[House Hearing, 115 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017 ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 6, 2018 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 115-97 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 31-473 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin DAVID SCOTT, Georgia STEVE STIVERS, Ohio AL GREEN, Texas RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ANN WAGNER, Missouri ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANDY BARR, Kentucky JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania BILL FOSTER, Illinois LUKE MESSER, Indiana DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio MIA LOVE, Utah DENNY HECK, Washington FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California TOM EMMER, Minnesota JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey LEE M. ZELDIN, New York VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan CHARLIE CRIST, Florida BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio TED BUDD, North Carolina DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana Shannon McGahn, Staff Director Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking Chairman Member EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVE STIVERS, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan LEE M. ZELDIN, New York JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey TED BUDD, North Carolina C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: June 6, 2018................................................. 1 Appendix: June 6, 2018................................................. 27 WITNESSES Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Berg, Steve, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National Alliance to End Homelessness................................... 6 Duffield, Barbara, Executive Director, SchoolHouse Connection.... 4 Lilley, Kat, Deputy Executive Director, Family Promise of Colorado Springs............................................... 8 Rounsville, Millie, Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Wisconsin Community Services Agency...................................... 9 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Berg, Steve.................................................. 28 Duffield, Barbara............................................ 32 Lilley, Kat.................................................. 57 Rounsville, Millie........................................... 66 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Rothfus, Hon. Keith: Written statement from HEARTH................................ 72 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017 ---------- Wednesday, June 6, 2018 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean P. Duffy [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Duffy, Posey, Luetkemeyer, Stivers, Hultgren, Rothfus, Trott, Hensarling, and Cleaver. Also present: Representatives Green and Moore. Chairman Duffy. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. Today's hearing is entitled, ``Legislative Review of H.R. 1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017,'' though it is 2018. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. Without objection, members of the full committee who are not members of this subcommittee may participate in today's hearing for the purpose of making an opening statement and questioning our witnesses. The Chair now recognizes himself for 3 minutes for an opening statement. First, I want to thank our witnesses for participating in today's hearing on homelessness. A few weeks ago, members of this committee convened for an overall review of homelessness in America. I thought it was a great hearing. Witnesses discussed how homelessness looks different in urban areas versus rural areas. We heard how the Point-in-Time, or PIT, is utilized by HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) to provide a snapshot of homelessness levels from one year to the next. We are here today to dive a little deeper into the definition of homelessness. More specifically, we will look to uncover how HUD's definition is creating barriers in impacting our Federal Government's ability to keep our families out of poverty. As I read our witnesses' statements today, it became apparent on two different issues. First, the PIT numbers that HUD uses to give us a picture of homelessness year over year seems to be a misrepresentation of the entire or complete picture. Why doesn't it paint a whole picture? I think that is going to be the question that all of you are going to throw our way in your testimony today and by way of the questions we are going to ask you. I expect to hear that you are going to talk about certain homeless populations that go uncounted because they live in tents in the woods or they couch-surf or simply don't want to admit their family is homeless for fear of losing their children. The last thing we want to have is people that hide from the reality of their living situation because of the potential the Federal or State Government might take away their kids. All of these reasons are familiar because of the same reasons you don't choose--or we don't see homelessness in our rural communities, and it is a problem. And I think taking a deeper dive on this issue to make sure we can expose and shed light on it is critical and key. The most jarring fact in today's testimony is HUD's definition of homelessness doesn't match the definition used by other Federal agencies. We have seen this in several Government programs. We tend to amend the law by passing various bills over the years, and the Federal Government ends up with different definitions for the same subject matter, which obviously creates complication and confusion. We need to make sure that the definition of homelessness is uniform throughout all of our Federal programs. As a father of eight--one that is 18 and one that is 2 and everywhere in between--I was touched by the testimony of one of our witnesses who discussed how she had gone through to support her six children while trying to navigate the definition of homelessness. It is a testimony and a statement of strength. I believe her story, along with the testimony of others, will shine a light on why we need to address HUD's definition of homelessness to make sure we are doing all we can to improve the plight of our impoverished families. And I do want to thank you all for being here today. I am looking forward to this hearing. And I want to now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, the Ranking Member, for 3 minutes. And if he wants more, I will give him more. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank those of you who have come to provide us with some information that we will need in trying to deal with this issue. The hearing today is a legislative hearing focused on H.R. 1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017. This bill would expand the definition of homelessness to include more children who lack stable homes. Currently, homelessness under HUD is defined under the parameters of the HEARTH Act, which defines a homeless person as someone who lacks a fixed nighttime residence. The definition is targeted to help those in greatest need. H.R. 1511 would also make several restrictions on HUD, including limiting HUD's ability to set national housing priorities or incentivize Continuum of Care (COC) programs to use housing models that rely on evidence-based practices. The Housing and Insurance Subcommittee recently held a quite necessary and appropriate hearing on the state of homelessness in the country. And though the overall homelessness rate has, in fact, been decreasing--and that is always good news, yet homelessness remains an issue of critical concern, one that should remain a priority for our committee. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, on a single night, an estimated 184,661 people in families, or 57,971 family households, were identified as homeless, and almost 17,000 people and families were living on the street in a car or in another place not meant for human habitation. It is estimated that there are 550,000 homeless people in the United States. But here is the rub, as it relates to this legislation. Due to Federal funding limitations, hundreds of homeless individuals and families are unable to access resources, and waiting lists for services are already far too long. Only a fraction of children who would fall under HUD's current definition of homeless are able to be served by HUD. Expanding the definition of homelessness, though well- intentioned--and I support the effort, but this expansion could add millions of people to already strained waiting lists. Without providing additional funding, this proposal could make it even more difficult for children already on waiting lists to receive help from housing. Housing our Nation's children should be at the forefront of our national priorities. This shouldn't be a fleeting conversation but one both sides of the aisle should commit to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, the author of 1511, the subject of today's hearing, Mr. Stivers, for 2 minutes. Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate you holding this hearing on our bipartisan bill, H.R. 1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act. First, I want to thank each of the witnesses for joining us today. While we may not all agree on everything, I certainly admire your dedication to combating homelessness, all of you. This hearing, I think, will highlight the discrepancies between the definition of homelessness used by different Federal agencies and different programs. Most Americans would consider Housing and Urban Development to be the flagship agency in the effort to prevent homelessness. Consequently, they might be surprised to learn that it uses the most restrictive definition of homelessness, one that denies vulnerable children who are couch-surfing or living off the generosity of family and friends or children who are living day to day out of motels--those folks are denied the definition of homelessness because of how their homelessness is being served. Let me be clear: These children are homeless, and they deserve our help. But data from Head Start and the National Center for Homelessness Education indicate that the problem is getting worse, with 1.3 million children experiencing homelessness from 2015 to 2016, a 3.5-percent increase. But if you search for these kinds of kids in HUD's homelessness statistics, you won't find them, because they are not included in the definition. I understand the point of the Ranking Member about resources. But if we can't get the number right, we can't know what the resources need to be. I am fully supportive of getting more resources, but we have to get the count right. I think my bill would bring visibility to these children, give our communities more flexibility so they could choose how to address this growing problem, and give policymakers the information they need to get the resources that we need to combat homelessness. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time. I appreciate you holding this hearing. And I look forward to the information coming out. I yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back, and I appreciate his work on this important issue. I now want to welcome our panel of witnesses. First, we have Ms. Barbara Duffield, Executive Director of SchoolHouse Connection; second witness, Mr. Steve Berg, Vice President of Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, who has been a great partner on this issue. Thank you. Our third witness is Kat Lilley, Deputy Executive Director of Family Promise of Colorado Springs. Welcome. And, finally, our fourth witness is Ms. Millie Rounsville, CEO of the Northwest Wisconsin Community Services Agency, based out of the great city and the great State of Superior, Wisconsin. Welcome. The witnesses will in a moment be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of their written testimony. Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will be made part of the record following their oral remarks. Once the witnesses have finished presenting their testimony, each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes within which to ask the panel questions. I would just note that on your table you have three lights. Green obviously means go, yellow means you have a minute left, and red means your time is up. We will try to be cognizant of our time. You also, please, try to be cognizant of the 5-minute limit as well. Your microphones are sensitive. Make sure they are on and you are speaking directly into them. With that, Ms. Duffield, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an oral presentation of your written testimony. STATEMENT OF BARBARA DUFFIELD Ms. Duffield. Good morning, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony today. I worked at the Intersection of Homelessness and Education for nearly 25 years, and I have witnessed many improvements over that time. But HUD's definition of homelessness and its national priorities have created real barriers to helping homeless children and youth. As a result, we are perpetuating homelessness. We are guaranteeing that homelessness will continue indefinitely. The Homeless Children and Youth Act will help ensure that today's homeless children and youth do not become tomorrow's homeless adults. Let me put this debate in context. I worked with a student who stayed in a house with 11 adults and 4 children because her mother was mentally ill and kicked her out. All the adults in the house used cocaine. Many of them worked in the strip club. The student provided childcare in exchange for a roof over her head. But she said this was better than other situations she had been in because ``a lot of guys wanted to get something out of you.'' She was in high school. As this committee knows, Federal agencies do use different definitions of homelessness. And with few exceptions, in practice, the HUD definition only includes people living in shelters or outdoors. Under HUD's definition, the student I described is not homeless. In contrast, the definition used by the Department of Education and other Federal agencies includes children and youth who are staying in motels or are staying temporarily with others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. This definition reflects reality. Schools are present in every community, even those without shelters, even those where shelters are full. So, contrary to the picture painted by HUD, school numbers have increased by 34 percent since the end of the recession, now totaling 1.3 million homeless students. Head Start homeless numbers have nearly doubled. And new research shows that child homelessness often leads to youth homelessness and then to adult homelessness, where children of homeless adults may start this life again. HUD's definition contributes to this damaging cycle by preventing some of the most vulnerable homeless children and youth from accessing services. Also, it keeps them invisible, which limits both public and private action. Make no mistake, the children and youth who meet Education's definition are every bit as vulnerable as those who meet HUD's definition. And my written testimony documents the same poor academic, health, and mental health outcomes of all homeless students regardless of where they sleep. It also shows how frequently families and youth move between Education homeless and HUD homeless. In fact, when I described this debate to a remarkable young woman who stayed in all sorts of homeless situations, her response to me was, ``The open sky never made me bleed.'' Yet homeless children and youth who don't meet HUD's definition are barred from even being assessed. The Homeless Children and Youth Act would allow children and youth whose homelessness has been verified by one of eight Federal programs to be assessed for services rather than basing their eligibility very simplistically on where they happen to find a place to sleep. Just last week, we tried to assist a young couple with a toddler who are expecting their second child. They are staying in a toxic household with other people. They will be kicked out in a month. They have nowhere to go. But Coordinated Entry in their community said they weren't in a place from which they could get evicted, so they are not eligible for prevention assistance. And they don't meet HUD's definition of homelessness, so they aren't eligible for homeless assistance. But under the Homeless Children and Youth Act, an early Head Start program could verify the family's homelessness and they could be assessed. So the trajectory of four lives, including their unborn child, could change for the better. But beyond definitions, HUD has deprived communities of the flexibility that they need by creating strong national incentives for housing models in certain populations. They don't meet all communities' needs. The high school student I worked with, she couldn't benefit from Rapid Re-Housing. She is too young to sign a lease. Rapid Re-Housing is failing many families who become homeless again, but they don't show up in HUD's metrics. Meanwhile, program models that have been successful in helping families leave homelessness and sustain their housing have been defunded. The Homeless Children and Youth Act would remedy this one- size-fits-all approach with scoring that is primarily based on the extent to which projects meet priorities in a local plan and are cost-effective to the local plan. In this way, it allows communities to respond flexibly to new challenges and opportunities. Please know that the Homeless Children and Youth Act has broad support from organizations that work directly with homeless children and youth. And we ask you to enact it so that homelessness will cease to rob millions of children, youth, and adults of their full human potential. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Duffield can be found on page 32 of the Appendix.] Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Duffield. Mr. Berg, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF STEVE BERG Mr. Berg. All right. Thank you, Chairman Duffy and members of this subcommittee and the committee. I want to start by saying we at the National Alliance to End Homelessness and I personally have worked with this committee for many, many years on this very difficult issue, and I thank you all for your devotion to dealing with it and to finding things that are really going to work. I would especially like to address Congressman Stivers. We literally 15 years ago identified Columbus, Ohio, as one of the places that leads the country in a new approach to homelessness that could actually start getting results, really based on going beyond just funding a bunch of individual programs and empowering a community-wide system that would look at data, look at what really works, make decisions about how to allocate scarce resources and get results. And Columbus has continued to do that. We work very closely with people at a community shelter board who oversee this process in Columbus. They, I know, regard you as an ally in this work. And even though we disagree on this particular bill, we can work through that, but we also regard you as an ally in this. And I thank you for your work on this. This is a crucial time on the issue of homelessness, as all of you may be aware. But as the HEARTH Act has become fully implemented and has--and the good practices both that are incentivized by the HEARTH Act and that are incentivized by, say, the homeless programs in the veterans world, communities are finding that they are getting better and better results. The kind of results that Columbus was getting 15 years ago are now more common in communities, in terms of people who are on the streets quickly being housed. At the same time, because of where we are in the short-term business cycles and longer-term issues of housing, the problem of affordable housing in the country is getting far, far worse, so that one effect of that is that people are pouring into the homelessness system. So, even as communities of care to do better, they are dealing with more and more people in their community who are falling into that system. This is a time we need to be doing our very best work. And we need support from everybody in Congress to do that. This particular bill, the concerns we at the Alliance have about this bill are mainly around eligibility rules for the Continuum of Care. The Continuum of Care is the primary homeless program at HUD. It accounts for 4 percent of HUD spending, so it is a small program. It has, however, a very important role to play. As it was overhauled by the HEARTH Act in a bipartisan manner, it has become what is driving communities--through the competitive grant process, driving communities to get better results and to focus on the people who have the most severe and immediate problems. Much of what the HEARTH Act did was to make changes in who is eligible for the program, the definition of homelessness, but particularly as it relates to who is eligible. People who are in housing, who are sleeping in an apartment or a house, but who are in immediate danger because the house they are sleeping in is a drug den, because they are victims of domestic violence, because they are dealing with all kinds of truly dangerous situations, those are all eligible for the Continuum of Care right now. You don't need to change anything to make them eligible. You need to change the funding levels in order to have enough money to actually address the whole problem, but the eligibility rules don't need to change. The problem with this bill's large expansion of the definition is that it will, at best, overwhelm systems that communities have for determining how to allocate the scarce resources of the homeless programs, and, at worst, it will mean that the worst-off people, the people in the gravest immediate danger, will have a harder time getting help because they will be out-competed for the resources by people who have a little more stable situation, living with relatives or friends or family. The work that HUD has done on this has been very responsive to what Congress has told HUD to do. And the report language from this committee, from the Appropriations Committee over many years has been very clear that HUD needs to find out what kind of interventions are doing the best work, are getting the best results, and then make sure communities are using the money for those. This bill moves in exactly the opposite direction, and that is the other concern besides the eligibility rules. So I am happy to answer questions about this. I can come and see you in your office if you have other questions. But thank you again. [The prepared statement of Mr. Berg can be found on page 28 of the Appendix.] Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lilley for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KAT LILLEY Ms. Lilley. I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to come here and speak today. It truly is an honor to be able to be here. In my written testimony, I highlighted my personal story with you all. I didn't do that lightly. It is hard to relive the time that I experienced homelessness with my six children. I did it because I think you really needed to understand the vulnerability that exists prior to meeting the definition of HUD homelessness. I highlighted for you what my family and I went through months leading up to homelessness, weeks leading up to homelessness, and the day that I finally hit the threshold for the HUD definition of homelessness. What I can tell you is that, had any of the other avenues that I pursued for my family for housing prior to entering shelter come through, I would not be sitting here today. I would not be working in the homeless industry. I would not be successful. And I can tell you that because, while Mr. Berg is well- informed on policy, he is not on the ground level. He is not seeing what these families are living in. I reached out to situations that I knew were dangerous for my family, looking for four walls to keep us out of a shelter. I reached out to a biological family member who had a registered sex offender living in their home, begging for a floor to sleep on. Had they told me yes, I would have been there in a heartbeat, because I believed and I know that there are families in all of our communities that believe dealing with the dangers we know is safer than dealing with the dangers that are unknown in the shelter system. In my work now, providing care to families and children who are experiencing homelessness, I am out in the community. I am an active member of our COC, and because I have six children, I am active in a number of school systems. I see the vulnerability in our community. I know that we have families who are living in situations that are dire. Just 3 weeks ago, I was in a motel room with a family of five who had been living there for 4 months. I sat down on the bed, and it was wet. It is what the motel had for them. There were lice, there were cockroaches, there were bugs. The 3-year- old showed me her little bed on the floor. She had what she called a nest. There were blankets, there was a pillow, and there were bugs. It was a horrendous situation. While we were sitting there and we were talking, there was a banging on the door. It was a neighbor in the motel room. He was upset that last night the baby had been crying and was going to go talk to management to see if they could be put out of the motel although they had paid for this week. These are not situations children should be living in. These are not safe situations. And contrary to what Mr. Berg tells you, this family is not eligible for COC services. If we do a VI-SPDAT, or a Vulnerability Index, on this family, they are going to be told, ``You have one recourse. We may offer you one service. We can rapidly re-house you or assist you with prevention.'' This family is not suitable. Their vulnerability does not meet a successful outcome for us to put them in a place that they can't afford and say, ``We are going to provide you with limited assistance, limited services, and we are not going to address the vulnerability that brought you here.'' We are setting them up to fail. This is happening nationally. Family Promises across the Nation in 43 States can give you hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stories where this is true. The biggest pushback to the bill is that it is going to overwhelm the system or that it is a funding issue. This isn't a funding issue. This is an issue that, while we are saying Continuum of Cares are prioritizing the most dire situations, they are excluding some of the most vulnerable and dire situations. We are not asking to bump chronic homeless people down on the list. We are not asking to bump people without shelter down on the list. We are asking you to include individuals who are truly being victimized because of their situations on the list. We are asking you to prioritize them the same way you prioritize the people who don't have shelter at this time. Honestly, my vulnerability was lower when I was in shelter than it would have been had I been doubled up or in a motel. And we are just asking that you consider that issue and move forward with this. Our PIT counts are inaccurate. Because they are inaccurate and because we are continuing to leave families invisible, we don't know the trends that are going on in family and youth homelessness. We can't say that family homelessness is going down just by sticking our head in the sand and not counting individuals that are truly vulnerable and homeless. I thank you for this time, and I am open to questions at the end of this. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Lilley can be found on page 57 of the Appendix.] Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Lilley. Ms. Rounsville, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MILLIE ROUNSVILLE Ms. Rounsville. Thank you, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Cleaver, for the opportunity to come here and speak. This is a conversation we have on a local level, so I am happy to be able to be here in front of a larger audience and to see that a lot of the things that I am seeing locally are also agreeing with Ms. Lilley's community. I am the Director of Northwest Community Services Agency. We are what is called a community action program. We have been providing services to low- and moderate-income throughout our five-county service area for the last--over 50 years now. Being as we are community action, we do prioritize vulnerable populations, low-income populations, and, unfortunately, for our service area, homelessness is a large part of that world. On the local level, as homeless service providers, we work well together. We work with our school districts, we work with our local units of Government, our Head Start agency, our faith-based partners. And we truly pull together a toolkit to try to accommodate those needs. From a geologic perspective, my service area covers 8,000 square miles. In that 8,000 square miles, we only have 90,000 people. We probably have more trees than we do population. Our agency has served as the lead in terms of the HUD world, the ESG (Emergency Solutions Grants) world, those sort of things. And it predominantly has to do with capacity and the requirements that come with receipt of those Federal funds. We in the city of Superior are fortunate that we have three shelter facilities. We have a homeless men's shelter that is operated by our organization. We have a family shelter that is operated by one of our faith-based partners. And then we have a domestic violence shelter. In Ashland, which is 70 miles away, we also have a domestic violence shelter. But that is it. Throughout the rest of our service area, we are relying on hotel vouchers to try to prevent individuals from sleeping in their cars, sleeping in the campsites. It is cold. It is 40 below. Anybody that we can get sheltered on our Point-in-Time counts, we bring our faith-based partners, they issue hotels. The reason I bring this up is related to some of the Point- in-Time data that has been discussed--is a lot of our homelessness numbers and the homeless needs going up and down are based on those PIT numbers, and they are also based on the HMIS data. And for our service area, to try to go out and cover that 8,000-square-mile area between 11 at night and 6 in the morning, finding people that are living in campsites, we have two reservations that we need to cover, those numbers aren't truly accurate in terms of what our community looks like on a given night. In terms of the homeless information database, which is a requirement with HUD, our organization, along with our family shelter, are the only two organizations that are entering data into that system. So if we were looking at, from a community level, what the homeless needs are in northwest Wisconsin and the number is going up and down, it is not reflective of 50 percent of our shelters because they are domestic violence, it is not reflective of our faith-based partners that are providing services, and as we have discussed earlier, it doesn't include the number of homeless identified through our school districts and our Head Start agencies. One of the things that this bill would allow would be local flexibility. In our service area, our needs are similar in terms of the families, people that are being placed in foster care, the families that are doubled up because there is no shelter availability. The Continuum of Care process, while it is important and it does fund a variety of services in our country, I believe, looks very different in our part of the country than it may in some other parts of the country. I provide a lot of written testimony, so I am trying to focus my oral on things that may be a better use of your time. But in the State of Wisconsin, we have 72 counties. HUD recognizes four Continuum of Cares. So our bigger cities-- Racine; Dane, which is Madison; and Milwaukee--HUD designates those as their own Continuum of Care. Our northern five counties is what is called the Balance of State Continuum of Care. So, on the ground level, there are 21 local groups: Myself representing my 5 counties; Duana Bremer that was here a few weeks ago representing her service area. But we compromise what is the Balance of State Continuum of Care. So, as this process started many years ago--I have been involved in this process for 21 years--the Continuum of Care was designed to meet homeless needs. There was a pro rata need that was established by counties. We started a lot of supportive services-only programs, transitional housing programs, things that are identified locally as a need. As this evolution in time has changed, the only new programs that communities are able to apply for is permanent supportive housing. And, in our case, we don't have enough chronically homeless meeting that definition in our rural areas. And what has been happening in reality is we have had larger cities that are having more services available for chronic homeless, which is great--that is their need; people are being housed--but what we are doing is we are continually taking away services from our rural communities, and we have less services available to meet the needs of the families that we are working with. So I do see I am over time. I will pause there. I will be available for questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Rounsville can be found on page 66 of the Appendix.] Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Rounsville. And I want to thank the panel for their testimony. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Just a brief note. I am sorry, I--we defend the bureaucracy, we defend the status quo and argue for more money. I don't think that answer actually works. You can argue for more money. I get that. But also say, is the system actually working? Are we actually effective with the dollars that we use? Because with $21 trillion in debt, it is fair to come back and say, ``I need more, because I am using the dollars that you have given me really well right now,'' but if we can't look at how we are actually using today's dollars, how do we come back and ask for more? And I think that is the point of this conversation. How are we using our current dollars? Let's use them well. And if there is more that is needed, let's fight for more money to help those who have fallen into homelessness. Ms. Rounsville, as you might know, I was the D.A. in Ashland County, which covers your area, and have dealt with the women's shelter, and it is a great facility. But you made a comment about how money might flow into the Dane County area, Madison, and maybe a little less up north in the rural part. And is that because you have been so effective in addressing homelessness and they haven't been effective in Dane County, or is something else happening in how money is distributed? Ms. Rounsville. I would be happy to cover that. It is actually multifold. So, in our rural areas, we don't have United Way dollars. We don't have entitlement communities. We are piecemealing packages together. One of our largest funding sources for the shelter side, such as New Day that you referenced, is the ESG money through the State. Based on one of their formula allocations, the dollars are divided up throughout the State of Wisconsin based on things such as your homeless counts. As I referenced earlier, when people aren't using HMIS, the numbers go down. As the numbers go down, I am issuing less hotel vouchers. I am the one entering into HMIS. Thus, next year we have a lower allocation, we have less resources. On the Continuum of Care side, it is that 69 counties that are submitting an application. So it is all 69 counties looking at in terms of competing nationally to bring resources into our State following HUD's priorities, getting the extra points on the application to keep serving homeless throughout that 69- county area. The needs of us in northern Wisconsin, while they are important, we don't have a high population of chronic homeless. One of HUD's priority areas is serving chronic homeless. And there are pockets throughout the State that do have a need to serve chronic homeless. So those resources are coming into our State and enhancing services in those areas, but we are no longer able to apply for transitional housing, which works well. And then we lost a transitional housing program this last round, so we are only going to have one COC-funded project left in our service area. But that is what is happening, is, as they are prioritizing specific populations, the more urban areas that have that population are able to access those dollars, as opposed to we don't have an opportunity to apply for a transitional housing program, which would better meet our needs. Our Rapid Re-Housing that we fund with the ESG and the State dollars, we have people that come up on our priority list, but if you are in a town like Ashland and you have something on your background or you have been evicted by one of the property owners, nobody is going to give you a lease. It wouldn't matter if you had dollars available. Chairman Duffy. Just quickly, the Point-in-Time counts, are those accurate? Do you-- Ms. Rounsville. No. Chairman Duffy. --think they get--they don't. And does that affect your funding? Ms. Rounsville. Well, HUD says you have to cover your geographic footprint. Does anybody here think they could cover 8,000 square miles in 7 hours? I mean--and especially in the wintertime. We have two-lane roads. We have no cell phone service. We have national forests. It is not an easy-- Chairman Duffy. It is impossible. Ms. Rounsville. --feat to get try to get that. Chairman Duffy. Yes. It is impossible. And, right, you don't get an accurate count. And then, obviously, the dollars don't necessary flow. To the panel, is there a correlation between child homelessness and adult homelessness? Does that correlation actually exist? The panel agrees with that? Doesn't it make sense, then, especially when you have kids or young adults, the youth, that we try to address that problem early on and say, let's help these kids get into housing so they are not pulling resources in their adulthood from others, they are actually self-sufficient, let's start them off on the right path? Ms. Lilley, does that make sense to you? Ms. Lilley. It absolutely makes sense to me. I understand that we want to serve the most vulnerable, and I feel like, as a Nation, we are overlooking that the most vulnerable are the individuals that are experiencing homelessness that we can't see. They are not the people sleeping on the street. It is the youth that are being traumatized by the experiences-- Chairman Duffy. I am sorry. The story that you tell about the kids in the hotel room, or your own story, who is more vulnerable than kids going through this process from their teen years into adulthood? Who is more vulnerable than that? I have a--and my time is up. As I have asked you all to be respectful of the red dot, I am too. So, with that, I am going to recognize Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. We will do a second round. Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes, the Ranking Member. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important issue. And I want to reiterate something that Mr. Berg said earlier, and that is that I would prefer to believe--and I think I am actually correct--that there probably is not any person in here who is anti-help homeless individuals. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for taking the lead in this. It is always a very emotional issue with me. My wife and I had a homeless kid show up on our doorstep. And it had something to do with the NBA, one of the players. I won't go into it here. But he moved into our home, and because he went to school with our twin boys, all three of them went off to college together on basketball scholarships. And then I think it was May 11, Flight 592, ValuJet went down in the Everglades, and Jerrold was on that flight. I saw what he went through as a homeless kid, 15 years old--and I mean homeless. I don't mean--he wasn't staying with his grandmother or chose not to stay with his uncle. I mean with nothing, his clothing on his back. And so this is something that is very, very meaningful to me. And I want to express, in no small way, my appreciation for the Chairman for putting this on the docket and for Mr. Stivers and the people on the Democratic side who are working with him. I think it is the gentlewoman from Ohio who is also part of this bill. And so, for me, this is a worrisome issue. It is not easy to resolve, and we are going to have to struggle with it. It is not a question of whether or not these erratically housed families and youth deserve housing assistance. That is just not the issue. The issue, for me, is whether or not they should skip the line, ahead of other families and youth with other problems. I don't know if we will ever have enough money to resolve this issue. But we will never handle homelessness until we envision a Nation without homelessness and try to go there. So this legislation is not perfect, but I think the whole effort in Congress--and this is what I think all of us forget-- is that we are hopefully moving toward perfection. Nothing is perfect. We are moving in that direction. So I appreciate it. So if someone could address the issue I raised about whether or not putting people ahead in the line is something that we can figure out how to get around. I would love to have everybody in here supporting the same piece of legislation. Mr. Berg. Well, if I could start, I think it is extremely important to have clear goals and clear ideas about what kind of things the Continuum of Care is funding that get the best results and then really focus on getting the people who can benefit from that into those programs. At the same time, the Continuum of Care, as I said at the start, it is 4 percent of HUD's budget--4. There are a lot of other things that go into communities' responses to this issue, including other HUD funding, funding from other Federal agencies, lots of philanthropic funding. So there is a range of things that different people need, and it is possible to set up a system that provides people with what they need while still understanding that this one program, this one 4 percent, needs to be reserved for people who are in immediate danger. Because I think the rules of the Continuum of Care really are that people in immediate danger are covered. If the only place you have to live is with your kids with a registered sex offender, you are eligible right now. You are. You can't get help because-- Ms. Lilley. You are eligible for one program, not the program that necessarily meets your vulnerability. That is ineffective and fiscally irresponsible. Mr. Berg. That is not about--that is not--this bill wouldn't help that. Ms. Lilley. But it would. Mr. Berg. This bill changes eligibility. It doesn't change what kinds of programs are available and what the community is doing. Ms. Lilley. The Ranking Member raised a very interesting question about whether or not this bill should be passed based on people skipping the line. And the bill isn't about people skipping the line or moving ahead in the line. The bill is addressing letting people join the line based on their vulnerability on the same scale as people who are outside. Currently, they can't even get in line. This isn't about jumping a line. It is about being able to stand in the same line for the appropriate resources based on their vulnerability, the same scale of vulnerability that people outside are being measured on. Mr. Cleaver. Now, I think the--well, let me reiterate. I support and, in fact, voted that we create the line in the first place. So, I don't want--I think we need to be careful as we are discussing something that almost everybody in here supports. Ms. Rounsville. Mr. Chairman, can I address the line quickly? Am I allowed to do that? I just want to talk about the line. Because we talk about vulnerable, and we are talking about the doubled-up individuals, and then we are talking about families in shelter. And I believe there is an impression that the families in shelter are already in the line. The threshold to meet for permanent support of housing that is chronically homelessness, you have to have an adult with a disability to meet that definition. So our shelters and families that are staying in the domestic violence shelter, while they may be at the bottom of the list, they are still not eligible, because to be chronically homeless, the adult has to have a disability. So it isn't just a matter of the couch-surfers not being able to get to the line. It is the families that are sitting in the line that we can't help because they are not meeting chronically homeless. Mr. Cleaver. I thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, for 5 minutes. Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for calling this hearing. Homelessness is not something that is on the radar every day, but it is a massive, massive problem, and I don't think anyone's districts are completely immune from it. Ms. Lilley, I think your written testimony and your verbal testimony may be some of the most compelling that I have heard so far. Thank you very much for that. I love Family Promise. My wife and I became aware of it, and we work through our church. And I know it is effective; I know what you are saying is the truth. It is another example of how much more productive, efficient, and effective privately operated functions can be than Government, monolithic, one- size-fits-all, you-are-in-or-you-are-out structures that clearly have not seemed to have worked very well, or there wouldn't be a need for so many of the other organizations, such as yours. A question that demands an answer after reading all of your testimony, a couple times actually: How did you break the cycle? How did you free yourself and your family? Ms. Lilley. I was supported by Family Promise. And so I am actually the Deputy Director of the organization that served my family 4-1/2 years ago. So it was the support that allowed me through that process. And they extended a lot of grace to me. Emergency shelters generally will time a family out after 90 days and ask them to exit and then reapply if there is availability. I stayed in shelter straight for more than 6 months. I did receive assistance through Rapid Re-Housing on the back end of shelter to be able to house my family. And that supported me on my trajectory forward. Once I exited the shelter and was stably housed, I wanted to give back. And so I started volunteering with Family Promise. A year after exiting shelter, I became a staff member and have just climbed up the ranks ever since, and homelessness has become my life since. I think it is important to recognize in my personal story that I received some assistance that was HUD-funded that helped me overcome my situation. It was after 6-plus months in shelter. It was after an extreme amount of time of struggling. My special boy, during my homeless situation, had two more long-term hospitalizations because the process was stressful for him, as it was for me. But that HUD funding that helped me get back on my feet, I was able to utilize it before that 6-month mark. However, when you are looking at Rapid Re-Housing, I had to qualify for a landlord that was willing to take those funds and my family. As you can imagine, a lot of landlords look at an application and say, ``Currently homeless, six kids, lower income than it used to be a year ago,'' and they go, ``I think I will pass,'' especially when you are in communities with low vacancy. And so it took a long time for me to find a landlord willing to work with me, which is why that may not have been the most effective across-the-board intervention that we are offering to families. Mr. Posey. How would you specifically suggest we redefine homeless eligibility at HUD? Ms. Lilley. Specifically, I think that we need to broaden the definition to align with other Federal systems. We need to include the families that are doubled up. We need to include the families that are living in a motel. They are not stably housed. Most of these parents are out trying to figure out how they are going to pay for the motel room tomorrow. They are not sure how they are going to stay with a friend another week longer. They are sitting in bedrooms on floors with their children, telling them that they can't cry, telling them that they can't access the refrigerator because it is not their food. It is not a housing situation; it is a floor, it is a cot, it is a blanket. And it is not acceptable. We have to expand it. We have to truly work to serve the most vulnerable and acknowledge that just because a family has four walls around them, that doesn't mean that they are not vulnerable. There are a lot of assumptions that go into the Alliance saying that we're not--this expands it and we are no longer going to be serving the most vulnerable that they haven't done the research to back up. These families are vulnerable, they are being victimized, and they deserve a spot in the line for resources based on their vulnerability. Mr. Posey. If you could make one change besides the definition, what would that be? Ms. Lilley. I would allow communities to be able to use the resources that best fit their community dynamic and the current housing dynamic of that community. So if transitional housing is effective in a community and proven effective in a community, that HUD not prioritize it being defunded. Mr. Posey. Thank you. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the author of 1511, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, for 5 minutes. Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I go to questions--I do want to ask a bunch of questions, but I want to acknowledge what Mr. Berg said initially, is while we may disagree on this individual issue, I want to thank you for your passion and what you are doing to combat homelessness, because we are all on the same side on that even if we disagree about a particular issue. And I want to acknowledge the folks back in Columbus, Ohio: Michelle Heritage, who I am sure you work with, Mr. Berg, who has been a friend of mine for 20 years, so I have known and worked with at Saint Vincent's and worked with her on combating homelessness at the Community Shelter Board. They are doing incredible work. They have been one of the most innovative organizations in the country; they continue to be. And while they may disagree with me on this issue, I consider them friends and know that we have the same goals in mind. So I want to continue on what Ms. Lilley was just talking about. And because the Ranking Member and because Mr. Berg have brought it up, I just want to be really clear what this bill does and doesn't do. This bill is about taking invisibly homeless people that are seen as invisible today--by the law, they are invisible. That is tragic. It is unacceptable. It produces very bad results for those people and allows them to be taken advantage of--and brings them into the light and allows them to be counted. That is what this bill does. It does not prioritize them, does not put them in line in front of anybody else. The communities can decide who they want to serve based on who has the most emergent need and who is in the most danger. But it brings those invisible people into the light. That is what we should be about. And then I am--I want to pledge to all of you, I will be fighting for resources. But I do want to start a few questions by asking Ms. Duffield, so tell me, does this bill require anybody to move to the front of the line? Ms. Duffield. No, it does not. It simply means you are eligible to be assessed on the same vulnerability indicators as anybody else. You are not to the front of the line. You are in the line. You are actually being seen by the same standards. And, again, my testimony provides data showing that these children are every bit as in dire straits as anybody else. Mr. Stivers. Thank you. And that is where I want to move to Ms. Lilley, on that, because you have been so eloquent already on this issue. Talk about how these invisibly homeless people can be and are taken advantage of today in the name of getting them housed by friends, family, strangers, and other folks, either financially or in other ways taken advantage of, and how that makes them vulnerable and how they are--help us understand why they are vulnerable people. Ms. Lilley. Absolutely. As we all know, people who are feeling desperation make choices out of that desperation, and they are not always choices that align with the end goal or that are safe choices to make. We see families who are able to pay for a motel this week and next week come up $30 short, so they are outside and they are asking people to come up with that money. And then someone will walk up to them and say, ``You know what? I have 30 bucks. Let me join you in your room.'' So now a stranger has joined these children in a room because a family needed $30 to pay for next week. And that is introducing the children to new, unknown dangers. Also, when we are talking about community systems, community systems are important when we are looking at the human need for community. And when we are talking about family homelessness and children homelessness, it is very isolating. When you have families who are in shelter, there is a community there. Parents in a shelter look out for each other. They support each other. They cheer each other on. Families who are experiencing homelessness in a motel or a situation where they are staying with others, it is not generally family. It is not generally grandma and grandpa. It is not generally aunt or uncle. A lot of times, it is strangers that happen to offer a place to stay. A lot of times, it is people that were in the past with a family who now have a place to stay. I currently--it breaks my heart to say, I have a mom and a dad with a 3-week-old baby that on Monday decided to move in with someone they met 3 hours prior, because that was a better choice for them than going to the shelter with their vulnerable baby. That is not safe. Mr. Stivers. Wow. Ms. Lilley. They are not considered homeless anymore. And they are in dire need for that baby, who is at a key developmental stage and will be for the next 3 years, for an intervention to be offered. So we are forcing families--we are telling families, ``You are not homeless enough to help.'' And then we are faulting them for being in situations that aren't safe and keeping them in the shadows, when we are trying to draw them out so that we can help, so that we can assist. We want them to see the friendly face that says, ``You are not alone. It can be OK.'' Mr. Stivers. And I know I am basically out of time, but if I could just have each of the panel members, one at a time, say whether they believe these children should be counted or hidden in homelessness. Ms. Duffield. They should be seen and served. Mr. Berg. I think the more data we have about all these problems, the better. So, certainly, if we can get information about who is living in what situations, that would be excellent. Ms. Lilley. Counted and served. Ms. Rounsville. Counted and served. Mr. Stivers. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for calling today's hearing. And I would like to commend Representative Stivers for his hard work on this important issue. The Homeless Children and Youth Act addresses a number of problems with our current approach to homelessness, but I want to start by focusing on one in particular. As HUD has prioritized one-size-fits-all mandates, like Housing First, and connected those priorities to funding, it has pushed communities to move away from programs and strategies that actually work. As a result, local organizations have lost out on necessary funding or have been forced to change their model. Ultimately, this hurts the very people we are trying to help: The poor, the vulnerable, and those in need of a helping hand. One of the organizations that has been harmed is the HEARTH organization in my district. HEARTH is a transitional housing provider focusing on women fleeing domestic violence. Due to the one-size-fits-all approach pushed by HUD, HEARTH has faced pressure to completely change its model or risk losing funding. This is unfair to the western Pennsylvania families that need HEARTH in their community. And I want to enter their statement on the Homeless Children and Youth Act into the record. Mr. Chairman, if I could offer a statement from HEARTH into the record on the Homeless Children and Youth Act. Chairman Duffy. Without objection. Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Lilley, you have both personal and professional experience with your homelessness relief programs. Could you comment on what happened in your community when HUD prioritized Rapid Re-Housing and permanent supportive housing? Ms. Lilley. Absolutely. I actually sit on the Ranking and Prioritization Committee on my Continuum of Care, so I know exactly the decisions that were made to try and meet the competitiveness of the COC. In my community, we have only a couple transitional housing programs. One of them specifically serves families with children. We have My Transitional Housing Program, which is exclusively privately funded; I don't ask for HUD money for it. And then we have a transitional housing program that--it is a borderline. Under HUD's definition, it is considered transitional housing. However, it truly hits an emergency need for unaccompanied women in our community, in that it only serves women, and it is a short-term transitional housing program. It maxes at 6 months instead of the 2 years for the most markers. When HUD pushed the prioritization, saying that we really needed to focus on Rapid Re-Housing and that we really needed to focus on permanent supportive housing, as you can imagine, these are things that we would love to expand in our community, but they take infrastructure. And infrastructure takes time to develop, especially when you are talking about permanent supportive housing, which requires units, a lot of units, to meet that need. Our Continuum of Care looked at how we were meeting that need and decided that, to stay competitive as a continuum, although our family transitional housing program, which was large, was high-performing, had highly successful outcomes and lower recidivism rates, we had to remove funding from that program and reallocate it to a different program. It was actually a new program, so we weren't sure how that was going to play out, but it matched the HUD priority. As a result, this transitional housing program had to struggle the next year to backfill the funding that was removed from them. In my community, the women's transitional housing program in this last go-around, they did not receive COC money because of the HUD priority. And, in addition, because the city has decided to align with the HUD priorities for ESG and CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money as well, they did not receive their ESG or CDBG money either. That shelter closed last week. Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Rounsville, I understand the transitional housing project in your area lost Federal support as a result of HUD's push to deprioritize transitional housing. Does transitional housing have a good track record in your area? Ms. Rounsville. Transitional housing in our world was ideal. We held the lease. We could take high-barrier families. Landlords had worked with our agency for 50 years, so we didn't have a problem with getting that housing provided. The Rapid Re-Housing is also a good model, but it is not a one-size-fits-all. Having the Rapid Re-Housing, especially under the stimulus--we had about $900,000 for 2 years, as opposed to now we get, like, $60,000 for 2 years. But having those two services available in the community really complemented each other. We had our high-barrier families where you are the single mom that is 21 with five kids. Transitional housing gave us more time. It had intensive case management. They could seek mental services or if they had kids with disabilities, addiction counseling, those sort of things. Versus the Rapid Re-Housing model--ideally, it works best for first-time homeless, low-barrier. Rapid Re-Housing would be an ideal program for the issue that we face with our foster care system. Our families that have their children removed, placed in foster care, we have our human services that have a group of those. If those people could just find housing, they could get their kids back. That is not a program--they are not eligible for our services. But if we could take a program like Rapid Re-Housing and target it, or transitional housing, to that population, we could bring our families back together, we could support our families, as opposed to increasing the number of children remaining in foster care that as teenagers are either running, staying with other people, or they are aging out of foster care and then we are hitting on the other end as chronic homeless later on. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Trott, for 5 minutes. Mr. Trott. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for organizing this hearing today and also thank the panel for your time today but also and perhaps more importantly for all the good work you no doubt do every day back in your communities. Mr. Berg, so all of the other panelists have disagreed with your assertion that someone who is in a situation, a drug den or an abusive situation or maybe a potentially trafficking situation is eligible for the COC program. Do you stand by your position in that regard? Mr. Berg. Yes, absolutely. I would recommend the committee get HUD in here and let them explain all the rules that they have in place. Let me just be clear, though, we are talking about eligibility because this bill addresses eligibility. The program is not funded well enough-- Mr. Trott. Let's talk about that in a minute. Mr. Berg. --to help everyone who is eligible. So that is a separate problem. And that is why a lot of people who need help aren't getting it. Mr. Trott. So the other panelists are just wrong with respect to their definition of eligibility. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Berg. I think that to the extent that they have said what you said, that is not correct. Mr. Trott. You said that HUD needs to ascertain what programs are working and this bill undermines that. How does it do that? Mr. Berg. Well, several provisions in the bill would prohibit HUD from setting various kinds of priorities, even though Congress has been quite clear over 20 years that they want HUD to set priorities based on what works best. Mr. Trott. OK. So that is the basis for that conclusion. Mr. Berg. That and also the concern that, by massively expanding who is eligible for the program, there would be an overwhelming effect that would prevent-- Mr. Trott. Would you be supporting the bill if there was more funding? Mr. Berg. That is hard to say. Mr. Trott. I am trying to determine whether really your opposition is based on lack of resources or some other, more fundamental concern. Mr. Berg. The fundamental concern is that this program has a very specific purpose, which is to quickly get people who are in immediate danger because of their housing situation out of that. There are a lot of other people, millions of people, who are being hurt by the fact that they don't have decent housing. I think there are other approaches to that that would work better to fix that problem. Mr. Trott. I appreciate that. Do you agree with Ms. Rounsville's concern that the program, as currently configured, favors urban areas over rural areas? Mr. Berg. I am concerned about that. I can't say definitely yes or no, but it is definitely a concern of ours. Mr. Trott. So this is to the entire panel. Ms. Lilley, you have already responded quite eloquently, and your comments I found to be very powerful and persuasive. So you can certainly add in another suggestion besides community flexibility, but this is for the entire panel. The COC program, what one or two changes would you make, other than the debate we are having regarding the eligibility definition? Ms. Duffield. I think the Homeless Children and Youth Act does what needs to be done, which is to go back to the original purpose of the COC, which is to really have the communities figure out what they need, as opposed to having HUD tell them what they need. So if those projects were scored based on a local plan and local plans that will identify whether they were for a local plan, then we would see a flexible, effective system. But right now it is a very heavy-handed system. There is no competition. The only competition is how well you can meet HUD's priorities. Ms. Rounsville. I would agree with that. I think, in terms of the Continuum of Care process, if there was an opportunity to bring back programs like transitional housing that we knew worked within our communities, or if there was a way that our local communities could look at what our needs are--as I have talked about, in a 69-county area, trying to do a coordinated entry system that is identical through a 69-county area using a screening tool that maybe your local groups don't agree with but another community wants, there are so many pieces that are required now in this geographic area, and when it becomes a 69- county area, it is very difficult to get everybody across that spectrum to follow one-size-fits-all. If there was flexibility that local communities or local regions could each have their own process and prioritize what our needs are, that would make sense. And maybe in another community, chronic homeless is their focus, and they need to continue serving that population. But that doesn't preclude another group within the Continuum of Care from serving children in foster care, homeless and runaway youth, or other populations that may be what our highest need is. Mr. Trott. Great. Thank you. I will yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, as well, to the Ranking Members and the witnesses. I would like to visit with you about empirical evidence. What I would like to know first is, are we spending too much money on homelessness? If we are and you believe we are, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? Please allow the record to reflect that none of the witnesses have extended a hand into the air. Mr. Berg. Could I just extend one finger in the air? Because we are spending a lot of money on homelessness, not to solve it, but to deal with it and manage it. Jails are spending money on homelessness. Mental health systems are spending money on homelessness. We are spending a lot of money on not solving the problem. Mr. Green. Are we spending too much is the question. Mr. Berg. We are spending too much money not solving the problem. We are not spending nearly enough to solve the problem. Mr. Green. Because we are not helping enough people, does that mean that we are wasting money? If you think so, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? Let me continue then. If you think we are wasting money, give me one empirical piece of evidence of how we are wasting it. I think, Ms. Lilley, you had some evidence? Ms. Lilley. Well, I do. So Mr. Berg continues to say that the families that we are trying to expand this definition to serve are already able to be served under the Continuum of Care. And what I keep reiterating is that they are not able to be served adequately based on their vulnerability score, which is fiscally irresponsible. Because we are saying that if you want assistance and you need assistance, we can offer you one form of assistance, regardless of whether or not your family has a chance of that form of assistance-- Mr. Green. A quick follow up, if I may, Ms. Lilley. Ms. Lilley. Yes. Mr. Green. Are you indicating that because we are helping some and we are not helping others that that is a waste of money? Ms. Lilley. I am indicating that because we cannot-- Mr. Green. I didn't quite get the answer to my question. Are you indicating that because we are helping others who need help that we are wasting money? Ms. Lilley. No. Mr. Green. OK. Now, here is where I think we are. I think we are victims of a lilliputian conviction that the poor can do more with less and that the rich need more to do more. It really is painful to see you at odds with each other because we have decided that there is a finite amount of money that is available. It is very painful to see this happening, especially given that we are the richest country in the world, especially given that we continually tout the expanding economy and we talk about how great Wall Street is doing and how people are faring so well. To see you have to combat each other over some--did you say 4 percent, Mr. Berg?--4 percent of HUD's budget, 4 percent, when, the truth be told, we need to expand the budget. Now, I know that there are those who would say that if you pass this bill we will expand the budget because we will appropriate the funds at the appropriate time. Well, there are ways to ascertain what will be needed for that appropriate time before we pass the bill. I believe that we ought to help every person that you have called to our attention, Ms. Lilley. I really do. I think yours is a noble cause. It is not a quixotic effort. It is noble. And, Mr. Berg, I believe you want to make sure that all the people who have been getting help continue to get help. But with this lilliputian theology--and it is almost a theology; not really--but this belief that the poor can do more with less, keep the finite amount of money, but expand the number of people who need it, and then have the debate that I see here today, which is very painful, very painful. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes one of the coauthors and sponsors of this legislation, the gentlelady from the great State of Wisconsin, Ms. Moore, for 5 minutes. Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to thank the witnesses and apologize for my late arrival, but I am very, very interested in this topic. And I just want to associate myself with some of the comments that the gentleman from Texas just made, because it is painful to recognize that there is a dearth of funding to address this bill. I guess I have a comment before I ask any questions. I have found myself 67 years old, and, I am a person who has always had a sea of income--I have had an island of income in a sea of need. And so friends and family and strangers and others--I have taken in many homeless people. And the minute you take them in and they get a place on your couch for a night, they are no longer considered homeless, even though you are unable to extend that beyond a few days. And so that was, of course, my interest in this bill. I also understand the plight of runaway youth. And children in my community--we have one in four kids who go to bed hungry every night, so those folks who would qualify under the Child Nutrition Act. But I am empathetic with the notion that we are scrambling over crumbs that are falling from the master's table. And this bill has been very well-intentioned over the years, but it has never come with the commitment to actually fund these programs. I am wondering, Mr. Berg--and forgive me if you are going to be repeating yourself because I was absent, but do you have some sense of how we can prime the pump to really meet the needs of all homeless people? And I do believe that you sincerely want to see us address homelessness. You mentioned we are spending money but we are not addressing it. Can you just share with me what you think would be worthy of our consideration? Mr. Berg. Sure. Absolutely. And thank you, Ms. Moore. I know you were a great proponent of the HEARTH Act a few years ago-- Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Berg. --that changed the eligibility rules, expanded the eligibility rules. But really what we are looking at in terms of a broader housing campaign, we are working with a lot of different organizations, including people from the education field, the healthcare field, to address the problem that we all recognize, that people don't have housing that they can afford. Whether they end up homeless as a result or whether they end up on your couch, they still need help. We need more investment in rent subsidies. We need more building of houses that are affordable to people with those rent subsidies. And we need short-term help too. I mean, this is something that a lot of communities are understanding. They are looking-- Ms. Moore. So I guess what you are saying is that this is a well-intentioned bill, but there are some things we need to do preliminarily. Is that what you are suggesting? Mr. Berg. Yes. I mean, thinking you can really solve these problems by changing the eligibility rules in this little homeless program, that is not-- Ms. Moore. I mean, for example, I was stunned to learn just recently--we haven't raised the minimum wage in a dozen years. And I don't care how hard you work, there is no housing anywhere in the United States of America, urban, rural, ex- urban, a person cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in America off a minimum wage job. So they are at risk of homelessness. So when you expand eligibility, if I am hearing you correctly, you may be bringing in a universe of people who earn the minimum wage. Is that-- Mr. Berg. Right. Ms. Moore. --a takeaway? Mr. Berg. Right. Ms. Moore. OK. Any of the rest of you have anything to offer in my 8 seconds? Ms. Duffield. I would like to comment. We are aligning definitions. This isn't adding millions of people. We are actually talking about creating efficiencies. Ms. Moore. OK. Ms. Duffield. The HEARTH Act changes didn't work, or we wouldn't be here. Those categories that were added are not meeting the needs of the most vulnerable. We are actually creating a system that is so complicated that we spend millions of dollars on technical assistance to figure it out. We have flowcharts, like this, for the definition of chronic homelessness. So what is the better use of time? Documenting all of this, figuring out the three layers, figuring out all the regulations HUD added on to those categories, or talking to a school social worker who knows the child, talking to a Runaway and Homeless Youth Act program who knows the child? What is a better use of time? Taking advantage of existing systems that have identified these kids already and helping them collaborate better and leverage services, or running around documenting their status and all the many hoops that HUD has put before these children? Ms. Moore. I can see that my time has expired. I just want to thank the Chairman for his generosity, and I yield back. Chairman Duffy. The gentlelady yields back. Here, here, Ms. Duffield. Thank you very much. I want to thank our panel. This has been wonderfully informational. I actually appreciate the debate that you all had. That is actually helpful to us. It is inspiring that we can go back and forth and hear a rigorous conversation. So thank you. 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 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X June 6, 2018 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]