility. After moving these individuals into 1 year of permanent supportive housing, we experienced a 79.6 percent reduction in admissions, to an accumulative total of 541 admissions per year. We went from 2,657 admissions to detox for these 25 highest users to 541 admissions when they moved into housing, permanent supportive housing, combining service requirements with accountability. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless in their study looked at the chronically homeless, and after 1 year in housing, 77 percent of those chronically homeless were still in housing. Their incomes went from $185 at entry to $431, and emergency service utilization was 44 percent fewer days than at enrollment. We know that by putting the homeless into housing, especially the chronically homeless, that we are not only able to improve the quality of life but also significantly decrease the costs they are impacting in terms of our service delivery. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to address this subcommittee. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Van Leeuwen can be found on page 201 of the appendix.] Mr. Green. Thank you, Doctor. Because time is of the essence as it relates to you, we will ask questions of you at this time, taking you out of order. I have one quick question. Should agencies that deal with the homeless be required to ascertain whether or not a person is a citizen, and if so, why, and if not, why? Should agencies be required to ascertain citizenship? Mr. Van Leeuwen. Right now, it has been a dialogue that we have been having with our homeless providers, and referencing the previous question, Congressman, we are still trying to get a better sense of how much that issue is impacting our agencies. Right now, they ask for citizenship in order to move them into housing and follow the laws that are in the State and in the City and County of Denver. In terms of whether or not they should do it, we know that we are assisting them in accessing the services in terms of food and basic shelter, and really before I can answer that question, we really do not have the data to tell us whether or not this is an issue in the City and County of Denver or in other cities around the country. Mr. Green. Thank you. The ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. I am going to hold my questions for the rest of the panel. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Green. Representative Davis is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Just one quick question. In the last hearing, for those of you who were here to listen to that, there was quite a lot of talk about Federal agencies, and I get the sense that what I am hearing is that the Federal agencies will determine the winners and losers, that the Federal agencies are typically in these areas very far away from the front lines. I just wonder if you might comment briefly on whether you feel that critical decisions like this should be made at a local level with a little bit more flexibility in addressing this Continuum of Care issue based on what you have been working on. Mr. Van Leeuwen. I know that on behalf of Mayor Hickenlooper, the jurisdictional leadership via our Mayor and having that flexibility of asserting that jurisdictional leadership has made a significant difference in terms of our ability to carry out the initiative that we have in Denver. When you look at Denver's Road Home and the accomplishments that we have been able to achieve over the last 2 years, the silver bullet has been political will at the local level, and having the Mayor going and reaching out to our homeless providers and really putting that piece of this is about quality of life, but this is also about the fact that we need to hold our nonprofits accountable and we need to hold our homeless accountable. If we create these services, we need to make sure that they are being used cost effectively as we transition them off the streets. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Green. Thank you, Doctor. We greatly appreciate your sharing your time with us and the information you shared as well. We wish you well as you make your exit. Mr. Van Leeuwen. Congressman, I appreciate your sensitivity to my schedule today as well. Thank you. Mr. Green. We will now move to Dr. Dennis Culhane. I am looking at the door because I am told that Representative Cleaver may come in at any moment. As he is not here, we will continue. Dr. Culhane, we will now hear from you for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DENNIS CULHANE, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL POLICY AND PRACTICE, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Culhane. Thank you, Congressman Green, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I want to commend you for taking up the reauthorization of the McKinney Act, which is now in its 20th year of existence. Many lessons have been learned, especially in the last 10 years. I would like to reflect on some of the lessons which have been learned as I address some of the issues that I know are before the committee. First, with regard to this issue of definitions of ``homelessness,'' it is my understanding that the different definitions that exist in the Federal agencies actually reflect the appropriate missions of those agencies. For example, with regard to HHS and the Department of Education, I think it is important to distinguish between mainstream resources for homeless individuals and targeted resources. The HHS and DOE definitions are purposely broad because they are intended to ensure access to mainstream resources, that being public education in the case of DOE, and transportation to education, as well as health care services through HHS, for these broader populations. With regard to HUD, however, their definition relates to the targeted resources, dollars that are focused on making sure that people who are literally homeless have access to emergency shelter. Unfortunately, right now, based on a report that was given to the Congress this last spring, nearly half of the homeless people today are literally living on the street, and are not in shelters, and are not currently being served. I think that suggests to me that we should be very careful about expanding the definition to populations who are in conventional housing, however substandard or unfortunate those conditions may be, when we have 300,000 people on the streets today who are not accessing these resources at all. I also would note that the McKinney resources, as you know, are not an entitlement. There is not a proportionate increase in the resources from adding new people to the pool who are counted as homeless. In effect, by not increasing those resources, we would be diluting the value of the program. Right now, there are about 2.5 million people who experience homelessness annually in the United States. That means that there is an average of about $750 per person from the McKinney Act that can go to those persons. If we increase the number of eligibles three-fold, we may reduce the per person amount available three-fold. It is also worth noting that there are major problems with trying to certify eligibility and trying to measure results if we include people who are less visible and in these conventional housing units. With regard to the issue of prevention, I think it is very important that we do try to serve people who are near homeless. However, research has not shown that broad based community interventions to prevent homelessness actually reduce the number of people who come into the shelter system. That does not mean that those resources do not do something that is effective for families in need, but it does not reduce the number of people who become homeless. Given the limited resources that are provided by the McKinney-Vento Act, I think it is important that if we do add prevention that we are careful to make sure those dollars are used to leverage mainstream resources like in TANF, in the mental health system and elsewhere that can provide and expand services and housing for these populations. I would encourage you to use the McKinney-Vento resources for demonstration projects because as yet, we do not have the research and results to direct a new Federal prevention program. We do need demonstration projects to test what would work and what could work and then to have those results drive policy. With regard to the issue of meeting the challenge of family homelessness, we now know clearly from research that homelessness negatively impacts children and families. I think it would be wise for the new McKinney Act to consider as a statement of principle that no family should be homeless for more than 30 or 60 days. Long shelter stays have no established benefit yet they consume most of the resources in the shelter system. My colleagues and I recently completed a study finding that a relatively small proportion of families, 20 percent, used 50 percent of the resources. They are staying in shelters on average more than a year, and the cost of having those folks in shelters could translate into 4 or 5 years of a permanent housing subsidy for those families. The McKinney resources cannot solve the affordability problem, but they can be used to leverage TANF dollars and child welfare agencies into doing relocation and transitional rental assistance, a bridge, if you will, to permanent subsidies when necessary. Of course, HUD needs to have more resources to provide those permanent subsidies to address the housing affordability that underlies this problem. One of the other things that has been learned in the last 10 years is that the permanent housing set-aside has been associated with significant results. We cannot justify the continued use of resources for emergency shelter and having people warehoused in shelters when we know those same resources can provide a permanent solution to homelessness. It would not be ethical. The research also shows that it is not economically efficient to do so. The set-aside has been crucial to producing these results, and I would urge the committee to codify the set-aside into law. Another lesson that has been learned in these past few years is that jurisdictional partnerships have been very important to advancing solutions for this population. In particular, the chronic homeless initiative through the work of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness has helped communities to develop Ten Year Plans. These Ten Year Plans have brought new research and new accountability to homeless programs, more than 40 studies have recently been done by communities, as Denver, as Dr. Van Leeuwen noted, looking at the high costs associated with chronic homelessness, and the reductions in costs that are associated with having folks placed in permanent housing. Those kinds of results have the opportunity to drive more resources into the system. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Culhane can be found on page 98 of the appendix.] Mr. Green. Thank you, sir. We will now move to our next witness, Ms. Marquez. STATEMENT OF MERCEDES MARQUEZ, GENERAL MANAGER, LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LOS ANGELES Ms. Marquez. Good morning, Congressman Green, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the City of Los Angeles' Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, thank you for the opportunity to let you know how grateful we are that you are taking up the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. My name is Mercedes Marquez, and I am the general manager of the City of Los Angeles Housing Department. Along with the Office of the Mayor, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, I am responsible for the administration of Federal homeless assistance programs in the City of Los Angeles. Particularly, it is my responsibility to create and maintain, build and support a production based system of permanent supportive housing in the City of Los Angeles. In 2006, Mayor Villaraigosa launched the first permanent supportive housing program in the City of L.A. He has committed now for the third year in a row that half of our $100 million affordable housing trust fund be specifically directed to the homeless program for permanent supportive housing. That means that in less than 3 years, we will have $150 million specifically dedicated to the construction of permanent supportive housing. In addition to that, the City has committed to expanding the Homeless Section 8 program and is providing an estimated value of $129 million in rental assistance to homeless individuals and families. Moreover, a portion of this funding is supporting a partnership with the County of Los Angeles to move 500 families out of Skid Row and into affordable housing elsewhere in the City. We have already had discussion about the different statistics in Los Angeles. We are unfortunately the homeless capital of homelessness in the country. It is true that approximately, at last count, 22,000 folks in the City of Los Angeles find themselves homeless on any given night, and 13,000 homeless children currently attend the Los Angeles Unified School District schools. Against this backdrop, we support the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Because my responsibility is particularly on creating a supportive system of construction, I am going to focus my particular comments on those issues within the Act that support a production based system. For us, it is very important that you maintain a set-aside for permanent supportive housing for all homeless people with disabilities and sustain this housing inventory with adequate program funding. At the moment in the City of Los Angeles, our permanent supportive housing fund is funded both with CDBG, with HOME dollars. I use general fund money from the City of Los Angeles, municipal bond financing income that comes to the Housing Department. I am now in a partnership with the Department of Transportation to contribute land to the effort, as well as working with our Department of Water and Power for energy efficiencies. You can see that we use everything and everything we can to make these programs work. It is important for us that a set- aside be maintained in order to continually fund it. The most important thing about creating a production based system is it is a business like any other. Developers must know that the funding stream is consistent, that the rules are clear and fair. It is only in that way that they will continue to make the type of investment that is necessary, the holding costs for land, architectural fees, environmental assessments to move forward with building the housing. It is important for us to be able to project out years ahead of time the funding levels that we will be able to provide with the rules that are applied so that people will invest. Having a set-aside is important. It is also incredibly important that you extend from 12 months to 24 months the amount of time necessary to fulfill all of the requirements for the obligation of funds, including site acquisition and control, the provision of matching funds, environmental reviews, and the completion of construction and rehabilitation of supportive housing projects. It is very difficult to work within the system. I have to match every dollar for dollar with State leveraging. Our programs follow this different State cycles of funding, and it is very difficult to do all that, get it all in line and actually build the housing. If we only have a 12-month period, we are pretty much excluding our construction based program of providing supportive housing. We really need that. In addition to that, ensure the coordination with the low income tax credit program. Since we do leverage in the City of Los Angeles, while permanent supportive housing is more expensive to build, for every dollar that the City is investing, we are in leverage securing approximately $3.25. In order for us to work within tax credit programs, different State funding and Federal funding guidelines, we need the 24 months and we need the rules to match the low income housing tax credit program, so we can all make it work together. We would also echo what we have heard many people on both panels now say, that we do not support the expansion of the definition. [The prepared statement of Ms. Marquez can be found on page 152 of the appendix.] Mr. Green. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. McNamee for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ARLENE McNAMEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, DIOCESE OF FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS Ms. McNamee. Thank you, Representative Green. I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito for devoting the time and attention of the subcommittee to this important matter. I wish to express my appreciation to Chairman Frank for inviting me to share my experience in serving homeless families and single adults in his district. Representatives Carson and Davis deserve our deepest gratitude as well for introducing the HEARTH Act. We wish Representative Carson a speedy recovery, and she is in our thoughts and our prayers. My name is Arlene McNamee, and I am the executive director of Catholic Social Services of the Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, and I also serve on the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities USA. CSS is the largest provider of services and shelter for the homeless outside of the Greater Boston Region. Last year, we served a total of 42,523 individuals with a range of services including food, medicine, financial assistance, and housing case management advocacy and counseling, services that often function as a means of preventing homelessness. CSS provides services and shelter for more than 348 homeless families and individuals each night in housing programs that include emergency shelter, transitional housing for homeless women and children, women returning from prison, 70 permanent housing units for families, and 65 units for singles who were formerly homeless. My testimony will reinforce the following three points: First, HUD is not keeping its commitment to provide affordable housing for the extremely-low-income households; second, reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Act must expand HUD's definition of ``homelessness'' and restore the ability of local communities to act on all they have learned since the last reauthorization; and third, the HEARTH Act will best enable communities to put into practice all we know about preventing and ending homelessness among all households--urban, suburban, and rural. HUD must re-establish a commitment to produce and subsidize and preserve affordable housing for the poor. Last week, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reported that 1,800 families were in homeless shelters. According to the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, more families are in shelter now than at any time since the inception of the State's family shelter program in 1983. This is not a function of overabundance of shelter beds. This is a result of a dwindling supply of affordable housing options for the very poor. In order to begin to reverse the growing problems of homelessness, the Federal Government must be an active partner in the creation of affordable housing. We must enact the National Housing Trust Fund to bring these solutions to scale. The chronic homelessness 30 percent set-aside carved out of the McKinney-Vento programs is applied without regard to the number of chronically homeless individuals in each community. HEARTH rejects HUD's current practice of prescribing solutions aimed at big cities like New York and San Francisco, directing dollars away from small towns and rural areas. Most Americans are living in cities like mine, with populations of 90,000 to 250,000. Our needs are different than that of big cities, and we need to have control over our problems. The eligibility criteria associated with the set-aside is exclusionary and burdensome. Take, for example, the Donaldson family. After Mr. Donaldson lost his job and fell behind in his rent, the landlord placed him in what amounts to a servitude, requiring him to work as a janitor in order to maintain housing for his wife and four children. This, of course, interfered with his plan to find a new job, further driving the family into poverty. After the landlord began to verbally abuse him in front of his wife and children, Mr. Donaldson went to the local shelter for help, but the shelter was full. Donaldson did not quite qualify for the our HUD funded permanent housing program. For 2 weeks, this family of six lived in a car until they could complete the necessary paperwork to qualify under the current HUD definition for the housing program. While they met one part of the current definition, which was living in a car, they did not have the documentation for a disability. This story begins to illustrate the need to expand HUD's definition of ``homelessness'' and restore local flexibility. Research coupled with practice teaches us that families are best served in their own homes, and that to prevent homelessness whenever possible is the best option. We have learned that each family and individual does not neatly fit into HUD's rigid categories. HUD must expand its definition of ``homelessness'' to include families who are doubled-up and living in motels for lack of other options. While doing outreach to a local motel, one of our workers found a mother with two children, ages 4 and 11. The 11 year old daughter was severely disabled and suffering from advanced cerebral palsy. As such, she was lying motionless on a mattress on the floor. Placing a mattress on a floor is a common practice of protecting children with CP from falling out of their beds. Without money for a wheelchair that was left behind when she fled her abuser, the mother had to carry the child wherever she went. This and her fear of being located by her abuser prevented her from leaving the motel room. Sadly, this family did not qualify for our permanent supportive housing program because the current definition states that the head of the household must have the disability. In fact, because they are living in motels, they are not considered homeless by HUD, and not entitled to McKinney-Vento services at all. Finally, children living in families who are doubled-up or living in motels suffer in unimaginable ways and are at risk of similarly poor outcomes to those of homeless children. Congress must expand the HUD definition of ``homelessness'' to include persons who are sharing the housing of others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reasons, and those who are staying in motels because of lack of adequate alternative accommodations. We ask that the committee weigh heavily the findings of practice wisdom and research and reject HUD's overly prescriptive Federal policy which aims to standardize the response to homelessness. HEARTH consolidates the separate HUD programs and codifies the Continuum of Care and restores the local flexibility necessary to operate properly. Lastly, HEARTH extends the HUD definition to include persons who are sharing the housing of others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reasons, and those who are staying in motels because of a lack of adequate alternative accommodations. HEARTH makes the Continuum of Care approach responsive to all communities by restoring local flexibility, streamlining the application process, adding double upped and multiple families to HUD's definition, allowing more money to be used for prevention. HEARTH is the optimum approach and we urge the committee to support HEARTH and thank the 79 co-sponsors of this bill. Please refer to my written testimony for further comments, and I would like to thank the committee and Chairman Frank for this opportunity. [The prepared statement of Ms. McNamee can be found on page 161 of the appendix.] Mr. Green. Thank you. Ms. Gomez is now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH GOMEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES YOUTH NETWORK Ms. Gomez. Thank you for having me here today. As we talked earlier, I am a little bit different in my representation in that I am a local service provider providing services to runaway, homeless, and foster care youth. Today, I am here as a representative of the National Network for Youth, the Nation's leading organization on youth homelessness. It is an honor to testify. It is the first opportunity in the 33 year history of the National Network to appear before this committee. Our absence before this body is indicative of the inattention to youth and public policy regarding housing and homeless assistance. An analysis of community plans to end homelessness conducted by the National Alliance to End Homelessness concludes that only 49 percent of such plans have youth specific efforts. In Los Angeles, while we have been invited to the discussions, our appeals for accommodations to address the unique developmental needs of homeless youth go unheeded. Therefore, we are very grateful today and thankful that we are here to talk about the needs of homeless youth. As many as 3 million youth and young adults experience a homeless situation annually. In Los Angeles, as was stated earlier, a recent count shows that 20,000 of those homeless are under the age of 18; 11,000 between the ages of 18 and 24; another 3,000 of unaccompanied minors. Some sit innocuously in classrooms in Jordan or Hollywood High School and sleep on the couches of their classmates if they are lucky. Others go to work at minimum wage jobs and sleep in shifts in efficiency apartments or motels, just to make ends meet. Many of these young people end up homeless as well on the streets and go back and forth to these efficiency apartments or motels. Other children hang out on the streets of Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pasadena, South L.A., and yes, the infamous Skid Row, or Cardboard City, as it has been called. A fortunate few make it to a homeless youth organization such as the Los Angeles Youth Network. A primary source of funds for us, the youth providers, is the Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. This is a great resource. However, the Runaway and Homeless Youth programs have their limits. Emergency shelters can only serve youth up to age 18, grant awards that are capped at $200,000, funds are not available for supportive services only, and Congress appropriated in 2007 only 7 percent of what was appropriated to the McKinney-Vento Act. Runaway and homeless youth agencies must look for funds in other areas, thus we return to the McKinney-Vento Act as it is a program that Congress established for all homeless people, and I emphasize the word ``all.'' Young people, youth, should be included in that process. We receive about $42,000 for supportive services, a 50 percent reduction over the years, a loss attributed to our county's shift toward permanent supportive housing, due to the Federal chronic homeless initiative. I know of many other organizations that we work with that are in similar situations. No other public agency has stepped up to replace those funds. It is one of the reasons the National Network for Youth supports the HEARTH Act. The bill would restore flexibility to communities to use HUD's McKinney-Vento funds as they determine most appropriate. Also, it would revise the HUD definition of ``homelessness'' to include additional living arrangements, common among homeless youth, and recognized as ``homelessness'' by Congress several times already. The Senate reauthorization bill misses the mark on many counts, although we do favor the prohibition on HUD funded family shelters and family housing from denying admission of a whole family or a youth member of the family on the basis of age. This practice is harmful to families, stigmatizes the youth and is a causal factor for youth homelessness. The current HUD McKinney-Vento programs are critical to reaching some homeless youth. They could support more youth, however, if we rolled back the current restrictive administrative policies, strengthened the laws so that all homeless subpopulations may have equal access to funds, and increased authorization and appropriation levels. The HEARTH Act meets these needs. The reauthorization of the HUD McKinney-Vento Act must be considered as just a part of a larger effort. We must take bold steps such as those offered in H.R. 3409, the Place to Call Home Act. This bill by Representative Hinojosa seeks to end youth homelessness, and we urge the subcommittee to give attention to the permanent housing provisions of that bill in a future hearing. We also urge everybody on the committee to visit youth programs in their local communities so they can meet the young people in our Nation who are part of the homeless population, as important as any other group, and who are just as desperate for a safe place to call home. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez can be found on page 111 of the appendix.] Mr. Green. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Roman for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF NAN ROMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS Ms. Roman. Thank you so much. Thank you to the members of the subcommittee for your leadership and congratulations on the passage of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Affordable housing is ultimately the solution to homelessness. The HUD McKinney-Vento programs have been well-run over the past 20 years, well-administered by HUD, and well-delivered by a network of nonprofit and faith based providers. Over these past 20 years, we have also learned a lot about what works. The reason it is important to reauthorize McKinney, I think, is to take advantage of what we have learned about what works and to apply it more broadly. Our goal in reauthorization should not be to have an expanding shelter system that more and more people enter with no clear way out. That would be going backwards. Our goal should be to use best practices to reduce the number of homeless people and create a system that is all about preventing homelessness and moving people back into housing fast. That, I think, would be the path forward. Furthermore, it is important to keep a balance in the program. It is not a matter of ending homelessness among children say or chronically homeless people first. The program has to address the needs of all homeless people in a sensible and balanced way. It is not one or the other, while retaining a focus on best practices to improve outcomes. What have we learned in the past 20 years that would help us to achieve these goals? I think we have learned that permanent supportive housing works for people who are disabled. It solves the problem of homelessness. The 30 percent set-aside, which is a national set-aside, not local, works to make sure that a proportionate amount of resources goes to that group. Some focus on chronic homelessness work because by definition, this is a group of poorly served people whose interests must be protected. We cannot just focus on the chronic population. Rapid re- housing works for at least 80 percent of families and children. Permanent housing provides a stable base for children, education, services, and employment. Shelter does not. What we want to do is get children and families back into housing faster and not prolong their homelessness. The other 20 percent of families and children have more serious problems including disabilities. Some are chronically homeless. They should be included in the definition. Chronic homelessness, they need long term housing subsidies and services assistance. Other things we have learned is that data are important. Rural areas present different challenges. The Federal response should be different in rural areas. Prevention works but it has to be tightly targeted to those at eminent risk. A key learning of the past 20 years is that places that are making progress in reducing numbers are targeting better and more tightly. In this regard, I want to speak to the HEARTH Act's proposal to broaden the definition of ``homelessness'' to include people who are doubled up for economic reasons. That broad inclusion, I think, is a bad idea for several reasons. First of all, we have actually--there are currently, as has been said, 744,000 people who are defined by HUD as homeless. Only slightly more than half receive shelter. We are not meeting the current needs of people who are defined as homeless by HUD. We have looked at the American Community survey data to try to estimate what expanding the definition would mean. We estimate that it would mean 3.8 million more people would be eligible for assistance than are currently assisted or defined as eligible. That is 5 times the current number of people who are eligible. We would need $7.8 billion on a pro rata basis to provide services to those people at the same fairly misery level of services we now provide to people who are eligible. Second, ``doubled up for economic reasons'' is probably way too broad. Many people are doubled up for economic reasons, but they are not homeless. They are stably housed. Their housing may not be optimum, but the homeless system has nothing to offer to remedy that situation. Section 8, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and other housing programs should address their housing needs and we need more of those. CDBG, TANF, Child Welfare, and other service programs need to address their service needs. There are doubled-up families who are not stably housed, who are couch surfing or moving from one home to another. They are literally homeless and they should be included in the definition. For most doubled-up families who cannot get help from the homeless system, the problem is not that they are not eligible for assistance. The problem is that we do not have enough resources to help them in the system. Calling 5 times more people homeless will not help that problem. It will just exacerbate it. We can do a better job of helping homeless families with children, youth, veterans, and single adults. In my view, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act in the Senate provides a great legislative template for achieving the balance and sensible approach it takes to meet all of these needs. I urge you to look at it closely. I think it has arrived at some pretty creative solutions to these conflicting needs and opinions, and is a good road map for moving forward. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Roman can be found on page 189 of the appendix.] Mr. Green. Thank you all for your testimony. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. Dr. Culhane, you indicated that you thought a 30 day rule would be appropriate. Would you please restate your 30 day rule? Mr. Culhane. I am just suggesting, sir, that in the statement of principle, we should be committing ourselves to the goal that families should not be homeless for more than 30 or perhaps 60 days. The idea that families should be lingering in shelters for a year, a year-and-a-half, or 2 years, as is now actually permitted, and in some cases, actually encouraged programmatically, that should be done away with. Mr. Green. Thank you. Would everyone agree with this? If not, I would like to hear anyone with an opposing point of view. Ms. Gomez? Ms. Gomez. I think for young people, for youth, we have a very different perspective. You cannot put an unaccompanied 16- year-old into permanent housing. They cannot even sign a lease. There is a group of young people who based on their developmental needs do need to stay in emergency shelter longer because they also do not have resources. They might not have a family to go back to. They might not have a relative that we found, and they might not have appropriate resources to transition to stability. Rather than putting them on the street, you keep them in shelter until you can find an appropriate housing situation. Mr. Green. Yes? Ms. McNamee. Representative, I would just like to make sure that Dr. Culhane is only talking about emergency shelters and not transitional. Mr. Culhane. I am including both because we do not see a benefit in the research for families who stay in transitional versus emergency shelters. We do not see a benefit associated with those longer stays. Families who are housed, regardless of how long they stay and whether they are in emergency shelters or transition shelters, do well in housing, and that should be our goal. Mr. Green. Ms. McNamee? Ms. McNamee. Thank you. Our finding has been that there are certain populations of women and children who really do need the transitional step prior to going to permanent housing. In that case, it typically has been women who have come from domestic violence situations where they really need time to reconstruct their lives and time to sort of--the word I would use which is not very therapeutic--be. Meaning where the pressure is off. There is someone to assist with supporting the child care because the children have also been traumatized. They need to establish their identity. They need things like licenses, cash, apply for benefits, all of which are pretty difficult, and they are usually very afraid to be by themselves for the first 3 to 4 months of leaving a domestic violence situation. We have had them leave and come back. Mr. Green. Thank you. Doctor, back to you again. You indicated that prevention dollars do not diminish the number of persons who are going into shelters, I believe you said. Would you care to elaborate on that? I would like to get some responses from other members of the panel as well, more specifically, Ms. McNamee. Mr. Culhane. I was speaking specifically with regard to untargeted prevention dollars. There have been several efforts to experiment with community based homelessness prevention programs where dollars are given to families to avoid eviction and to deal with rent arrearages. These programs, we find, are very successful in that very few of the families end up becoming homeless. However, there is no net impact on the shelter system. It is not clear that these families would be homeless if they did not get that assistance. The issue, as I heard it described by one of the providers who deals with these programs, is that trying to find the families who would become homeless is worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack. It is like trying to find a piece of hay in a haystack because the families are all so similar, the need is so widespread. For that, I was suggesting that we really need to look at the safety net programs that should be preventing homelessness in the first place and why they are not working. Why is TANF not effective in providing adequate income to families so that they do not become homeless? Why does the mental health system and the substance abuse treatment system--why are they not effective in providing appropriate treatment and support so people do not become homeless? Mr. Green. Because my time is running out, I am going to have to beg that I move to another person. Ms. McNamee, would you care to respond? Ms. McNamee. The issue of TANF supporting, people in fact get sanctioned off TANF or their time period is over. They are part of the population that is becoming homeless because they were never able or probably will never be able to sustain reasonable employment or to earn sufficient income to maintain an apartment. It is not that people are not working. It is that they do not have enough money to afford the housing stock, and there is not enough housing stock. We do tremendous amounts of preventive care. We probably spend for our budget somewhere around $150,000 to $200,000 a year in financial assistance, preventing homelessness, and in giving rent money. The trick to it is you need to make sure the people can afford their rent the next month. Most people cannot. Many people cannot. While you are waiting for either the voucher for public housing to kick in, you are dealing with the homelessness factor. The waiting lists on public housing and Section 8 can be 4 to 5 years. During that time gap, even though people have money, there is no affordability. Mr. Green. Thank you. One final question to each of you, and it will be a yes or no question to be answered quickly. At an emergency shelter, should we ascertain citizenship? Yes or no? Mr. Culhane. I would say no. Ms. Marquez. No. Ms. McNamee. No. Ms. Gomez. No. Ms. Roman. No. Mr. Green. Thank you. We will now recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair. I want to pose a question here because a lot of what we are talking about is going back to what I asked in the last panel, expanding the definition of ``homelessness'' with HUD to include more children and families, single parents, in different situations. I am kind of fast forwarding. Let us say we do that. Do you envision a situation--Ms. Gomez, you said you are where the rubber meets the road. You are right there. You are a service provider. A situation where you are going to have to prioritize within your own shelter, within your own community, who--we have already said the resources are going to be thinning. I think Mr. Mangano made that point. How are you going to be able to prioritize the homeless, is it chronic that has more need or is it the families? To me, I think those are going to be very difficult decisions that are going to be made. I am wondering if any of you have thought about this and how that is going to set up in a real life situation. Ms. Gomez. I will take that. With us, the young people, the youth who are living in doubling-up situations, motels or efficiencies, are young people who probably transition into street homelessness also. They might go back and forth into those different environments. A lot of those young people, for youth specifically, we work with those youth on a regular basis in our drop in centers and emergency shelters. Our goal is if they are stable enough to work and to try to stay in a doubled-up situation, to transition them into a more permanent situation rather than making them become homeless and living on the street before they can access service. Ms. Roman. I think that generally you have to look at how to set those priorities community-wide. Programs are designed to help specific populations. Community-wide, what I think will happen--you have to have a balance because you have to serve everybody. You have to meet all of the needs. I think what might happen is if you have a lot more people, you basically will be increasing the demands by a factor of several times, unlikely to have a lot more resources. What I think is going to happen is you are going to get thinner interventions, less rich interventions, fewer outcomes, and more emergency assistance. I think you are also going to see the shelter systems start to clog up because you are not going to have the exits to get people out, especially the high end users that consume the majority of shelter resources. Ms. Marquez. What we already do in Los Angeles, we have a $100 million affordable housing trust fund. It is split 50 percent of it for the chronically homeless specifically. Within that group, we already target homeless adults, emancipated foster youth, transition age youth, and very-low-income families who have experienced already the beginnings of chronic homelessness. We are already doing that. What we are now doing to help what we are calling situationally homeless families, who are not yet needing the very rich level of services, and this has everything to do with it--when you have to build a building that is going to have to contain all of the space for services, that is much more expensive. If we are going to have folks who need very heavy duty services, we need to have them together so they are taking advantage. Our other program, the regular affordable housing trust fund, which is now funded in the last 4 years, we are butting up against 6,000 units. The vast majority of those units go to very-low-income families. We are now this year going to add a 10 percent set-aside in our regular program, not the homeless program, our regular program, a 10 percent set-aside for situationally homeless families who need a much lower level of service, that will marry with the Section 8 voucher. We are trying to handle that. It is a huge part of our population, but we handle it through our regular affordable housing program because their services needs are lighter and as a result, less expensive. Mrs. Capito. If I could just clarify that. You have spotted this as a need and a potential conflict here. What you are doing in Los Angeles is really with the flexibility that your city and the support obviously, and that you have vast resources, have made those decisions at the local level rather than have those decisions made at the Federal level. Ms. Marquez. Yes. If it were made at the Federal level, it would be much more difficult because it would add more expense for us as we are building the type of supportive housing with rich services that are necessary. It would be a very different thing and the per unit cost would soar. With what I am doing now, you are right, I am lowering the cost by putting those families where they belong, with other families that need less services. Mr. Culhane. If I could just follow up. Mr. Green. Yes. Mr. Culhane. I think that there are a number of priorities that the McKinney Act, and as it has been administered through HUD, a number of priorities that have been very effective in helping to make sure that resources are targeted and have an impact. I think the concern about expanding the definition or leaving it up to localities is that there are many localities that do not like the homeless. As the research has indicated, there are close to 40 percent of the people who do not have any shelter whatsoever, are not getting any services. They are living and in some cases dying on the street. Some communities may choose to expand the definition to serve people that they prefer to serve, and to continue not to serve people who are on the street. I think that has been the value of the Federal priorities, they have made localities have to recognize and understand these needs that they might otherwise ignore. Mr. Green. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions that I think are for me very critical. Dr. Culhane, you mentioned 2.5 million homeless in America. Is there any way for us to better document the homeless? How comfortable are you and frankly everybody on the panel with the numbers that we throw around? In the State of Missouri, for example, we said 8,000 homeless and 1,600 in my City. Whenever I hear those numbers, I usually just disregard them because I just think that some person is down in the basement with really thick glasses--okay, thin glasses, and they are just coming up with a number. Mr. Culhane. I think it is good to be cautious. In the 1980's in this room here, there were two separate hearings held on the issue of, ``How many homeless are there in America?'' Fortunately, in the 1990's, there were no hearings focused on that because the research community came to a resolution on that issue from different yet convergent methodologies. We have estimated that about one percent of the population is homeless each year. Of course, that varies by region. Furthermore, one of the more important things that the Congress has done in the last 10 years is required communities to implement information systems that are gathering systematic data on everybody who comes into the homeless system. On that basis, the Congress received its first report this past spring, the Annual Homelessness Assessment Report, that will be delivered to the Congress annually, and is providing a reliable annual estimate of the number of people who experience homelessness in the United States. We have made a tremendous amount of progress. It is not an exact science by any means. I think we are very comfortable saying the number is between 2.5 and 3 million and the number on a given night is around 700,000. Mr. Cleaver. You understand the importance of it as we are talking about block grants? Mr. Culhane. Yes. Mr. Cleaver. I think all of you--I hope I saw this correctly--were opposed to expanding the definition. Mr. Culhane. I am opposed. Ms. Marquez. We are supporting it. Ms. Gomez. I am opposed. Mr. Cleaver. With what is happening in the secondary market, subprime market, with an estimated two million foreclosures on line when the new rates are triggered this year, don't you think we need to do all kinds of things to accommodate the new homeless, I think they are called ``couch surfers,'' in other words, people who are sleeping on the couch in their aunt's house because they lost their home, and the church where I am, I know of seven people who lost homes and are living with others. Do you not think, based on what is happening in the subprime market, that we need to make some adjustments? Mr. Culhane. If I could, Mr. Cleaver, I would distinguish between people who are literally homeless, people who are on the street or in an emergency facility, versus people who are at risk of homelessness and who have unstable housing. I think the situation you are describing is something that as a society we absolutely should be doing more to make sure that people who are at risk of homelessness do not become homeless. I do not think that defining everyone as homeless and trying to shoehorn them into the homeless programs is going to do that. We need to have more effective anti-poverty programs in general, including programs that deal with folks who are facing foreclosure. Those problems are much broader than the problem of literal homelessness. Mr. Cleaver. Yes. The people I have spoken with, I went undercover at a local ABC station a few years back. I let my beard grow and I put on ragged clothes and I went out. They had a camera on me, Channel 9, KNBC, an ABC affiliate, and they were in a plain truck and they followed me around and so forth. As I talked to people who were homeless, many of them started out pretty much like what is happening to folk who are losing their homes. I do not know of anyone who said, ``After careful study and reading several booklets, I decided to become homeless.'' It was the movement of events that triggered the homelessness. With people losing their homes, that could actually trigger what is being called ``chronic homelessness,'' which I think there is some controversy over that. I know my time is running out. Ms. Roman? Ms. Roman. I think the solution to that really is we do not have much to offer those people in the homelessness system. We have shelter and some kind of case management. Those people need affordable housing. They need the other things you are doing in this committee, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the Section 8 issues, that is what those folks need. I think what we want to avoid is having all those people become homeless. That is a terribly important thing for us to do. The community partnership also does have a lot of prevention, new prevention resources, and we should get better at getting people back into housing faster and having some flexibility to do that. Ms. McNamee. I agree. I think much like the last time we went through this, we tend to be much more responsive this time, and there has been some efforts made to train the housing counseling people. There are some programs around foreclosures and a lot more outreach to families who have in fact lost their houses, and hopefully before they lose their houses, to provide the interventions to do it. I think we have gotten a little better. I think with much more outreach to those individuals, hopefully we will not see them sleeping on the couches. Mr. Green. Thank you. We will now recognize the former ranking member, Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed part of your testimony. I would like to ask Dr. Culhane, your research on public shelter utilization in New York and Philadelphia found that children were more likely than the general population to become homeless. I think your analysis also found that the younger the child, the greater the risk. Indeed, infants under the age of one had the highest rates of shelter usage. Would you conclude that infants and toddlers do not suffer lasting ill effects from homelessness? Do you think they do suffer more or less? Mr. Culhane. I think the literature shows that in the near term we know that families and children who experience homelessness do suffer ill effects of that. I do not know that we have evidence yet as to what the long term effects are. Mrs. Biggert. Are you concerned that it could be that extreme stress in early childhood would cause physical and mental disabilities later in life? Mr. Culhane. It is certainly possible. It is also the case that we know that families when they are in the homeless system are less likely to access other resources, for example, early care programs, including Head Start programs. I think one of the reasons that it is important to get families back into stable housing as quickly as possible is that it will enable them to access some of the mainstream programs more effectively, have more stable schooling, and not have to move around as much, all of those things. Mrs. Biggert. I think one of the things that we have been working on, on the education side of it, is that Head Start would be available to the homeless. This is for a couple of people. I will start with Ms. Roman. I understand that your organization endorses the Senate bill. In order to be eligible for HUD homeless assistance, a family in a doubled-up situation must be notified by the owner of the residence where they are staying that they can only stay there for a short period of time, and having moved 3 times in a year or twice in the previous 21 days, and not had significant resources to contribute to rent. Are you concerned about the impact this definition's requirements would have on homeless children? Ms. Roman. I think the balance that we need to strike is between doubled-up for economic reasons, which I think includes a lot of people who may have bad housing situations but are not homeless, and who among the doubled-up population is actually homeless. We were looking for some way to describe couch surfers or people who are unstably housed but doubled-up. If that is not the way to do it, I think there is plenty of room for compromise on this between what is too broad a definition and what I think many people anyway are really meaning, which is there is definitely a group of people who are doubled-up, who are homeless and need help. Of course, we are always concerned about the effect on children. I guess my concern is the homeless system--what children need is stable housing. We do not really have that to offer them in the homeless system. We have shelter. Mrs. Biggert. Just take, for example, a mother and her children who are in an abusive situation, domestic violence, and they are fleeing really to find some place, safety, and they go to maybe a relative and they are staying, so they are going to have to document the proof of all of these things in order for them to stay some place? To me, they are almost like refugees who are fleeing with the clothes on their back and they need to find a place. Ms. Roman. If they need a place to stay and they present as homeless, they are homeless, and they are eligible for homeless assistance. I think the question is, if you are trying to get them services while they are living with somebody-- Mrs. Biggert. They are the people who very much need that. If they can only stay for a short time, then they are going to have to move from place to place, and maybe they will end up in a shelter or maybe they will end up in a car, if they have one. Maybe they will end up in a motel. It just seems to me to focus on such a definition is not the way to go. Let me ask Ms. McNamee. Do you not think we should broaden that definition? Ms. McNamee. I do. If you think about this domestic violence victim who leaves and has to demonstrate being homeless, and I believe it is 3 times in 21 days or something like that, they have to verify that. Where are they going to go? Go back to the abuser and say, ``Oh, by the way, could you tell them that I was here?'' Or a youth who was on a couch and was sexually exploited in order to get an overnight stay, is he going to go back and ask the exploiter person to please tell them that I was here? I think it creates a barrier in the definition and it is a real problem for very, very vulnerable populations. We also know that this population, because we have a fair amount of mentally ill folks, set each other up sometimes, so they are held captive. If you want a verification from someone, well, I will tell you if, you know, I will tell them you were here if. I am just not sure that is quite the way we want to do that. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Mr. Green. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Davis. Mr Davis of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a parenthetical statement on this last comment, when we are dealing with the definition. You are going to have people fall through the cracks if you do not re-define it. I was reminded of a humorous story after a system change when the Army payroll system went computerized many years ago. I walked in and discovered that none of my bills had been paid and my bank deposits did not happen because I had been deployed and I came back to find out that somehow I was lost. When I went in to inquire about my check in uniform, I was told that I was not in the Army any longer, and was not a real person according to the computer until a kind person restrained me. I think about how we got that fixed after a spirited discussion, but I had all the documentation to prove who I was. The challenge that I think you run into here is you have people who are dealing with a wide variety of issues, those who have been victimized, young people who are going to be intimidated by any form of governmental system creates a huge challenge in dealing with that. I would like to address a question to Ms. Marquez. In your testimony, you stated your support for the 30 percent set-aside for supportive housing. I agree with you in one sense, that permanent housing is successful in some areas. Do you not think that instead of a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., running things, setting arbitrary requirements, for example, a brilliant example of a rule made by somebody who has never worked in the real world is saying that you have to validate 3 times in 21 days that you were some place where you might get harmed by going back to prove that, or not have the means or know how to verify that. Having Washington do it, would it not be better to have local areas have that control on the front lines, if there were appropriate mechanisms for accountability but not creating a bureaucracy that would incur a lot of overhead? Ms. Marquez. I guess I would say this, that the evidence the research does show is the need is so great that it makes sense to set a floor. I would like the opportunity at the local level to go beyond that if that is what is needed in my city. For instance, it is often said that in Los Angeles City, we are housing and more people come from the County into Los Angeles City. If there is no requirement that anybody else has to build housing and has to use the money for that, then we continue to be a magnet. I need to be able in my region to make sure that everyone is taking on their fair share of what is going on. It is for that reason that I would support a floor. It is also true from the point of view of the family that you are speaking of, if you want to extend the definition, to make sure that is coming down the pike. It is because it is a significant issue. I would suggest perhaps that what you are looking at in the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, that might be a place to take a look at the issues of these families. They need affordable housing, not necessarily the subset of permanent supportive housing that has rich services that they do not need. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. For example, if what you are talking about is effective in Los Angeles, and that is great, you have a Continuum of Care, the ability to manage that. You have local resources. I come back to the context issue here. You have a Federal regulation that may compete with common sense. I know that might sound paradoxical in this environment that there would be those types of problems. I go back to this issue of verification of homelessness. The local professional and again somebody here sitting in a cubicle 5,000 miles from somebody with difficulties perhaps does not realize that good folks working on the ground are going to know their neighborhoods like the policemen, they are going to know who these people are in many cases, or when they come into the system on a localized level, that they can have this connectivity. Would you agree that having flexibility say, for example, in my district, where maybe housing itself is less the issue but other Continuum of Care issues are the issue, to not simply warehouse the person but help get the problem dealt with or help get them back into the economy, that that flexibility would be of some value? Ms. Marquez. Flexibility is of some value. Of course, when we are dealing in local communities, many communities would come to the point of view that they do not have a problem with housing when in fact they do, and they are happy to transport it to other areas. That is why, from our point of view, a floor is very important. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. I will just leave you with one final point on that. You had mentioned that you do not support the expansion of the definition. I do not think what any of us are talking about is a blank check. I think the biggest problem with the Federal Government are the silo's that do not work effectively together and create problems. You can pick any situation whether it is this, national security. We have a 21st Century country running on a 1960 system architecture and it is broken. To come back to this, definitions do have tremendous power. I know if we are going to think in the 1960 sense, then I perhaps could agree with Ms. Roman, but we are not there. We are in an entirely different world. You mentioned 13,000 homeless children attending public school. That caught my ear. If there are so many homeless children or young people who are out of foster care and suddenly find themselves pushed out into the economy, why would not you support or why do you say you do not support expanding that? I am asking you to step out of the regulatory framework you have to live with for a moment and make a statement in the context of the situation. Ms. Marquez. I guess I would say this. I do not support it in the context of the ``homeless'' definition. In Los Angeles, what we have done, because it is a significant issue, we have attached that great need to our regular affordable housing program, so much so that we are now going to do a set-aside in our regular program of 10 percent for families such as those that you are discussing. That has everything to do with the costs. Those families need fewer services, less expensive services. The regular affordable housing programs that we fund that would be the target of your Affordable Housing Trust Fund, if it went national, are those families, and of the 6,000 units that the City of Los Angeles has funded as affordable housing, nearly 4,500 are targeted specifically to low income families. In our city, we have taken care of it because they are not homeless in this context. They do not need that richness of service. They need other things. We are making sure that they are getting it. That is why it is in this context only in the ``homeless'' definition that we would not support it because what comes with that is a heavy burden of services and it is very expensive. We think they belong in the regular affordable housing program, and that is where we fund it. That is actually the majority of our funding, going to those types of families. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. With the chairman's indulgence, I would just like to clarify one point. The services that are being provided by those monies outside of those specifically designated as the stereotypical definition of ``homelessness,'' are those services provided by the same people to both groups? Ms. Marquez. In many situations, they are. For instance, if you are going to build a permanent supportive housing unit, there is a requirement that many of the services be onsite, because of the difficulty of getting folks to access them. You have to be right there working them all of the time to get them to participate. A family like the ones you are concerned with, those are folks who have issues but are functioning in the world. They can walk 4 blocks to the services center to get what they need. In affordable housing what we do, we have a requirement that services be provided, but they do not have to be onsite because these folks work. They are the working poor. They may come from a situation like the one that we have heard here, a domestic violence situation, but many of them work, including those who are doubled-up, and including those who have lost their homes to foreclosure. It is not that they are not working. It is that the affordability gap between what they earn and the cost of housing is too great. They are functioning individuals. They do not have dual diagnoses. It is for that reason that we would have them in a regular affordable housing where they can walk to the services around them rather than have the very expensive effort of having to have them housed in the building and the capital expense of building those units has to include the cost of building out all of the space for the services. That is why we distinguish it. Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you. Mr. Green. Thank you. I am told that we will have votes in a few minutes. Because we will have votes, we will excuse this panel and instruct the next panel to come back at 1:30 or after the votes have been completed, whichever is later. You do not have to come back before 1:30. We look forward to seeing you at that time. You are excused until 1:30 or after the next series of votes. [Recess] Mr. Green. Friends, we would like to call the meeting to order at this time and proceed with our last panel. We would like to thank you for being so patient. We assure you that we try to get to you as expeditiously as possible. We always seem to have votes that will at some point intercede. Please accept my apologies on behalf of the entire committee for keeping you waiting so long. Let me now introduce the members of this panel. If I should mispronounce a name, if you will just step right in and help me, I would greatly appreciate it. We have with us Ms. Dora Gallo, with A Community of Friends in Los Angeles. Ms. Gallo. That is correct. Mr. Green. We have Mr. Moises Loza. He is the executive director of the Housing Assistance Council. Dr. Ellen Bassuk, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University. Diane Nilan with HEAR US, in Naperville, Illinois. Mrs. Biggert, please forgive me. I am told that we have a Representative who would like to say a few words by way of introduction, and we will now recognize Mrs. Biggert for this purpose. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce and welcome to today's hearing a constituent and a dear friend of mine from Naperville, Illinois, Ms. Diane Nilan. Diane has spent over 21 years giving voice to homeless kids and their families. She comes to us today in her capacity as founder and president of HEAR US, Inc.--Homeless Education Awareness Raising in the United States--a nonprofit organization to empower homeless children and youth through video advocacy and other technologies. I know you will hear more about that. She has had a distinguished career of public service. She has served as manager of emergency shelters, a long time board member and officer for the statewide Housing Action Coalition, a board member and 9 year president of the Illinois Coalition to End Homelessness, and co-founder of the campaign Forget Me Not, Kids' Day on Capital Hill, and co-author of several U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness reports. She is going to tell you a little bit about this, but in 2005, she sold her house and car and purchased an RV to travel across the country documenting the plights and dreams of America's homeless children. She has logged over 20,000 miles in just that short time. I would like to welcome her here today and look forward to her testimony. Thanks. Ms. Nilan. Thank you. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. From Los Angeles, we have Ms. Dora Gallo, A Community of Friends, Los Angeles. I want to thank Ms. Gallo for joining us. I and my staff were fortunate enough to be able to visit several of the 33 buildings that A Community of Friends has developed and operates in the Los Angeles area. We were very impressed at the quality of both the housing and the services delivered to the poor, often formerly homeless, disabled tenants of the projects. I would like to see this subcommittee do all we can do to make sure that the production pipeline to this organization and others like it across the country are as robust as possible. We also have Ms. Nancy Carter, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Urban Los Angeles. I very much appreciate the work that Ms. Carter, whom I have long known, has undertaken on behalf of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Urban Los Angeles Chapter. I know that the testimony she will provide today will be invaluable to the subcommittee as we consider our actions regarding how the McKinney-Vento program will affect the severely and persistently mentally ill who live in shelters and on the streets in Los Angeles and nationwide. Also, Dr. Martha Burt, Ph.D., senior principal researcher, Urban Institute. We will start with Ms. Dora Gallo. STATEMENT OF DORA GALLO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS, LOS ANGELES Ms. Gallo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking Member Capito, for the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee. My name is Dora Gallo and I am the chief executive officer of A Community of Friends. We are a nonprofit developer in Los Angeles County. As a practitioner, I can tell you firsthand how important McKinney- Vento funding has been to our efforts to end homelessness for individuals and families with special needs. We are thrilled to see reauthorizing legislation proposed and a commitment to enact legislation that encompasses the best provisions of H.R. 840 and Senate Bill 1518. The McKinney-Vento Act is unique, unlike other State, local, and Federal sources of funding, at least in Los Angeles County, the McKinney-Vento Act is the only source of funding that encompasses all three elements of permanent supportive housing, operating, construction, and services. An award of McKinney funds from SHP, Shelter + Care, or SRO rehab allows ACOF and other developers to leverage millions of dollars in other funding, particularly in construction. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that our organization supports the set-aside of 30 percent of McKinney funds for permanent supportive housing for people with disabilities. One concern that we wish to convey to you, however, is a provision in Senate Bill 1518 that codifies a policy to limit supportive housing projects to 16 units or less, unless it can be demonstrated that, ``Local market conditions dictate the development of a larger project.'' No such provision exists in H.R. 840. While we understand the policy objective of not concentrating and isolating people with disabilities, the definition of ``large'' varies from community to community. In urban areas where density is often much higher, setting a maximum of 16 units per project is too low and imposes an unfair burden in urban areas to prove that more than 16 units should be allowed. ACOF has successfully developed, operated, and maintained supportive housing ranging in size from 7 units to 60 units, such as the successful 40 unit supportive housing project in South Los Angeles that is in Chairwoman Waters' District. From a developer's standpoint and a service provider's standpoint, there are economies of scale to incorporating more than 16 supportive housing units in one building. That is not to say that integrating special needs housing is not a good policy objective. We have two buildings now in operation with mixed populations, and we are developing more. Even with a 50 percent ratio, the special needs component of our new projects total at least 20 units and as high as 35. I would like to also point out that it is going to take us a very long time to reach the Federal goal of 150,000 units of supportive housing if we are only building 16 units at a time. Regarding the ``homeless'' definition, we do support the expansion of the definition to include those in camp grounds and motels for purposes of determining eligibility for the community homeless assistance programs, such as the Shelter + Care, SHP, and SRO mod rehab, but we do not support the expansion of the definition to include those who are doubling up or couch surfing. Instead, we propose that those who are doubled-up or couch surfing be assisted under the new prevention program in the McKinney Act proposed in both H.R. 840 and Senate Bill 1518. The last critical point we wish to convey is a plea for the subcommittee to think carefully about the long term sustainability of permanent supportive housing projects, both from a financial perspective as it relates to operating, and a human perspective, as it relates to services. Goals of increasing economic self-sufficiency are admirable for individuals and families in supportive housing, but experience has shown us that for individuals who have a long term chronic disabling condition, it would take many years for them to be able to increase their income to a level to enable them to move into the private market, either on their own or with mainstream resources. Therefore, housing must continue to be affordable through project based rental assistance. The consequence is homelessness again caused by economic instability or poorly maintained housing throughout communities. Services funding should also be consistently available. As a developer, we sometimes find that government agencies and the larger provider community do not realize that once a homeless person with disabilities is in housing, their job is not over. Our onsite service coordinators with a staffing ratio of 1:25 or 1:30 do not have the capacity due to lack of resources to provide intensive services if and when a tenant needs more help. Nonprofits need to be able to develop long term plans for our services program and an opportunity to leverage HUD services funding. Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to the committee for considering clean up provisions in both bills, which is itemized in my written testimony and referred to by Mercedes Marquez in the Housing Department. A Community of Friends applauds the subcommittee for your leadership in putting best practices, lessons learned, into reauthorization legislation for the McKinney-Vento program. Whatever final version you adopt, this legislation will have a tremendous impact on thousands of homeless individuals and families throughout the country. Thank you to the subcommittee and to Chairwoman Waters for holding these hearings and for soliciting our input. [The prepared statement of Ms. Gallo can be found on page 104 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. Mr. Loza? STATEMENT OF MOISES LOZA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING ASSISTANCE COUNCIL Mr. Loza. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting the Housing Assistance Council to provide testimony on pending legislation to reauthorize Federal programs for the homeless. My name is Moises Loza, and I am the director of the Housing Assistance Council, a national nonprofit dedicated to improving housing conditions for low income rural Americans. HAC is particularly interested in the resources needed to address homelessness effectively in rural areas. Rural individuals and families do experience both literal homelessness and very precarious housing situations. HAC's local partners have often reported and research has shown that homeless people in rural areas move from one extremely substandard, over crowded and/or cost burdened housing situation to another, often doubling or tripling up with friends or relatives. Over 6 million rural households experience a precarious housing condition, threatening their ability to achieve housing stability and placing them at risk of homelessness. Based on conservative estimates, 9 percent of the homeless population lives in rural areas. Many rural communities lack a system to meet emergency housing needs and face structural issues that limit the creation of these resources in rural communities, such as lack of community awareness and support, lack of access to services, and lack of data on needs. For these reasons, using Federal resources can be difficult in rural areas. Because the number of homeless people in a given community is often small and congregate shelter may be viewed as inappropriate, providers in rural areas have a strong incentive to emphasize homelessness prevention and permanent re-housing options. Despite limitations, some programs, specifically HUD's Continuum of Care, have been useful in rural areas. For example, the Center for Family Solutions is located in Imperial County, the poorest county in California. The Center operates two emergency shelters and 14 transitional shelter apartments for women and their children who are victims of domestic violence or who are homeless for other reasons. Another example is Stop Abusive Family Environments, Inc., SAFE, located in McDowell County, West Virginia, which has been working for 25 years to break the cycle of violence through a social justice approach and combines domestic violence services and the provision of transitional housing with permanent housing and economic development. SAFE operates a 31 unit transitional housing facility for victims of domestic violence. Both H.R. 840 and Senate Bill 1518 have important components that can support the work of rural homeless providers and equip them to better serve homeless individuals and families in rural areas. The bills would consolidate HUD's three main competitive homeless programs into one. This would improve rural communities' ability to apply for resources. The bills also make prevention an eligible activity in rural areas, which is a very important part of homeless assistance activities in rural communities. These common themes would make the McKinney-Vento programs more accessible to rural homeless providers. The definition of ``homelessness'' used by the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice, as proposed in H.R. 840, would work better in rural communities. HAC supports the new rural resource created in Senate Bill 1518 because it will help local rural organizations to both address and prevent homelessness. Senate Bill 1518 would target resources to re-housing or improving housing conditions to stabilize the housing of individuals who are in danger of losing housing, provide a simplified funding application that recognizes the capacity constraints of rural community organizations, and allow successful applicants to use up to 20 percent of their grant for capacity building activities. HAC also supports the simplified application in Senate Bill 1518. Finally, HAC suggests following a change recommended in H.R. 840, allowing local communities to set their own priorities for spending McKinney-Vento funds. Communities could certainly choose to prioritize chronic homelessness if appropriate, but no community would be required to do so. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the bills before the subcommittee and on the housing needs of the rural homeless. I would be happy to respond to any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Loza can be found on page 128 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. Dr. Ellen Bassuk. STATEMENT OF ELLEN L. BASSUK, M.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CENTER ON FAMILY HOMELESSNESS Dr. Bassuk. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to have the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of the 1.3 million children who are homeless in America each year. Thank you for giving a voice to this vulnerable and often neglected group. As a psychiatrist and president of the National Center on Family Homelessness for 20 years, I have witnessed a change in the face of homelessness with children and their families now comprising 35 to 40 percent of the overall homeless population. I have had the privilege of seeing firsthand the spirit of homeless children. I have also documented their anguish. Homelessness for children is more than the loss of a house. It takes away their belongings, reassuring routines, friends, and community. Instead of developing a sense of security, trust in care givers, and freedom to explore, they learn the world is unsafe and that violent things often happen. As one homeless teenager described, ``Not only did we lose everything, but we were looked at and treated like garbage, told we were dirty, no good, our parents were lazy, and should get jobs. I remember crying myself to sleep. At times, I still do, thinking why us? What did we do to be treated like this?'' In our work at the National Center, we have learned that residential instability, interpersonal violence, and family disruption are inextricably linked. In a population based longitudinal study we conducted, families moved many times in the year before they entered shelter. These moves were not positive ones. Thirty percent were evicted. Many moved into doubled-up situations where they were faced with overcrowding, friends and relations who resented their presence, and significant risk of physical and sexual abuse. Perhaps most shocking is the staggering rates of violence in the lives of these families. Over 90 percent of homeless mothers have been severely physically or sexually assaulted. Almost two-thirds have been violently abused by a male partner. Homeless children are exposed to violent events, some many times, including adults hitting each other, seeing people shot, and even having their own lives threatened. Homelessness is marked by family separation. Almost a quarter of homeless children have lived apart from their immediate family, with 12 percent placed in foster care compared to just 1 percent of other children. These separations may interfere with caring attachments between a parent and child leading to behavioral problems and the inability to form supportive trusting relationships in adulthood. The relentless daily stress of homelessness diminishes children's physical, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. They have more acute and chronic medical problems, many developmental delays, higher rates of anxiety, depression, and behavioral difficulties, and more learning disabilities. By age eight, one in three have at least one major psychiatric disorder. They struggle in school, with almost three-quarters performing below grade level in reading and spelling and one-third repeating a grade. Within this bleak picture is a ray of hope. In spite of their experiences, new data suggest that many homeless children are resilient and do well with proper support and clinical treatment when needed. Stable permanent supportive housing is critical for achieving these positive outcomes. This brings us to the work of this subcommittee. We are dismayed by the current policy debate that focuses on how to allocate scarce resources by pitting one subgroup of homeless people against another. All homeless people are deserving of help. Any response to homelessness in America requires a substantially larger commitment. We strongly advocate for adequate funding for McKinney- Vento to meet the needs of all subgroups experiencing homelessness. Until that time, we offer the following suggestions. First, we urge aligning the HUD definition of ``homelessness'' with those used by other Federal agencies. Families, children and youth who are doubled up or living in hotels and motels and do not have a fixed, regular, and adequate living situation are homeless. These temporary, chaotic situations are emotionally damaging to children and place them at an increased risk for physical and sexual abuse. Second, we support provisions in the HEARTH bill that give communities greater flexibility to implement a range of housing and service options. This approach will also support better strategies, essential for closing the front door onto the streets. Furthermore, the proliferation of Ten Year Plans to end homelessness indicates sufficient community momentum to allay our concerns about discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Finally, if there is to be a set-aside for permanent supportive housing, it is essential that eligibility criteria be expanded beyond chronically homeless individuals to include homeless families and children. Their mental health needs are different from those of homeless single adults, but some family members, both adults and children, are nevertheless disabled enough to warrant ongoing services and housing. Homeless children do not become homeless by themselves. We cannot expect them to stabilize their lives alone. As a society, we have a moral responsibility to devise their rescue. We must act now before the homeless children of today become the chronically homeless adults of tomorrow. The HEARTH bill takes important steps in that direction, but we are mindful that much more needs to be done. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Bassuk can be found on page 70 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Next we will hear from Ms. Diane Nilan. STATEMENT OF DIANE NILAN, PRESIDENT/FOUNDER, HEAR US, INC. Ms. Nilan. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and my profound gratitude to Congresswoman Judy Biggert who has been a tremendous champion for this Nation's homeless children and youth. I am president and founder of HEAR US, Inc., a national nonprofit whose mission is to give voice and visibility to homeless kids. I sold my home and I have spent the last 2 years traveling in my RV across this Nation's back roads, interviewing homeless children and families. Our documentary, ``My Own Four Walls,'' features these courageous kids talking about their homelessness. I speak on their behalf. I have worked over 20 years with homeless children and adults, 15 years as director of an emergency shelter in Illinois, serving up to 150 men, women and children each evening. My premise is simple. This Nation needs a new more promising approach to ensuring people in this country that they have a place to call home. One family I met was in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and included Esperanza, who was crippled by polio all her life, who impressively managed to look after her grandkids while her daughter, Elizabeth, worked minimum wage jobs. When I met them, they were living in a cramped motel room prior to moving into a palatial three bedroom handicap accessible subsidized apartment. Sadly, their stay was short lived. About 7 months after moving, Esperanza died, and the family had to leave because they did not require an accessible apartment. They moved into a friend's cramped house because Las Cruces lacks a shelter for families with teenage boys. Elizabeth was working two jobs and sleeps on the floor with her three youngest children wrapped around her, knowing that their situation is precarious, utterly dependent on her friend's hospitality and her family's ability to endure this grueling arrangement. Elizabeth is on a long waiting list for housing, with Esperanza, the Spanish word for ``hope'' in her heart. Why would families like these, struggling to survive in motels, or doubled-up with others, not be defined as homeless? I am haunted by an experience from over a decade ago. TJ and his mom turned to us for help off and on for years. This little guy changed places to live more often than he changed clothes. He encountered what is tragically common for kids in homeless situations, abuse which caused severe mental harm. TJ, a severely disturbed 7-year old, snapped when he faced the prospect of living in our cramped family sleeping room. After spending hours holding this traumatized little boy to keep him from harming himself or others, I had to commit him for psychiatric evaluation. He and his mom continued to be homeless, with his fragile situation deteriorating further at great expense to him, his mom, and the community. This tragedy may have been prevented had HUD recognized this homelessness when he and his mother were bouncing between homes prior to entering our shelter, and despite TJ's disability, the current HUD definition of ``chronically homeless'' does not include families at all, and the Senate's bill of ``chronically homelessness'' does not include families where the child has a disability. TJ's family would not be prioritized for assistance. TJ is 18 now, facing a life filled with hardship. To narrowly define ``homelessness'' in order to feign a successful war on homelessness defies comprehension. To force families to move repeatedly before assistance is provided as proposed in S. 1518 is short sighted and cruel. To proceed with HUD's proposed direction of codifying chronic homelessness at the expense of homeless children, youth and adults, is fiscally and morally irresponsible. Frontline shelter staff across our Nation await the day that HUD provides the opportunity for people in all homeless situations to receive assistance. They long to focus on easing homelessness as it appears in their communities, on the street, doubled-up or in motels, instead of coping with arbitrary rules and restrictions. It is no coincidence that the local service providers who have testified at these hearings support an updated definition of ``homelessness.'' We need a new approach, much of the blueprint which can be found in H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act. Please incorporate the HEARTH Act into HUD's new approach to homelessness. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Nilan can be found on page 182 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Ms. Carter? STATEMENT OF NANCY CARTER, NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS, URBAN LOS ANGELES Ms. Carter. Hello. My name is Nancy Carter. I must admit I am a little choked up after hearing Diane speak. I am president and co-founder of NAMI Urban Los Angeles, the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Our Urban Los Angeles Chapter was formed by five African-American women to reach out to families like ourselves who had loved ones who suffered from mental illness. The stories that Diane is telling you are the stories that we live with every single day. We educate. We support. We advocate for our own families and for those in the community who affect us the most. Chairwoman Waters, I am honored to be here, and I thank you so much for the invitation. Ms. Capito, thank you as well. When I think about family, I think about the fact that I was raised in Logan County, West Virginia, where I saw homelessness in rural areas every day of my life as a child, and then growing up living in Los Angeles, California, and raising a son who would one day develop mental illness. I think today on this panel that there, but for the grace of God, go most of us. In a week, 2 weeks, or a month, so many of us can end up homeless and on the streets. For those families who have loved ones who suffer from mental illness, the risk is even greater, and that is why I am so honored to be here today to speak for NAMI, both for my Chapter, Urban Los Angeles, and as a National Board member as well. Why do we support the McKinney-Vento reauthorization? Because it works, because it has been a success. The McKinney- Vento permanent housing programs are perhaps the most successful and effective Federal intervention for people with severe mental illness since the Community Mental Health Center Act of 1963. Shelter + Care and SHP permanent housing have brought stability and the opportunity for recovery for thousands upon thousands of individuals with the most severe mental illnesses and co-occurring disorders. These programs break the tragic and costly cycle that too many of these individuals experience through chronic homelessness, bouncing between the streets, the emergency shelters, the emergency rooms, psychiatric hospitals, general hospitals, and tragically in Los Angeles, jails and prisons. Permanent supportive housing is an effective solution that works. It is also cost effective. There is substantial research that demonstrates that permanent supportive housing is an effective model. Formerly homeless residents of supportive housing achieve decreases of more than 50 percent in emergency room visits and inpatient hospital days, and an 80 percent drop in emergency detoxification services. This translates into a savings of $16,000 plus in health care costs per unit per year. Eighty percent of people who enter supportive housing are still in housing a year later. The focus of McKinney-Vento must stay on permanent housing needs of the most difficult to serve, experiencing chronic homelessness. In NAMI's view, it is critical that any reauthorization of McKinney-Vento retain a Federal minimum requirement for permanent housing. This is the hallmark of what has made this program successful over the past decade. Prior to enactment of the 30 percent set-aside in 1998, only 13 percent of McKinney funds went toward permanent housing, with the vast majority of funding going toward shelters and services. In effect, we were using McKinney programs to build a service system that would depend on keeping people homeless to sustain itself. Investment in permanent supportive housing offers a different policy objective, that of ending chronic homelessness. NAMI is troubled that the HEARTH Act excludes a permanent housing set-aside. We are extremely concerned that without a minimum national requirement for development of new permanent housing, many local Continuums of Care would face strong incentives to spread limited dollars among as many local homeless programs as possible. It is important to note that people who experience chronic homelessness are more likely than other McKinney-Vento eligible populations to be categorically excluded or screened out of other affordable housing programs. These include restrictions on eligibility for both Section 8 and public housing based on previous history of substance abuse and involvement in the criminal justice system. Ms. Waters, I am so grateful. NAMI is so grateful to you and Chairman Frank. Over the past 9 years, you have achieved enormous legislative and policy accomplishments with respect to addressing the affordable housing issue. The Section 8 voucher reform bill, the GSE and FHA reform bills, the Gulf Coast housing bill, and most importantly, the National Housing Trust Fund bill, H.R. 2895, passed by the House just last week. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. These are the most impressive legislative accomplishments for affordable rental housing in a generation. We thank you for your leadership in bringing this agenda forward. We thank the entire committee for the opportunity of NAMI's views to be heard today on the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. We look forward to working with you and the subcommittee to produce a bill that will continue to move us down the road towards ending chronic homelessness. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Carter can be found on page 92 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. Dr. Burt? STATEMENT OF MARTHA BURT, PH.D., SENIOR PRINCIPAL RESEARCHER, URBAN INSTITUTE Ms. Burt. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to share my views relating to various provisions of the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act pertaining to the HUD housing programs. I have been involved in policy oriented research on homeless populations and homeless service systems since 1983, and also helped shape the definition of ``homelessness'' that now governs the Department of Housing and Urban Development programs funded through the Act. It is a pleasure for me to be asked to give testimony on these matters. I will address my remarks to five issues raised in the invitation letter, definitions first. I very strongly urge the committee to retain the current HUD definitions with a couple of very important exceptions. I do believe that for families, if a parent meets the definitions, the criteria of chronicity and disability that currently allow a single person to be considered chronically homeless and to access funds and programs directed to chronic homelessness, that family should also have access to permanent supportive housing. On the other end of the spectrum, I think in certain situations, which I mostly have seen happen in rural areas, if a family or a person is seeking help, they are clearly homeless at the time they seek that help, by HUD's definition, there is no place for them to go at the time, and Aunt Susie will take them in for 3 days with the clear understanding that 3 days is it, they should at the end of those 3 days be considered homeless and eligible for the housing. At present, they are not or they are interpreted as not because people are afraid that HUD will reject a decision to continue to serve them. My reasons for strongly advocating for retention of current HUD definitions for use in HUD programs with the exceptions just notes are that if you are going to create a definition, the definition has to tell you who is in and who is out. It is the only way to tell whether interventions are making a difference. With the current HUD definition, you can in fact tell who is homeless and who is not. You can do surveys that let you do estimates of homelessness. I am responsible for the first two national ones of those, one from 1987 and one from 1996. The Department of Education definition, and I have worked with State homeless coordinators and some local homeless coordinators around definitions and how they should count, it is really not a definition at all, in my opinion. It is so loose that it varies greatly from State to State and even from school districts within the States. I have worked with it and I know it is flawed. It does not meet the criterion that I have just stated, which is measurable and it has an ability to count. Furthermore, the departments that use the broader definitions that have been under discussion today are not actually charged with ending anybody's homelessness. They are charged with serving people who are already homeless. They have very narrow statutory responsibilities of keeping people in school or treating their health conditions, but they are not charged with measuring everybody in the country who could be eligible for their services. They are only charged with serving the people who walk up to the door, and that is who they report to Congress. They do not have any responsibilities for telling you that they have reduced that number, changed that number, or affected that number in any way. HUD does. It would be extremely counterproductive to burden HUD with a definition that cannot be measured when you are also requiring them to report to Congress progress in reducing homelessness every year through the annual homeless assessment report. For doubled-up situations, I would suggest that if there has to be any expansion of definition to doubled-up populations, it should be limited in very careful ways. One possibility is first of all only for those who seek assistance from homeless assistance programs, rather than the whole universe, and second, to add specific easily documentable circumstances of extreme housing instability. The allowable circumstances need to be very carefully thought out, and I think are better left with special panels to determine rather than to be codified into law, as they may change. Prevention. One of the reasons that Congress has not added or included a lot of prevention money in homeless programs in the past is that it is easy to waste prevention money. There are very, very large populations of very poor households, single and family, who could come under the rubric of being eligible for homelessness prevention. That was certainly true when Congress first passed the McKinney Act. We now know more and we are in a better position to target than we were 10 years ago. I think support for prevention resources is really important, but you really need to think how they are going to be used. It would be very, very important to require good recordkeeping and outcome tracking for at least the first 2 years of funding any community to do prevention, so that you can be sure that you were actually preventing homelessness rather than just helping a lot of poor people with their housing costs. I have complete respect for how much they need that help for housing costs, but the homeless programs are not the place for them to get it. I want to cite to you the case of Massachusetts, increase in family homelessness, which has already been mentioned, because the way it happened was that the Department of Transitional Assistance, through which all families go to get homeless assistance, had been really working on prevention in exactly the way this law envisions. They were actually succeeding. One of the consequences of their success was there were fewer families in emergency shelters. They emptied the motels and they reduced the number of families going into shelters. Chairwoman Waters. I have to end your testimony. Ms. Burt. Okay. The reason there are more homeless families is the legislature was convinced to give everybody the right to 6 months of shelter, and as a consequence, there is a lot more family homelessness now. The last thing I really want to say is on the composition and authority of local homeless planning bodies in relation to Ten Year Plans, please do not specify who should be on them, how they should work, what their decision making structure should be, because if you do, you will be recording a far larger number of them-- Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. You will have to submit that for the record. Ms. Burt. It is already in my written testimony. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much for your testimony. [The prepared statement of Dr. Burt can be found on page 77 of the appendix.] Chairwoman Waters. With that, having heard all of you, we are now going to turn to questions for the panel, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Let me first tell you how moved I am and how impressed I am with all of you and the work that you do. Maybe I should not say this, but there are five women at this table, and I wonder if this is telling us something about who is doing the work. I thank you for being here, Mr. Loza. Let me ask Ms. Gallo, you started to talk about what we should be doing if we are truly going to talk about permanent housing for the homeless, that we must understand that there still must be assistance for a long period of time for those who reached the level of being able to have their own unit, their own place to live, and maybe some income. We cannot expect that is going to last forever. Would you further explain to us what you were saying? Ms. Gallo. Yes, I will be glad to. I was speaking specifically of individuals and families whose head of household has a chronic mental illness. The residents that we house in our buildings fit that description, which means they come to us on SSI. They are disabled for purposes of the definitions that allow them to access mainstream resources. Off the streets with a disabling condition, once we moved them into the housing, once we get them stabilized, that is when we start to be able to treat the underlying causes of some of their issues, whether it is substance abuse, mental illness, that takes a long time. If we are successful, we can get people back participating in the community. We can get people to volunteer, hold part time jobs and even hold full time jobs, but that takes a very long time. Again, I am talking about people who have been on the streets for a long time, and who have a chronic disability. That group of individuals is different than for instance a homeless person taking advantage of SRO mod rehab, where that homeless person does not have a chronic disability. I am speaking specifically of the Shelter + Care program and people who have a disability. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I have heard a lot of discussion about the definition of ``homelessness'' today. I think you have helped me to come to grips with what I think was said by Dr. Bassuk, and that is we should not be pitting one homeless group against another homeless group. Certainly, you have made the case as far as I am concerned about individuals who find themselves homeless but being able to stay with someone for a few days, and then all of a sudden, they are not eligible any more. That is just not right. Thank you for helping me to understand that a little bit better, and for Ms. Nilan, thank you for having dedicated your life to documenting homelessness. It seems to me even as we explore the changing of the definition or expanding of the definition, there are going to be people who are going to fall outside of the definition and there needs to be some kind of a hotline that can be called to take care of extraordinary cases, that do not fit anywhere. Your testimony was riveting. Thank you very much. With that, I will turn to my colleague, Ms. Capito. Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I, too, echo the chairwoman's sentiments, thanking you for your dedication to service and to folks who a lot of times cannot advocate or help themselves. I am glad to know, Ms. Carter, that you were born in West Virginia. I am sorry you went to L.A., however, but you are welcome back to West Virginia any time. You know that. I have a question. I think maybe I would like to hear, Dr. Bassuk, in your clinical life, in talking with homeless children and youth, we have heard kind of conflicting opinions that if we expand the definition to include children that may be doubled up or living in different kinds of situations, that the stigmatism of labeling them as homeless has a damaging effect. No doubt, to think you were a young person without a home, that is a damaging effect. You have to weigh, I suppose, the pluses of being labeled homeless and being able to access services that we have talked about, permanent housing. How do you weigh that in your clinical assessment for the well being of a child becoming an adult that has been either labeled--is there a real damage effect that we should be cognizant of? Dr. Bassuk. I think the way I would answer that is 40 percent of homeless kids are 6 years old or less. Their experience of the world is mediated to a large degree by their mom's. They are not going to have necessarily a direct experience of that labeling. The teenagers tend to be humiliated and mortified about being homeless, many of the teenagers I have spoken to. In many of the shelter systems, they tend to age out after 12 or 13 years. They go with relatives, families that have split up. In certain States, they will not take boys who are 12 years old or older because of the domestic violence problem. Weighing it, I think it is a small price to pay for providing services to a kid who is going to have extreme difficulties because of this experience, and everything that surrounds it. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. I have a tendency to agree with you on that. I think the services and availability of services is critically important. Those ages, you cannot go back. Mr. Loza, you mentioned a project in West Virginia, in McDowell County, I believe, that was servicing rural homelessness. I understand you have a perspective on that. I know you addressed this in your comments. Flexibility seems to be the main thing that people in rural communities, places I represent, are asking for. How do you reflect on that? Mr. Loza. We work with a few hundred organizations around the country. The testimony is based on what we are hearing from them. Rural areas suffer from a dearth of resources and access to resources. Flexibility becomes more important for them. For example, we heard about some of the great programs in Los Angeles. Los Angles has CDBG money. Many rural areas do not get CDBG money. Los Angeles has HOME money. Many rural areas do not get HOME money. Los Angeles is fortunate enough to have a trust fund. Many rural areas do not have access to a trust fund. The lack of resources and just the difficulty in counting and assessing the need and finding where the homeless are because they are so invisible makes it necessary for those local organizations to have the flexibility, where they are able to really deal with their own unique situation in their own area. For all those reasons, flexibility becomes very, very important in rural areas. Mrs. Capito. I have one final question. I know we had a presenter from the Catholic Charities in the last panel. This has been a great debate here on Capital Hill on the role of faith based organizations. Somebody who I have not asked a question, how do you perceive the role of faith based organizations in helping to address the problem of homelessness? Ms. Nilan? Ms. Nilan. Having run a shelter dependent on faith based communities, I think I can answer that. Without faith based communities, this Nation would have a far worse homelessness problem across the lands. That being said, I get very nervous when we start talking faith based because I do not think that should be the core of how the program is structured. It should be just the reason the volunteers are there. I think it is a very strained system. Volunteers who have been doing this for 20 years get really tired in the fact that our program in Aurora started 20-some years ago, and it was an emergency shelter, and ``emergency'' tends to mean short term, something that is going to get better. We have far exceeded any definition of ``emergency.'' Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Green? Mr. Green. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will be brief. I thank each of you for your testimony today. It has been very insightful. Let me ask Ms. Gallo, you mentioned the maximum of 16 units per project and you expressed your concern. Tell me how would you have this language be modified? Ms. Gallo. I am not exactly sure how it got into current HUD policy. It is a policy. It is in the current applications where every single time we do a project, we are an affordable housing developer, so we do projects and we do permanent supportive housing projects, we have to justify every single time, proving market conditions. The suggestion I have is either if for some reason there is a desire to have a limit, that you raise that threshold to 25, 35 units, something that makes more sense for urban areas, so that urban areas do not always have to justify that number. I am aware of a project apparently in Louisiana where they did 35 units. I am sure they must have had to justify how they needed to go above 16. The number needs to be higher--I do not know what that floor is--or eliminated, not have a floor at all, and not put that as a requirement. Let the local conditions of the particular community decide what is the appropriate size for a project. Most municipal governments have zoning regulations as well, which governs that. I would suggest that either there not be a number in there or raise that threshold substantially. It needs to make sense as to why we have to have a justification. Mr. Green. Let me see if Mr. Loza has a quick comment on it. Mr. Loza. Again, getting back to the flexibility issue as Ms. Capito raised, the localities need to have some input into what floors or maximums are. The problem we have always faced in rural areas is that when you have those floors, they are automatically eliminated because we just do not have the scale or the population size that would make sense with floors on development size. Mr. Green. Thank you. Moving to another topic quickly. We have a debate here about citizenship and resources being accorded persons who are not citizens. My assumption is that everyone would agree that at an emergency shelter, we should not require citizenship at an emergency shelter. If I am incorrect, please raise your hand, at an emergency shelter. Does anyone differ with that proposition? [No response] Mr. Green. If we start to require citizenship, and my suspicion is there will be someone who will think that we should, and I respect the position, I just want to get some intelligence from people who are actually on the ground, who know what is going on, what will be the impact of requiring citizenship before persons can receive shelter who are homeless? Would someone care to give me a statement on it, please, and I will leave it to you to decide. Ms. Burt? Ms. Burt. I am not on the ground, so to speak, but I think you will harm far more people who are citizens than who are not because one of the basic problems of people who are homeless is documentation, and if you start requiring for everybody who comes into an emergency shelter that they be able to prove that they are citizens or resident, permanent residents, I assume that is okay, then a lot of people are not going to come and a lot of people are going to fail and the burden on the programs themselves is going to be much increased. Mr. Green. Anyone else care to comment? Ms. Carter? Ms. Carter. I think it also ties into faith based. When I was growing up, there was very little homelessness because we took care of each other. There was no term as ``couch surfing'' or ``doubling up.'' We doubled-up as families, because that is what was required of us. We were our brother's keepers. It seems over time we have lost that. If we are truly a faith-based nation, then we must be our brother's keepers and we cannot separate out those who have a card and those who do not have a card. People who are suffering are people who are suffering. Mr. Green. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mrs. Biggert? Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to submit, without objection, a letter from 44 organizations starting with Alliance for Excellence in Education down to Youth Service of America, and the 42 in between, concerning the definition of ``homelessness.'' Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, so ordered. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, I would also like to note that there are five women down there and one man, but there are three women up here and one man. [Laughter] Mrs. Biggert. My first question is for Ms. Nilan. Some of the panelists today have suggested that homeless families should have their needs met through mainstream programs such as Section 8 and TANF as opposed to the McKinney-Vento program. As you have traveled across the country, do you think these programs offer real opportunities for homeless families? Ms. Nilan. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert, for the opportunity to speak to that issue because I would have to say unequivocally that the families that I met across the country in non-urban areas are so not served by those programs, mainstream resources, that it is shameful. I have met families who are in motels or staying in churches or staying in their cars. I am sorry, but what is supposed to be out there is not working. For me to have the opportunity to come and say that to this respected committee today, I think you need to know that. If it were working, I would be here saying you know, what you are doing is good, let's keep it up, maybe add to it. It is not. It is tragically not working at the expense of the children and the families and the teens that are not getting the help they need. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Ms. Gallo, would you have any comment on that? I know you had said we should not expand the definition of ``homelessness'' to include doubling up. We obviously need some alternatives. Would TANF-- Ms. Gallo. I agree with Ms. Nilan. I think some of the existing systems, some of the existing programs in mainstream are not working. I am not advocating that homeless families not be served under the McKinney program at all. We serve several hundred children in our buildings, people who are homeless. I do support--we did not talk about the chronically homeless. I do support expanding that definition to include families, whether or not I believe the definition of ``chronic'' is a relevant definition, that is another matter, and that is in my written testimony. You can look at that. I do believe families should be served. The doubling up, the reason I say that there is another source, it is not necessarily because of TANF, it is that most of the families that we are talking about who have fallen into homelessness have fallen in because of economic circumstances. One of the things that I do not think is clear is that both legislation talk about a new program, prevention activities, which can pay for mortgage assistance, rental assistance, security deposits. I am not suggesting that--the program itself has not been defined. It could be 3 months of mortgage assistance. If a family does not have to pay 3 months of mortgage, that can allow them to save that money to last them throughout the rest of the year. I think that for Shelter + Care and SRO mod rehab, we should restrict that to the homeless, people who are actually homeless and on the streets and in camps, but for prevention activities, I think that is where it is most valuable to families, to take advantage of those types of activities to be funded, which is really new to the McKinney-Vento Act. Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Dr. Burt, and maybe I will come back to Ms. Gallo, too, talking about this, but you mentioned that the proposed expansion of HUD's definition of ``homelessness'' including all people living together, but to be clear, the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice, use the definitions of ``homeless'' and include people in doubling-up situations and motel situations if the situation is not fixed, regular, and adequate due to specific circumstances. If I read that definition, it seems to me that we are not including two families choosing to live together on a long term basis because the rents are high. Do you read that differently than I do? Ms. Burt. No. I would agree with you, that you are not-- that definition does not include voluntary long term arrangements, two sisters and their kids, rent an apartment together. Mrs. Biggert. You still think doubling up should not be-- Ms. Burt. I would not in any way disagree with anybody about the current inadequacy of mainstream services in two different directions. I would totally agree that they do not reach homeless people and they do not serve them very well. I would totally agree that they do not have the resources to do it. I would totally agree that we need very much more--I would personally like to see the resources to eliminate every worse case housing need that stemmed from economic resource issues. I think there is a lot of homelessness and a lot of it on the family side that is economic in nature, and you can see it as the cost of housing goes up, so do the number of families that are specifically desperate on the subject of housing, much more than you see it on the single side. Mrs. Biggert. If I could just interrupt because I am out of time, just one question for everybody. When we were talking about the disabled and the disabled parent and finding housing, do you think the definition of that should be changed to include if you have a disabled child? Dr. Burt? Rather than just the parent, where they were kicked out of the apartment. Ms. Burt. That is actually rather hard. Mrs. Biggert. I just need a yes or no. Ms. Burt. Maybe. Mrs. Biggert. Okay, maybe, too. Ms. Carter? Ms. Carter. Yes. Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Nilan? Ms. Nilan. Yes. Mrs. Biggert. Dr. Bassuk? Dr. Bassuk. Yes. Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Loza? Mr. Loza. Yes. Ms. Gallo. No. Mrs. Biggert. It is close. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. That completes the hearing for today. I would like to thank all of you who have been so patient and who have been so informative and so helpful to us as we make decisions about this very important public policy. We appreciate your time, your work, and everything that you are doing. With that, the Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses, and to place their responses in the record. This panel is now dismissed and without objection, we submit for the record a statement from a group known as Family Promise. Thank you very much. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X October 16, 2007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 39908.159